Jump to content

589 EOY could actually be possible.


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, icebreath said:

But that's the problem. You say that the market cap is a real value added to the coin. He says that market cap is artificial value added to the coin.

That's why market cap doesn't matter.

Many people bought at $0.04 per XRP, others bought at $0.50 and at $2. It's impossible to count the real value added to a cryptocurrency. Market cap is only the last transaction price on an exchange multiplied by the circulating supply. 

But supply and demand laws mean that with a huge supply the transaction price is unlikely to reach astronomical levels

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes I think breaking the ATH before EOY is very possible. But I'm gonna say that no, $589 is not possible by EOY. There are certain limiting factors that just mean that it cannot go from her

Market cap can never be liquidated / realised - it's 100% theoretical.  Those XRP could never be "cashed out" for that value - the price of XRP is set at the margins with recent buys on exchanges.  Do

Forex market is over 5 trillion a day. Worldwide remittance 600 billion a year. Swift moves 4 trillion a day.  Xrp moves let’s say 1 trillion of that per day. Volume per day. What’s the price? 

Posted Images

9 hours ago, bluedalmatian said:

But supply and demand laws mean that with a huge supply the transaction price is unlikely to reach astronomical levels

The tradeable supply is not that huge. XRP's locked up in escrow can't be traded, neither do I see Garlinghouse and Larsen make any sellings soon (they both are already rich). The tradeable supply is therefore limited to what exchanges and we hodlers have (even more limited if we just hold in an offline wallet and don't trade). And due to this 'small' supply where xRapid needs to be going through, we could reach $589.

 

Edited by Swiss
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 12:10 PM, nicktemple said:

I have been thinking, what if ripple is working with Swift.

What if ripple and Swift have already trialed xrapid.

What if when xrapid goes live in a month or so, so does the usage with Swift.

Swift did say that all banks need to update for there new system by Nov, which looks like the GPI, but what do we really know.

Personally I feel between $3 - $7 is a realistic target for EOY.

But in the end none of us know what is happening behind the scenes.

We could hit 589 in a blink of an eye.

https://www.swift.com/news-events/press-releases/hsbc-goes-live-with-swift_s-global-payments-innovation-service

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bluedalmatian said:

But supply and demand laws mean that with a huge supply the transaction price is unlikely to reach astronomical levels

How do you define astronomical? That's the million dollar question.

People in 2015 thought that XRP would never reach $1 because of the supply. That was astronomical price for them.

I think with the markets that Ripple is targeting now or in the future, a price that we find astronomical today (e.g $1000) in the future it could be achieved. Granted that XRP is successful in those use cases and speculators are continuing to add value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, icebreath said:

But that's the problem. You say that the market cap is a real value added to the coin. He says that market cap is artificial value added to the coin.

That's why market cap doesn't matter.

Many people bought at $0.04 per XRP, others bought at $0.50 and at $2. It's impossible to count the real value added to a cryptocurrency. Market cap is only the last transaction price on an exchange multiplied by the circulating supply. 

I understand market cap, thank you. Like I said in other posts, in the long-term market cap doesn't matter, I agree. But it will absolutely still matter throughout 2018 and at least the foreseeable future especially with Ripple holding so many. It matters. Until it is a medium of exchange and there is not one enterprise that holds a significant portion, it will matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chris_Reeves said:

I understand market cap, thank you. Like I said in other posts, in the long-term market cap doesn't matter, I agree. But it will absolutely still matter throughout 2018 and at least the foreseeable future especially with Ripple holding so many. It matters. Until it is a medium of exchange and there is not one enterprise that holds a significant portion, it will matter.

I get your point. It's a bad PR for Ripple with the amount is holding, but don't forget that they are trying to reduce that amount and gain good PR with initiatives like (Blockchain research for universities, Charities like DonorsChoose, Madonna, Ellen Show). The Founder's holding are also lowering with Chris Larsen donating most of his XRP to the underbanked (Mojaloop i think it could be involved in this one).  Brad Garlinghouse could do the same. Jed's holding are continuously reduced with the agreement he has with Ripple.

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

But supply and demand laws mean that with a huge supply the transaction price is unlikely to reach astronomical levels

But supply and demand laws mean that with a huge supply the transaction price is unlikely to reach astronomical levels unless there is also astronomical demand outpacing supply.

You dropped half of the equation so your conclusion doesn't follow. FTFY.

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

Many have explained that market cap is not wealth.  NO, it is not "street value" - market cap can never be liquidated.  Market cap is created from the margins - the most recent buy and sell activity determines market cap.  100Bn total circulation of XRP,  and the sale of well under 1% of that total supply determines the price of the entire 100%  of the total circulation.  That's how it works both ways - XRP has had $10Bn wiped off its market cap in the last 4 days or so - all from the margins.  I'm so tired to say this, but I'll say it again - if you try to liquidate the entire circulation to get that so-called "street value" that you mention, the average sale price of each XRP would be substantially lower than the initial XRP price when the first sale went through - I mean like....perhaps 90%+ lower (depends how it's sold, how the market reacts). You can never, ever - EVER - realise market cap - not even CLOSE to realising it.  Same with the housing market or any market.  You honestly think that if the UK housing market was worth say £20Trn, then every single home owner put up their house for sale....you think the average house price would just remain the same? LOL.  There would be a humungous house price crash because it would become a buyer's market overnight.  If just ONE person learns something from this comment, then I guess it's worth it.

