Jump to content
Tyvole

How do you feel about Ripple holding such wast quantity of XRP?

How do you feel about Ripple holding such wast quantity of XRP?  

185 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you feel about Ripple holding such wast quantity of XRP?

    • They should have More (Please expand)
    • Im ok with it
    • I dont care
    • I dont like it
    • They should own Less (Please expand)
    • They should burn it all (Please expand)


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, toobhunter said:

Again, Ripple doesn't have to do anything.  In my view, them burning a portion of their XRP would alleviate both their large % of holdings as well as total outstanding.  You don't believe total supply impacts investment / speculation, but you are discounting human psychology.  Does somebody want to own 0.00000000000000001 of a BTC? Probably not many people.  

So your gimmick to spur a price increase is simply a psychological trick? Convincing people that they stand to gain more simply by rearranging the accounting unit? I don't believe people (on the whole) are that stupid. If I'm a new speculator, why would I be more likely to put my $$ into an asset with 75 billion at $.40 than one with 100 billion at $.30? The underlying fundamentals haven't changed. In fact, I would think it is exactly the opposite. People believe that there is more potential upside when the coin is worth less. As an aside, this mindset is also illogical, but if anything I find it more likely than the prospect of new money coming into an asset at higher price point simply because there are less of the units. 

 

Edit* You could have a logical argument if you stopped worrying about the total number of XRP and instead simply concentrated on proportionality of ownership. For example, you could argue that Ripple owning a smaller share would draw in enough new investment to offset the loss of "burning" tokens. But this has nothing to do with the number of XRP, and instead deals solely with distribution. I also find it highly unlikely that adjusting proportionality can be done without costing Ripple more than it stands to gain. For each token burned by Ripple, they would need to draw in an exponentially higher and higher amount of new money. For example, if Ripple burns 25 billion XRP, they lose $5 billion in value. But instead of needing to simply draw in another $5 billion in value to offset their loss, they need to draw in $20 billion in new money. If they burn 37.5 billion XRP, they lose $9.75 billion in value but will now need to draw in $90 billion in new money simply to earn back their $9.75 billion and break even. I do not believe that the large amount of XRP owned by Ripple is the factor that is keeping all these new billions from flooding in. Perhaps it is keeping a few speculators away, but your premise that new speculative money could offset Ripple's losses seems far fetched.

Edited by Montoya

Share this post


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

So your gimmick to spur a price increase is simply a psychological trick? Convincing people that they stand to gain more simply by rearranging the accounting unit? I don't believe people (on the whole) are that stupid. If I'm a new speculator, why would I be more likely to put my $$ into an asset with 75 billion at $.40 than one with 100 billion at $.30? The underlying fundamentals haven't changed. In fact, I would think it is exactly the opposite. People believe that there is more potential upside when the coin is worth less. As an aside, this mindset is also illogical, but if anything I find it more likely than the prospect of new money coming into an asset at higher price point simply because there are less of the units. 

 

Edit* You could have a logical argument if you stopped worrying about the total number of XRP and instead simply concentrated on proportionality of ownership. For example, you could argue that Ripple owning a smaller share would draw in enough new investment to offset the loss of "burning" tokens. But this has nothing to do with the number of XRP, and instead deals solely with distribution. I also find it highly unlikely that adjusting proportionality can be done without costing Ripple more than it stands to gain. For each token burned by Ripple, they would need to draw in an exponentially higher and higher amount of new money. For example, if Ripple burns 25 billion XRP, they lose $5 billion in value. But instead of needing to simply draw in another $5 billion in value to offset their loss, they need to draw in $20 billion in new money. If they burn 37.5 billion XRP, they lose $9.75 billion in value but will now need to draw in $90 billion in new money simply to earn back their $9.75 billion and break even. I do not believe that the large amount of XRP owned by Ripple is the factor that is keeping all these new billions from flooding in. Perhaps it is keeping a few speculators away, but your premise that new speculative money could offset Ripple's losses seems far fetched.

