Jump to content
longhodler

Third-Biggest Crypto Coin Barely Causes a Ripple Amid Rally

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Julian_Williams said:

XCurrent does not represent 95% of the benefits of Ripplenet, and other companies could replicate XCurrent.  Once corridors are opened it represents maybe 50% of the benefits and XRapid is much much harder to replicate.  Furthermore if XRapid gets established the value of Ripples reserves of XRP will go up in value 100 fold. .

You are asking me to believe that Ripple have changed their goals because the road got bumpy and they can make money by pretending they have not changed their focus.  If you have reached that point of view you have to sell because you basically are saying you think Ripple management are running a scam.  It really is one of the first rules of business, cut your losses and get out if you find your partners are seriously dishonest.

There is nothing in your arguments that really point to Ripple management changing their goals.  The schedule might have stalled, but the focus on rolling out XRP seems as strong ever.  In fact they are pouring money into things like Moneygram and working on regulatory clarity for XRP with central banks.

 

xRapid only requires XRP to achieve “maximum” benefits. It also works quite well without it.

Time will tell if XRP will ever be beneficial to the financial world and Hodlrs; but history has already recorded that it has been beneficial to RL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, wogojump said:

A couple things wrong with this reply:

  • You do not know how much Ripple is making through XCurrent.  So you are just guessing when stating this "They make plenty of money through xCurrent".
  • This is correct "need to distribute XRP intelligently to the market which is the whole purpose of escrow". Which they have not used the best strategies in the past. One example being, when they noted they oversold XRP the past based on using false overstated market volumes: https://www.ripple.com/insights/q2-2019-xrp-markets-report/. If you acknowledge this fact, you will have to admit Ripple did not have a good distribution strategy (either before Q2 update or after Q2 update).
  • Yes, there are significant differences between: "You know, get the product out there. Is that really any different than mining BTC and dropping it onto an exchange?".  Mining BTC is based on proof of work, while XRP is based on proof of stake.  Ripple having large ownership of XRP based on proof of stake (which they were gifted at no charge), could have a significant impact on upcoming SEC regulation.
  • You do not know much revenue XCurrent has made in the last few years.  Ripple was selling ~$250 million of XRP for the last few quarters. You do not know when/if that was used to help fund XCurrent or other areas at the business.  It is safe to assume, a solid XCurrent business model will not be dependent on XRP selling in the future.
  • This is false "They could give two ***** about what a bunch of whiny entitled retail investors think".  They do care when it impacts their goals and financials.  We can see evidence of this when their actions change based on impact of the whiny entitled retail investors. A few examples:
  1. Lawsuits that are in progress include social media quotes of employees.  In reaction Ripple employees stopped posting on social media.
  2. Ripple's current strategy and advantage is based on selling XRP at decent trading values. If prices tank from overselling or other factors, Ripple loses this strategy and advantage.  They will care and will adjust.
  3. Regulators (which XRP is dependent on to work with their customers), will be influenced if there are enough whiny entitled retail investors.
  4. Future customers are going to be hard for Ripple to bring on board, if things get worse on the above items. So they care about this.
  5. Threats against Ripple employees will continue if investors feel like they are scammed (which I do not condone this behavior and want to note this can be a crime).  Wether or not you want to be a tough guy and say on behalf of Ripple that they don't give two *****, they do care. This would impact anyone.  It may even impact them enough in the future to report these to the police, ban XRP accounts, etc.

A fair assessment on most points. I'm in the camp that they'll continue to forge forward.

The piece I disagree with is the old security bs. https://fudbingo.com/xrp-is-a-security

I could say more on this topic, but enough has been said elsewhere.

Share this post


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

And you can somehow prove that I’m wrong???

Using spaghetti logic while at the same time, referencing spaghetti monsters, gives me a real belly ache. I have no idea how to respond. 

We both agree that only RL knows how the financials are prioritized, and we can both agree that RL can be a successful SW company even if XRP disappears from the planet, and we can both agree that the SW licensing side of the business has so far been very successful (without mass XRP utilization by customer’s)

I guess the only thing that we disagree on is if your post had a point?