I am not entirely sure why you think that I don’t understand what market cap is. I never indicated anything of the sort. I understand market cap as well as you do, and completely agree with you  

But, I compared the market cap of Ripple to the market cap of Apple.....a direct comparison, both using market cap. And yes, it would be 25-1. 

So, now you tell me where I made my mistake? 

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

I am not entirely sure why you think that I don’t understand what market cap is. I never indicated anything of the sort. I understand market cap as well as you do, and completely agree with you  

But, I compared the market cap of Ripple to the market cap of Apple.....a direct comparison, both using market cap. And yes, it would be 25-1. 

So, now you tell me where I made my mistake? 

Well, why do you compare the two? What's the implication with the comparison? To me (and forgive the inevitable pun) you're comparing apples with oranges.  One is not even a company or organization, but a currency/"digital asset"/commodity (take your pick).  Its value is derived - ultimately - from its utility.  The other is an organization that makes computers and phones, where the market cap is set by a proxy asset (shares).  It's almost as if people are suggesting XRP is "not allowed" to have a higher market cap than such-and-such a company, when the market cap is a highly arbitrary theoretical, unrealisable value. 

Edited by 2ndtimearound
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah in a sense, XRP belongs in a new asset class, so I'm not sure how useful it is to compare it to other known market caps.

How valuable it will be, meaning what the theoretical 'market cap' will be, will only be known for sure when one of the many possible use cases for digital assets finally achieves widespread adoption.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Benchmark said:

Yeah in a sense, XRP belongs in a new asset class, so I'm not sure how useful it is to compare it to other known market caps.

How valuable it will be, meaning what the theoretical 'market cap' will be, will only be known for sure when one of the many possible use cases for digital assets finally achieves widespread adoption.

It's weird - it's like saying Ferrari aren't allowed to sell their cars at such-and-such a price - it's too expensive and will mean that their assets are worth "too much".  It's only too much if people won't buy the cars.  Same with XRP - if XRP is worth $10 a pop, it's because the market decides that's what the value is.  The only "allowed" here is that the market will determine the value of XRP. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A big problem that people have is that XRP is literally going to be the first kind of asset of its kind. As such, they can only compare it to what they know. Using things like market cap is one of the ways to cope with the fact that we have no idea what kind of market impact XRP will actually have. There are so many variables at play. I definitely think it will be bigger than a lot of people think. 

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

Well, why do you compare the two? What's the implication with the comparison? To me (and forgive the inevitable pun) you're comparing apples with oranges.  One is not even a company or organization, but a currency/"digital asset"/commodity (take your pick).  Its value is derived - ultimately - from its utility.  The other is an organization that makes computers and phones, where the market cap is set by a proxy asset (shares).  It's almost as if people are suggesting XRP is "not allowed" to have a higher market cap than such-and-such a company, when the market cap is a highly arbitrary theoretical, unrealisable value. 

You missed it again. It isn’t XRP I am necessarily speaking about. It is RIPPLE. When I speak of valuations or market cap, I am comparing APPLE to RIPPLE, two company’s both with a market cap. With $25T in assets what would the valuation of the company be, compared to Apple’s $1T?

riddle me that 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AllinXRP said:

You missed it again. It isn’t XRP I am necessarily speaking about. It is RIPPLE. When I speak of valuations or market cap, I am comparing APPLE to RIPPLE, two company’s both with a market cap. With $25T in assets what would the valuation of the company be, compared to Apple’s $1T?

riddle me that 

You mean 4T in assets (if the price is $589). Ripple the company has only access to 7% of all XRP. The rest is either to the founders or in escrow. How the rest counts? So your argument is invalid.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 2ndtimearound said:

It's weird - it's like saying Ferrari aren't allowed to sell their cars at such-and-such a price - it's too expensive and will mean that their assets are worth "too much".  It's only too much if people won't buy the cars.  Same with XRP - if XRP is worth $10 a pop, it's because the market decides that's what the value is.  The only "allowed" here is that the market will determine the value of XRP. 

Exactly. This also doesn't take into account how people's conception of wealth could change. If you look at rich lists from the past (https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/photos/the-20-richest-people-of-all-time/ss-BBsg8nX#image=15) you can see that the American business moguls became far wealthier than Bill Gates at his height. Why? Because they controlled (or created) a new asset that was suddenly in huge demand. 

If Ripple have really put themselves at the forefront of crypto technology, and capture a huge portion of the cross border market, then why exactly couldn't they become as fantastically wealthy as a Rockefeller or Ford? Because people on CNN won't like it? Who gives a damn!

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • 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.