Jump to content

Charting the course of XRP


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, retep said:

Only 5% of americans own xrp, so 95% is outside the usa, so that 5% can't be the reason of why xrp is at an all time LOW!
Ripple should pack their bags and move to a country that embraces crypto's, and then this whole case could be thrown in the waste bin, and then move on as if the sec doesn't even excist!

Lol, I don't think 5% of Americans own XRP. 5% of XRP is owned by Americans. Big difference. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ripley said:

We should have a longer constructive discussion around this at some point. In short, I don't agree fully. Regulation is critical because while XRP the token or XRPL need not be regulated, the fiat corridors on/off ramps are necessary and must be regulated.

Let me try and qualify what I mean by Regulation. 

  • Regulation is absolutely critical. Think of it as the equivalent of "freedom is not free". There are bad actors every day. In crypto. In equities. In real estate. Everywhere. Some semblance of protection is needed. Transparency. Accountability. Protection against certain activities. 
  • Over regulation is  extremely bad. And it's not bad because of the red tape. Or taxes. It's bad because over regulation serves only one purpose - to help the big stakeholders remain big and powerful.  Like only the big banks being allowed into the inner circle of cross-border payments network (Correspondent Banking). Like disallowing people from holding certain assets (Gold was disallowed a few decades ago in the U.S.). Like censorship through taxation. 
    • Case in point - the European laws around data sharing and these stupid "do you accept cookies" business. It was intended to help restrict tracking for ads. And what was the actual result ? Only large companies can afford to adhere to all that red tape. The small companies have to pay a "tax"/"fee" to middlemen who can help them do this - audit records, implementation of those settings, etc. And the user is worse off with bad UI. Big Tech wins.

I firmly believe that it's the over-regulation part that blockchains will help solve. No more walled gardens. No more unnecessary red tape. No more centralization where the only purpose of centralization is concentration of power.

No country in the world is going to allow the primary currency to be managed in a decentralized way. It is one of the most critical pieces of power that a sovereign country has. And so the most probable future is CBDCs on private blockchains connected to truly decentralized public blockchains.

I'm not a libertarian, I agree we need regulation. But the form of it we see today does not serve the purpose of protecting the innocent from the malicious actors.

My only only point is that ledgers themselves must operate independently of regulation. You can't have a global settlement system where the Chinese are worried about US regulators influencing how they're able to conduct they're business.

I think Ripple's model of working with institutions to build tools around the ledger so that they can be in compliance is a good one.

My basic thinking is that the government shouldn't, for example, be able to shut off your water and sewer because you're a bad person. But they can regulate it to make sure the pipes and water quality are safe and people don't dump chemicals down the toilet and whatever. Distributed ledgers are the same way, they're a financial utility. The value must always flow if it's a valid transaction. Governments can regulate around the ledger. So I think I'm actually closer to your position than it maybe appeared at first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, brianwalden said:

I'm not a libertarian, I agree we need regulation. But the form of it we see today does not serve the purpose of protecting the innocent from the malicious actors.

My only only point is that ledgers themselves must operate independently of regulation. You can't have a global settlement system where the Chinese are worried about US regulators influencing how they're able to conduct they're business.

I think Ripple's model of working with institutions to build tools around the ledger so that they can be in compliance is a good one.

My basic thinking is that the government shouldn't, for example, be able to shut off your water and sewer because you're a bad person. But they can regulate it to make sure the pipes and water quality are safe and people don't dump chemicals down the toilet and whatever. Distributed ledgers are the same way, they're a financial utility. The value must always flow if it's a valid transaction. Governments can regulate around the ledger. So I think I'm actually closer to your position than it maybe appeared at first.

Agree with the sentiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More and more f’d off by the day with the development happening around us. I invested to make money and be part of a game changing scene with a tech I still believe in.

 

Seeing it slowly pulled from under my/our feet is heartbreaking, I can live with it of course but it is incredibly frustrating. Gimme a peak 12 months into the future and settle my nerves (hopefully) 😂

Edited by RussianStandards
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, brianwalden said:

I'm not a libertarian, I agree we need regulation. But the form of it we see today does not serve the purpose of protecting the innocent from the malicious actors.

My only only point is that ledgers themselves must operate independently of regulation. You can't have a global settlement system where the Chinese are worried about US regulators influencing how they're able to conduct they're business.

I think Ripple's model of working with institutions to build tools around the ledger so that they can be in compliance is a good one.

My basic thinking is that the government shouldn't, for example, be able to shut off your water and sewer because you're a bad person. But they can regulate it to make sure the pipes and water quality are safe and people don't dump chemicals down the toilet and whatever. Distributed ledgers are the same way, they're a financial utility. The value must always flow if it's a valid transaction. Governments can regulate around the ledger. So I think I'm actually closer to your position than it maybe appeared at first.

Agreed. This matches the always used analogy of "regulating the internet in the 90s". The rails of the network itself are not regulated but what you do on it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Ripley said:

Terra is suing the SEC (in the same court as the Ripple lawsuit) for lack of due process - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WxG7KsWf9dVjSenvZA-pOlQh1-K-kRQD/view

To be clear, I see this as a counter-attack strategy. I don’t mean to claim that the SEC shouldn’t sue them. Ultimately the SEC is suing Terra for being an offering of security. 

Terra is a proof of stake…

PS: If the SEC prevails against Terra, a company that’s based in Korea, but the SEC is able to assert jurisdiction because it’s available for trading here, you know who’s next right ? A certain palindromic token which chose to skirt US law by doing its initial distribution in Japan.

Edited by Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ripley said:

To be clear, I see this as a counter-attack strategy. I don’t mean to claim that the SEC shouldn’t sue them. Ultimately the SEC is suing Terra for being an offering of security. 

Terra is a proof of stake…

PS: If the SEC prevails against Terra, a company that’s based in Korea, but the SEC is able to assert jurisdiction because it’s available for trading here, you know who’s next right ? A certain palindromic token which chose to skirt US law by doing its initial distribution in Japan.

Per the linked article below, the SEC appears to be taking issue with Terra's Mirror protocol (synthetic stocks) - not the network itself. So don't think this is a POS issue per se.

Not sure who is behind Synthetix, but I'd guess they should be on notice as well.

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/10/23/terras-do-kwon-was-served-by-sec-new-lawsuit-shows/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JoeBishop said:

Per the linked article below, the SEC appears to be taking issue with Terra's Mirror protocol (synthetic stocks) - not the network itself. So don't think this is a POS issue per se.

Not sure who is behind Synthetix, but I'd guess they should be on notice as well.

https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/10/23/terras-do-kwon-was-served-by-sec-new-lawsuit-shows/

In that case, I’m glad that it is not related to PoS consensus itself. Thanks.

I wonder whether SEC has jurisdiction here. Luna can be traded here and so the platform is under SEC jurisdiction even though the product at issue hasn’t been offered in the US ? That’s a pretty big leap.

Link to comment
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
 Share



×
×
  • 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.