Jump to content


Ripple Employee
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JoelKatz

  1. I can't disagree with this more strongly. I disagree on every level in every possible way. People are people. There aren't "founders" and "investors", there are just people. Sometimes founders have bad ideas. You don't have to be a saint to be founder. Sometimes investors want to change the world. We have rules for how people come together in a common enterprise. We elect Directors, the Directors choose the CEO. Investors get board seats. We all know these rules and agree to them. If you're a founder who thinks he knows how to do everything right, then keep 51% of the stock and/or don't give investors Board seats. I'm not going to say that Ripple made all perfect decision. But that has absolutely nothing to do with what Jed did. Jed brought on Chris as CEO. Jed and Chris brought on investors together, took their money, and ceded some control to them. It doesn't matter how much Jed thinks he was right, or even if he was 100% right, he made binding agreements to cede control to other people. Smart people. People he chose. And then he betrayed them. I am an employee and executive of Ripple. I am not at all solely motivated by money. I can get money almost anywhere. I work at Ripple because I believe in what I'm doing. I spoke to a lot of our investors in the early days. A lot of them invested in Ripple because the thought we might make the world a better place. I mean, do you really think that Google Ventures invested in Ripple to make money? How good or how bad a job you think we did or have been doing doesn't change any of that.
  2. Thanks for alerting me to his response. I hadn't noticed it. I responded to it. IMO, there is simply no justification for betraying your employees and investors except if you are aware of illegal or immoral actions on the part of the company or its management. Jed's claim now is that he was badly treated. Even accepting that's true for the sake of argument, it doesn't justify betraying your investors. It's not at all unusual for founders to get forced out of their own companies. And, again, I saw no evidence whatsoever of that and, from my perspective, we did everything we could to keep involved or, at least, neutral. But I can't prove a negative and it's certainly possible that he was treated badly when I wasn't around. Again, the proper reaction would have been to hang back and let the company make him a billionaire.
  3. It shouldn't happen that way because the pathfinding logic should only offer you a path if it thinks that path will work. It's always possible for something to change after pathfinding finished and before your transaction got submitted. But that should be rare. The original intent was to return tecPATH_DRY only if the paths could move no funds at all and to return tecPATH_PARTIAL if the paths could move some funds but not enough to complete the payment. This would have made troubleshooting a bit easier as you would immediately know whether your paths were invalid/bad/broken or just not liquid enough. But, unfortunately, that distinction got lost with some code changes.
  4. You're welcome. I opened a ticket to change the relaying behavior so that it will work in a cluster regardless of configuration. Update: I've submitted a pull request for a fix. https://github.com/ripple/rippled/pull/2253
  5. No. The servers can have different UNLs if you wish. However, if you have a validator that is only connected to other nodes in your cluster, you should make sure at least one node in the cluster trusts that validator. Currently, relaying of untrusted validations is not guaranteed. We should probably add an exception for clusters, but we haven't currently done that. It can take awhile for the server to show up. The problem might be that its validations are not getting relayed because the other server in the cluster doesn't trust it. For now, I'd suggest just adding that validator to the other server's UNL. I'll open a ticket to improve the relaying behavior. Because the validator also trusts itself.
  6. Monica Long https://ripple.com/company/leadership/
  7. It depends on the specifics, including what restrictions on sales the buyer is willing to accept and the strategic relevance (if any) of the deal.
  8. I've purchased XRP, usually using bitcoins, on Kraken, Bitstamp, Poloniex, and Bittrex and never had any significant issues.
  9. Yes. The first sentence was talking about what happens if you don't make that assumption and the second one about what happens if you do.
  10. JoelKatz

    Lost XRP????

