Jump to content

jag216

Bronze Member
  • Content Count

    916
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About jag216

  • Rank
    Advanced

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. My suspicion is that this is actually the process that has been pursued for years, and is probably already done - but it is sitting on the shelf waiting for the SEC to collect on this new direction. It would not surprise me to find that this clarity is being held up until the SEC collects on penalties.
  2. Oh yeah? Well *I* voted for Kotos. Crypto logos are often terrible. That seems to be what make them unique and recognizable. I mean the Ethereum logo is a rip off of The Sims for crying out loud.
  3. And a fun followup, because I am a KIN holder from early on and never sold... Kin has successfully migrated the vast majority of accounts of significance over to the Solana network as SPL tokens. Ledger just approved the final KIN (SPL) application and it works fine. Kin is pushing forward and looking to get relisted on exchanges now that ledger custody support for the token is rolling out. Their reasoning for the shift was that Stellar's settlement time of 7-10 seconds had become a performance bottleneck for their application ecosystem. I don't think I need to tell you that this is
  4. This is really important. During the March crash a number of people got wiped out completely - even though I knew what the risks were, I had not considered the value of stablecoins at the time. As a result, the oracle at Nexo did liquidate a good portion of my collateral. They did recognize the issue was extreme and provided a reasonable and ethical solution, but at the most recent SEC dip... Well I will say that I got lucky. I woke up at around 2:30 am and happened to see Crypto Eri's video about Brad's message warning that an SEC suit was likely. Having got into this situation with KIN
  5. I have thought a lot about this whole 'who owns the forest' idea behind all of these projects and their 'founders' reserve' and whatnot... Here' is the issue I keep running into - a question I find hard to crack in terms of the SEC's approach: The SEC seems to have no alternative methods to build markets without enlisting the services of market makers. If Ripple gave it away for free, SOMEONE - maybe not Ripple - would throw a commercial layer on top of the distribution of that asset just to see if the technology beneath it served a purpose that other people found to be worth paying
  6. Generally for the same reason I often buy electronics that are open box and have been checked by somebody. The company has gone from lacking regulation to gaining regulation. I'd rather invest in something where the company is being watched and regulated than something awaiting regulation. There's a reason why Kickstarter sucks so badly for most pledgees - no oversight. EDIT: When the SEC and Kik settled, part of the agreement was that Kik couldn't sell any of its Kin holdings without notifying the SEC first. That helped inspire some confidence in the structure and accountability for
  7. Is Institutional Investor C aka SBI Holdings? Why are their sales recorded here, but none of the usage statistics for the efforts that they are taking? It seems like the international volume and usage of XRP by international players is not accounted for here - only sales and operations within the US. The numbers used to justify a "lack of use" just seem too low unless information coming from Crypto Eri and other international sources in the space are inaccurate. I'm afraid it is quite disingenuous to portray XRP as having no real use case while only counting domestic use of the token
  8. I would absolutely be on board. I've just been playing with paystring but I'd love to dig deep into the ledger with some guidance.
  9. Well the optics alone are certainly better. At the same time, I see a lot of these circles and meetings at the upper echelon of global society where Brad and Chris have been allowed to sit at the table and I wonder how pay-to-play all those opportunities were. These are not your typical crypto conventions. The juror in me is still out - I'd like to understand better where all of that money went to, and if it would have gone to things that normally Ripple the company would have had to pay for instead of either Brad or Chris having to sacrifice portions of their stash to grease a few p
  10. Yeah, and perhaps someone else would be getting sued for cornering the market later. Like, say, a big bank. Lol. I wouldn't say the distribution of bitcoin has ended up being what was originally intended to be fair or democratic - the wealth is getting centralized and pumped by media now. Free market forces tend to centralize wealth under oligarchies - like the distribution of stock to the population at the fall of communism in Russia being bought up when people were starving at pennies on the dollar.
  11. I think you are right, but that doesn't work either. And they did faucets for awhile right? A friend of mine had gotten over 100k this way sub-cent and sold them all at a pittance. Not to shill, but this was one of the reasons I bought into and support Metronome - their token economics made a tremendous amount of sense to me, and it still does, aside from the inflationary aspect - though even their justification makes sense as the scarcity of btc already is now becoming an issue. That is the core issue to me now - ethical distribution. It's another chicken and egg problem when your b
  12. Well Jed left the company, effectively taking him out if the distribution scheme, plus a court determined his rate of sales. And David never had any XRP from the founding distribution. So he can't be part of the scheme "plot." The funny thing is that I seriously doubt the SEC has an actual answer for how the distribution of XRP should have been done. But it creates a real issue for all premined digital assets.
  13. I've read the statement again. I think there are some very important questions that we need good answers to. I'm working on a list. @LilBender I get your reading now - I think you scratch the surface of some interesting things, and when I scratch more it does get murky. I go back and forth between much of the behavior described as being nefarious if, say, you cornered the market and we're using unfair advantage to manipulate prices or rates (cough jp morgan and silver, cough libor fixing), but what happens when you are the originator of a new commodity and you start out cornering the
  14. I was actually thinking about Elon when I first saw Brad mention the SEC offered to settle the score with him and Chris individually. I'm sure they were asked to resign and pay personal fines, because I do think the US wants more internal oversight. Perhaps that is what must happen one way or the other.
  15. I value your thoughts on this, I will read the document over again tomorrow. I know I wasn't totally objective in my skepticism when I first read it. Tonight I've been trying to steelman an argument for xrp as a security, but it seems to just raise more questions about how commodities might act like securities depending on how a company treats them.
×
×
  • 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.