Jump to content
Fazzyfocus

SEC commissioner Hestor Pierce on DA's

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

Controlling the supply of your asset to manitain pricing is what public companies do with their stock.

Not true. OPEC controls the supply of Oil and Oil is still considered a commodity and not stock. There are other examples but this is the most prominent one.

Share this post


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

I would rather see $.0001 per XRP with RL holding 0 XRP

Oh that can be easily arranged. Just fork the XRP ledger from here and roll your own: https://github.com/ripple/rippled. It'll take you 15 minutes. You'll have the sole control of supply. I look forward to your distribution strategy.

9 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

versus the insider actions, that are only possible when you have sole control of the supply

Better not distort the facts if you want to make your "honest" coin successful. Ripple does not have sole control of the XRP supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lll_lll said:

Not true. OPEC controls the supply of Oil and Oil is still considered a commodity and not stock. There are other examples but this is the most prominent one.

The total supply of oil is unknown, bad analogy.

Share this post


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

Oh that can be easily arranged. Just fork the XRP ledger from here and roll your own: https://github.com/ripple/rippled. It'll take you 15 minutes. You'll have the sole control of supply. I look forward to your distribution strategy.

Better not distort the facts if you want to make your "honest" coin successful. Ripple does not have sole control of the XRP supply.

I do not want to start my own coin. I want a coin whose value is set by a free market.

Yes I should have said “sole control at inception” obviously they are giving it out so they may not control it forever. It is this process that I disagree with.

still dodging the validator issue?

(Be careful, don’t trip over the mic on the floor)

 

Share this post


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

I do not want to start my own coin. I want a coin whose value is set by a free market.

Yes I should have said “sole control at inception” obviously they are giving it out so they may not control it forever. It is this process that I disagree with.

still dodging the validator issue?

What validator issue? There is no issue that I know of.

You want to dictate how Ripple sells their coin. That's Sovjet Union style. You apparently want a digital asset that can only be exchanged on exchanges with an intermdiary, not person to person, nor company to company. That's silly, unrealistic, and most important: it's not freedom. Ripple should sell their stash to anyone they like, in any way they like, under any conditions they like. Their XRP is theirs, my XRP is mine. I'll jump out of XRP once I see them do things I don't like (not the case so far, on the contrary). 

I think you should roll your own. Show us Ripple is wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

The obvious way to distribute XRP is the same way which you and I used to get ours: Open Market Sales. Let the market set the value, anything short is manipulation, and manipulation is the opposite of ”FAIR” 

I would rather see $.0001 per XRP with RL holding 0 XRP,  versus the insider actions, that are only possible when you have sole control of the supply. 

I would certainly buy more if I felt that it couldn’t get any cheaper. You feel Wall St professionals feel differently?

Controlling the supply of your asset to manitain pricing is what public companies do with their stock. XRP is not supposed to be a stock. 

Any opinion on the validator side of the issue?

In principle I agree:  Ripple are setting up a world bridging asset/currency  The directors and Jed own 20%, the company owns another 40%.  Ownership gives power, power corrupts, this situation is set to go wrong.

In practice:

  • The owners of Ripple have behaved with personal self restraint, openness and benevolence
  • The income from sales have been used to build an XRP ecosystem that is broad based, decentralised and regulation compliant.

Without the money from the sales of XRP it would have been impossible to finance the set up of the Internet of value (unless it was organised by a central bank of a world power like the US or the UN). 

So far so good.  I do not think Ripple, or the directors, or any individual, can go on forever holding a stake of more than 1% in a world digital asset.  At some point they have to relinquish this power to a UN regulatory authority.

About the validators; these are being distributed between users and private individuals.  They cost a pittance to run and everyone with a substantial interest in XRP can run them.  It seems a much more equitable solution than the proof of work system that concentrates power in the hands of the big mining companies.

 

Share this post


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

The obvious way to distribute XRP is the same way which you and I used to get ours: Open Market Sales. Let the market set the value, anything short is manipulation, and manipulation is the opposite of ”FAIR” 

I would rather see $.0001 per XRP with RL holding 0 XRP,  versus the insider actions, that are only possible when you have sole control of the supply. 

I would certainly buy more if I felt that it couldn’t get any cheaper. You feel Wall St professionals feel differently?

Controlling the supply of your asset to manitain pricing is what public companies do with their stock. XRP is not supposed to be a stock. 

Any opinion on the validator side of the issue?

Diamonds aren't a stock or a security yet their price and availability are very controlled by a central source. To me ....XRP is more of a commodity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

I thought we hated lobbyists? So now it is ok to use them to pay off (educate) politicians, simply if the reason suits your own preference? I do not see that as consistent, unless you are a consistent hypocrite.