    They're in your account, see here: https://bithomp.com/explorer/ruPqTsVMxkxUqFZR6NPftDTWs5htoY9Ye
  11. I felt a little bummed with the price drop during Swell, to be honest. But I know rationally that the price goes up and the price goes down and the short term prices don't really matter all that much. As far as Ripple's execution goes, I feel better now than I ever have. Even the FUD now pretty much assumes that we'll take over payments. Now they just claim that still somehow that won't ever be reflected in the price of XRP. When you have moved the goalposts so far that your naysayers assume your startup will dominate a multibillion dollar industry, I'd say you've pretty much won. I think they either do nothing or add. Unless a new walled garden takes over the world, walled gardens will always need bridging to other walled gardens. We need faster payments everywhere we can get them because with slow payments, fast settlement doesn't much matter. I hope at some point we can announce xRapid volume. You should see it reflected in the reported XRP volume everywhere too. Just the commitments we have now should increase XRP volume by about 10% once they're in production. And we've just barely started trying to push xRapid. Only a very small percentage of XRP volume is Ripple off market transactions, and xRapid transactions should be on market, that is, visible, open, and increasing trade volume. Thanks. As I said, I honestly feel more encouraged now than ever before. Sure, I'd like to see a higher price for XRP, but I'm definitely playing the long game.
  12. XRP II does do wholesale XRP to partners and institutional investors. These are accompanied by various agreements that tie them to performance and limit their ability to sell the XRP too quickly, too soon. I think there are a few reasons that you should find increase XRP-II sales a good thing and only one reason why you would find them a bad thing. I'll start with the one reason they're a bad thing -- compared to the sale not happening, they will increase the supply of XRP at least to some extent. Even with the limitations, XRP in Ripple's hands still is zero supply. Here are a few reasons they're good things: 1) Many of these deals are cases where Ripple believes that incentivizing partners is good for the ecosystem. 2) Compared to Ripple selling on the open market, these tend to create less immediate supply of XRP. 3) Ultimately, less XRP being in Ripple's hands means less future supply. Since that future supply is, at least to some extent, priced in, reducing it should reduce some downward price pressure. 4) Institutional investors buy XRP because they think it's going to be worth more in the future. Institutional sales build market confidence. 5) Many of these deals mean more money for Ripple, which Ripple uses to hire employees, sign up partners, do regulatory outreach, and so on. To date, none of that money has been used to pay dividends to investors. It has all been retained and/or used by Ripple. Ripple's long-term goal is to maximize the value it gets from its XRP.
  13. Ripple is just a user of XRP, not an issuer. Ripple received its XRP in exchange for stock and other consideration. XRP existed before Ripple, the company, did. Those who issued the token (Arthur, Chris, and Jed) created Ripple. If that doesn't count as discharging that responsibility, I don't know what does. Ripple is now controlled by its Board of Directors. Given the time at which this happened and the uncertain legal framework at the time, this was pretty much the only way to do things.
  14. When you hold any asset other than USD on the Ripple ledger, someone owes it to you. You have to choose to trust that person to owe you the money because an IOU from a random stranger is not something you want. So you need to know who is going to owe you the USD and you need to make a conscious choice to trust them.
  15. We're going to transition to using validator manifests at the same time. This will improve validator key management significantly and also make it much easier to recover a possibly failed validator.
  16. I think it's a turning point that we've been heading towards for a long time. But it's definitely possible that the incentive made an immediate difference.
  17. Imagine if that deal had worked out though. You also have to consider that we have evolved considerably since then.
  18. I don't know that I checked every one of them, but I am active in that Discord and the ones I checked were me.
  19. If you want a cryptocurrency that doesn't have anyone with the resources and incentive to spend money to promote its use, there are plenty of them.
  20. Any time the amount of XRP held by Ripple goes down, there is some dilution of XRP. If Ripple is releasing XRP in a way that doesn't produce direct revenue for Ripple, it would be because we believe the upside (in growing the network and incentivizing adoption) exceeds the downside (in dilution). Of course you can disagree with our calculations.
  21. There is no guarantee or insurance of any kind. The value of XRP is entirely based on what people are willing to pay for it on the market.
  22. How would that work though. I receive a million dollar payment from Thailand and then I want to wire the money over a conventional domestic payment rail. What does the central bank digital currency do that we don't already have? We can already move USD and THB easily.
  23. This looks like just a payment system. Ripple is building payment systems because the existing ones aren't good enough for our use case. If someone else wants to do that for us, that's just one less thing we need to do to execute our XRP strategy.
  24. Unfortunately, I really can't disclose more than I have already disclosed. But I think I definitively shot down any "Ripple has to sell XRP to pay its employees and keep the lights on" claim, which make us very different from any ICO.
  • Create New...