Jump to content

spiras

Member
  • Content Count

    217
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    spiras got a reaction from wavicle in David Schwartz is not a fan of Hodling   
    Dave sold some of his XRP stash for over $10 MIL. 
    If I had 10 MIL dollars in XRP, I would sell right now and be done, regardless of what I think XRP is likely to do in the future.  That's life changing money.  Why risk it for a chance at more?  I don't need more, no matter how confident I am that XRP will go higher.  Because no matter how confident I am, I could be always be wrong.
    Now lets take it a step further.  What if I had 20 mil dollars of XRP?  Of course I would sell at least 10MIL.  Then maybe keep the other 10 MIL in XRP?  Best of both worlds.  I'm set, PLUS have investment for even more money.
    Let's go further.  What if I had 30 MIL dollars of XRP?  First, that would never happen, because I would have sold a bunch of it at 10 or 20 mil.. but lets just say I did.  I would sell.
    Now, Let's take David's example.  The guy had 16 MILLION XRP for a USD value of about 50 MILLION USD when he sold SOME of his XRP. (10 MIL USD worth.)
    Why are we talking about this, again?
    Remember, Dave sold XRP from ONE of his long standing XRP accounts.  The account had been established well enough in advance to be able to count as capital gains and a MUCH lower tax rate.  How do we know that he didn't BUY BACK the same amount he sold when the price dropped back to 30 cents?  HE likely WOULD NOT have placed it back into the same wallet and muddied what was newly acquired XRP with long holding XRP.. especially when he knew he was going to need to sell a little more to pay the tax man the following year (he sold another $1M USD worth of XRP on April 14th this year). 
    He likely would have put his newly purchased XRP into a different wallet that you all aren't tracking and being a new holding period of that money so that it, too, could have been easily identifiable as capital gains in the future.
    The point is, Dave is human.  He has a family.  He has grandkids.  He had many millions of dollars in XRP.  He sold some now, and is set for life no matter what else happens with XRP.  However, if XRP goes moon, he still has more XRP than probably anyone else in this forum.  So he's set.  He derisked, got many millions.  Is still stocked.
    One thing XRP can't buy you is TIME.  He might as well start enjoying his money, because he can't buy more time later in life to enjoy it then.  
    His comments on twitter are about the criticism he got for selling.  He's trying to explain it, but he shouldn't have to.  Him selling was not in any way related to his beliefs of what XRP might do in the future.  It was about derisking and getting millions now for his family. 
    People need to leave the guy alone. 
  2. Like
    spiras got a reaction from Johno in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  3. Like
    spiras got a reaction from Danny in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  4. Like
    spiras got a reaction from GiddyUp in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  5. Thanks
    spiras got a reaction from Babelly in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  6. Like
    spiras got a reaction from T800 in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  7. Like
    spiras got a reaction from Tull in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  8. Like
    spiras got a reaction from invest2lose in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  9. Like
    spiras got a reaction from JTxrPP in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  10. Like
    spiras got a reaction from earth in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  11. Like
    spiras got a reaction from xrphilosophy in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  12. Thanks
    spiras got a reaction from Roaring_Twenties in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  13. Like
    spiras reacted to Julian_Williams in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I am glad you started this post.  Your points are well made.  The more I think about this project the less elegant solution it looks. ( I look forward to the opinions of others as I do not have any expertise in how finance works)
    1. A stable coin that  is pegged to four currencies is no longer a stable coin, it is a "forced compromise coin" and its price will always be a fudge in which some people pay a price
    2. This is a sophisticated digital correspondence banking that needs funding and there is no bridging asset.  Will they try to compensate by creating a whole new layer of programming that fudge their way though the complex accounting and funding anomalies? 
    3. Perhaps someone can explain how the coins will be circulated from hot spots to cold spots.  With XRP this is done through using Market makers.  Obviously these coins are going to end up accumulating in China.  So how do they get back to countries running a deficit with China?    Is there some sort of market maker system?
    4.  SWIFT transfers 5 trillion a day.  Facebook have cash funds of 40 billion.  This is not a lot of equity.  Where are the trillions to fund this scheme going to come from?
    XRP is elegant.  It has been thought through and the anomalies are not there because the bridging asset is always priced in the exchange currency in real time.  MMs move it to where it is needed.  The equity grows by revaluing XRP as the system grows.  There is always enough equity.
    The more I look at Libra the more it looks like an idea that was put together on the back of an envelope by a group of greedy CEOs that want a piece of Riplenet's pie but don't have the resources and technical know how to build the infrastructure a bridging asset requires.  The truth is that the Internet of Value needs the ILP and a bridging asset.  Anything that tries to work outside those parameters is going to be isolated and not be able to integrate with the standards everyone else will be using. 
     
