Jump to content

Montoya

Member
  • Posts

    526
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Montoya

  1. This gives me an idea. Suppose a private mining firm buys a trip on one of Elon's rocket ships and sends a tiny probe bearing their company logo to asteroid 16 Psyche, which apparently is composed of some 16 quintillion dollars worth of gold (at ~current prices). They claim ownership of said asteroid and declare it a giant floating vault (most secure in the universe!). They issue a crypto, fully backed by gold reserves in their "vault". And of course, you are more than welcome to redeem your crypto tokens for their full gold bullion backing, the only caveat being that for security purposes they only allow exchange in person, directly at the vault.....security or no?
  2. Don't forget highly manipulated as well. Federal Reserve can apparently predict the future so as to appropriately set the cost of borrowing and thus direct greater or lesser expansion of resource use. Accounting of course for the future preferences, individual tastes and needs of every single person in the country and many globally, and the resultant economic and social trends they give birth to. Pretty simple, I'm sure. At least for demigod ubermensch at the fed, who are undoubtedly worthy of directing the course of humanity toward the glorious future they are so deftly crafting. And it isn't like they ever allow ideological concerns to interfere with this solemn duty of accurately setting interest rates. I'm sure they would never allow other concerns such as maximizing jobs or climate justice to dictate rates.
  3. Please read what I actually wrote, specifically the word "inexperienced". Sure, such jobs are competitive for 26 year olds with big debt. But by and large, anyone with talent moves on by the time they are mid career, especially in securities or financial law. I also might note that a post being competitive doesn't necessarily say anything about the quality of the candidates. There is a massive glut of lawyers in the US right now, and the bottom 50% need to apply somewhere.
  4. Not surprising. Private sector generally snaps up the good lawyers. Anyone practicing law for the government is either fairly inexperienced, fairly mediocre, or highly ideological.
  5. Any community of speculators that can be manipulated so easily by one man's tweets deserves to be. Perhaps if he does it enough they will eventually become inoculated.
  6. I would be interested in hearing the different tax postures US citizens are planning on adopting regarding the token. I personally like the "restricted stock" approach mentioned by --- I believe it was KarmaCoverage --- but unsure how the IRS will see it. The last thing I want is for my interpretation to be deemed verboten by the feds three years after the fact and then be on the hook for interest.
  7. Good luck working with Coinbase right now. Given the disastrous shape of their exchange currently, I wouldn't expect to hear back from their service department for a month.
  8. Mass speculation is what draws liquidity, which allows distributed cross border transfer sans banks. Who the **** wants to speculate in a stable coin? Without speculators you are forced to use banks to return to local fiat. Unless they are assuming it will never leave their (facebook's) ecosystem.
  9. Unless someone bought their XRP directly from Ripple, I fail to see how they can assign any blame on the company for anything they say or do. There is zero business relationship between the buyer and Ripple. If I buy diamonds from my local jeweler, thinking they will rise in value due to macroeconomic issues, I can hardly blame DeBeers if they don't, regardless of any statement put out by DeBeers. The secondary market for crypto is similar in this way to the secondary market for any collectible or memorabilia. They are a gamble and the blame or praise should lie directly on the person making the investment. After all, these are not investment contracts. That being said, were I a shareholder I would be raising hell to fire the leadership of Ripple. In my opinion, they have not delivered at all.
  10. Would be nice if he elaborated on why he thinks this is the case. I can still see no reason why any crypto asset is needed, or preferable, on a shared central bank ledger. I think back to the old Ripple exchange days. We could all make our own IOUs. How much faith we put in a given IOU was directly tied to how much we trusted the issuer. The question comes down to whether we feel the risk is greater with the IOU or crypto volatility. In my opinion, assuming people will inherently choose crypto because of its distributed nature is a big assumption. Look at tether. People still use its IOUs even while fully knowing it is almost certainly insolvent. Is that not a huge risk? Why would they do this? The answer is convenience. And the (perhaps foolish) assumption that they wont be holding the grenade when it blows up. Central Banks will likely be the same. Usability will take primacy over risk abatement. Whichever nation has the most international trade and who's currency has the most liquidity and stability will likely be the digital currency that nations wish to hold.
  11. True enough. The point was more to demonstrate the lack of a need for XRP. I see zero benefit it could bring to the scheme being discussed in this post. Perhaps I am missing something.
  12. the only benefit i see is that XRP has a known rate of inflation/deflation and is less vulnerable to political issues, whereas holding a nation's digital fiat may hold risks surrounding their monetary policy. But risks also exist for XRP as well.
  13. International settlement is all about trade, eg. "getting stuff". Crypto itself only has value because it can be used in theory to eventually get stuff or services as well. Fiat and fiat IOUs are the same. The only benefit of crypto over fiat is the distributed ledger preventing one controlling agent from manipulating it. In a world with a shared CB distributed ledger, crypto is not needed. The trust issue is gone. The settlement between countries occurs in goods and services. why involve another asset such as crypto when goods and services are already constantly crossing borders? furthermore, on a distributed ledger, the IOU becomes as good as any crypto? why? because it has a built in demand. I should be able to liquidate a digital euro to anyone in the euro zone i want. i can buy a doner kabob with it should i choose. so why use crypto at all?
