Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About QWE

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. I was waiting for the first “you guys are just an echo chamber and can’t handle criticism” comment as soon as I saw this topic and here we are, not even an hour after the topic was posted. You can see tulo and Sukrim constantly giving valid criticism to XRP and Ripple for years now, and yet no one is telling them to go away. You know why? Because they bring value to discussion. There are topics and debates on this forum that are truly interesting, but get interrupted and trashed for no particular reason. You have a counter argument? Write it in a normal, articulate way, support it with facts and we’ll have a great forum for everyone.
  6. "Some analysts estimate that thanks to the stock options the company gave to early employees, Microsoft had created three billionaires and as many as 12,000 millionaires by 2005. And even for those who didn't quite get to those heights, the rewards were huge." https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-millionaires-who-spent-their-money-magnificently-2015-8 This is Microsoft alone.
  7. I completely respect your decision in doing that, but would you mind explaining the rationale behind your statement? Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and others all did an IPO and were successful, and are all dominant giants in their respective fields today. Not only that, take a look at Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft – all have their founders still at the helm of the firm (I take Steve Jobs would still be, if he were alive) with a clear vision that has evolved further over the years. Every company is profit motivated, so why would anyone (a founder or a shareholder) want to hurt the price of their biggest asset, which is in Ripple’s case XRP? Let’s be honest, the largest part of Ripple’s valuation today IS the XRP supply they hold. If the company owners said or even hinted at something like “you know what, let’s forget about XRP from now on”, it would directly hurt the price of their stock, short term and long term. It’s like owning nearly half of all the cars in the world (this being where most of your company’s valuation comes from) and then saying “you know what everyone, we think horses work better than cars so we’ll stop building the infrastructure and let the cars rot in the parking lot until they are worthless, we don't care about them anymore”. Wouldn’t you, as an owner or a shareholder of the company, want the cars to start being used as soon as possible, so they are worth more? Maybe not the best metaphor, but I would still like to hear a valid explanation for your statement “the profit-motivated company sh*ts on XRP”. To me, that’s a completely contradictory statement.
  8. I agree that we can never know if the miners actually sell their Bitcoin right away or not, but the fact is, mining costs 300 million USD per month in electricity alone and they have to pay it (monthly), either by selling Bitcoin or spending their own cash. However you turn it, it either adds 300 million USD per month to selling pressure (by selling BTC), or removes 300 million USD from buying pressure, because the money spent on electricity could have been spent on purchasing BTC instead. Either way, it is 300 million USD removed (or not added) from the ecosystem monthly. I also agree the demand for Bitcoin has been higher in the past 12 months compared to XRP. My argument was that the selling pressure on XRP is obviously decreasing (by Ripple selling less), while 300 million USD will continue to either be cashed out, or not invested in Bitcoin each month. I completely agree with what you have written, and as I stated in my second post, the price is driven purely by speculation and manipulation. The main point I was trying to make is that Ripple’s sales obviously did not have a significant effect on the price, since they decreased their sales by more than 90% from Q1 to Q4 2109, and the price did not increase. In the coming months, it seems their sales will more or less dry up, so it should be an argument in favor of purchasing XRP, rather than something to be afraid of. To sum up, Ripple doing an IPO is translating into a direct decrease of (at least short term) XRP selling pressure, since they will now be able to get money elsewhere. It was a reply to @Eric123 and others stating they will stop buying XRP for now, because Ripple is doing an IPO. I am just taking his own argument and showing my surprise, because I consider IPO a good thing for XRP, not something to be fearful of. I was also replying directly to the statement that they might be doing an IPO because they could not sell 1 billion XRP per month if XRP reached 10 USD, which I hopefully disproved in my first post. People like to repeat the statement “buy low, sell high”, but once an asset hits the “low”, they are afraid to invest and start looking towards other assets, because “they increased more in the past 12 months”. Aren’t these two statements kind of contradicting? I would say fundamentally XRP is better positioned compared to BTC since 2017, so pushing all feelings aside, it makes more sense to DCA XRP than BTC right now. Technically speaking, XRP/BTC is approaching its 2 year low, BTC dominance is peaking, so to me, that’s just another argument for XRP (and other alts, to be fair), if I want to follow the “buy low, sell high” mantra. Unless you believe Ripple is preparing an exit scam under the watchful eye of the SEC (who is obviously aware of XRP, Ripple and Brad Garlinghouse et al. personally), then by all means, you should invest in something else. @AlejoMoreno I also took the liberty to bold the word "now" in your quote, because we all know how quickly a digital asset attracts buyers in crypto world once it starts appreciating
  9. It is hard to say what exactly moves the price, but in a speculative, unregulated and manipulated crypto market, there are probably many reasons for how the price behaves, none of them transparent or very predictable. One thing Ripple’s last 4 quarterly market reports have shown is that Ripple sales in fact did not have a significant effect on the price to begin with. They basically lowered their sales from 170 million USD in Q1 to 13 million USD in Q4 (a reduction of over 90%), but the price did not appreciate. Luckily, XRP holders are already used to that action by now My thoughts in short: crypto market is at a bottom (or close) of a hype cycle right now, many people have left, and the large crypto holders are switching between BTC and alts to further increase their holdings until the next bull market arrives. Consequently, BTC dominance is rising and altcoin prices are pretty random (but all significantly lower from their ATH). Just my personal opinion.
