Jump to content

Charting the course of XRP


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Ripley said:

Looks like someone is getting schooled in basic economics after losing their shirt in “tokenomics”. Pomp, Roger Ver, Novogratz, so many others… The amount of damage these people caused the crypto industry,  the millions they misled, the FUD from maxis… stupid laser eyes.. they’ll be back for sure, but until then - good riddance.

BlockFi explicitly avoided supporting XRP. Anyone remember that?

And now, this -

 

 

 

Edited by Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2022 at 9:16 PM, Ripley said:

UST is a prime example of so called “rewards” that are not really rewards but obligations. Hope holders of UST are doing okay. 

Guess “tokenomics” and fancy algorithms  couldn’t save retailers from rug pull on a “stable”coin they were trained to trust as “the same as Fiat”. 

For those who are interested, this is why the SEC isn’t accepting a spot ETF for BTC. BTC is not worth USD 40,000. It is worth 40000 USDT or 40000 USDC or a combination of both. And neither of them are audited to be 100% Fiat, though USDC is closer to 100% Fiat. 

Same goes for XRP. It is not worth USD 0.5. It is worth 0.5 of some stablecoin. Same with other cryptos.

If today’s BTC gets a spot ETF, US financial system will be directly exposed to contagion through crypto. I don’t see spot ETF being allowed until Fiat pegged stablecoin regulation is passed.

Another thread that articulates this well. Without stablecoin regulation, there won't be a spot market approved. And it doesn't matter that some other countries have approved a BTC spot market. The large stablecoins in crypto are pegged to the USD and the whole world economy today revolves around the USD (for better or worse). So the risk and implications of contagion is much higher.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2022 at 11:14 PM, Ripley said:

Bought back at 0.32. Let’s see what happens. I don’t suggest taking this trade. Macro still sucks. We’re still in early stages of recession.

out at .38, back in at .32 - 20% gain  - Well played :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2021 at 10:39 AM, Ripley said:

Note: The following is my objective opinion on the technical aspects of running XRPL. 

I got around to look at what all the fuss is about with running XRPL infrastructure, by running things myself. 

Here's my opinion and prediction:

The current way of running things, especially for API servers, is very wasteful and utterly inefficient. It's not hard to make this much more efficient and a lot less expensive.

  • The Reporting Server mode is a step in the right direction. There is apparently a Project Cleo too, but I'm not sure if that's the same thing as the Reporting Server mode. The primary approach is pretty much the same in both.
  • I predict that we will likely see a 80% to 90% reduction in costs to run and maintain a Full History node/cluster. 
  • The vast majority of the use-cases don't even need a Full History node. I expect an "API server mode" to be the default mode that most developers run. For Individuals, i.e. those who only need an API server for personal and occasional use, they should be able to turn them on when they need them or off (auto scaling) when they don't, and not have to pay more than ~$100 per year. 

There's no magic in this. XRPL (unlike most other blockchains) doesn't need a full history node to get the current state of the ledger. But running API Servers off of software intended to run real-time p2p networks is just very inefficient. This inefficiency is the reason why it's expensive to run API servers (even full history nodes) because the amount of data needed to run these servers is pitifully low and costs almost nothing.

As it gets cheaper, we will see a lot many more API servers running. Anyone who wants to run an API server should be able to

  • Install Docker
  • Run a script that installs XRPL in Reporting Mode + installs a suitable database to have an API server up and running on their local machine in about 10 mins. Possibly needs < 8GB of regular storage (need not be SSD)

As an update - this is essentially the reporting mode server - https://xrpl.org/the-clio-server.html. Most apps should be able to just use this for most use-cases. This should be much cheaper to run and shouldn't need anything more than commodity hardware. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Julian_Williams said:

out at .38, back in at .32 - 20% gain  - Well played :)

I suspect we'll go down much more and was originally planning to buy lower, but I wanted to check something else first. The chances of dumping here are much higher than going up, so not much to celebrate for now.

I bought back about 5% of the 9% I sold so far. If I'm able to manage my cash flows, I hope to go beyond that and increase by original stash by 25% (fingers crossed) by the end of the year.

I'm looking forward to the AMM amendment to be accepted by the UNL. Then it's sayonara to centralized exchanges fully. After stablecoin regulations, I expect banks to be able to provide fiat on/off ramps to fiat-backed stablecoins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ripley said:

I suspect we'll go down much more and was originally planning to buy lower, but I wanted to check something else first. The chances of dumping here are much higher than going up, so not much to celebrate for now.

I bought back about 5% of the 9% I sold so far. If I'm able to manage my cash flows, I hope to go beyond that and increase by original stash by 25% (fingers crossed) by the end of the year.

I'm looking forward to the AMM amendment to be accepted by the UNL. Then it's sayonara to centralized exchanges fully. After stablecoin regulations, I expect banks to be able to provide fiat on/off ramps to fiat-backed stablecoins.

>AMM amendment to be accepted by the UNL
So you are expecting the final nail in the coffin for freely tradable cryptos this year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, War said:

>AMM amendment to be accepted by the UNL
So you are expecting the final nail in the coffin for freely tradable cryptos this year?

