Locking up Ripple's XRP with Crypto Conditions

[rippleric]

55 minutes ago, JoelKatz said:

I was super-concerned about us needing XRP for something and not having it and ignoring the harm from overhang that we could have mitigated by locking up.

You also have Jed constantly selling and CL charity XRP as a fail-safe for "distribution" with no end in site...

[Morty]

1 hour ago, JoelKatz said:

My position on this has evolved lately, largely due to conversations with Miguel. My position used to be that it didn't really matter but that locking up some XRP wouldn't hurt us and might help, so there was no reason not to do it. I was concerned that we might limit our future flexibility and so didn't advocate locking up on a tight schedule.

However, if we're going to lock up XRP on the ledger, we're doing it to provide more predictability. Locking up too little or for too short means we get less predictability. Too little gives effectively no predictability at all. Essentially, I was super-concerned about us needing XRP for something and not having it and ignoring the harm from overhang that we could have mitigated by locking up.

Now I think we probably should lock up as much as we think we can for as long as we think we can. If we don't, people will fear that if things aren't going so well, we'll be tempted to sell lots of XRP, precisely the fear we want to eliminate. In exchange, if we're doing well and need more XRP for some reason, we should just be able to buy it if we have to.

The only real downside to locking up too much XRP is if the price is getting too high and we want to use the opportunity to increase the supply but can't. First, that's a good problem to have. Second, in that case, we can still increase the supply at a predictable rate, and I don't see it being a problem if the price gets "too high". We're not looking to make money by selling XRP at temporary peaks -- that's never been our strategy.

[Morty]

29 minutes ago, MundoXRP said:

Thanks @JoelKatz and @miguel!  ..... hodl guys!!

HODL!!! 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JoelKatz said:

The only real downside to locking up too much XRP is if the price is getting too high and we want to use the opportunity to increase the supply but can't.

Fisrst of all @JoelKatz @miguel thx for sharing your thoughts with us. Your transparency and openness inspires trust. 

Regarding the price getting out of control please consider a price driven distribution strategy as proposed by me in this thread. That is supply of XRP linked to a desired price growth percentage. Maybe I am overlooking something but until now I haven't seen any real argument against it. 

To fulfill your need for flexibility you could set aside some 'free' XRP. As long as it is within limits. It's the bigger amount that creates uncertainty. 

 

 

 

[Morty]

14 minutes ago, Annevanzwol said:

Fisrst of all @JoelKatz @miguel thx for sharing your thoughts with us. Your transparency and openness inspires trust. 

Regarding the price getting out of control please consider a price driven distribution strategy as proposed by me in this thread. That is supply of XRP linked to a desired price growth percentage. Maybe I am overlooking something but until now I haven't seen any real argument against it. 

To fulfill your need for flexibility you could set aside some 'free' XRP. As long as it is within limits. It's the bigger amount that creates uncertainty. 

 

 

 

No no no. We WANT the price to go out of control. Big price = good 

[ElMoskito]

It's great if there is a lockup on some Ripple funds but it's not enough for bringing predictability. Remember Arthur has 2 billions XRP and Ripple Works (or Chris Larson) 6-7 billions. I don't speak about Jed because there is already a lockup.

So even with a Ripple lockup, there are 9 billions in the wild. It does not bring predictability. If one of those 2 are dumping as investor or speculator you're dead.

I hope Ripple will approach both to have a lockup agreement with them.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, ElMoskito said:

It's great if there is a lockup on some Ripple funds but it's not enough for bringing predictability. Remember Arthur has 2 billions XRP and Ripple Works (or Chris Larson) 6-7 billions. I don't speak about Jed because there is already a lockup.

So even with a Ripple lockup, there are 9 billions in the wild. It does not bring predictability. If one of those 2 are dumping as investor or speculator you're dead.

I hope Ripple will approach both to have a lockup agreement with them.

 

Agreed. 9 bln is a 'significant' amount 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, ElMoskito said:

Ripple Works (or Chris Larson) 6-7 billions. I don't speak about Jed because there is already a lockup.

