Jump to content

How can we lose?! $50+ Inevitable


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Cooliozxrp said:

Another day another fresh hopium ****

Truth be told the hopiums have no idea how xrp or xrapid will work in the real world, so we end up with mega posts like these. Every man and his dog and his own theory.

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

But from your perspective this makes perfect sense because “you’re out”. Which is a bit of a quandary because you’re still here... More amazing is your inside knowledge of intentions of all the b

Don't worry. No bank is using XRP. Also no bank is planning to use XRP. This is why Ripple initiated Xspring to find a use case for XRP since there is none.

Man, why are you here? You're out? So if you sold your investment but insist on hanging around a forum where people still hold XRP, even though you don't, then I honestly haven't heard of something mo

5 hours ago, 2ndtimearound said:

What are the obvious flaws? The "Shane Ellis theory"  talks exclusively of the effect xRapid buys will have when made on public exchanges.  The theory doesn't mention FIs holding XRP, or market makers (who would actually help fill out the sell books, preventing the thin-ness of the order book that The SE theory relies upon). 

My last response was addressing some if the things you mentioned in your post - despite them not being mentioned in the theory 

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

My last response was addressing some if the things you mentioned in your post - despite them not being mentioned in the theory 

Here's the bottom line: the Shane Ellis theory requires illiquidity to create extreme price slippage which Ripple (and Joel Katz specifically) have said is very undesireable...for obvious reasons.  Extreme price slippage = illiquidity by definition.  xRapid needs liquidity, not illiquidity.  Furthermore, an illiquid exchange that has a tiny share of the overall market isn't going to move the market, and arbitrage bots will smooth out price differences anyway.

Edited by 2ndtimearound
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, 2ndtimearound said:

Here's the bottom line: the Shane Ellis theory requires illiquidity to create extreme price slippage which Ripple (and Joel Katz specifically) have said is very undesireable...for obvious reasons.  Extreme price slippage = illiquidity by definition.  xRapid needs liquidity, not illiquidity.  Furthermore, an illiquid exchange that has a tiny share of the overall market isn't going to move the market, and arbitrage bots will smooth out price differences anyway.

Again, I'm not arguing in support of his theory. I only felt it necessary to point out the flaws I saw in your previous post.

We already know that Ripple does and will subsidize market makers (including exchanges) to help them avoid slippage, remain competitive in corridors against fiat pairs, and drive mass liquidity through the system (enough to support the FX market). It is likely that this entire process is automated for each partner as well. 

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

Again, I'm not arguing in support of his theory. I only felt it necessary to point out the flaws I saw in your previous post.

We already know that Ripple does and will subsidize market makers (including exchanges) to help them avoid slippage, remain competitive in corridors against fiat pairs, and drive mass liquidity through the system (enough to support the FX market). It is likely that this entire process is automated for each partner as well. 

You say there are flaws in my argument and then completely negate the Shane Ellis theory by saying slippage wouldn't be allowed to happen because Ripple would subsidize market makers....you are arguing against the Shane Ellis theory, and you are agreeing with me (Ripple would not allow for slippage).  In essence we are both saying xRapid needs enough liquidity NOT to move the price in any extreme way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2019 at 10:23 AM, 2ndtimearound said:

Here's the bottom line: the Shane Ellis theory requires illiquidity to create extreme price slippage which Ripple (and Joel Katz specifically) have said is very undesireable...for obvious reasons.  Extreme price slippage = illiquidity by definition.  xRapid needs liquidity, not illiquidity.  Furthermore, an illiquid exchange that has a tiny share of the overall market isn't going to move the market, and arbitrage bots will smooth out price differences anyway.

Exactly right. Further, it assumed static order books, which don’t exist. As soon as the price starts to move up (or down), the order book becomes dynamic and changes. Big movements equal big changes in the order book. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the premise of the OP.  If banks start using XRP it really cannot function for a largish transaction until it reached 10 - 50 dollars.

I suppose we will get only small low value transactions at first, and they will be pushing the price up as the system gets adopted.  Not sure why so many find this difficult to understand.  Increased XRapid vol equals rapid price rise for XRP.  So even if the system is only tried but never gets fully adopted, anyone entering at .32 is going to make huge profits.  Just my view of course.

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

I agree with the premise of the OP.  If banks start using XRP it really cannot function for a largish transaction until it reached 10 - 50 dollars.

I suppose we will get only small low value transactions at first, and they will be pushing the price up as the system gets adopted.  Not sure why so many find this difficult to understand.  Increased XRapid vol equals rapid price rise for XRP.  So even if the system is only tried but never gets fully adopted, anyone entering at .32 is going to make huge profits.  Just my view of course.

Just because the price of XRP needs to be higher in order for large transactions to work does not mean the price is destined to go up in my opinion.

Perhaps the reason large banks aren't already on board like Brad mentioned is because of that problem.