I don’t think I understand what you said. Why would this reduce access to freely tradable crypto ? It’s a superior form of AMM. That’s all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2022 at 7:13 AM, Ripley said:

Another thread that articulates this well. Without stablecoin regulation, there won't be a spot market approved. And it doesn't matter that some other countries have approved a BTC spot market. The large stablecoins in crypto are pegged to the USD and the whole world economy today revolves around the USD (for better or worse). So the risk and implications of contagion is much higher.

 

 

Another great thread - 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.fa6b756b1f48c5a831fef2f226281838.png

 

What a sad state of affairs! These are people who held their life savings in what they thought was cash in what they thought was a U.S. company and so was safe.

This is why regulation matters. An example where FDIC insurance would have mattered. Registered in the U.S. doesn't mean "safe". Fraud exists everywhere. Just because it didn't feel fair in Ripple's situation doesn't mean SEC is bad or unnecessary. And just because fraud can exist in regulated markets doesn't mean regulated markets or institutions are completely bad. A hedge fund might be fraud. That doesn't mean all hedge funds are frauds. A few SEC leaders may have been corrupt. Doesn't mean that all of SEC is corrupt. Some regulations may be outdated. That doesn't mean all regulation is useless and is out to keep you poor. This kind of false equivalency is very dangerous. I see this everywhere in crypto. 

There is a reason why Accredited Investor requirements for access to unregistered securities exist. When things break, the thinking is that Accredited Investors will be able to take the hit. I personally think that it is better to have investment limits on non-accredited investors rather than cut them off completely. But crypto influencers spin it as "the SEC doesn't want you to be rich!".

Note: If anyone is looking to hold cash in stable coins, Paxos (USDP) is backed 1:1 by fiat and U.S. Treasuries and lets you opt in for FDIC insurance (up to USD 250000) but only if you directly have an account with them and you hold tokens on your wallet with Paxos. When you hold assets via an exchange, your funds are not necessarily safe and this has nothing to do with whether the stablecoin is 1:1 backed. 

p.s. If Ethereum wasn't given a fair pass, Ripple wouldn't have put up the Fair Notice Defense. And the SEC would have likely not filed a lawsuit against the individuals. The DeFi market would have never kicked off. I would have still expected Ripple to put a strong fight and possibly win through Howey. And I think the SEC would have likely sued Consensus first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ripley said:

This is why regulation matters. An example where FDIC insurance would have mattered. Registered in the U.S. doesn't mean "safe". Fraud exists everywhere. Just because it didn't feel fair in Ripple's situation doesn't mean SEC is bad or unnecessary.

No it doesn't mean they are all bad, but it does show that the priorities are thoroughly messed up with the SEC. Rather than chasing fraud & leveraging schemes, which always seem to grow till the market turns the other way, they put enormous effort and resources in overreaching and doubtful court cases.

Political or even worse, personal agendas seem to be more important than ruling on obvious market practices inherently related to these new markets. Very very disappointing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Frisia said:

No it doesn't mean they are all bad, but it does show that the priorities are thoroughly messed up with the SEC. Rather than chasing fraud & leveraging schemes, which always seem to grow till the market turns the other way, they put enormous effort and resources in overreaching and doubtful court cases.

Political or even worse, personal agendas seem to be more important than ruling on obvious market practices inherently related to these new markets. Very very disappointing...

True. Politics, revolving doors are all challenges. And the past few years, SEC has been spectacularly asleep at the wheel, including with GME, AMC, Robinhood, Citadel etc.

Clayton did a tremendous amount of disservice to public trust during his tenure, IMO, and I'm not even talking about crypto. I think Gensler has started some work around this but it has only been a year and these things take time. I'm fine with him focusing on crypto fraud first - given that we just lost close to 2T in market cap - that's one of the biggest, if not the biggest destruction of capital in the shortest period in history. But he also started pivoting towards ESG stuff. I haven't seen much in terms of investigation against Citadel and its role in the GME fiasco. I don't see him going after SPACs yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ripley said:

image.thumb.png.fa6b756b1f48c5a831fef2f226281838.png

 

What a sad state of affairs! These are people who held their life savings in what they thought was cash in what they thought was a U.S. company and so was safe.

This is why regulation matters. An example where FDIC insurance would have mattered. Registered in the U.S. doesn't mean "safe". Fraud exists everywhere. Just because it didn't feel fair in Ripple's situation doesn't mean SEC is bad or unnecessary. And just because fraud can exist in regulated markets doesn't mean regulated markets or institutions are completely bad. A hedge fund might be fraud. That doesn't mean all hedge funds are frauds. A few SEC leaders may have been corrupt. Doesn't mean that all of SEC is corrupt. Some regulations may be outdated. That doesn't mean all regulation is useless and is out to keep you poor. This kind of false equivalency is very dangerous. I see this everywhere in crypto. 

There is a reason why Accredited Investor requirements for access to unregistered securities exist. When things break, the thinking is that Accredited Investors will be able to take the hit. I personally think that it is better to have investment limits on non-accredited investors rather than cut them off completely. But crypto influencers spin it as "the SEC doesn't want you to be rich!".

