Jump to content

Rachel lee connecting Dots of XRP with SDR (IMF currency ), CME and Miguel


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Merxy said:

Another day another " connecting imaginary dots" and "reading between the lines" delusional theory being done

One world currency is happening wether you agree with it or not. Rothschilds said 30 years ago it will happen this year in 2018. I tend to think they would like to keep to their time schedule. Love for crypto nailed it back in April. ($5000 is a bit to high I think)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Dear Friends,  I found post below about potential of XRP replacing SDR ( IMF's Currency )and found it very interesting so thought to share with you. I am quoting them word by word and providing y

"Rachel Lee‏ @LeeR912 Jul 26 The +-55billion #xrp is the digital gold which the IMF will use to reliquidify the world after the next financial crisis (coming soon). XRP will need to be valued in

Exactly. I'm of the strong opinion that BearableGuy got most of his inspiration from Collin's Philosophy of Metrics. (Some even believe that they are the same person, although this is utter nonsense

Posted Images

6 hours ago, DutchPanda said:

We all will be soaking if this is only 10% true. Imagine waking up one day to find out XRP's new ath is changed from $0.4508 to $2312.508....

And i would really love to seeTushaar jain that day to ask how his xrp vs btc pair is doing..?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Talinos said:

You are watching it at the wrong ankle . It won’t happen over night . There would be announcement and all escrow contracts would be given to the imf . That means they would stock 1 b each month the next years. The whole problem here is the rest of the market - the free circulating xrp

Or, it takes another 5 years after which 55 months escrow will exprire for most of tokens.. (unless ofcourse big chunk lf them were put back into escrow)

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

Wouldn’t be surprised to see them pull a 180 RE escrow accessibility.

Absolutely not.  Not a chance.  

If you really believe that then you have not understood anything about the reason for the value of blockchain and immutability.  About the benefit that comes from being absolutely certain of ownership, and certainty of transactions.

The escrow is inviolate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tinyaccount said:

Absolutely not.  Not a chance.  

If you really believe that then you have not understood anything about the reason for the value of blockchain and immutability.  About the benefit that comes from being absolutely certain of ownership, and certainty of transactions.

The escrow is inviolate. 

I know, as it stands, that the escrow is inviolate. I clearly stated in my post that, as repeated by Ripple, the escrow is binding. I was responding to @KarmaCoverage when he said that Ripple could, potentially, violate their own cryptography, as the XRPL is C++ designed  by human beings, not uncrackable obsidian. I was saying that, considering Ripple’s propensity to pivot and their lackluster communications, IMO, it was not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Selective quoting is an ugly behavior, especially when done to make another seem lesser than. Tsk tsk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DanB said:

I was saying that, considering Ripple’s propensity to pivot and their lackluster communications, IMO, it was not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Which I understood...  and my post stands.  My point was that as the XRP ledger stands now it can't be touched...   and undoing any aspect of the inviolability of escrow by a fork would be massively counterproductive and would shoot their own value in the foot.  It won't happen in my opinion.

 

15 minutes ago, DanB said:

Selective quoting is an ugly behavior, especially when done to make another seem lesser than. Tsk tsk.

I will assume good faith here....   and that you just don't understand the reason I mostly only quote a small part....  it has to do with readability of the forums.  Big giant quotes just to say "me too" are the worst examples of why I do that reduced portion quoting.

If instead,  you really do think I would selectively quote to improve my argument and reduce yours,  then....  fine...  that's your opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mr_lazy85 said:

I'm not American myself but I see it as the world led by the US may not be perfect but way better than led by other powers such as Russia, China etc. The US may not always play fair but the same goes for other countries as well. The difference is just that the US has more resources and military power so their impact is perceived as more "evil." The Saudis may be a business partner and an ally to the US but I'm sure that if they had the opportunity to crush the US they would do it in the split of a second but they can't. The same goes for Russia. Don't forget that Russia is pretty much led by a dictator who murders his opponents while the country is controlled by the mafia to a very large extent. I don't see the US as an anti-christ at all in comparison. 

Well now we're entering into very subjective territory and I can't argue with your perceptions and opinions. 

My point is that DLT theoretically could create harmony among the global superpowers. Not only that, you would actually see massive nation-states begin to break down into smaller sovereign states and compete for citizens like private corporations compete for customers (read "the sovereign individual" which anticipated crypto in the '90s)

I hear where you're coming from, but you might want to consider following through on your visualization. If DLT (and ILP specifically) succeeds, which It most likely will, then the world becomes a fundamentally different place. The US and Saudis and Russa as you mention will no longer exist in the same capacity that they did PRE-ILP. No nation-state will. Nation states are a product of the industrial revolution. They are archaic, bloated systems that will not survive the sea-change happening with decentralized systems. 

Again, this is not a pollyanna future. But decentralized authority and more free, autonomous and sovereign human beings represents, to me, a huge leap forward in human evolution and potential. Your doom and gloom about end-times and anti-christ are simply the results of your lack of imagination. I understand the fear the of change and the unknown. But really, this technology is a huge win for the little guys. I don't know what will happen with AI, quantum computers, etc. But I do know that blockchain technology is good for the world. 

