Epic Pennant on BTC Chart

[BillyOckham]

25 minutes ago, Julian_Williams said:

My point of view is that he could arrange that his company, Ripple, make a donation in fiat, not XRP.

I think there is some very muddled thinking happening in this area.

If he did that then he would be gifting money out of the pockets of Ripple Shareholders instead of out of his own pocket.  You are confusing the ownership aspects.

The confusion and muddled thinking that is rife on this forum and out in the Twiterverse is understandable because people are trying to work out how to deal with a new thing under old rules.

Its like we took a bunch of electronic circuit boards back in time into a medieval market and the marketplace vendors and tax collectors are trying to work out if they should be sold by size or weight.

This is a new asset class and should be dealt with under new rules.  Brad and Chris and Ripple discussed and pleaded for clarity with authorities all along.  I think they tried to navigate all this in good faith and I have no doubt I would have done similar.

What they have done, and what they are doing is a GOOD thing.  The internet of value will be an immense civic good to the world.  It’s funding and birthing is as new as the go-fund-me model and you-tube funding models and all the other new things that didn’t exist 40 years ago.  It’s incorrect to view it through the existing frameworks.

I agree that clarity will be good (if it’s not restrictive crushing clarity).  I would like to see their XRP embargoed while they are with the company.  Released 12 months after they leave.  That might achieve the conflict resolution that you seek Julian.

Basically I think this is just politics and big money power moves,  and it has all the swirling uncertainty that comes with unseen giant interests manipulating the agendas.  I’m going to try to resist commenting on it because the conversations look like the medieval vendor discussions to me.  
 

Not saying you are idiots for trying...  just that the framework we are all currently stuck in doesn’t support forward progress.  So unless it’s about what should a new framework be then I think it’s fairly pointless.

[Fahimth14]

When is it actually going to click for some of you? 

 

[Julian_Williams]

41 minutes ago, BillyOckham said:

I think there is some very muddled thinking happening in this area.

If he did that then he would be gifting money out of the pockets of Ripple Shareholders instead of out of his own pocket.  You are confusing the ownership aspects.

The confusion and muddled thinking that is rife on this forum and out in the Twiterverse is understandable because people are trying to work out how to deal with a new thing under old rules.

Its like we took a bunch of electronic circuit boards back in time into a medieval market and the marketplace vendors and tax collectors are trying to work out if they should be sold by size or weight.

This is a new asset class and should be dealt with under new rules.  Brad and Chris and Ripple discussed and pleaded for clarity with authorities all along.  I think they tried to navigate all this in good faith and I have no doubt I would have done similar.

What they have done, and what they are doing is a GOOD thing.  The internet of value will be an immense civic good to the world.  It’s funding and birthing is as new as the go-fund-me model and you-tube funding models and all the other new things that didn’t exist 40 years ago.  It’s incorrect to view it through the existing frameworks.

I agree that clarity will be good (if it’s not restrictive crushing clarity).  I would like to see their XRP embargoed while they are with the company.  Released 12 months after they leave.  That might achieve the conflict resolution that you seek Julian.

Basically I think this is just politics and big money power moves,  and it has all the swirling uncertainty that comes with unseen giant interests manipulating the agendas.  I’m going to try to resist commenting on it because the conversations look like the medieval vendor discussions to me.  
 

Not saying you are idiots for trying...  just that the framework we are all currently stuck in doesn’t support forward progress.  So unless it’s about what should a new framework be then I think it’s fairly pointless.

I think companies do make charitable donations when they are doing well, which was the case with Ripple.  They have to justify those gifts to the shareholders.   I do not think it is right to give away XRP that was given to them because that is creaming the XRP market.  The gift is not really out of his pocket, it is out of the collective pocket of the market.

HE could, as Ripple founder, pay himself dividends and pass that money to charities personally, or ask his company to give money to charities. 

I agree they are feeling their way, and Chris has always seemed to me a kind thoughtful kind-a-guy.  Ripple is his very much his brainchild and his work, and as you say the Internet of Value has the potential to be an immense civic good to the world.  I would add especially to levelling the playing field between the rich world and the poor world.

I am much harder on Brad, because, perhaps unfairly, I do not rate him that highly.  I think he is a good CEO who knows and has chosen his staff  well, but from where I am sitting it looks to me he has helped himself to a whole heap of money he did not really earn.  It is my prejudice if you like.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Julian_Williams

[BillyOckham]

16 minutes ago, Julian_Williams said:

The gift is not really out of his pocket, it is out of the collective pocket of the market.

Yes it really is DIRECTLY out of his pocket.  You are right about corporate donations of course...  but this was Chris gifting HIS XRP directly to the UNI.  The history of the funds is not germane.  It’s was already in his pocket.  The question of whether Ripple could or should donate to something (or that specific recipient) is an entirely different question.  As is whether you think those funds are legitimate, legal and should or should not have been given to him.  They had been. They were his.

 

20 minutes ago, Julian_Williams said:

It is my prejudice if you like.

