Jump to content

jheff

Member
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jheff

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Couple of points I want to make: 1) BTC will always be the anchor. I think people should stop talking about decoupling. The more likely scenario is XRP going to $0 compared to XRP decoupling. There are too many BTC pairs, too many whales, psychological presence of BTC being the first crytpo, etc. Everyone should hold BTC. If XRP is going to be the global standard for friction less, ultra-liquid, asset for payments, bitcoin is the digital gold. Both can, and will, coexist. Just like LTC will be the digital silver. 2) My thoughts about the progression of BTC and alts: there are 100,000,0000 sats in 1 BTC: at some point in the future sats will be the global currency unit. If you think buying .1 BTC isn't a lot, it is. 0.1 BTC = 10,000,0000 sats. $1mil BTC is a very real possibility, so each sat is $0.01. 3) Tying this back to XRP.... I used the market cap of gold as a minimum... BTC would surpass that in my opinion. Sky is the limit. Long story short, HODL
  2. Fair points all around. I think BTC LTC and ETH are the legacy cryptos, but they also are the original POW coins. When you mention the low supply coins the first one that comes to mind is.... BTC. Only 21 million will ever be made. Look at the attached picture. I think everyone should stash 1 BTC away long term, just my opinion. Interesting about EOS though I honestly have never looked at that project outside of hearing how they have missed milestones on the roadmap. In general, my goal from here on out is to build a "completeness" portfolio, so getting 1 BTC and sizeable amounts of ETH, LTC, and TRX. I also agree that XRP and consensus is the future considering how expensive, wasteful, and slow POW can be. Have you ever looked into NANO?
  3. In my opinion, everyone should hold bags of BTC. There are too many BTC maximalist whales to let it die. Also, there is the psychological aspect of it being the first crypto and the whole illusion of Satoshi. I certainly hold a larger bag of XRP but I think it would be unwise to not be holding at least some BTC. Definitely a better move compared to buying random alts that have no trading pairs or volume. BTC is the "safest" crypto investment you can make.
  4. Agreed. BTC isn't going anywhere. People don't realize this now, but these are scarce assets. There will only be 21 million BTC. I am a longtime XRP bagholder because of how great the tech is compared to BTC, but that doesn't mean BTC is worthless. I think a solid mix of XRP, BTC, LTC, and ETH is what people should be aiming for.
  5. Stablecoins aren't bank coins. I'm not worried about Tether, USDC, etc. JPMC is not just a stablecoin on Binance that scrapes a few bps off the top. It is the combination of banking giants and stablecoins that is the problem. Maybe XRP has a chance in the remittance industry but to my prior point about the securities and derivatives industry? Yeah, no shot. JPM has a stablecoin and smart contract platform for this and has the book of business. This limits the use cases for XRP and definitely reduces the future value of the investment.
  6. Yes, they are committed. Banking is all about relationships. Banks will lend to companies at a more favorable rate if they think that they can generate millions in advisory fees down the line. Relationships matter in banking.
  7. JPM was already "entrenched" in the crypto asset industry before they announced JPMC? Nope, I don't think so. They had Quorum but they just announced JPMC. They were already entrenched in banking and will continue to be entrenched. The fact they're looking to move into crypto legitimizes the digital asset space, sure. You still haven't even acknowledged the fact that an "entrenched" player in the financial system moving in to compete in the digital asset space where there are already established players like Ripple is worrisome. Any rational person would be worried. You aren't being rational because of your familiarity bias, endowment bias, and status quo bias.
  8. Yeah, if companies feel like the cost outweighs the benefits to compete with Ripple, they wouldn't sink millions into developing their own tech. Pretty simple logic. Enough with the FUD accusations. No agenda here, I'm just not blindly dismissing potential threats to the future value of my investment. I'm in the top 1.6% of accounts.
  9. As would I. But in the article, Application 2 talks about securities issuances. JPM already has huge capital markets, investment banking coverage, and sales and trading businesses. So they have the upper hand in actually facilitating and trading the issuance of options, futures, swaps, and exotic derivatives. Not to mention they'd be underwriting the equity and bond issuances as well. This was the #1 use case of Codius IMO.
  10. Fair points. But let's see Jamie Dimon, $2.6 trillion, and 100+ years of client relationships and banking industry knowledge go up against Ripple and XRP. Inflationary and liability points are weak in my opinion, especially the liability one for reasons I discussed. XRP does have the edge in being deflationary though. Inflation is just something the world economy has fixes for. When inflation comes back into the picture interest rates go higher and the inflation problem is fixed once the economy cools off.
  11. Because they clearly think the large investment is worth the business they'd generate as a result of competing in the digital asset remittance space. Same thought process any business makes when deciding to finance expansions. Instead of partnering they see an opportunity to compete and leverage the expertise and relationships they have vs. partner and let Ripple earn the revenue. You're also talking about HTC, who made the first Android smartphone. They didn't just enter the smartphone market to try and mimic Samsung. JPM is going into the digital asset space because they see an opportunity to put something better out there, kind of like how Samsung came into the Android space after HTC...
  12. Yeah, and if you can prove escrowed dollars or repo securities back the liability, it's not a liability. If banks have liabilities that are outstanding in the form of loans or bonds, they are allowed to match the value of the liabilities in cash or money market instruments and remove the liability from the balance sheet. Same situation here. The fact that JPMC is a liability isn't a problem.
  13. Forex dealers in that country, most likely JPM themselves. They buy back the coins and take the USD out of escrow. Someone posted earlier about JPMC covering only internal transfers so maybe I'm jumping the gun. I'm guessing JPM would try and make their currency the universal acceptable asset over XRP which would really be tokenized USD as the universal asset. Maybe I'm wrong, it just doesn't look good when JPM could partner with Ripple, use XRP, but instead decide to develop JPMC.
  14. Yes, I have and that is a good point. Large financial institutions that have the money to develop internal coins won't use XRP. But the premise of value I see on these forums that take a stab on the intrinsic value of XRP claim mass adoption. If JPM, GS, BAML, and MS all make their own coin that takes away a large percentage of the remittance market considering they have most if not all of the largest corporate banking clients in the US. Maybe XRP gets used by overseas banks. I don't know about that market so I'm not going to speculate, but this hurts business for Ripple and XRP in the US.
  15. JPM coin is the bridge currency. Here is a scenario: JPM Corporate client needs to pay for industrial machinery in yen. They escrow cash, JPM issues them JPMC and sends JPMC to a) the wallet of the seller of the machinery or b) a wallet of the client and converts at the JPMC/Yen spot rate to pay for the machinery. JPMC/Yen spot rate will be at the USD/Yen spot rate because the USD is escrowed before coins are created so 1 JPMC = 1 USD. The flow of funds would be USD -> JPMC -> Yen. If this scenario was to be mirrored with XRP this would be the flow of funds: USD -> XRP -> Yen. No exchange rate risk of JPMC since it is pegged to USD. If clients are banking with JPM why would they switch over to Ripple and XRP if JPM has their own coin. People don't consider the value clients place on past relationships and trust. I'd bet money on CEOs and CFOs sticking with the status quo and the conservative approach to just stick with JPM. Why go from Bank Coin 1 to XRP to Bank Coin 2 when Bank Coin 1 and 2 are backed by fiat? Just create a Bank Coin 1/Bank Coin 2 trading pair. All of this just shows banks would rather develop their own coin in-house than work with Ripple. Centralization and the selling points of XRP don't matter to them. The banking system is already centralized.
×
×
  • Create New...