Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mrenne

  1. She? Her? Don't you dare to blame it on us! My understanding is that is was a guy. For the rest you are correct.
  2. In the beginning stages of a company project, you inevitably take decisions that later on turn out to be wrong or financially not interesting. Companies issue stocks or options at prices that later on turn out to be ridiculously low, yet those steps were necessary to raise funds when you have a risky business plan. While I think it is important for us to know what is happening and understand why it happens, as it directly influences our investments and our trust in Ripple, we are not in a position to judge. It can be very tempting for some to think you know it all better, but you don't. You don't know it better, you would not have done it better and above all, you are not and you have not been in a position to decide. If you still think you know it better, apply for a job at Ripple and help them become an even better company. Let's use this information to better understand the market movements and downwards pressure on prices, but shouting things from the sidelines does not bring anything.
  3. Now I am wondering, are there still xrpchat members that are keeping their funds at GateHub?
  4. So Marjan is nicely in line with Marcus Treacher, also ex-Swift, who made the shift from "work together with Swift" to "coexist with Swift" last year.
  5. Encrypted personal data is also personal data according to GDPR. Furthermore, wallet addresses can be extracted from secret keys and wallet addresses could be stored together with personal data in KYC files, so it is theoretically possible to link the secret key to the identity of a person. This is a grey area in GDPR, with room for discussion, but there definitely are arguments.
  6. Yes, and sometimes the person responsible to keep the car keys is responsible if the car gets stolen. It just depends on legislation and situation. That's why I asked if the person that came with such a blanket statement was a specialist or not. If not, his answer is quite useless.
  7. Are you a lawyer specialized in EU or UK law? Or just expressing some personal thoughts?
  8. Meanwhile at GateHub... It's not that they don't have the time to read this thread. @gatehub your behaviour is sickening, to the highest level.
  9. That's why I follow the official filings made by Gatehub, to see if there are things going on in the background. They could increase their capital to compensate victims or pull out capital and file for bankruptcy, and anything in between.
  10. They allotted 112,832 shares for a total of 2,048,980 USD: 71,300 shares x 20 USD 41,532 shares x 15 USD You mean the nominal value, which is 1,128 GBP and is only a number for the books
  11. FWIW, I saw today that Gatehub has increased its share capital by USD 2m. It is unclear who bought them atm. Allotment date was May 24 but it was only registered on June 07. I don't know if they can antedate the transaction and if it has something to do with the hack, but okay, here is 2m more for the victims! See SH01 doc over here https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09311138/filing-history/MzIzNjYwNTQ4OGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0
  12. Of course! We mean the same thing. I meant that Ripple is not buying MGI stock as a speculative investment (replying to the statement above) but as a strategic investment that is not aiming at multiplying the stock value, but at forcing MGI to use the tech and boost liquidity.
  13. There are much better investments than MGI, I am sure they did not do it for the stocks. I would even go further and say they don't care about the stocks. They gave the money to MGI because they desperately needed it. If MGI adopts xRapid, creates liquidity for the whole market and shows the whole world that xRapid can bring huge benefits, thus bringing in a lot of new customers for Ripple, they don't have to worry about $50m in stocks. $50m is only $0.001 per XRP that Ripple owns, it's peanuts. Nobody cares about the money, except MGI.
  14. Quite on the contrary. This partnership is much better than an acquisition and much better than all the other vague partnerships where we don't know what happens in the background. For a price which is as low as peanuts, Ripple managed to force Moneygram to use xRapid, without having all disadvantages that would have come with an acquisition.
  15. I am sure all that has been discussed during the partnership negotiations. Moneygram has promised Ripple to use xRapid, Ripple has promised Moneygram to do everything they can contribute to boost liquidity. They will start quickly on the exisiting corridors, this releases blocked MG funds that can help to bring liquidity in other corridors, where they will need to invest a little first. It will be a phased transition, not all corridors at the same time.
  16. I think it's both: Ripple has understood that no large commercial company is going to take the risk to make the first steps (or it would last so long that the tech becomes outdated), investing a lot of time and money in a project with an uncertain outcome, whereas others will catch up in no time with little investment, once you paved the way. Second, they have also learned that no bank is going to adopt xrp if they don't absolutely have to. And Moneygram is slowly dying, they were in urgent need for something new, something refreshing, offering them a possibility to survive. They had seen the advantages during their trials last year, but they had also seen the limitations of the system in the actual low-liquidity status. The partnership with Ripple offers them the possibility to implement the technology, while they have the guarantee both companies will do everything to boost liquidity to the necessary level. I still think Ripple should not buy all of Moneygram and concentrate their efforts on other partners and other ways to boost liquidity. Their investment gives them a large company that will use xRapid and that's enough.