Ripple and none of us here knows what drives the price because we all would have thought the price would be higher than $0.31 now.

I originally thought that xRapid was supposed to add decent upwards pressure to price based on all of the explanations and hypothetical scenarios people present but I'm not sure I believe that anymore.

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

Just because the price of XRP needs to be higher in order for large transactions to work does not mean the price is destined to go up in my opinion.

Perhaps the reason large banks aren't already on board like Brad mentioned is because of that problem...

But we have to admit, we are speculating, not guaranteeing a positive result for buying XRP.

If it goes well, many people are happy, but just like buying regular stock, many a good project fails for Myriad of reasons. Like a better idea come along, adverse regulation, the project is flawed, a virus mucks it all up, the whole thing is a Ponzi, ad finitum

in this space we take a chance or we don’t.. good luck to those that are for and those against. Just like any other investment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AlejoMoreno said:

Just because the price of XRP needs to be higher in order for large transactions to work does not mean the price is destined to go up in my opinion.

Perhaps the reason large banks aren't already on board like Brad mentioned is because of that problem.

Ripple and none of us here knows what drives the price because we all would have thought the price would be higher than $0.31 now.

I originally thought that xRapid was supposed to add decent upwards pressure to price based on all of the explanations and hypothetical scenarios people present but I'm not sure I believe that anymore.

The way I look at is that the banks will be logged on to an API that gives them many options EG - R3/Moneygram, GPI and Ripplenet.  When a bank is sending $1,000 dollars to Mexico it is likely that there will be a XRapid option that will be very competitive because the Ripplenet corridor is available and the liquidity is also available.  If the bank wants to send a million dollars the depth of the liquidity starts to make the XRapid option very expensive because the Marketmaker does not have the liquidity in XRP without buying a proportion XRP at a much higher price.  So for big transfers the bank would still choose a correspondence bank option against using Ripplenet.  There will be some options - maybe a 10,000 dollar transfer where XRapid is pushing at the limits of what the liquidity will provide, but it is still a good competitive rate and very fast.  It is those purchases in the middle that push up the price.

XRapid locks the sale and purchase both ends, so the option, whilst it is on offer is very fast, reliable at a fixed price.  This is Ripplenets big benefit over the SWIFT GPI option where the money is sent through a string of banks.  Things go wrong along the way which is why it is said that 6% of SWIFT managed transactions having errors.  Also there is the problem of fluctuations and volatility in the exchange rates during the hours the Correspondence banking option takes place, adding another big unknown to the cost of the transaction.

I would expect that Ripple labs will be testing these sorts of scenarios out in sandboxes and have worked ways of bringing XRapid to market.

Edited by Julian_Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in a perfect world scenario where banks are using XRapid, the settlement time is what ultimately hurts XRP price. It’s not the amount of transfers banks are making daily that matters as much as how many combined with the amount that are happening per second, minute, etc.  Now if banks hold large sums of XRP (which they won’t need to and likely wouldn’t for a variety of reasons), then that could put upward pressure on price, as liquidity dries up.

In the end, as long as Ripple’s preferred partner exchanges are set up and have liquidity, the transfer are so fast that the XRP will be available to supplement the next transfer in a matter of seconds. Hopium is fun  Hopium is unrealistic.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2019 at 5:59 PM, Julian_Williams said:

I agree with the premise of the OP.  If banks start using XRP it really cannot function for a largish transaction until it reached 10 - 50 dollars.

I suppose we will get only small low value transactions at first, and they will be pushing the price up as the system gets adopted.  Not sure why so many find this difficult to understand.  Increased XRapid vol equals rapid price rise for XRP.  So even if the system is only tried but never gets fully adopted, anyone entering at .32 is going to make huge profits.  Just my view of course.

A high XRP price is a necessity to deal with large transactions.  Absolutely.  A high XRP price offers more liquidity. 

The Shane Ellis "theory" ignores this and thinks Ripple will allow transactions that are large enough to cause extreme price slippage to occur.  In other words, Ripple don't care about liquidity and will pump through any sized transaction regardless of how thin the order books are. 

IMO, XRP will see those higher prices in the years ahead, but it won't be through "violent means" like the SE theory thinks it will - it will be gradual - a confidence in the market that XRP has a growing future ahead of it (therefore, a good asset to hold).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 4:28 AM, Julian_Williams said:

There will be some options - maybe a 10,000 dollar transfer where XRapid is pushing at the limits of what the liquidity will provide, but it is still a good competitive rate and very fast.  It is those purchases in the middle that push up the price.

Don't forget that those XRP are sold a few seconds later, so the opposite effect on XRP's price occurs on the receiving exchange.  Arbitrage bots will buy up those cheaper XRP and sell them on the more expensive exchanges smoothing out the price differences.

I do think XRP will achieve a higher price, but it will be through both market makers buying up XRP and speculation.

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...

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.