Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kryptoroi

This is slowing down XRP's adoption.

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Brokedownpalace said:

There is enough xrp in circulation now to do what it has to do. Escrow is also doing its job limiting release. The only problem is the emotional one of the public being envious of xrp holders. The politics of envy. Ripple’s stash is owned by over a thousand shareholders. Ripple should slowly give their shareholders ownership of that stash.

Technically, by definition the shareholders already own all the XRP controlled by Ripple. I'm guessing you mean control of the XRP? 

 

Edited by Montoya

Share this post


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

 You can remove your tin-foil hats.......DYOR, but I'm going to stick with XRP for the LONG Term.  

#HODL

I'm also more of a long-term guy, so although painful to watch, as long as you're not swing trading between crypto's, BTC and all alts can go up and down whatever they like. It's called dumb money for a reason.

Do believe Ripple has a plan, but I think it is more involved with getting more and more gradual traction, corridors, markets, partners and regulation than a Dan Brown thriller plot development with a big unforeseen bang where we go $ 589 over night because the worlds government is involved.

Would love to be wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have no issue using oil, even though doing so has made at least one dictator-in-waiting, who owns a huge portion of the world's reserves, and has an affinity for hacksaws, very, very rich. 

Share this post


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

Technically, by definition the shareholders already own all the XRP controlled by Ripple. I'm guessing you mean control of the XRP? 

 

Sure, slowly distribute pro rata the xrp to the shareholders so they individually can decide to hold or sell. And Ripple could keep enough stash to ensure future funding etc. Distribute say 25 billion over five years. A big benefit would be that critics would have 50% less of a target stash to criticize. Holding 25% of a supply is a lot different than holding 50%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is nobody upset with how much fbook stock Zuckerberg owns? That's essentially unprecedented for a public company.

Zuck has 18% of fbook, vs Gates has 1.3% of Microsoft. He has almost 1 in 5 votes, not as an investment firm but as a single man who could end up accidentally dead anyday.

It's best to focus on XRP's utility value, not jealousy or envy towards folks with large numbers in some bank account or XRP wallet.

Share this post


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

Sure, slowly distribute pro rata the xrp to the shareholders so they individually can decide to hold or sell. And Ripple could keep enough stash to ensure future funding etc. Distribute say 25 billion over five years. A big benefit would be that critics would have 50% less of a target stash to criticize. Holding 25% of a supply is a lot different than holding 50%.

I can never understand why the opinion is for Ripple to do anything with the escrowed XRP. It seems illogical for a company that possesses an item of value to just give or throw it away just because other players don't like that they have so much. Although it would certainly increase XRPs value due to a smaller supply, it would be exclusively at their expense with no way of getting a net positive return compared to what they lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually when confronted with being asked to provide a solution to increase distribution - it involves a plan resulting in "getting something for nothing". 
Meaning the have-nots want something for free or close to it, which is in contradiction to the value of the asset already. 

Ripple is doing a clear majority of the grunt work to provide value to the XRP ecosystem, why shouldn't they distribute or sell as they see fit. 
Infrastructure, legal, regulation, marketing, development, research, funding and partnerships, plus a responsibility to their shareholders are not trivial expenses and activities.

If they "gave it all away" (or even the majority of it), what incentive do they have to continue doing what they are doing just to enrich everyone else?

You want more of it, buy it.  There's PLENTY of it out there to get while you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Xrylite said:

I can never understand why the opinion is for Ripple to do anything with the escrowed XRP. It seems illogical for a company that possesses an item of value to just give or throw it away just because other players don't like that they have so much. Although it would certainly increase XRPs value due to a smaller supply, it would be exclusively at their expense with no way of getting a net positive return compared to what they lost.

Not only this, but you have to realize that their XRP holdings are effectively international liquidity ammo, or fuel for network liquidity.

Not sure many folks realize, that when the networks begin to fight the inevitable "network vs network liquidity competition" just how dominant RippleNet & XRPL will be, and this dominance will be backed up by all that XRP liquidity ammo. Ripple usually refers to this as "market maker incentives".

If your going to face a battle, it makes literally zero sense to drop all your ammo, or give it to people who are not aligned with your network's victory.

---

For the have vs have not feelings... just remember that there is an infinite amount of money in the world (money is just information) ...yet you only have a limited amount of time in your life. Allocate your limited time well... shy away from trading limited resources (time) for unlimited resources (money). If you dont want to be a have not, learn "how to make money", and forget "how to earn money". Your work will always be worth more than someone else is willing to pay you, otherwise they would not profit from your labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Archbob said:

Yep, and suppose . Assuming that XRP is going to completely take over those markets is not a good way to project how to invest your money. Its one of the worst ways.