  10. I would argue the theory that Ripple is now doing an IPO because they won’t be able to sell 1 billion XRP per month if the price hits 10 USD is one is the least likely. First off, they have been strictly limiting their sales according to the volume on exchanges (0.4% of total volume in Q3 2019). If Ripple were to sell 1 billion XRP at 10 USD/XRP, the monthly volume on exchanges for XRP would have to be 2.5 trillion USD. The average daily volume for XRP would need to be 83 billion USD. If the volume actually was that high, then there would also be a good possibility the market could easily swallow up the 0.3 billion USD Ripple would be throwing into it daily. We are, however, currently far from that. In reality, if XRP was worth 10 USD today, with a daily average volume of 200 million USD, per their own restrictions, they could only sell 80k XRP per day, or 2.4 million XRP per month. That means every month, there would be 0.997 billion XRP of the 1 billion XRP going back into an escrow. Of course, it is doubtful the volume would stay that low with the price per XRP so high, and as we saw in the December 2017 bull run, the volume logically quickly picks up. Ripple literally announced they are limiting programmatic sales in advance and has now followed through their promise. Is this not what we all wanted? Bitcoin’s estimated annual mining costs at this moment are 3.5 billion USD (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption ), which means BTC miners have to cash out 300 million USD per month just to pay the electricity bills alone. Per Ripple’s last market report, they sold zero on the market and 13 million USD worth of XRP to institutions. Comparing both coins, in the last 3 months, BTC miners cashed out about 900 million USD to pay for electricity, while Ripple cashed out 13 million. Again, BTC miners cashed out 70x more USD compared to Ripple in Q4 2019. You are right to trust no one and be careful in this market. But I am flabbergasted at how so many people started worrying once Ripple hinted at a possibility of an IPO. Critics always accused Ripple of selling XRP to fund their business, but the moment Ripple limits their XRP sales and finds an alternative way to get money, everyone loses their minds. Like you, I can only speculate why they are doing an IPO. It could be to raise more money in the future, it could be a better argument against the SEC about XRP not being a security, or it could be early investors wanting liquidity on Ripple stocks to catch some profit. It could be some reason none of us yet thought of. Whatever the case, any new shareholder will want what is best for XRP, because it represents the majority of the company’s current 10 billion USD valuation (as per their last investment round). Imagine being a Ripple stockholder right now. Would you not want what is best for XRP, since the price of XRP directly affects the price of the stock you are holding? If not, it would be like investing in an oil company and not caring what is happening to the price of oil on open markets. And to conclude this long post, I would like to again highlight the fact that Ripple has obviously significantly limited their XRP sales throughout 2019, despite the fact they had 1 billion XRP available per month. What’s more, they limited their sales in correlation to volume (down from 0.4% in Q3 to 0.08% in Q4), so Ripple sold less because they chose to do so, not because they could not sell at all. This means that in the following months, Ripple (by far the largest XRP holder) will basically stop their XRP sales, while BTC miners will continue to cash out about 300 million USD per month, because they still have to pay the bills. With this fact in mind, doesn’t XRP seem like a better investment, speaking purely supply/demand wise?
  11. @iLeeT I hope it does not come off as if I am defending Ripple here, I was just making a counter argument to yours. Since I think this topic might be interesting to both of us as well as others, I will create a separate “XRP vs BTC selling pressure” topic where we can discuss the matter at length and hopefully come up with more data to find out how this market behaves. After all, I think I deviated from the original post to an extent that any further discussion might be considered off topic I will try to dig up as much information on Ripple and BTC sellers as possible to compare the numbers.