Note: If anyone is looking to hold cash in stable coins, Paxos (USDP) is backed 1:1 by fiat and U.S. Treasuries and lets you opt in for FDIC insurance (up to USD 250000) but only if you directly have an account with them and you hold tokens on your wallet with Paxos. When you hold assets via an exchange, your funds are not necessarily safe and this has nothing to do with whether the stablecoin is 1:1 backed. 

p.s. If Ethereum wasn't given a fair pass, Ripple wouldn't have put up the Fair Notice Defense. And the SEC would have likely not filed a lawsuit against the individuals. The DeFi market would have never kicked off. I would have still expected Ripple to put a strong fight and possibly win through Howey. And I think the SEC would have likely sued Consensus first.

All i see is an idiot who spend ALL his money into crypto and didn't hold back any money to live on, and i'm sure that is because he expected to become rich(er) in no time from crypto's, but has no clue what it is al about and just took
a dive into the unknown.  About a week ago about the same happend to some cry baby who invested in cryptos
and then played the day trader without having any clue, so another idiot i don't feel sorry for but laugh at them
and their stupidity.  When you have 200k, you also don't go to a casino and expect to come out with 400-600k or whatever, but on the other hand i wouldn't want to feed all those old people who go to vegas and gamble their entire savings away, and don't even have money left to get on the bus back home. Tax for the stupid is what i call that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Ripley said:

image.thumb.png.fa6b756b1f48c5a831fef2f226281838.png

 

What a sad state of affairs! These are people who held their life savings in what they thought was cash in what they thought was a U.S. company and so was safe.

This is why regulation matters. An example where FDIC insurance would have mattered. Registered in the U.S. doesn't mean "safe". Fraud exists everywhere. Just because it didn't feel fair in Ripple's situation doesn't mean SEC is bad or unnecessary. And just because fraud can exist in regulated markets doesn't mean regulated markets or institutions are completely bad. A hedge fund might be fraud. That doesn't mean all hedge funds are frauds. A few SEC leaders may have been corrupt. Doesn't mean that all of SEC is corrupt. Some regulations may be outdated. That doesn't mean all regulation is useless and is out to keep you poor. This kind of false equivalency is very dangerous. I see this everywhere in crypto. 

There is a reason why Accredited Investor requirements for access to unregistered securities exist. When things break, the thinking is that Accredited Investors will be able to take the hit. I personally think that it is better to have investment limits on non-accredited investors rather than cut them off completely. But crypto influencers spin it as "the SEC doesn't want you to be rich!".

Note: If anyone is looking to hold cash in stable coins, Paxos (USDP) is backed 1:1 by fiat and U.S. Treasuries and lets you opt in for FDIC insurance (up to USD 250000) but only if you directly have an account with them and you hold tokens on your wallet with Paxos. When you hold assets via an exchange, your funds are not necessarily safe and this has nothing to do with whether the stablecoin is 1:1 backed. 

p.s. If Ethereum wasn't given a fair pass, Ripple wouldn't have put up the Fair Notice Defense. And the SEC would have likely not filed a lawsuit against the individuals. The DeFi market would have never kicked off. I would have still expected Ripple to put a strong fight and possibly win through Howey. And I think the SEC would have likely sued Consensus first.

Anytime you are getting a return on your investment which is higher than you can get on Treasuries - There is Risk.  

But remember - In the end it's only money.  If you only have money problems you're doing ok. Never every consider killing yourself over money.  Things will get better and they are never as bad as you think. Keep your pecker hard and your powder dry and the worm will turn.  

Something I used to say to a friend of mine was "You know what really puts things in perspective - Cancer".  Coincidentally that friend ended up being diagnosed with Cancer and dying a year and a half after he was diagnosed.  When you watch someone with Millions of $ lying in bed crippled with Cancer waiting to die you see what problems are really important and what $ is really worth.    

That being said  - if I had extra cash I'd be buying XRP, LTC and Sologenic.

Edited by Eric123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Eric123 said:

Anytime you are getting a return on your investment which is higher than you can get on Treasuries - There is Risk.  

But remember - In the end it's only money.  If you only have money problems you're doing ok. Never every consider killing yourself over money.  Keep your powder dry and your pecker hard and the worm will turn.  

Something I used to say to a friend of mine was "You know what really puts things in perspective - Cancer".  Coincidentally that friend ended up being diagnosed with Cancer and dying a year and a half after he was diagnosed.  When you watch someone with Millions of $ lying in bed crippled with Cancer waiting to die you see what problems are really important and what $ is really worth.    

That being said  - if I had extra cash I'd be buying XRP, LTC and Sologenic.

I'm sorry but that's not what this is. This was fraud. See this screenshot, that is still on that website. This wasn't gambling. They weren't holding Bitcoin or Ethereum or XRP. This was someone who had their cash in USDC, supposedly the "safe" stable coin backed 1:1, supposedly backed by FDIC.

Source: https://www.investvoyager.com/app/

image.thumb.png.e808cb9412c3cd56f3e59230a7583198.png

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.