"You could have a logical argument if you stopped worrying about the total number of XRP and instead simply concentrated on proportionality of ownership." Do you really not understand that Ripple burning a portion of their XRP addresses not one but both of these issues?  Having this asynchronous convo is frustrating because you seem to dance around issues.  If supply has absolutely no bearing on price, then by your logic there could just be 1 BTC or 1 XRP, right?  Or there could be 100 trillion in your eyes.  I think you're trying to save your argument but sound foolish.

And if you disagree with the notion that there could be only 1 BTC or 1 XRP (or 100 trillion of both), then please explain why. What you will discover is some form of "its too unwieldy" or "it doesnt make sense."  And therein lies my point.  So does the current 100B number and, again, Ripple's large ownership %.

Edited by toobhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its never good for one entity to hold that much of any coin. But its a risk with all pre-mined coins. Just a risk we took when buying in.

Share this post


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

Its never good for one entity to hold that much of any coin. But its a risk with all pre-mined coins. Just a risk we took when buying in.

It's a risk with every coin, also the mined ones. Everything that can be collected will have 'the 1% majority holding the most'. Even FIAT does.

If there is always an (or a couple of) entity holding majority, I prefer that to be an entity spending those holdings on building a bigger eco system instead of purely growing it's own bankaccount or paying electricity bills with it. And yes, perhaps stupidly, I believe Ripple is actually investing it in broadening the usecase and fundamentals.

If they are just saving up money on an account somewhere and then leave to a tropical Island then many were fooled...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ripple has 50+ BILLION reasons to increase the demand, and thus price, of XRP.   This makes me feel VERY good that anyone can also join the public ledger to gain value.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
8 minutes ago, Tilly4Rilly said:

Ripple has 50+ BILLION reasons to increase the demand, and thus price, of XRP.   This makes me feel VERY good that anyone can also join the public ledger to gain value.  

Ripple also has 50+ billion reasons to sell, which increases the supply, suppresses the demand and thus the price of XRP. This makes me feel VERY bad that anyone can also join the public ledger to blindly transfer their wealth to Ripple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, DebbieDowner said:

Ripple also has 50+ billion reasons to sell, which increases the supply, suppresses the demand and thus the price of XRP. This makes me feel VERY bad that anyone can also join the public ledger to blindly transfer their wealth to Ripple.

lol... flawed logic is flawed.  The only reason why they have been selling is because they are a new start up that has to cover costs.  They have projections.  When those projections are met they switch to a new source of income.  Why would you want to sell XRP for a fraction of a dollar if you don't need to?  Why not generate another source of income while creating a demand for assets held? Then.. sell it LATER for much much more.  XRP is an asset that they (I would imagine) would not want to get rid of if they can avoid selling it.  

It's the same reason why Jeff Bisos doesn't sell his Amazon stock.  BECAUSE HE IS SPECULATING IT WILL GO UP.  Same thing for any digital asset.

Oh.. but guess what? They just announced they will reduce the sales of XRP... gee... I WONDER WHY.  

Please use logic and reason to think critically before blindly responding with gibberish.  

Edited by Tilly4Rilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Posted (edited)

Ripple a new startup, seriously? It was founded 7 years ago in 2012. I have created and sold a startup in half that time. Ripple already have multiple revenue streams and are already making hundreds of millions in revenue selling software (xCurrent) globally.

How can you compare this to Bezos and shares? It is like comparing apples to oranges. First off, he owns his shares, he can sell whenever he wants. And there is something you forget. Dividends. He does not need to sell anything to get millions from his shares every year.

Who owns Ripple's XRPs? Ripple. Not Brad or David. Do they get anything out of it if they hodl them? No. Not a dime. So f*ck yeah they want to sell now and for as long as possible.

A very good reason to sell would be to please shareholders. Those who have equity in Ripple also get dividends, based on Ripple's financial results. Their pile is so huge that they can sell XRP (with a freaking 100% gross margin, can you comprehend that?) for the next 15 years minimum. Why on earth would you not sell when you could have literally billions now?! Have you ever set foot in a board room? Can't you picture what would happen to a CEO if he told a major shareholder "I am not giving you your $10M dividends this year because I am speculating on the future value of XRP, a super high risk asset that is not even regulated yet"? I tell you what would happen: that CEO would be looking for a new job flipping burgers at McDonalds.