  14. Debt swaps are instantaneous. If on a shared distributed ledger aren't they effectively the same as settlement? Why do we need crypto at all in such a scenario?
  15. I fail to see how this is necessarily a good thing for XRP. One of my concerns for a long time regarding XRP value has been precisely this scenario. While CBs could use XRP as a bridge currency it is not incumbent upon them to do so. ILP allows for instant pathfinding using debt swaps. This would in theory allow CDDCs IOUs to be constantly shifted around on ILP without really ever being settled in-kind. It can do this by finding pathways that foment settlement based upon outstanding trade balances. For example, say Vietnam has an outstanding debt to Australia. They could settle in some sort of bearer asset that has a liquid global market of speculators (crypto, gold, silver, cars, grain, etc)...in this case crypto has the clear advantage as it can be moved instantly and nearly cost free. They could also buy Australian dollars by selling their own currency, or do what most countries do and use their stash of US dollars. Both of these dictate needing to either settle in physical cash of have accounts on other centralized ledgers somewhere. There is however another option. Let's say Vietnam owes Australia the equivalent of $40 million in value due to trade and associated capital imbalances. At the same time, Vietnam is owed $20 million in value from Germany and $100 million in value from the US . Meanwhile, Chile owes the US $80 million, and Australia owes Chile $40 million. The end result is that the settlement can occur purely through debt swaps. Of course, this is not possible with all situation, and perhaps not even with most. This is primarily how most settlement is currently done. Only instead of a distributed shared ledger, they are forced to go through centralized ledgers such as the US fed, or wall street banks. The issue I see is that the debt swap solution can continue to work quite well without settlement, so long as people/govs continue to trust global reserve currencies. Each country can have an account on the shared ledger or each other's ledgers. Settlement occurs either through direct trade or through debt swaps via ILP. In what scenario would XRP be preferable to say a balance of digital US dollars directly on the fed's ledger? OR a balance on a shared ledger? Is it purely an issue of trust? If that is the case, would countries be any more apt to trust a company inside the US with a stash of billions of the currency that could inflate it to devastating effect overnight? I fail to see how other countries would want either?
  16. Who cares? Those who may be considering investing money in the token, for one. I am not complaining about getting free stuff, but while I see a lot of promise in the Flare ecosystem, and would considering investing a substantial sum into it, my concerns regarding this issue are giving me pause.
  17. From what I understand, while the Flare Foundation is non-profit, Flare Networks is a for profit entity. I generally prefer for-profit industries in the interest of efficiency, but given the context of this discussion it would seem to place Flare in the exact same conundrum as XRP regarding the securities issue.
  18. Apparently KIK and SEC came to a settlement which allowed for the ongoing survival of its blockchain and cryptocurrency. From what I gather, the company was ordered to pay a fine, and thereafter, notify the SEC before any sales of the token made by the company. A similar settlement being reached by Ripple and the SEC, would seem to be the best case scenario. It also doesn't seem altogether unlikely. Does anyone know more details of the KIK settlement? As a fairly recent case it could provide insight into the current posture of the SEC and how this whole shit show may play out.
  19. As I understand it, it only applies to regulations passed during the period after the election and before the new admin takes power. I don't see how a specific court case would fall into that category. Would be happy to be wrong though.
  20. I would add another possibility: ---XRP was a security at time of sale, but under certain conditions of settlement will no longer be a security. This would allow the SEC to punish Ripple while somewhat minimizing the damage to XRP holders and still allow future operations of the protocol. It also has some basis in the SEC's own words regarding the potential for a crypto to have once been a security but now be a non-security. Unlikely to happen in my opinion, but probably the only realistic hope for a non-disastrous outcome for XRP holders.
  21. While I would love to blindly take the word of the CEO, I think I have heard that tune before somewhere... I have high hopes for Flare, but I would also like to see more discussion on the topic. If XRP's usage dwindles following a negative court decision, how much use is there likely to be for the Flare protocol? Furthermore, what exactly is Flare Network's profit model? I understand the Flare Foundation is retaining 30 billion and using it for development purposes in a non-profit manner (no problem there), but what of the Flare Network? They will apparently retain ~25 billion FLR? And because they created the token, if they sell a single one to realize a profit, it seems likely that FLR would be deemed a security under the same line of thinking by the SEC as was XRP.
  22. Ethically, I agree with you. But any attempt to push some sort of legal recourse against the SEC is a waste of time IMO. They have a built in legal excuse. They are bound by statute to enforce US securities law. If the court decides that XRP was a security at time of sale, then the SEC had no choice but to do their jobs, and any collateral damage inflicted upon investors lies solely on the hands of Ripple as the guilty party. To do otherwise would set legal precedent in which no actually useful and needed enforcement action could occur in the case of genuine scams or ponzi schemes because it could risk collapsing the price. In other words, the SEC was only wrong if XRP is deemed a non-security by the court.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.