Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
AgamemnonUA

Are you thinking what I am thinking?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, mr_lazy85 said:

Good thing it has 44 parking spots so that it can fit all your Lamborghinis. 

Exactly, that  was my primary concern as well.

Fun Fact: Pierre Trudeau swam in that pool.

Edited by PhiGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, this actually sounds like a slight negative. What is one of the main reasons people have flocked into crypto? It allows the average non-accredited investor to place capital in promising start-up companies that would previously have been impossible to do under current SEC rules. Look at the top 100 crypto's (or even beyond) and ask the question, do these projects actually need a coin or was it simply created to allow funding for that start up, and thus the project was adapted in some way to incorporate the coin? I would say in 80-90%+ cases this is the only reason the coin exists. What does this mean? It will severely limit the amount of money coming into crypto via small investors as many companies will opt to not go the crypto route, as they can now raise money via alternate means without having to forcefully find a use case for a coin that investors have previously poured money into. 

 

The echo chamber here can sometimes be overwhelming...not every piece of news is positive, and I am picking up absolutely nothing positive from this, it is a realisation by the SEC that the current non-public investment model is broken, and that crypto has filled that niche in the market and is one of many reasons money has poured into the space as funding for entrepreneurs is much easier to obtain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Agrilax said:

To me, this actually sounds like a slight negative. What is one of the main reasons people have flocked into crypto? It allows the average non-accredited investor to place capital in promising start-up companies that would previously have been impossible to do under current SEC rules. Look at the top 100 crypto's (or even beyond) and ask the question, do these projects actually need a coin or was it simply created to allow funding for that start up, and thus the project was adapted in some way to incorporate the coin? I would say in 80-90%+ cases this is the only reason the coin exists. What does this mean? It will severely limit the amount of money coming into crypto via small investors as many companies will opt to not go the crypto route, as they can now raise money via alternate means without having to forcefully find a use case for a coin that investors have previously poured money into. 

 

The echo chamber here can sometimes be overwhelming...not every piece of news is positive, and I am picking up absolutely nothing positive from this, it is a realisation by the SEC that the current non-public investment model is broken, and that crypto has filled that niche in the market and is one of many reasons money has poured into the space as funding for entrepreneurs is much easier to obtain. 

Perhaps, but XRP isn't really threatened by money flowing into crypto or not unless you still wanna ride the coat tails of Bitcoin and speculation. XRP value will be fueled by utility or fail. I'd be worried like you said for startups and many other coins but XRP stands out not because of some echo chamber of community hopes but because it fundamentally appears to work compared to its peers and not be an afterthought to fund an idea or scam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Agrilax said:

To me, this actually sounds like a slight negative. What is one of the main reasons people have flocked into crypto? It allows the average non-accredited investor to place capital in promising start-up companies that would previously have been impossible to do under current SEC rules. Look at the top 100 crypto's (or even beyond) and ask the question, do these projects actually need a coin or was it simply created to allow funding for that start up, and thus the project was adapted in some way to incorporate the coin? I would say in 80-90%+ cases this is the only reason the coin exists. What does this mean? It will severely limit the amount of money coming into crypto via small investors as many companies will opt to not go the crypto route, as they can now raise money via alternate means without having to forcefully find a use case for a coin that investors have previously poured money into. 

 

The echo chamber here can sometimes be overwhelming...not every piece of news is positive, and I am picking up absolutely nothing positive from this, it is a realisation by the SEC that the current non-public investment model is broken, and that crypto has filled that niche in the market and is one of many reasons money has poured into the space as funding for entrepreneurs is much easier to obtain. 

Yeah but that just applies to coins without usecase - in those which i never ever would invest in... XRP is different, like a few others

Share this post


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

Yeah but that just applies to coins without usecase - in those which i never ever would invest in... XRP is different, like a few others

According to some not too old study, about 14% of the 193 crypto use cases identified and looked into by this study, about 14% of the use cases are useless and don't need blockchain tech application (@5:40): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIIT1K2LCSA

Of course, it goes without saying that cross-border payments is not one of these use cases.

 

Share this post


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

Good god, your property market is crazy. You can buy an actual castle here for around £1m!

https://search.savills.com/property-detail/gbedscedt170135

Mind you, if Mark Carney has his way, we'll all be paying $40m for houses! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, enrique11 said:

According to some not too old study, about 14% of the 193 crypto use cases identified and looked into by this study, about 14% of the use cases are useless and don't need blockchain tech application (@5:40): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIIT1K2LCSA

Of course, it goes without saying that cross-border payments is not one of these use cases.

 

When blockchain tech proves to be more effective than, at least, the current systems are, i would say the usecase is very clear in this case - until there is comming another tech around without using blockchain and being more effective i see crossborder payments as one of the biggest usecases in crypto general - IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Craig_ said:

Good god, your property market is crazy. You can buy an actual castle here for around £1m!

https://search.savills.com/property-detail/gbedscedt170135

Mind you, if Mark Carney has his way, we'll all be paying $40m for houses! 

 

Yes, our market is insane. I guess I'm going to have to buy more Zerps-

I hear Lichtenstein and Malta are also both very nice ;) 

Edited by PhiGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×