Also I do not see any good news in the statements. Ripple still controls the network, and holds the overwhelming amount of the assets, making it very difficult to qualify as a decentralized network. I have read Mr. Schwartz and Garlinghouse (and the local parrots) repeatedly state that the network will stand alone, without RL’s validators, yet they refuse to take them offline, and they still own the only UNL that matters. 

To me it is basic economics. RL is the only entity profiting from the functioning network, which is why they happily run validators, everyone else is volunteering. Not sure when unpaid volunteers will come together in masses, spending their free time and their own earned money, to build a reliable, worldwide, infrastructure trusted by all Govts, and used by FIs. As nice as volunteering is, it is not a way to pay the bills.

Hopefully you personally run a validator, if you beleive in the ILP model, or is that part of achieving sucsess, someone else’s problem?

Well, @Fazzyfocus summed up my thoughts on lobbying efforts perfectly.  Thanks.  As for the rest of this I don't have the time and I'd rather spend this Sunday with my kids.  Basically, Ripple's influence and control of the network is getting smaller and smaller by the day and the XRP ledger is a fully functioning network and building this network is the sole purpose of XRP sales.  Ripple doesn't owe us XRP holders anything.  As for your statement about RL being the only entity to profit you seemed to have forgotten R3, SBI, Coil and all the XPring funded enterprises such as Securitize.  The point is that the XRP ledger has become much more decentralized in just the past 15 months.  The team at RL have used funds from the token sales to invest in the development of the XRP ecosystem and I personally really like what they are doing.  You disagree and thats fine.  I'd recommend that since you recently stated a commitment to holding for 3 more years that you just leave the forum and forget about your XRP until 2022.  Your time spent here and your tone leads me to believe this is all very frustrating and causes you anger.  Thats no fun and no way to live.  Sell those zerps or just relax.  Or what I'm doing which is buying now AND relaxing.  Enjoy the rest of your Sunday!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, aavkk said:

I'd recommend that since you recently stated a commitment to holding for 3 more years that you just leave the forum and forget about your XRP until 2022.  Your time spent here and your tone leads me to believe this is all very frustrating and causes you anger.  Thats no fun and no way to live.  Sell those zerps or just relax.  Or what I'm doing which is buying now AND relaxing.  Enjoy the rest of your Sunday!

 

Just quoting this for emphasis. 

Share this post


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

In principle I agree:  Ripple are setting up a world bridging asset/currency  The directors and Jed own 20%, the company owns another 40%.  Ownership gives power, power corrupts, this situation is set to go wrong.

In practice:

  • The owners of Ripple have behaved with personal self restraint, openness and benevolence
  • The income from sales have been used to build an XRP ecosystem that is broad based, decentralised and regulation compliant.

Without the money from the sales of XRP it would have been impossible to finance the set up of the Internet of value (unless it was organised by a central bank of a world power like the US or the UN). 

So far so good.  I do not think Ripple, or the directors, or any individual, can go on forever holding a stake of more than 1% in a world digital asset.  At some point they have to relinquish this power to a UN regulatory authority.

About the validators; these are being distributed between users and private individuals.  They cost a pittance to run and everyone with a substantial interest in XRP can run them.  It seems a much more equitable solution than the proof of work system that concentrates power in the hands of the big mining companies.

Regarding the validators, it is not the method of consensus that my point was made to. I was speaking to the fact that it sounds like the whole issue of securities versus commodities is now focused on being classified as a decentralized vs centralized network.

I stated this is not good for RL as long as they are running their validators, and control the UNL. 

My opinion being that if RL paid lobbyist for this type of ruling, they did themselves no favors.

Share this post


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

I stated this is not good for RL as long as they are running their validators, and control the UNL. 

What do you mean by control the UNL? They have less than 50% of the validators on the current UNL and there's nothing stopping other validators creating their own UNL that may or may not include Ripple nodes, so I don't see a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Trickery said:

What do you mean by control the UNL? They have less than 50% of the validators on the current UNL and there's nothing stopping other validators creating their own UNL that may or may not include Ripple nodes, so I don't see a problem.

I should have said “trusted” validators. I may be wrong, (a surprise to you, I’m sure:-) but when it comes to general consensus,  & closing ledgers, RL still holds the majority say (or close to it)  and continues to supply the only real UNL for new validators coming online.  

Can all of the RL validators literally go dark today? I know RL’s goal (and design) is full seperation from the mechanics of the system, but if a securities ruling or lawsuit judgement is based on centralization, does the network really qualify today? 

I do not know that answer. But after reading this thread, it seems important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

but when it comes to general consensus,  & closing ledgers, RL still holds the majority say (or close to it)  and continues to supply the only real UNL for new validators coming online.

I'm not sure Ripple does still hold a majority and if they did it would need to be > 80% to effect changes so no, as for the only real UNL, that's a valid point but they don't have a monopoly on it, they're just first out of the blocks (by default). Whether or not this passes the as yet to be determined threshold for decentralisation is anyone's guess and my guess is yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×