  12. Sorry, I should have addressed both your points directly in my first post. Yes, BTC’s market cap is 15 times higher compared to XRP’s, but BTC’s selling pressure is only 7 times higher compared to XRP’s. However, the only concrete number I have on BTC selling comes from electricity consumption. As I mentioned, there are other costs + profit that have to be considered here, so the actual number could be lower or higher compared to XRP and Ripple, but I would argue 7 billion in two years is the bare minimum miners had to be cashing out in this time frame. While we KNOW Ripple cashed out 1 billion in 2 years, we can speculate AT LEAST 7 billion had to be cashed out in BTC. We can try and come up with more comparable numbers, if you dig up any extra info on that topic. I agree, 85% and 95% is a huge difference. The point I was trying to make was that at an arbitrary time frame, different alts have performed differently, but they have all lost substantially from their ATH, despite having different large holders selling in different ways. I don’t know how Stellar (XLM) and Cardano (ADA) founders have been selling in the last two years, but they are even further from their ATHs than XRP, but people aren’t constantly accusing Stellar and Cardano founders of “dumping”. I would argue this is the case because Ripple constantly reports on how much they’ve sold and the manner they are selling in (constant selling each week/month), but it does not affect the price more than it does in other cryptocurrencies, it is just harder to point a finger at someone in other cases because of lack of transparency. For example, if the price of ETH falls further than the price of XRP in the next six months and they end up 95% and 91% from their ATH respectively (as it happened in January 2019), would we blame ETH miners and founders for that? Ripple lowered their sales in 2019, have ETH miners and founders lowered theirs and is that the reason ETH performed better in 2019? Were ETH miners and founders selling more than Ripple in 2018 to justify a greater loss in ETH/USD?
  13. Sorry for interfering with a long post here, but I would just like to point out that estimated Bitcoin annual mining costs currently sit at above 3.5 billion USD (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption ), which would make it 7 billion USD in 2 years. This is just to cover the network electricity expenses, not factoring in anyone cashing out ANY profit. In effect, for miners to cover their electricity costs alone, they have to cash out 3.5 billion USD per year. Since they are not doing it for charity and have other expenses (such as equipment, possible employees, rents etc.), the amount being cashed out of BTC grows quickly. On top of that, compared to XRP, other cryptocurrencies are similarly down from their ATH (ETH, ADA, XLM etc.). Some of them have known large holders (like XLM), others have anonymous large holders (like ETH), but all are similarly down in price. Vitalik Buterin alone cashed out 40 million USD in a period of 6 months ( https://www.coinspeaker.com/vitalik-buterin-eth-holdings/ ) and that’s just one guy. Yet everyone keeps blaming Ripple for “dumping” XRP, despite them selling their holdings in a far more predictable, transparent and constant way. I don’t think it is fair to single out an arbitrary time frame to asses the success of cryptocurrencies, unless January 2019 was the time you bought all your cryptos and that specific time frame is the only one relevant to you. For example, if you bought ETH in summer 2017, you would be in the red today, while buying XRP in summer 2017 would mean you would be in the green today. I don’t believe there’s a great conspiracy against XRP to keep the price down just because it is XRP. I believe the price is down for the same reason other coins are down. The bubble burst, people left, and the few manipulators in crypto space are switching between BTC and alts to try and increase their holdings. I would say most of them don’t care about Ripple, XRP, BTC and the whole crypto tribalism, they are here because they found a way to make money. I don’t have proof of my last statement, but I base my assumption on the fact that XRP is not the only one that fell far from its ATH. I do understand, however, that markets work in cycles and psychology of the crowds works in a predictable way. Once the price starts climbing, people will come back quickly. Unless the crypto market dies completely, of course, but there’s only a negligible chance of that happening in my opinion. And lastly, remember how in December 2017 everyone blamed Ripple for suppressing the price, supposedly because banks wanted XRP to be as stable as possible? Well, everyone got disproved on December 16th when the price started flying
  14. Thank you for commenting on my "lawyering abilities" as you call them, I will refrain from commenting on yours, no need for name calling in a civilized debate. Ripple and their lawyers are avoiding the securities arguments, because they don't need to go down that road at all. They just need to win the case. You presume the case will have to determine if XRP is a security or not. I would argue that it will never come to that at all, which is what Ripple is trying to achieve with this motion to dismiss by stating that the question of XRP being a security is completely irrelevant, because even if it were a security, it would not change the outcome of the lawsuit. Other lawyers seem to think this is the case as well, so I am not alone in my opinion. From the article: https://www.coindesk.com/whats-next-in-the-securities-case-against-ripple-over-xrp "But the suit is not likely to settle the matter, legal experts said. “No one’s finding out whether XRP is a security anytime soon, if ever, at least through this proceeding,” said Rebecca Rettig, a partner at FisherBroyles." You are insinuating all over the forum that XRP is a security, even throwing out January 15th as a date to watch for. You even state you are shorting XRP because of it. In reality, the question whether XRP is a security will definitely not be answered on that date and most likely not for a long time. EDIT: let me explain what I am trying to say with the simplest example I can come up with. A lawsuit I was involved in stated that a customer wanted to return a machine for a full refund under warranty to the seller because the machine was broken. The lawsuit was dismissed, because the machine was actually already out of warranty (after 1 year). We never determined if the machine was broken or not, because we did not have to. Stating the machine was out of warranty did not mean we are admitting the machine was broken. The state of the machine was irrelevant.
  • Create New...