Let me ask this: If every major bank and FI adopts RL software and joins Ripplenet, does RL really need XRP for anything? I mean if banks can get 95% of the benefits from the new tech with ZERO risk, and minimal disruption to daily business and existing infrastructure, does it make sense to take a new risk to join a revolution by going all in on XRP, for an additional 5% benefit?

Without XRP, Ripple will not have a bridging asset, they won't be able to create an 'internet of value', nostro and vostro accounts continue to be needed and you don't have instant settlement.

Edited by Danny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, wogojump said:

XRP is based on proof of stake

It is not.

It is based on 80% consensus among validators. Now it can be argued that validators will follow Ripple (when voting on amendments), but that's not because of how much they own, but rather because of most people that run validators believe in their leadership. Validators can stop following Ripple (and exclude them from the UNL) with the snap of a finger the moment they make a bad decision, whether they own 50bn XRP or not. In a proof of state system, that scenario is not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dik said:

It is not.

It is based on 80% consensus among validators. Now it can be argued that validators will follow Ripple (when voting on amendments), but that's not because of how much they own, but rather because of most people that run validators believe in their leadership. Validators can stop following Ripple (and exclude them from the UNL) with the snap of a finger the moment they make a bad decision, whether they own 50bn XRP or not. In a proof of state system, that scenario is not possible.

Thanks, you are right.  XRP is considered to use consensus.

Share this post


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

Again we do not know the original plan, however it is obvious that RL over promised XRP utility in the beginning, and they have no intentions of ever changing the escrow control. Both ominous indicators.

You made some interesting points, and raised some reasonably arguable possibilities, but you lost me with the assumption that their plans of long-term escrow control were "obvious."   Others have already commented on the over-promising point, and I agree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mrhat75 said:

A fair assessment on most points. I'm in the camp that they'll continue to forge forward.

The piece I disagree with is the old security bs. https://fudbingo.com/xrp-is-a-security

I could say more on this topic, but enough has been said elsewhere.

I actually believe XRP will most likely be ruled as not a security.  The actions Ripple is presently taking with selling XRP and funding their business, will be used when reviewing this case.  Areas where money from sales of XRP is going directly into Xcurrent or any other non XRP community area, could be used against them.   This starts to dive into grey areas, that have not had a legal precedence set in the past.  So there will be open areas for legal interpretation.

I believe Ripple will have an advantage if they remove grey areas where XRP sales are being used to fund business ventures (not directly related to XRP) and ensuring there is evidence that the sales of XRP is someway helping the XRP community.

 

Edited by wogojump

Share this post


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

Let me ask this: If every major bank and FI adopts RL software and joins Ripplenet, does RL really need XRP for anything? I mean if banks can get 95% of the benefits from the new tech with ZERO risk, and minimal disruption to daily business and existing infrastructure, does it make sense to take a new risk to join a revolution by going all in on XRP, for an additional 5% benefit?

    I think it is more than 5% with xrp, but that is from my own memory which I do not trust. I think the real benefit comes from the de-risking  thatade occurs with in international politics. If Nation A can trade directly with Natiaon C without having to utilize Nation B's currency for exchange they have essentially removed an obstacle that could prohibit economic commerce. It will allow each Nation's personal goals to be more easily obtained without being influenced by whomever is in control of international liquidity.

     I guess I am dreamer, but I hope that we get off oil to prevent wars being raged over it. We get off of the USD so the United States no longer has a reason pursue its international monetary presence and then focus on its own people. I think independence and freedom are a positive thing. By allowing an international asset to provide liquidity will increase the independence of nations and as a result hopefully decrease international conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

Fianlly, I could have simply replied to your post with “You do not have a shred of evidence proving that I am wrong either”

No no no no no.    In logical debate it is widely accepted that you cannot make a claim without evidence and then demand proof that the claim is wrong.  Bertrand Russell demonstrated that a long time ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

So there is no evidence that Ripple is a scam,  (or as you’ve now shifted the goalposts, XRP is merely a funding vehicle, ) so you need evidence of that before you can reasonably claim it.

Ripple has hundreds of employees all on the same message and working towards the same goal of the cross-border use case on the way towards an Internet of Value.  And yet without any evidence other than your dislike of the fact that you are not rich yet, you claim they have given all that up and now just have an elaborate charade.

