3 Big Problems Ripple Investors can no Longer Ignore

[SGoldstein]

Saying something just for the purpose of saying something. Nothing more.

[Montoya]

54 minutes ago, Aneikei said:

If this is true it's a good point - 

But the Ripple network is merely a transfer vehicle, used to transact from fiat to Ripple and back to fiat. What’s more, banks are not even obligated to use the XRP token for these transactions at all, notes Villaverde. He states:

In fact, a whole new set of tokens will be issued for each fiat currency, much like gold trusts or funds issue shares of gold. This process, called ‘tokenizing,’ bypasses the need to use the XRP token in the first place.

In other words, investors FOMO-ing into buying up XRP tokens upon every partnership announcementfrom Ripple could be left holding some hefty bags.

 

http://bitcoinist.com/3-problems-ripple-investors-cant-ignore/

"Tokenizing" is simply creating a debt instrument. As the name IOU implies, it is only as good as the trust in the issuing authority. The whole point of crypto is that it is not a debt instrument. XRP (like almost all other crypto) allows for instant settlement. They are assets while tokens are liabilities.

A big roadblock Ripple faces is that most average people do not understand international settlement at all. This is where these type of critiques come from. There are legitimate concerns that could be voiced on the topic, such as ILP being used to move fiat, but the author of the article mentioning tokenization demonstrates that he really doesn't understand the issue or how settlement occurs internationally. 

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Montoya

[Aneikei]

4 minutes ago, Montoya said:

"Tokenizing" is simply creating a debt instrument. As the name IOU implies, it is only as good as the trust in the issuing authority. The whole point of crypto is that it is not a debt instrument. XRP (like almost all other crypto) allows for instant settlement. They are assets while tokens are liabilities. 

Thats a great response

[FUD]

16 minutes ago, Aneikei said:

Because the section is called PRESS. As much as I believe in XRP it's not for me to decide to keep what is perhaps relevant information from my fellow investors here on XRPCHAT. And it wouldn't be very cool of me if I arbitrarily decided what people should or should not hear. It's called a Press Section. I saw the article on xrp and duh it seemed like it fit the criteria. I'm heavy on xrp, way more than most. But some on this forum need to lay off the caffeine. 

No, not going to reply :$

Edited March 21, 2018 by FUD

[HermesX13]

44 minutes ago, TLG said:

hasnt this dead horse been whipped to death already>?

Yup, so many times.

[lll_lll]

I have seen the bitcoin maximalists increasingly being vocal and attacking XRP (not that they weren't before but the FUD seems real now). It just tells you we are getting close and getting noticed. We are the real threat. We must be doing something right.

Edited March 21, 2018 by lll_lll

[Zedy44]

Quote

First, the parent company Ripple is relying heavily on making deals with banks and financial institutions, helping them “tokenize” their fiat to cut costs and time by transacting via the Ripple protocol. 

But the Ripple network is merely a transfer vehicle, used to transact from fiat to Ripple and back to fiat. What’s more, banks are not even obligated to use the XRP token for these transactions at all, notes Villaverde.

You can theoretically exchange any kind of asset using the Ripple Net as long as a market can be made for it.  Whether users want to source liquidity for such transfers themselves or through XRP / xRapid is a separate issue related to adoption of technology.  The Ripple Net is not limited to fiat<->fiat conversions.

Quote

Second, since Ripple is not a public company—and XRP tokens are not shares—the owners of these digital tokens are not entitled to the company’s potential profits. One can even think of XRP tokens as merely “demo” digital tokens to woo banks. That’s it.

True statement.  Ripple isn't publicly traded and the XRP digital asset is not considered an investment vehicle outside the realm of pure speculation.  This fact applies to every digital asset and I'm tired of seeing articles bring it up.  Ripple's employees have never advertised XRP for common or speculative investment purposes.  It's purely an important tool they leverage for their product portfolio which focuses primarily on international payment providers and services companies.

Quote

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges facing Ripple is that it is, in fact, a centralized company that’s much less resistant to regulatory clampdowns, unlike Bitcoin. Therefore, it would take “a lot less than it would take to forbid decentralized currencies,” Villaverde notes.

“Ripple is going after the business of traditional financial institutions that are deeply embedded in a world controlled by governments and supranational institutions,” he explains. “How does this all relate to Ripple?” He then notes:

"Well, it would be a relatively trivial task for governments to shut XRP down."

Any digital asset that wants to integrate into a real world product will have real world laws and regulations to follow.  This is not a challenge unique to Ripple or XRP.  People haven't quite figured out that the Amazon's, Google's and Alibaba's of the world aren't jumping head first into digital assets because they don't want to touch a regulatory nightmare that comes with about 99% of the digital assets available today. 

This is why digital assets that are trying to be actual cryptocurrencies (think Bitcoin, Monero, Litecoin, Nano, Bitcoin Cash, etc..) are quite literally going from small business to small business trying to get adoption to occur because there is no real world demand for such an asset (yet).  However, when you look at what Ripple is doing with XRP and trying to build a faster, more efficient, and more transparent back-end for big business entities where the products they offer play by the rules it becomes a no-brainer for some of these company's to actually consider integration.  Especially when Ripple's product portfolio delivers to the bottom line of real businesses around the world.

[XRPisVELOCITY]

It never ends with the Weiss BS

 

[Mrsrippley]

1 hour ago, Aneikei said:

Because the section is called PRESS. As much as I believe in XRP it's not for me to decide to keep what is perhaps relevant information from my fellow investors here on XRPCHAT. And it wouldn't be very cool of me if I arbitrarily decided what people should or should not hear. It's called a Press Section. I saw the article on xrp and duh it seemed like it fit the criteria. I'm heavy on xrp, way more than most. But some on this forum need to lay off the caffeine. 