  14. Like
    spiras reacted to PunishmentOfLuxury in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    Good post.
    On a similar theme, this was first linked to by @jcdenton https://pastebin.com/N8kq5kHk
  15. Like
    spiras reacted to NightJanitor in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    Work on it.
  16. Thanks
    spiras got a reaction from PerfectPint in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  17. Thanks
    spiras got a reaction from Julian_Williams in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  18. Thanks
    spiras got a reaction from PlanK in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  19. Like
    spiras got a reaction from doopers in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  20. Like
    spiras got a reaction from Stellios in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  21. Like
    spiras got a reaction from XRPwinning in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  22. Like
    spiras got a reaction from xrpmeplease in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  23. Thanks
    spiras got a reaction from HumphreyBear in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  24. Like
    spiras got a reaction from JannaOneTrick in Why libra is inferior to xrp   
    I'm going to try to keep this as simple as I can.
    Libra is a stable coins tied to multiple currencies.  That doesn't work. I'll explain below.
     
    But first, we have to understand that stablecoins, by definition, don't increase in value, which limit incentive/reward to buy, hold or use.
    In a simple example of stable coins with just one peg, when the supply is insufficient for a purchase, simply more stable coins are printed, price doesn't change.  The amount of money taken in is held in reserve until cash out.  This creates a risk that the entity holding the reserves is honest, doesn't take a commission, and invests or stores the reserve safely. 
    Someone has to hold the reserve and perform work to keep a ledger and process transactions.  This isn't free, so the management costs will constantly have to be paid by someone, will have to be taken from the reserve holding, a fee has to be charged,.or the reserves invested for growth. (See risk above).  Simply, someone has to pay.  On top of all this, the underlying peg currency has to remain stable itself (not going to happen).  If all people want to cash out of a stable coin, someone is going to lose.
    Now, let's complicate the stable coin by tying it to multiple pegs.  In this case, let's say we're tying the stable coin to the value of USD, EURO, JPY, YUAN.  Now we have to decide how the value of the coin will be derived. 
    Example 1: Let's give each currency 25% of the weight of the value of the stable coin.  
    In ANY scenario, of multiple pegs, one will perform worse than the others.  The people who would MOST benefit from a stable coins would be those that denominate in the worst performing peg.  The people would would LEAST benefit are those that denominate in the best performing peg.  Thus, people from the WORST pegs will put in the most, to the reserves.  Over time, the reserves (money that was taken in) will be disproportionately from the lowest performing peg, causing a gap in the reserves held and the stable coin market cap.  Because the value of the stable coin is determined by a equal average of the pegs, Not everyone will be able to cash out.  And this doesn't even take into account the costs associated with the maintenance of the coin or the transaction processing or the risks of an entity holding/investing the reserves.
    Example 2: The stable coin value could be derived from the value of the assets held in reserve.  This would allow the reserves to meet the market cap value (everyone could cash out) despite the imbalance in peg performance over time.
    Needless to say, the costs associated with the operations, combined with the imbalance in peg performance  would lead to a guaranteed loss of value over time by all stable coin holders.  What would be the point?  Just to send money to your Facebook friends?
     
    On the other hand - When the supply isn't available  for an XRP purchase, the price has to go up to exactly the amount needed to entice holders to sell enough to meet the demand.  Same with selling.  It's an open market with price based on supply and demand.  Almost no cost and no reserves that need to be managed.  No central party needed to hold reserves.  The value is in the utility, potentially increasing over time as new use cases are created.  This could be a good place to hold your money to maintain or grow value; however, not without risk.
    Stable coins guarantee loss.  All risk, no reward.  The only people who make money here are those who control and/or manage the system.  Clearly this is why Facebook wants to creat a centralized copy of XRP for their own gain, when a decentralized version already exists.  If Facebook really wants to improve the world, why do they need to reinvent the wheel into a system that benefits themselves?  Why not just build on what's already out there?
    Open market coins, such as XRP have risk of loss, but also come with potential reward.  Choosing the right open market coins to invest in- those that can demonstate utility, can will lead to value growth to the asset holder - rather than the giving the value gains to the system or people who control the system.
    I realize this is simplistic and there is a lot more involved, but this post is long enough already.  
  25. Like
    spiras reacted to mariusthegreat in 2019 and 2020 Price speculation / Bull run   
    Agreed.
    I do not see 1.00 USD EoY. perhaps next year but that all depends on how the year ends.
    Too much speculation in the market. 
    Probably have moments where we will touch 0.68 then dip into the 0.40's around December.
    XRP is a long game, i think some think long as in  1 - 2 years, my long is 5,7 - 9 years
    So much has to change in the "real" world before the tech is fully appreciated.
    Interesting story I had with my GF's friend, she is leaving her investment banking job and taking a sales position for a remittance firm which uses blockchain technology, she is leaving IB due to regulation (MFID II) and a squeeze on bonus'.
    I asked her if she had heard of Ripple and she told me no. Was surprised as it is the sector where she will be working and I believe Ripple must be the market leader (with R3), so would have thought she would know of the competition (the firm she is joining will not be using a crypto currency, its call Neonomics [I admit I haven't heard of them]). So goes to show there is still plenty of work to do.
×
×
  • Create New...