Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Qatrikias

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My guess is the 7billion will never see escrow simply because it would cue the Coinmarketcaps of the world to take them out of the "circulating supply" thus triggering an immediate drop of XRP's "market share" by just under 18%. It would be a wash, IMHO. Finishing once and for all this inglorious founder's share deal would be a big win for the community.
  2. I tweeted at Monica Long and Chris Larson... maybe we should put a little pressure on them to get an update. A bithomp wallet search seems to suggest the lion's share of XRP still sit with Chris. @Alluvial
  3. This is correct. The ~siliconvcf and the ~FundingWallet1 usernames all appear to be associate with Chris Larson from 2013. https://bithomp.com/explorer/rhmwTvfuTZ1KYyXFtKLUGyB3L1JXNzPRY4
  4. Ha! Any bets for where it lands? -- I'm putting my guess on ETC market cap parity -- maybe $65 on the low end, twice that on the high.
  5. Sorry, but isn't the August 1 marker a bit dated at this point? BIP91 locked in with 95% support. There may yet be a meaningful split of Bitcoin, but it doesn't appear that it will be the result of the USAF slated for Aug 1. Barring upset (which, yes, could happen), Segwit is in. The next fight isn't until November when the block size increase ultimatum is rolled out... As much as I'd love to collect some cheap XRP...
  6. Love to see IOTA getting up there with the big boys. CISCO -- networking giant BOSCH -- german appliance juggernaut FOXCONN -- makes your iPhone ...
  7. Exactly. I can't understand why the writer of the Coindesk article, who is apparently bullish on bitcoin, has MORE trouble believing that a well-funded, innovative, and organized startup could convince large institutions to solve a problem that's costing them billions of dollars a year, than he has believing a mostly organic, ungoverned, unfunded group of coders will convince the world to trade their credit cards and bank accounts for ones and zeros, driven, somehow, by an abstract vision of banking without central control... I'll put my bet on the first group.
  8. That's a reasonable point. And I hope one day we'll have the big players in the XRP pool as well. But I wouldn't expect them to rush in. Nor would I want them to. They hold my money too, and crypto is a risky bet. If they jumped in now, for example, and bought at the prices XRP holders would like them to buy at, what security does XRP offer as a store of value? They could be up 20% by the end of the day, or down 30%. As we all know, an XRP, a bitcoin, an ether, or dollar is only worth what someone will pay for it. So that's the catch. Liquidity requires buyers and sellers. If you buy and have nowhere to sell, you get to hang out with a useless pile of ones and zeros. Wealth, especially wealth derived from intangible and otherwise useless assets, requires a market. Building new markets is not in a bank's wheelhouse. Profiting on them is. Markets are built by cranks, fools, speculators, visionaries, penny-stock pickers, hodlers, day-traders, entrepreneurs, innovators... you get the point -- a melting pot of the disreputable and the disruptive. Some who will be made rich, some who will be made poor. After that come the folks satisfied to take profit on fractions of a percent of market fluctuation.
  9. I think the fin sector is shy about everything. Imagine holding hundreds of trillions of dollars of the world's wealth. You can pretty much call the shots. And if you call the wrong shot, heads roll. As for their slowness to adopt XRP, the liquidity right now is no where close to useful to institutions of that size. In fact, combine the entire trade volume of the crypto space and you're barely touching the kind of liquidity required. It's going to take time.
  10. The fact that people are so slow to understand the market Ripple is shooting for is encouraging -- more time for a head start.
  11. And that doesn't even touch the really rough writing style... Mr. Buntinx, we have many, many differences. For one, please stop using the term "it is evident" in every article; it's a lazy way of writing that gives the author permission to skip out on research and actually proving his point. On the flipside, I do appreciate you taking the time to come and learn about XRP from people who actually know something about it. There is a lot of "XRP is a scam coin" nonsense out there, and it says something that you've grown beyond the misinformation of you previous articles. Keep learning, cite your sources, and stop taking shortcuts. Your articles will be better for it.
  12. No offense meant to either of you, but do you have any idea where the musings of a HuffPo contributor sit in the cultural landscape? The guy wrote a generally positive piece, and I have no desire to bash him, but suffice it to say he probably had to write better than 20 such articles just to make the month's rent. I'd be concerned if Ripple *did* feel the need to officially respond. Let the company do its thing. You're up 4000% YTD. Unless you just showed up to the party. In which case, welcome. Chill out. Enjoy the ride.
  13. There's a significant difference between company position and a Huffington Post writer's interpretation of strategy. The writer offers literally no evidence that Ripple feels any particular way about individual sales of XRP.
  14. I remember that article and don't find it to be particularly clear-headed, particularly with respect to the role of XRP for Ripple. It's true that daily/weekly traders create volitility, but that's the nature of liquidity for young markets. Ripple may like to have some high dollar institutional XRP traders, but I doubt they would add much in terms of stability at present.
  • Create New...