I will also tell you why they stop selling. Because they were too greedy, relied on fake volumes (is wash trading seriously surprising anyone?) to calibrate their sales and someone more powerful than them (e.g. a regulator) spotted it, started to raise their eye-brows and to challenge their dump. Now, with a look of contrived innocence, they stop... a bit. There, I have said it, now go read the Q2 report again and see if you understand it differently. They literally wrote that their decision to sell less came after criticism and scrutiny over what they used as their volume index. What a joke, how unpredictable was that.

How can you still find them excuses? Why do you blindly worship them so?

They are capitalists, not saints. My logic and reason is spot on. I know how to swim with sharks. I know how they think and the vocabulary they use to bullsh*t people. You, on the other hand, know nothing.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Tilly4Rilly said:

lol... flawed logic is flawed.  The only reason why they have been selling is because they are a new start up that has to cover costs.  They have projections.  When those projections are met they switch to a new source of income.  Why would you want to sell XRP for a fraction of a dollar if you don't need to?  Why not generate another source of income while creating a demand for assets held? Then.. sell it LATER for much much more.  XRP is an asset that they (I would imagine) would not want to get rid of if they can avoid selling it.  

It's the same reason why Jeff Bisos doesn't sell his Amazon stock.  BECAUSE HE IS SPECULATING IT WILL GO UP.  Same thing for any digital asset.

Oh.. but guess what? They just announced they will reduce the sales of XRP... gee... I WONDER WHY.  

Please use logic and reason to think critically before blindly responding with gibberish.  

Ripple have been around for years, it seems you need to stop posting gibberish.

They have more than enough revenue to cover costs. If they didn't then they wouldn't be donating millions upon millions of dollars to charities every 6 months or so. They've got plenty of cash but are still greedy, hence the reason they keep dumping all the time.

Obviously they're not confident of the price going up as they would wait before dumping

Edited by Moonraker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tilly4Rilly said:

lol... flawed logic is flawed.  The only reason why they have been selling is because they are a new start up that has to cover costs

Your response is flawed. From my understanding Ripple has been established for 7 years. Many would consider this outside of the startup phase.  Even if you disagree they are still a startup, there is no clear consensus on how many years it will take to not be "start up that has to cover costs". Companies will always have reasons to cover costs, regardless on when they originated.

Lets say there is a clear line when this can be hit (which there is not).  It is incorrect that Ripple will not have any reasons to sell XRP in the future.  They will have plenty of reasons, which we will see them continue to sell in the future.  The only way I would see them to not have having a reason to sell XRP in the future, is if XRP gets close to a value of 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tilly4Rilly said:

Ripple has 50+ BILLION reasons to increase the demand, and thus price, of XRP.   This makes me feel VERY good that anyone can also join the public ledger to gain value.  

 15.8 billion reasons to sell :) ..thats a lof of money even at current price...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tilly4Rilly said:

lol... flawed logic is flawed.  The only reason why they have been selling is because they are a new start up that has to cover costs.  They have projections.  When those projections are met they switch to a new source of income.  Why would you want to sell XRP for a fraction of a dollar if you don't need to?  Why not generate another source of income while creating a demand for assets held? Then.. sell it LATER for much much more.  XRP is an asset that they (I would imagine) would not want to get rid of if they can avoid selling it.  

It's the same reason why Jeff Bisos doesn't sell his Amazon stock.  BECAUSE HE IS SPECULATING IT WILL GO UP.  Same thing for any digital asset.

Oh.. but guess what? They just announced they will reduce the sales of XRP... gee... I WONDER WHY.  

Please use logic and reason to think critically before blindly responding with gibberish.  

Facepalm, ripple is trying to sell 1bil a month , just cause they dont manage to sell all of it , doesnt mean the dont want to sell it. Your logic is flawed when actual actions of ripple, not some speculation, goes against what you believe in.

You act on what people do, not on what you wish that they would do and ignore their action. You dont even follow your own logic ffs.

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

×
×
  • Create New...