God bless! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, radcity79 said:

Well now we're entering into very subjective territory and I can't argue with your perceptions and opinions. 

My point is that DLT theoretically could create harmony among the global superpowers. Not only that, you would actually see massive nation-states begin to break down into smaller sovereign states and compete for citizens like private corporations compete for customers (read "the sovereign individual" which anticipated crypto in the '90s)

I hear where you're coming from, but you might want to consider following through on your visualization. If DLT (and ILP specifically) succeeds, which It most likely will, then the world becomes a fundamentally different place. The US and Saudis and Russa as you mention will no longer exist in the same capacity that they did PRE-ILP. No nation-state will. Nation states are a product of the industrial revolution. They are archaic, bloated systems that will not survive the sea-change happening with decentralized systems. 

Again, this is not a pollyanna future. But decentralized authority and more free, autonomous and sovereign human beings represents, to me, a huge leap forward in human evolution and potential. Your doom and gloom about end-times and anti-christ are simply the results of your lack of imagination. I understand the fear the of change and the unknown. But really, this technology is a huge win for the little guys. I don't know what will happen with AI, quantum computers, etc. But I do know that blockchain technology is good for the world. 

God bless! 

I agree with you, I'm not against globalisation, I'm a globalist, free trade advocate. I also do believe that the nation state will mean less and less. I'm just against this whole anti-American sentiment that is very strong in the world today. I'm just saying I believe the other power centers in the world to be worse when it comes to human rights etc. A lot of people blame everything bad in the world on the US and I think this is nonsense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, radcity79 said:

Again, this is not a pollyanna future. But decentralized authority and more free, autonomous and sovereign human beings represents, to me, a huge leap forward in human evolution and potential. Your doom and gloom about end-times and anti-christ are simply the results of your lack of imagination. I understand the fear the of change and the unknown. But really, this technology is a huge win for the little guys. I don't know what will happen with AI, quantum computers, etc. But I do know that blockchain technology is good for the world.

You know more than I do, then.  Here's what I know:

Blockchain technology exists and isn't going away.  It offers, just like all the other technologies you mentioned, significant efficiency gains.  There are always trade-offs for gains.

Technologies tend to only be as "good" as the people who build and maintain and use them.  Bad actors exist.  It's a fact.  Not everyone can be trusted to always act responsibly.

Beyond that, not everyone's definition of "responsibly" is the same or even similar.  I find discussions ascribing "morality" or "goodness" to a technology to be counter-productive.

Those discussions should be left for humanity to work out, as best they can, over time, while keeping in mind, as well, that not all who desire prosperity necessarily desire peace.

That's what I know.  (All else is hope for the future.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr_lazy85 said:

I agree with you, I'm not against globalisation, I'm a globalist, free trade advocate. I also do believe that the nation state will mean less and less. I'm just against this whole anti-American sentiment that is very strong in the world today. I'm just saying I believe the other power centers in the world to be worse when it comes to human rights etc. A lot of people blame everything bad in the world on the US and I think this is nonsense. 

Totally agree!

Yeah you're probably right that there could be way worse super powers. I love the United States and I'm grateful to live here. Even if democracy is only an ideal, it's an ideal worth preserving.

But yeah, I think an unbalanced geopolitical landscape  doesn't serve anyone. And I know that part of ripple's vision is to bring the rest of the developing world "online." For me, this means access to a massively expanded and evolved global human brain trust. This means massive innovation, growth, new voices, new diversity in thought, business, and global commerce. It means a flow of capital (energy) coursing through the new global infrastructure. 

I'm excited, clearly! 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, NightJanitor said:

You know more than I do, then.  Here's what I know:

Blockchain technology exists and isn't going away.  It offers, just like all the other technologies you mentioned, significant efficiency gains.  There are always trade-offs for gains.

Technologies tend to only be as "good" as the people who build and maintain and use them.  Bad actors exist.  It's a fact.  Not everyone can be trusted to always act responsibly.

Beyond that, not everyone's definition of "responsibly" is the same or even similar.  I find discussions ascribing "morality" or "goodness" to a technology to be counter-productive.

Those discussions should be left for humanity to work out, as best they can, over time, while keeping in mind, as well, that not all who desire prosperity necessarily desire peace.

That's what I know.  (All else is hope for the future.)

"Not everyone can be trusted to always act responsibly."

This is the heart of why consensus exists. The technology is literally built to address this problem, and that's why everyone's so excited. We've never been able to do this before in a decentralized manner. We've only had centralized systems that wielded, I would argue, far too much "power."

What is exciting about this technology is that it seeks to serve the greatest number of "good" actors and minimize "bad" actors. That is, in essence, what consensus is about. The whole point of DLT, at least theoretically, is that it should work for everyone. The ILP is about interoperability. Interoperability, to me, is "good." Consensus is "good." 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.