Jump to content

QWE

Member
  • Posts

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

QWE last won the day on August 14 2020

QWE had the most liked content!

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

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

QWE's Achievements

  1. Sorry everyone, looks like I jumped the gun on this one. I edited the title so it's not misleadeing, mods please delete the topic.
  2. Edit: I jumped the gun too soon, it looks like Jed did not countinue his sales. Mods, pelase delete the topic. Jed McCaleb stopped his XRP sales after SEC charged Ripple and two executives (last sale on December 23rd), but has resumed today: https://bithomp.com/explorer/rEhKZcz5Ndjm9BzZmmKrtvhXPnSWByssDv Either something changed in the legal proceedings, or he is now confident that he will not be charged for selling unregistered securities himself. @Pablo, care to weigh in with your opinion?
  3. Hi @Pablo, thank you for all your insight. Since your responses are scattered across the forum, I’ll just use this topic to highlight Kik//Kin case, since you also mention it in your post. I know you pointed out that Kin was never declared NOT a security, but what do you think of the final settlement on October 22nd between Kik and SEC, would that not be a preferable outcome for Ripple as well, or is their case too different? Kik statement after settlement (text bolding is my own - https://medium.com/kinblog/a-new-chapter-begins-in-the-life-of-kin-and-the-kin-foundation-ddd26cb7ff50): “Concurrently, the future of the Kin Foundation is not adversely affected. The SEC has not asked to register Kin as a security, and didn’t impose trading restrictions on it. Prior to this settlement there had been questions from exchanges if they could list Kin which hindered Kin’s ability to get on top tier exchanges. The judge’s ruling in the case and the terms of the settlement make it clear that the Kin cryptocurrency is not in violation of any securities law and should be free to trade on exchanges.” Official settlement document: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.516941/gov.uscourts.nysd.516941.90.0.pdf
  4. Interesting that Jed McCaleb is not mentioned anywhere in this, has he not been selling XRP on daily basis for the past 5 years?
  5. Thank you all 3 for answering this quickly, it will clear any confusion for others that may be reading this.
  6. @CountZerpula@BillyOckham@Flintstone Please confirm, but all you need to do is have an ETH public address and private key, it does not matter which wallet you used to generate it? You can also use MEW to generate the public/private key?
  7. Just to clarify, the volume anomaly you are seeing in early 2020 on XRP/USD Bitstamp chart was actually generated by Ripple subsidizing Moneygram to start using ODL in MXN/USD corridor between Bitstamp and Bitso. This is clearly seen by off the charts volume from March to June 2020 on both Bitstamp and Bitso exchanges, but not on others (see Kraken example below). Ripple posted about this in March 2020 on their website: https://ripple.com/insights/bitso-and-ripple-are-delivering-friction-free-exchange-across-latin-america/ The experiment with high value payments stopped in summer 2020 (they were sending up to 100k USD per transaction), and Ripple announced they will start supporting “individual, low-value transactions” instead. This makes sense, because a single large sell order clears out an orderbook, which makes the overall transaction more expensive, whereas a low value transactions (let’s say 1k – 10k USD) gets quickly replaced in the orderbooks. Source: https://ripple.com/insights/q2-2020-xrp-markets-report/ It's about fundamentals and not distribution/accumulation. Just in case someone starts looking too much into Bitstamp volume at that specific timeframe
  8. Joke's on them though, we never had any morale to begin with
  9. From https://flare.ghost.io/claiming-spark-faq/: Edit: From the same source, also note this: Edit 2: To answer your question direclty, no, it will not depend on Ethereum network
  10. @Pablo or @vrippled Please remove the link in the original post, it is a scam - take a second look at the "i" in "coindesk"...
  11. This was XRP chart from 2014 to 2017, it kept printing lower highs and lower lows for 3 years: Check this forum topics in 2016 and you’ll see plenty of users like you going on and on how this coin just keeps going down and this will never change. Well, nothing goes down forever, and this is the same picture just a few months later: You can’t even see the first chart on the second picture! Go on and debate the fundamentals, market sentiment, whatever you want, but XRP’s price movement is a clear proof markets work in cycles. What you wrote in the post above is exactly what happened in late 2016. I don’t know if it will happen again, I’m just using XRP’s chart as a direct counter argument to what you are trying to sell us here.
  12. You are correct, Amazon’s revenue did in fact grow every year even before 2004, I should have checked it myself. I stand corrected and apologize for accusing you of cherry picking the data. I do, however, still maintain the position that Amazon’s parabolic stock price increase (and perceived success of the company) during the dot-com bubble had “no fundamentals whatsoever” and that the dot-com bubble can be compared to the crypto bubble in 2017. Amazon did increase its revenue, but it had other, far more concerning negative indicators that would deter any informed investor. This is from The Guardian, June 2000 ( https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/jun/27/efinance.books ): “But Amazon's finances have also raised eyebrows in far more fundamental ways. The company insists that the money flowing into it is being invested in its infrastructure. But US newspaper investigations reveal that the company is carrying more than $2.1bn of junk-bonds debts, supported by only $25.6m (£16m) of equity - and that around 20% of the company's assets consist of balance-sheet goodwill” Its assets at the time were tied to some questionable investments. For example, Amazon held 30% stake in the Pets.com by October 2000. Pets.com closed a month later ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com ). There were many red flags popping up, and if you check a few articles from 1999/2000, you will find stark warnings about the fundamentals ( https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-amazon-survive/ ): “While falling share prices have afflicted many Internet companies this year, Amazon.com clearly has real problems. Despite attracting 23 million shoppers, it lost nearly $720 million in 1999, compared with losses of $125 million in 1998, $31 million in 1997 and $6 million in 1996. Losses soared despite the enormous gains in sales — $1.64 billion in 1999 versus $610 million the year before, for instance.” Obviously, Amazon emerged triumphant from the dot-com bubble, but the path was extremely rocky, and the fundamentals were just not there at that time, you had to believe CEO’s vision that the company will someday become what it is today, and that in the long term, their good investment decisions will outweigh their bad decisions. It operated with a loss for years to stay competitive to traditional brick-and-mortar businesses with established market share and loyal customers. In that sense, I believe crypto is exactly where dot-com companies were in the early 2000s. The bubble had burst, everyone realized the fundamentals are not there (or were greatly exaggerated), but the infrastructure has been growing over the years anyway. Ripple has stayed true to their vision of faster and more efficient real time gross settlement since the beginning, and the company has only been growing in number of employees and partnerships in this time. It is one of the oldest players in crypto industry, albeit with a slower yearly growth compared to 2017 expectations. Like Amazon that went from bookselling to launching their own smartphone brand (Fire phone), book publishing, web hosting and even travel agency (Destinations), Ripple is trying different approaches to apply their RTGS vision to the real world, using RippleNet, Coil, ODL and xPring to grow the ecosystem (and see what sticks – similar to Amazons failed and successful projects). In early 2000s, you had to decide whether you believe ecommerce will eventually take over and choose which players are most likely to succeed. In crypto, you have to decide whether you believe cryptocurrencies have a future and a use case or not. Judging by your closing statement, you believe they have no place in the real world, and that is a completely fair decision. I don’t agree with it though, I see a place for programmable cryptocurrencies and transferring value through DLT, not as a replacement or competition to fiat, but by complementing it. Cryptos are fiat agnostic, something CBDCs will never be. Cryptocurrencies have the capability to monetize the internet, and that for me is one of the biggest revolutions in the industry since its inception. I strongly believe some cryptocurrencies and companies in the industry will survive this crypto winter and do what the few dot-com survivors did – become global multibillion dollar players. Looking at Ripple, I believe they will be one of them.
  13. Amazon started as an online bookstore in 1995, its history did not begin in 2004 as you decided to cherry-pick the data. It had an IPO in 1997 and was part of the .com bubble in 1998/1999, when every pet store that owned a .com domain mooned like there was no tomorrow. No fundamentals whatsoever, yet every tech stock went parabolic. Just like crypto in 2017. If anything, you can compare the 1999 .com bubble with 2017 crpyto bubble, you cannot just arbitrarily choose 2004 as a start. Here’s a graph of Amazon stock during the .com bubble: There was nothing to justify the price of Amazon during those first years. It went from 1.50 USD to 105 USD in less than 2 years, then fell all the way down to 6 USD in the following 3 years. That’s about -95% from ATH. Sounds familiar? Amazon also had its fair share of pivoting and tipping its toes in different sectors to find its place in the industry. Remember, it started as an online bookstore. During those times, investors doubted it will ever survive. From Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Amazon ): “According to sources, Amazon did not expect to make a profit for four to five years. This comparatively slow growth caused stockholders to complain that the company was not reaching profitability fast enough to justify their investment or even survive in the long-term. In 2001, the dot-com bubble burst destroyed many e-companies in the process, but Amazon survived and moved forward beyond the tech crash to become a huge player in online sales.” The bolded text is like Wikipedia describing the XRP Chat forum and all its recent doom and gloom through an article about Amazon in the early 2000s
  14. This data is for Bitstamp only: You currently need 8.5 million USD to move XRP from 0.20 USD to 1.00 USD, but you need 46 million USD to move BTC from 10k USD to 50k USD. This is just Bitstamp, you have to take into account other exchanges, so it would of course be much more than that, but I believe the comparison still stands. Interestingly enough it takes roughly the same amount of USD to move ETH by 5x as it does for XRP (at Bitstamp). It is hard to extrapolate this data for ranges that you mentioned (0.2 USD to 10 USD and 10 USD to 100 USD), because my data is just the amounts of different digital assets at market sell orders at this time. As soon as prices start moving, market orders get added and removed, so market psychology takes it from there. Generally, when prices move up quickly, there are a lot of new buyers, and at the same time, a lot of sellers remove their sell orders, because they are afraid they might miss higher prices. This means much less hard cash is needed to move the price up. The only thing that market capitalization of a digital asset really tells you, is how much money it would take for every seller out there to be able to cash out at the current price. For example, the current market cap of BTC is about 175 billion USD, so it would take 175 billion USD of hard cash to allow every BTC owner in the world to sell their Bitcoin at 9600 USD.
  15. Support your statement – who on this forum was banned solely because of his/her views or because moderators “don’t like them”? People get warned and banned for insulting and slurring, but I have not heard of a case where someone got banned from the forum because of their “worldview”. I am not saying it has not happened, but if it has, you should be able to name a few. A perfect example of where this feature would come in handy are the TA threads. Personally, I’m not a fan of TA, but there are certain people in there constantly interrupting posters that bring value to the topic. You don’t believe TA works? Great, open a separate topic and state the facts, use trader’s success rate as proof, warn people of dangers of following TA advice. It’s even OK to comment the TA thread and post arguments against other TA posts, just do it in a polite, civilized manner. If I were following the BTC or XRP TA threads, I would find it super annoying to try and read the actual TA posts among all the trash posts from both sides. Those two threads are super ripe for a function to ban certain people from that thread only. Right now it’s like trying to hear the speaker in a room full of arguing, screaming people.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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