Jump to content
Lamberth

Galgitron’s blog: Why Ripple needs so much XRP

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I also love galgitrons Blog. But this time I have to question one part if it. When you look at the Rich List stats you´ll find the number of hodlers and how much they hold. So I did the maf:

Total XRP:

1.286.997 people hold 46.490.818.496 XRP (https://ledger.exposed/rich-stats#range)


Spread:

1.276.906 (99,21%) people hold  2.064.838.240 XRP = 4,44%

     10.091   (0,79%) people hold 44.425.980.256 XRP = 95,56%

So are we any better (currently!) than the bitcoooone maximalists regarding how many DAs are distributed in the hand of a few in terms of percentage? Just something to think about. I´d be curious:

1. how you interpret those numbers?

2. how can FI´s change the distribution more equaly? Can they?

Edited by bachmama
those number kill you when using a calc, but they should be right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Benchmark, well said, sir!

Just to reiterate this important message, I’d like to quote a great post from 2017 for those who joined the Forum recently - “Ripple holds a huge pile of XRP and will be the dominant XRP holder for the foreseeable future... Anyone who gets XRP from us as part of some deal with a lockup has their incentives aligned with ours. They want the long-term price of XRP to go up too.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, bachmama said:

1. how you interpret those numbers?

I am actually also interested in a some kind of interpretation of the numbers. Must admit I don’t understand what those numbers represent in terms of (semi-)real distribution of XRP wealth right now.

For my own sake I follow top 5 lines of “By percentage of accounts” tab and the down trend gives me relief. At least in terms of the trend we are on the right track here.

Edited by Lamberth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bachmama said:

1. how you interpret those numbers?

I just a got a personal, hand written letter from a high-level-xrp-community-exec (who wishes to remain in the background, gotta protect my source here, sorry) that gave me/us the following hint:

Regarding those upper 10k "hodlers", that only represent circulating coins and not escrowed coins: "those heavy holders are banks or other large 'distribution' centers that are contractually obligated to distribute in a measured, beneficial way, unlike Bitcoin whales that simply just hoard"

So practically speaking, exchanges, banks/ FIs.

In the end we cannot calculate the true distribution among hodlers by looking at the rich list index alone.

On page 6 of the letter this person expresses "The underlying motivation is to spread XRP as widely as possible, and having so much XRP in escrow, gives Ripple the ability to continue diluting any relative concentrations of circulating XRP" (like the inflation mr. galgitron mentioned).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, bachmama said:

I just a got a personal, hand written letter from a high-level-xrp-community-exec (who wishes to remain in the background, gotta protect my source here, sorry) that gave me/us the following hint:

Regarding those upper 10k "hodlers", that only represent circulating coins and not escrowed coins: "those heavy holders are banks or other large 'distribution' centers that are contractually obligated to distribute in a measured, beneficial way, unlike Bitcoin whales that simply just hoard"

So practically speaking, exchanges, banks/ FIs.

Careful with your statements about those hints, @bachmama, you are on thin ice here, the world is watching, he-he.

Even putting my tinfoil hat on, I can’t belive in 10k “hodlers” statement, sounds a bit over-hyped. I could belive that many (but not all) of top 500 are “banks or other large 'distribution' centers”. Maybe it’s just me being old and cynical.

Edited by Lamberth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Centralized, deliberate influence by Ripple of XRP's value won't fly in the eyes of American regulators, IMO. XRP is a bridging currency for institutional use, not for our use as a spending currency.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not financial advice, just my opinion.

Anyway, just found out about a new video from the SEC.  I haven't seen it yet, but I'll get around to it, but I've heard at least one youtuber comment about it already, and I have been complaining about promoters of XRP that conflate XRP's value with Ripple's success, and it appears this new video might be related to that depending on what the legal definition of "promoter" is. Promoters might be held liable for promoting cryptos according to this youtuber regarding the SEC's comments. Pay attention to 2:20-3:18:

 

Here is the original video which I haven't see yet. Will the SEC go after certain crypto promoters on youtube because they are attracting new investors?
Who knows...I don't, but I've been complaining lately about how there are so many investors/people on youtube being lured by these ridiculous XRP price predictions, thinking that Ripple is going to make them rich, when it's actually up to the adopters of XRP via its utility to drive up the price of XRP. Maybe the SEC will step in to protect these non-thinking investors - these investors remind me to an extent of gullible bitconnect investors in their misinformed beliefs, just like those bitconnect investors that really believed that bitconnect was legitimate - yes, those kinds of investors exist in large numbers. Recall that Bitconnect made it to 7th place on coinmarketcap.com!! . I don't know why people get carried away with their beliefs over reality - this is not only prevalent in religions, but in investing as well I suppose.  In any case, the SEC might give Ripple a break because the SEC is willing to allow those cryptos that are used like a securities to evolve so that it behaves less like a security, but some promoters of XRP out there might be making things hard:

Going to check out the video and see if there are new things to discuss.