The chances of my house burning down are slim but I insure against it because it is something that might happen in the real world

I would not insure (if I could) against an alien armada invading earth tomorrow because the chances of this happening in the real world are zero

The chances of XRP being adopted as the principle bridge currency are quite high, and if that happened the chances of XRP then being used for other functions such as  streaming micro payment, retail and Credit card transactions, trading derivatives, pension pots and storing value are also quite likely to happen.  If these things happened XRP's value per token might go very high, even into the hundreds per token.

The IMF, Banks and Regualtors have a duty to speculate about how they would deal with such a situation, especially if 40% of the liquidity was owned in one private company.   

(I was not writing about how to invest my money, I was writing about how SEC and the IMF should react to changes XRP/Ripple might have on the financial systems)

Edited by Julian_Williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KarmaCoverage said:

Is nobody upset with how much fbook stock Zuckerberg owns? That's essentially unprecedented for a public company.

Zuck has 18% of fbook, vs Gates has 1.3% of Microsoft. He has almost 1 in 5 votes, not as an investment firm but as a single man who could end up accidentally dead anyday.

It's best to focus on XRP's utility value, not jealousy or envy towards folks with large numbers in some bank account or XRP wallet.

Who talks about jealousy??? Stop making stupid comparisons. Is or was he ever targeting  Zuckerberg institutional, banks and FIs? That's the difference! He was targeting the general public. FB adoption was mostly due to us, regular people who use the app everyday. Ripple is targeting banks, FIs etc who care a lot more about wealth, control, asset distribution compqred to you avg Facebook users

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Brokedownpalace said:

Sure, slowly distribute pro rata the xrp to the shareholders so they individually can decide to hold or sell. And Ripple could keep enough stash to ensure future funding etc. Distribute say 25 billion over five years. A big benefit would be that critics would have 50% less of a target stash to criticize. Holding 25% of a supply is a lot different than holding 50%.

What critics? Internet people? If the only goal is satisfying critics rather than a functional business purpose, is it really worth it? It seems the costs in efficiency would be enormous and the benefits meager, if they exist at all. Furthermore, Ripple is a privately held Corporation. They may have no more than twenty to thirty stock holders. And wouldn't the critics simply move their critiques to them? Bottom line, I get that there are critics , but this line of criticism is idiotic. You can't go around altering your business model for every crackpot critic who comes along. Some companies do admittedly, so I see your point. I think of the food industry playing to the organic crowd. Food scientists and farmers know it is stupid but they see the marketing value in it. The difference is, their associated business model is not seriously hamstrung by playing to these critics. I believe Ripples would be.

Share this post


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

Who talks about jealousy??? Stop making stupid comparisons. Is or was he ever targeting  Zuckerberg institutional, banks and FIs? That's the difference! He was targeting the general public. FB adoption was mostly due to us, regular people who use the app everyday. Ripple is targeting banks, FIs etc who care a lot more about wealth, control, asset distribution compqred to you avg Facebook users

I agree. And while I'm being fine with C. Larsen being the richest guy i just cant see fin institutions like IMF or even big commercial banks (Citi, JPM) use or promote XRP knowing that CL and Jed and a bunch of other private persons hold this crazy % of total XRP supply. 

Am i missing smth? 

Share this post


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

 i just cant see fin institutions like IMF or even big commercial banks (Citi, JPM) use or promote XRP knowing that CL and Jed and a bunch of other private persons hold this crazy % of total XRP supply.

Why?

They just have to use xRapid, is not required to stockpile XRP for doing that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 hours ago, WillGetThere said:

I agree. And while I'm being fine with C. Larsen being the richest guy i just cant see fin institutions like IMF or even big commercial banks (Citi, JPM) use or promote XRP knowing that CL and Jed and a bunch of other private persons hold this crazy % of total XRP supply. 

Am i missing smth? 

We also don't know, besides CL's initial pledge, what is happening or when it happens. I think it would make more sense if any pledge was official post-regulation once the price becomes real. Donating or pledging however much of XRP in current climate (or almost two years ago I think when it was originally announced) seems weakened by public perception. Would people get 2B XRP or $30B (or whatever the number is)? I think the impact of the pledge is important to mitigate this common issue with initial XRP distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One company owning a lot of something creates problems for investors (speculators), this is true and I think anybody who is honest will not deny that. Then we have people like Jed who are dumping xrp constantly.

Still, for what Ripple tries to achieve, owning a lot of xrp is crucial. Price will eventually rise because of adoption, not speculation ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...