7 hours ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

50/50 that one of us is correct.

No,  that is not true either.  Just because there are two possibilities doesn’t mean they have equal probability.

Your whole post has a number of misstatements or false claims in it and I’m not going to dissect each one...  I’m tired of this kind of thing.

I am glad you realise that “scam” is incorrect and I hope never to see you use that word again.  I think that is only a fifty/fifty though.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, elias said:

Couldn't they use XLM or something else?

I have not studied XLM but I read that the difference between XRP and XLM lies in whom the blockchain and token target. "Stellar Lumens is for the average person, particularly those in the developing areas of the world, although banks can still use it. The focus of Stellar is on increasing the abilities of those in poor or less-developed countries to interact in the global economy with nearly instant and highly affordable transactions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2019 at 12:26 AM, Capone said:

It’s the job US prosecutors to submit evidence. 

Just wait for it. 

Many years have passed... I'd hope they found something already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, elias said:

Couldn't they use XLM or something else?

It just all comes down to liquidity. The vehicle could be whatever asset as long as there's liquidity. If Ripple builds something around XRP to build liquidity they'll come. And this is a vicious circle because the ones coming bring liquidity which in turn attract others.

In an interview with IBM in regards to XLM/WorldWire the guy said something along the lines when asked about XLM usage for WorldWire (sorry don't know exactly who it was anymore and the exact words): people need to look further (he didn't claim it can't be XLM), liquidity is key.

That's why I still believe in 2 projects: XRP and BTC. I just hope Ripple, R3, Coil, ... can build up the liquidity fast enough before others take off. Once XRP is ahead it's extremely unlikely others will be able to overtake it due to the sheer liquidity in XRP.

Look at the news about SBI VC with their XRP promotion. Basically they're attracting liquidity. They're building it. Of course this could fail at any time but if you want high returns you have high risk and unlike what many believe I still think this is a high risk asset. But at least I see it as an educated guess, not a pure gamble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Tinyaccount said:

No no no no no.    In logical debate it is widely accepted that you cannot make a claim without evidence and then demand proof that the claim is wrong.  Bertrand Russell demonstrated that a long time ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

So there is no evidence that Ripple is a scam,  (or as you’ve now shifted the goalposts, XRP is merely a funding vehicle, ) so you need evidence of that before you can reasonably claim it.

Russell's teapot is a thing of beauty when used appropriately! Thanks for doing it right @Tinyaccount :)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2019 at 3:47 PM, Tinyaccount said:

No no no no no.    In logical debate it is widely accepted that you cannot make a claim without evidence and then demand proof that the claim is wrong.  Bertrand Russell demonstrated that a long time ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

So there is no evidence that Ripple is a scam,  (or as you’ve now shifted the goalposts, XRP is merely a funding vehicle, ) so you need evidence of that before you can reasonably claim it.

Ripple has hundreds of employees all on the same message and working towards the same goal of the cross-border use case on the way towards an Internet of Value.  And yet without any evidence other than your dislike of the fact that you are not rich yet, you claim they have given all that up and now just have an elaborate charade.

No,  that is not true either.  Just because there are two possibilities doesn’t mean they have equal probability.

Your whole post has a number of misstatements or false claims in it and I’m not going to dissect each one...  I’m tired of this kind of thing.

I am glad you realise that “scam” is incorrect and I hope never to see you use that word again.  I think that is only a fifty/fifty though.  :) 

Oh I’m very sorry, I misunderstood this site as an opinion based entertainment vessel. My mistake for breaking protocol among you professional debaters and the financial insiders. 

For the record, I highly doubt that you work for Ripple, so everything you believe that you know, about the company, is a simple opinion created by your own interpretation of events which I happen to interpret differently. One of us is wrong, but neither of us can definitively say which one. So step down a little.

You assume RL prioritizes XRP as much as you do. RL has more than 1 good horse in this race. XRP simply has the longest odds, but most certainly, is not their only chance of winning.

Also Can you please point me back to the Internet. I hear it’s fun. I knew I should have never cancelled my AOL last month...

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...