The section is called Press indeed, however, it is to an extent up to us to decide what is relevant information be it positive or negative and what is an utter debacle of an article that has been dissected by every knowledgeable person on the subject before posting. We are all here as investors and to support each other with constructive information. I wouldn't normally react to someone simply posting a bad article because intentions are normally good, however, you have been quite sharp and sardonic in your attitude in your posts. Maybe you should lay off the caffeine and look at what you post a little more carefully.  

[Danny]

2 hours ago, Aneikei said:

...investors FOMO-ing into buying up XRP tokens upon every partnership announcement from Ripple could be left holding some hefty bags.

 

FOMO is not our motivation to purchase XRP.

[Aneikei]

18 minutes ago, Mrsrippley said:

The section is called Press indeed, however, it is to an extent up to us to decide what is relevant information be it positive or negative and what is an utter debacle of an article that has been dissected by every knowledgeable person on the subject before posting. We are all here as investors and to support each other with constructive information. I wouldn't normally react to someone simply posting a bad article because intentions are normally good, however, you have been quite sharp and sardonic in your attitude in your posts. Maybe you should lay off the caffeine and look at what you post a little more carefully.  

Perhaps you are right. Thank you for that. Everyday I try to be a little better than the day before. I'll take your words to heart. 

[Tripple]

4 hours ago, rootvegetable said:

They may be mistaken in this belief

[MaxEntropy]

The author of the article does not understand Ripple. Ripple has no need to worry about being centralized or located at physical street address, as Ripple is fully regulations compliant and willing to work hand in glove with the establishment and the banks.

And that is the problem...

If Bill Gates' statement represents what 'some' are being to voice... "Banking is required, but banks are not", then Ripple has by definition a big problem. This is a common theme of mine. It relates directly back to leadership.

Ripple XRP will do well enough in the next 2-3 years until the reset, but there after it is anyone's guess. Ripple is a technological island, castigated in the crypto space because of its relationship with banks, which are a failing and insolvent industry. Poor leadership and the wrong vision. This lack of vision has serious implications for the banks that adopt Ripple technology AND survive the reset.

If Ripple had a strategic planning group or one or more labs investigating crypto currency integration issues, then they could hand wave the problem away. But they do not.

--

So... those that would like to push this argument aside... you should address the implications of Gates' statement. Well, unless you think Gates' views will not be heard by the financial sector.

[xrpmeplease]

10 minutes ago, MaxEntropy said:

The author of the article does not understand Ripple. Ripple has no need to worry about being centralized or located at physical street address, as Ripple is fully regulations compliant and willing to work hand in glove with the establishment and the banks.

And that is the problem...

If Bill Gates' statement represents what 'some' are being to voice... "Banking is required, but banks are not", then Ripple has by definition a big problem. This is a common theme of mine. It relates directly back to leadership.

Ripple XRP will do well enough in the next 2-3 years until the reset, but there after it is anyone's guess. Ripple is a technological island, castigated in the crypto space because of its relationship with banks, which are a failing and insolvent industry. Poor leadership and the wrong vision. This lack of vision has serious implications for the banks that adopt Ripple technology AND survive the reset.

If Ripple had a strategic planning group or one or more labs investigating crypto currency integration issues, then they could hand wave the problem away. But they do not.

--

So... those that would like to push this argument aside... you should address the implications of Gates' statement. Well, unless you think Gates' views will not be heard by the financial sector.

maybe i'm the only one, i'm guessing i'm not, but i bought xrp on the premise that banks won't fail, not in my lifetime or much less 2-3 years.

that's a cute quote by a brilliant guy about banks and banking, though i don't know if i'd stake my worldview on it.

tell me more about this "reset".

 

[Coin_Hound]

1 hour ago, MaxEntropy said:

The author of the article does not understand Ripple. Ripple has no need to worry about being centralized or located at physical street address, as Ripple is fully regulations compliant and willing to work hand in glove with the establishment and the banks.

And that is the problem...

If Bill Gates' statement represents what 'some' are being to voice... "Banking is required, but banks are not", then Ripple has by definition a big problem. This is a common theme of mine. It relates directly back to leadership.

Ripple XRP will do well enough in the next 2-3 years until the reset, but there after it is anyone's guess. Ripple is a technological island, castigated in the crypto space because of its relationship with banks, which are a failing and insolvent industry. Poor leadership and the wrong vision. This lack of vision has serious implications for the banks that adopt Ripple technology AND survive the reset.

If Ripple had a strategic planning group or one or more labs investigating crypto currency integration issues, then they could hand wave the problem away. But they do not.

--

So... those that would like to push this argument aside... you should address the implications of Gates' statement. Well, unless you think Gates' views will not be heard by the financial sector.

Banks are not required? LMFAO!!!

Banks have been around for a very, very long time and they aren’t going away anytime soon. 

Are they evil and responsible for many problems in the world? Yup. 

Will crypto and blockchain kill banks forever? Nope. 

This arguement about banks disappearing reminds me of how people said for years that the internet, tablets and smartphones would kill printed books and newspapers. It didn’t.

While it’s true that many newspapers and publishers went out of business, the smart ones adapted to new technology, changed their business model and they survived. Just like smart banks will adopt Ripple tech, or another form of blockchain, and they will survive. 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Coin_Hound