Anyway, this is great...we are getting more clarity from the SEC, which means less stress for me ;P~~. I hope they keep this reasonable tempo up until there is little ambiguity left about what constitutes a crypto security and how to avoid such a designation if possible by taking steps - remember, the SEC emphasizes that they are willing to work with others to help them through regulatory compliance, regardless if deemed a security or not, and help those cryptos and their backers that have the capacity to evolve from a securities-like offering either directly or on the secondary market to a non-securities crypto.

 

Edited by enrique11
additional comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, enrique11 said:

Maybe the SEC will step in to protect these non-thinking investors - these investors remind me to an extent of gullible bitconnect investors in their misinformed beliefs, just like those bitconnect investors that really believed that bitconnect was legitimate - yes, those kinds of investors exist in large numbers. Recall that Bitconnect made it to 7th place on coinmarketcap.com!! . I don't know why people get carried away with their beliefs over reality - this is not only prevalent in religions, but in investing as well I suppose.  In any case, the SEC might give Ripple a break because the SEC is willing to allow those cryptos that are used like a securities to evolve so that it behaves less like a security, but some promoters of XRP out there might be making things hard:

Anyway, this is great...we are getting more clarity from the SEC, which means less stress for me

This sounds to me that if you have a product which can be used to add value (e.g. your product is operational and reasonably decentralized) - the token is not a security because it already became an asset which can be used. If you promise to build something - it is a security, and a liability to the issuer to deliver on its commitment. Am I over-simplifying the message?

Edited by Lamberth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lamberth said:

This sounds to me that if you have a product which can be used to add value (e.g. your product is operational and reasonably decentralized) - the token is not a security because it already became an asset which can be used. If you promise to build something - it is a security, and a liability to the issuer to deliver on its commitment. Am I over-simplifying the message?

Just my opinion, not financial advice:

My ":message" (opinion) is basically whenever there is an investment of money regardless if it's a security or not, and there are people out there promoting that investment, giving people the sense that they are going to make it 'big-time' if they invest (expectation of profit), then it's possible the promoters might be held liable.

But I'm confused, because the SEC said that Bitcoin wasn't a security which means it's out of their jurisdiction...they don't have the authority to regulate it...the SEC regulates enterprises that offer investments so that investors are given the capacity to go into an investment sufficiently informed by SEC standards, but Bitcoin is not a security, yet it behaves like an investment...I think I get it now...there is no one to go to in Bitcoin to say "you are responsible for informing investors about the risks of investing in your product"...since it doesn't belong to some centralized entity that's able to pull the strings behind the curtains so to speak, so Bitcoin investors literally don't have anyone to blame because no one within Bitcoin is has the same degree of control over Bitcoin's price that a typical company has over the price of its securities...I'm singling out the price because this IMO is one of the biggest determining factor in expectation of return for an investment.  The capacity of an entity to affect an instrument's price is a big factor, IMO.

I'll have to summarize my views in a subsequent post as I hopefully gain more clarity over this issue.

Anyway, it's just my opinion, the SEC is the one the matters most, even if we disagree with their conclusions.

Edited by enrique11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, enrique11 said:

Anyway, it's just my opinion, the SEC is the one the matters most, even if we disagree with their conclusions.

100% agreed.

I'm currently holding a large amount of XRP and I can't stand the idea that the decision from this group of people will either make my investment become worthless, or change my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Australian said:

100% agreed.

I'm currently holding a large amount of XRP and I can't stand the idea that the decision from this group of people will either make my investment become worthless, or change my life.

I'm in the same boat, but I'm not sure of the long-term outcome of XRP being designated a security.   This new asset class (cryptos) has elements of other asset classes, so if XRP is deemed a security, but XRP in reality doesn't offer us the benefits of a true traditional security like a stock, then what, there is no resolution, or will SEC make Ripple compensate us, etc. I really have no idea how the SEC plans to handle cryptos that don't really qualify or barely qualify as traditional securities, but the SEC delcares them such anyway..I am less concerned about XRP here and more concerned about non-American cryptos I own via non-American exchanges which I got before the SEC started rearing it's ugly head.

Edited by enrique11
additional comment..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Australian said:

I'm currently holding a large amount of XRP and I can't stand the idea that the decision from this group of people will either make my investment become worthless, or change my life.

If you can''t stand it then sell and buy back post decision. You'll probably be able to load up at sub 10 cents if you have enough patience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RippleHerToShreds said:

If you can''t stand it then sell and buy back post decision. You'll probably be able to load up at sub 10 cents if you have enough patience.

Not financial advice, just my opinion.

Yeah, it's interesting to contemplate how low the price would go if it were declared a security.  Once it's delcared a security (just a hypothetical for any XRP maximalists reading this post :P), and Ripple chooses to go along with that designation, then they are incentivized to do everything in their power to make XRP succeed - they will have a fiduciary responsibility to us XRP holders, so things IMO would be very different for XRP and it makes me wonder how low and for how long the price would remain before going back up again. It depends on the timing of the SEC in making such an announcement.  The SEC might not open its mouth about XRP until after the R3 issue is settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×