Yes I must be honest Julian, I think it’s colouring your thinking.  The points you raise about whether these things should ever have happened are valid in my opinion, and your thoughts on the conflict that exists while they are simultaneously holders and executives are also in agreement with mine.  Hence my ‘embargo until a year after leaving company’ idea.

 

Perhaps MY particular prejudice is being too pedantic...  I see something that I think is clearly incorrect and I want to ‘fix’ it.  But as we’ve seen recently...  sometimes I am too harsh in my wording,  and too quick to judge.  And I am often wrong.

 

So I would like to exit this discussion but not before saying that I respect your honestly and integrity and thoughtful posting a great deal.  I truly mean no offence and I think you are such a level headed person that you are unlikely to have taken any.  But if you did, I apologise...  it was never my intent.

[Julian_Williams]

37 minutes ago, BillyOckham said:

Yes it really is DIRECTLY out of his pocket.  You are right about corporate donations of course...  but this was Chris gifting HIS XRP directly to the UNI.  The history of the funds is not germane.  It’s was already in his pocket.  The question of whether Ripple could or should donate to something (or that specific recipient) is an entirely different question.  As is whether you think those funds are legitimate, legal and should or should not have been given to him.  They had been. They were his.

 

Yes I must be honest Julian, I think it’s colouring your thinking.  The points you raise about whether these things should ever have happened are valid in my opinion, and your thoughts on the conflict that exists while they are simultaneously holders and executives are also in agreement with mine.  Hence my ‘embargo until a year after leaving company’ idea.

 

Perhaps MY particular prejudice is being too pedantic...  I see something that I think is clearly incorrect and I want to ‘fix’ it.  But as we’ve seen recently...  sometimes I am too harsh in my wording,  and too quick to judge.  And I am often wrong.

 

So I would like to exit this discussion but not before saying that I respect your honestly and integrity and thoughtful posting a great deal.  I truly mean no offence and I think you are such a level headed person that you are unlikely to have taken any.  But if you did, I apologise...  it was never my intent.

We do not need to apologise for coming to different conclusions, as long as they are honestly put together.  When it happened i did not bat an eyelid, I just thought what a kind man.

[Neurotoxin]

4 hours ago, Julian_Williams said:

He gave 150 million to his old university.  But I am not sure he should have been allowed to do this.  My point of view is that he could arrange that his company, Ripple, make a donation in fiat, not XRP.  Maybe that fiat came from money raised by selling XRP to a Market maker.   It seems to me XRP should only be sold for money that is used for the benefit of the token's use and its ecosystem.  This could be interpreted quite widely, but the principle should always be there.  For instance SBI pay their ESports teams with XRP.  I find this is benefiting the XRP ecosystem because they are trying to establish XRP as a token that is used in ESports.  but giving away tokens to charities to then sell on the open market (instead of fiat money) is abusing the purpose of the tokens that they are supposed to be protecting.

Maybe my views are too rigid.

I don’t think your views are too rigid, that makes perfect sense. 

[xrp-nuke]

3 hours ago, Fahimth14 said:

When is it actually going to click for some of you? 

 

Where this clowns coming from?

[Fahimth14]

https://amp.ft.com/content/25648f67-36bb-45f1-8e37-3dabd4c68e89?__twitter_impression=true

 

Paywalled, paste it into telegram and read it on instant view. Honestly just read the article. Comment FUD all you like, but if you don't actually get rid of all your assumptions and bias and actually see what is in the SEC filing then I feel sorry for you. I'm not posting to troll, I was a member of the xrp community from 2017 and I want everyone to be financially responsible. How on earth do any of you still trust the execs and keep your money in XRP after this? 

[Trentsteel]

Haters will hate this little pump, prepare for more FUD articles 🎅🎅

[rom]

Cheers to everyone, who held through this SEC affair!

I largely missed out on the fuss due to other duties. Got very surprised, when setting up a sell order at 0,60 and receiving a buy signal at 0,25 instead. But XRP price graph for the last 24 hours is a clear sign, that not very many got carried away by this PR stunt. 

[MrSensible]

12 hours ago, Fahimth14 said:

When is it actually going to click for some of you? 

 

I think there is a difference between security transactions and XRP being deemed a current security? correct me if I'm wrong.

The court case is hugely damaging for Ripple, but this is a civil case, not a criminal case. Huge fines, new legislation, XRP not a current security and we move on is my best guess at this stage.

[Lumpy]

Hi guys,

This XRP rebound over the we does not make any sense for me.

Is it not a second chance for a spicy short?

[Lumpy]

1 hour ago, Lumpy said:

Hi guys,

This XRP rebound over the we does not make any sense for me.

Is it not a second chance for a spicy short?

Here is the reason behind the recent upsurge: a short squeeze - overleveraged shorts getting liquidated 

https://cointelegraph.com/news/xrp-price-just-surged-40-in-a-surprise-relief-rally-here-s-why

[Eric123]

Merry Christmas to all and to all a New Bitcoin All Time High.

[7Sol]

23 hours ago, AlejoMoreno said:

They need to do a full disclosure regarding the founders and management XRP holdings

Would that include phasing out operating the bots?