  17. Whereas I did not like the Twitter rumour of a full acquisition at all, I do like this step very much. I am happy to see Ripple taking risk to solve the chicken-or-egg liquidity problem, instead of waiting for the others to do it. A minority stake does not hurt Ripple's position towards the other customers, and since MG was so cheap, it is a relatively cheap way to boost liquidity. This also means they will have to deliver now. MG is a mess, they are slowly dying and all of a sudden get a competitive advantage over the others, especially WU who is doing much better financially. They will need to prove that they can benefit from this competitive advantage in the short term. They will not get much time to get the liquidity boost they much need to get their business back on its feet, while the whole world is watching them. This also makes me wonder if Ripple has other things planned to boost liquidity or they think MG alone is enough. I am sure this step will push others to prepare their Ripple solution, ready to be activated as soon as there are significant signs the whole xRapid project works out well. And I am also sure the other payment providers are happy to see MG make the proof of concept and show them the advantages and disadvantages of the system. The first mover advantage for MG will not last very long once the big, well organized guys jump on the train. Yes, brilliant step, congratulations Brad + team for having the guts to do it. Now the stage is all yours!
  18. The statement in the conference document is misleading, as they use an opening quotation mark for a Visa statement, but no closing quotation mark. This makes us believe the whole sentence comes from Visa, which is not the case. The correct quote of Bill Sheley, Visa, was: “The acquisition of Earthport unleashes the power of Visa by taking us 'beyond the card,' empowering us to enable our clients to make payments through bank accounts around the world.” Visa has never said they want to work together with Ripple to build an alternative to Swift, that's the vision of the conference people. They did say "The acquisition will make it possible for Visa clients to enable individuals, businesses and governments to utilize Visa to send and/or receive money through bank accounts around the world". Earthport has two main assets, and each of them can be useful to Visa: (1) Ripple rails for cross border payments (2) Good contacts and many very interesting foreign banking relationships We will need to find out if Visa bought the banking relationships or the p2p banking system. Their press release mentions "With the acquisition of Earthport, Visa expects to be able to reach the vast majority of the world's banked population and allow them to easily, quickly and securely move money worldwide". (highlights are mine) Interesting story in any case!
  19. They have discussed DLT during their last conference: Distributed Ledger Technology: Application and Uses of in Financial Institutions Overview of what operational efficiencies can we expect to see realized in the not so distant future specifically in Banks and Insurance Companies. What new risks do we anticipated being created as a result of the growing use of DLT? Speaker: Kevin L. Richards, Managing Director, Global Head of Cyber Risk Consulting, Marsh (source: https://www.aba.com/Training/Conferences/Pages/irm-program.aspx) They also have a paper about the Internet of Things which can be found over here https://www.aba.com/Tools/Function/Technology/Documents/Understanding-internet-of-things.pdf?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=org&utm_campaign=fintech&utm_content=thursday_6.13.19 but it is very general and does not really explain what they are planning to do
  20. Of course the question is valid. I was only reacting because you did not ask the question, you wrote "we must assume" and there are NO reasons to assume it has been the case. GateHub, just like many other exchanges and financial institutions, has outsourced their KYC/AML. They are using the German company http://4stop.com This is a highly specialized company with a good reputation. Although GateHub remains legally responsible, they don't do this kind of stuff themselves any more so most likely their KYC data is not even stored on their own servers.
  21. Every self respecting criminal has a couple of fake passports on stock. Those are very easy to get hold of. But anyway, you can believe what you want. The largest amounts have been laundered through Changelly and ChangeNOW which do not require KYC information, that's of course not a coincidence.
  22. No, if you read what I wrote I said they used fake passports and services without KYC verification.
  23. I would not go that far, this is quite a heavy assumption you are making here. What sense does it make to verify accounts with stolen ID's? It is much easier to fake passports. And some services don't even require KYC information if you don't want to withdraw fiat to a bank account.
  • Create New...