Jump to content
slinuxuzer

Ripple IS working with the U.N. - Proof?

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Tinyaccount said:

I have often heard this but don’t actually know who said what and when.  Do you know of a link or a way to find those examples?

Oh! I found it! Sourced from the comments section of cryptotradernews! That's like the Forbes of crypto, right? 

https://cryptotradernews.com/viva/jp-morgan-files-patent-for-blockchain-p2p-payments-between-banks-wants-to-compete-with-ripple/

Woo hoo! I'm convinced /s

Edited by LordVetinari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LordVetinari said:

Oh! I found it! Sourced from the comments section of cryptotradernews! That's like the Forbes of crypto, right? 

https://cryptotradernews.com/viva/jp-morgan-files-patent-for-blockchain-p2p-payments-between-banks-wants-to-compete-with-ripple/

Woo hoo! I'm convinced /s

Interesting.. Does anyone remember someone on twitter going by the name of McDonald?  Late 2017 he made some predictions that came true re ripple/xrp in December/January.   He claimed to know things about partnerships and what was coming for xrp.  Following the ath, in the months from around February to May, he started talking alot about the price of silver skyrocketing.  I never could understand the logic but the link above provides more insight..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the price of silver is not skyrocketing... so how is that prediction true?
I don't see how xrp and silver relate :s

Interesting.. Does anyone remember someone on twitter going by the name of McDonald?  Late 2017 he made some predictions that came true re ripple/xrp in December/January.   He claimed to know things about partnerships and what was coming for xrp.  Following the ath, in the months from around February to May, he started talking alot about the price of silver skyrocketing.  I never could understand the logic but the link above provides more insight..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know where the best place to post this was but... https://www.silverdoctors.com/silver/silver-news/french-analyst-someone-is-cornering-the-silver-market-to-cause-a-silver-shortage/

What is interesting is, this guy is talking about COMEX rule No. 589, how it allows COMEX to stop markets during illiquid times/market moves, and how this rule will work opposite to what its intended to do, which is stabilise a volatile market. 

Now I'm not really a fan of conspiracy theories, I just like to gather information and make sense of it, but could this be what BG123 was alluding to with his $589 prediction? Maybe it is not even an accurate price prediction per se (no one knows where the exact price of an asset will be - but the high number does probably indicate a surge in value) so the choice of number is obviously meant with a meaning, and it is an indication of how the whole thing will play out in the markets. 

 

This is less strong evidence as it could just be some random troll, but I will just leave this here: 

Screenshot_20180915-211450.png

Would also like to mention how someone on here a few days ago was posting screenshots of how reiss bank/some bank in Canada were connecting via RippleNet to the SWIFT network through an MT103 socket to settle in 20sec.

Edited by Agrilax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, that is at least an interesting correlation with the number 589. It always was a strange price point to predict. Why 589? What not just predict 600? That was always curious to me. An external reference may actually make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, Undershoes said:

I dunno, that is at least an interesting correlation with the number 589. It always was a strange price point to predict. Why 589? What not just predict 600? That was always curious to me. An external reference may actually make sense. 

Best I can do is 0.006 -> 1.88 -> 589.06 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Undershoes said:

I must be missing some history. Where does .006/1.88 or 313 come from?

I don't think it's meant to mean anything, it's just a tongue-in-cheek comment of him not seeing any direct links at all, a  bit of a joke if anything that direct, concrete non-tinfoil links between anything BG123 has said are hard to see. At least that's how I interpreted that comment. 

As in the first rally was from $0.006, and extrapolated from there in a linear fashion would require a multiplication factor of x313.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×