As I remember there is a similar distribution agreement for Ripple works as there is to Jed. Problem with these is that they're linked to transaction volume, so to volatility, therefore not predictable. Since we don't know the details about how transacion volume is calculated, also not transparent. Tranparency is the key feature of RCL, so it would be good if these problems are fixed. I see no reason why Jed can't be bought out, by one of Ripple's partners. Or pay him to lock up.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, lucky said:

Or pay him to lock up

Or pay to lock him up

[Guest]

Just kidding. Jed is part of starting this adventure so he deserves credit

 

[Sapitoka]

Thanks JK! Sounds great!

aside from distribution would like to see 7-9b from RW on a lock up plan that would be important imo. 

 

Edit: HODL! 

Edited March 26, 2017 by seve7ete
HODL

[jp2017]

7 hours ago, JoelKatz said:

My position on this has evolved lately, largely due to conversations with Miguel. My position used to be that it didn't really matter but that locking up some XRP wouldn't hurt us and might help, so there was no reason not to do it. I was concerned that we might limit our future flexibility and so didn't advocate locking up on a tight schedule.

However, if we're going to lock up XRP on the ledger, we're doing it to provide more predictability. Locking up too little or for too short means we get less predictability. Too little gives effectively no predictability at all. Essentially, I was super-concerned about us needing XRP for something and not having it and ignoring the harm from overhang that we could have mitigated by locking up.

Now I think we probably should lock up as much as we think we can for as long as we think we can. If we don't, people will fear that if things aren't going so well, we'll be tempted to sell lots of XRP, precisely the fear we want to eliminate. In exchange, if we're doing well and need more XRP for some reason, we should just be able to buy it if we have to.

The only real downside to locking up too much XRP is if the price is getting too high and we want to use the opportunity to increase the supply but can't. First, that's a good problem to have. Second, in that case, we can still increase the supply at a predictable rate, and I don't see it being a problem if the price gets "too high". We're not looking to make money by selling XRP at temporary peaks -- that's never been our strategy.

Thanks @JoelKatz, @nikb and @miguel!  

 

[jp2017]

I think a good lock-up and distribution strategy/plan should also include the following. 

-Distrubtion of a small amount of xrp - perhaps free sample of let's say 100,000 to FIs (small, mid-size, and large FIs) Strategic Partners (Temenos, D+H, CGI, Mckinsey etc ), Central Banks (Federal Reserves, Bank of England, MAS etc) International Regulatory/Monetary Bodies at the POC stage so they can realize first hand the savings of using xrp.

Once they are pass the POC and Pilot stages, going into production an increase amount of xrp should be given/distributed to these entities.  

The amount of xrp to be given to these entities as they accomplish/reach certain milestones of development/adoption should vary depending on the size and reach of the institution.

Example:

Small FIs - 100,000 xrp

Mid-Size FI - 1,000,000 xrp

Large FI - 3,000,000 xrp

Strategic Partners/Resellers - 3,000,000 xrp + additional amount as the adoption increase

Central Banks - 10,000,000 xrp

IMF/World Bank - 100,000,000

Once there is full and wide scale adoptions a larger amount of xrp should be given to central banks and the IMF.

The xrp given to central banks and IMF is not for them to sell but, perhaps for them to lend or creation on liquidity in certain markets.

For SBI and CME they fall into a few different categories.  They are Large FIs, Strategic Partners as well as Series A Investors so they should receive the amount base on each catergories that they are part of..

I think it is better for stakeholders to hold some xrp since digital currencies will one day in the not so distant future be a completely new asset class.  It incentivize them to adopt this new technology and also allows them to hold on their books an appreciate asset. 

Of course a distribution strategy to incorporate and incentivize other stakeholders/strategic partners etc will have to be carefully worked out and the well thought out in detail.

I'm just thinking out loud and typing this on my mobile phone so please do excuse my typos..

Edited March 26, 2017 by jpchang888

[Apollo]

8 hours ago, lucky said:

 I see no reason why Jed can't be bought out, by one of Ripple's partners. Or pay him to lock up.

 

LOL, I think lots of people at Ripple felt the same way before he dumped. The problem is, Jed's actions were never motivated by money. If money was a driving factor in his calculus,  he would have caused much less harm.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Apollo said:

LOL, I think lots of people at Ripple felt the same way before he dumped. The problem is, Jed's actions were never motivated by money. If money was a driving factor in his calculus,  he would have caused much less harm.

Yes I figured, but he's older now, and perhaps better understands that our time is limited and a man has to pick his fights and grab opportunity. With a good deal (0.05), he can solve things he really cares about, and make a difference. Also, it would close the book, must be nice too.

Of course any deal should stipulate the funds may not be used to fund a competing payment network