Jump to content

Does Novogratz have a point?


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, wogojump said:

Sorry buddy, demand is constantly impacted by market sentiment.

See the determinants of demand: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand.

Of course...  but if you reduce the selling pressure (and it was actually a significant amount) the effect would be immediate.  Obviously this is crypto and the market sentiment determines price...  but for years we had people saying if only Ripple would stop selling then XRP could rise.  So if there was an supply effect to be had it would have happened immediately.  
 

Over time of course the sentiment could change, and hence the market direction,  but the argument has never been ‘sentiment is low because of selling’.  The argument has always been (and you used it yourself) that the selling increased supply and so dropped price.  It that were true the effect of stopping sales would be immediate.

I’m done with this discussion.  Thanks for the links to the basics of economics...  I’m sure it’s very educational.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A decentralized digital asset can only work if the asset is distributed. XRP has no mining process to do that distribution, and for a very good reason: it is inefficient and wasteful. So it has t

He could very well be right, but it doesn't matter. This is a long term game. Every million $ of XRP sold by Ripple helps to build the ecosystem, whereas every million $ of minted and sold Bitcoin by

It may be more difficult to distribute $6bn when nobody uses the asset, than distributing $600bn when it is widely adopted. Anyway, distribution of XRP is far less than distribution of BTC, and t

The market is the sum of all forces . Every sell order has an effect and so does every buy order . If the selling pressure from ripple was small then its removal won’t be seen. 
 

Miners also have a huge impact on selling As someone noted . Imagine big miners who get discounts for buying a lot of equipment , early access to new hardware etc . They would be able to reduce cost before the others and probably create even more selling pressure 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OP here. Thanks for all the insights. 

It seems however that my idea of linking distribution to price development is not really addressed. 

In my view ownership stays with Ripple. The distribution is decentralized. E.g. by a smart contract or maybe by the validators. 

Take out the 'whale' aspect. Ripple has been a good whale (mostly) but a whale nevertheless.

I think when distribution is made more independent and quantifiable this benefits everyone including Ripple.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about this nice discussion here are my thoughts about this matter. In a scenario where Ripple has no substantial amount of XRP they would not be in the drivers seat. They would just be a tech company with good ideas, and they would be less of a threat they seem to be right now to the competition. They might have been out of business already.

I would like to believe they are "nice folks" doing good things to protect their treasure, changing the flow of money, and this helps XRP holders in the long run to gain some profit. I am aware of the rist to loose the investment. Considering the amount of attention they are getting it could all work out very well ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The market dynamics are repeatedly overlooked from the standpoint of what is 'left' in escrow after this repeated pattern, not what is consistently released. If they release 60B and retain 50B that makes no sense. If they IPO 'without' XRP as the bridge asset on their balance sheet what happens at IPO?

When the initial escrow plan was announced after Brad took office I thought holy sht they are actually taking ownership of those XRP. The price was not going up because people worried about who owned the 60B, it wasn't going up because no one actually used XRP. And then when the market boomed everyone was using XRP. Does ODL require 'XRP'? When David is done posting $20 on reddit as his target and two household names and not telling if someone de-risks on Discord in the midst of the bull run I'd be happy to know his current opinion.

Edited by Passengers
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tinyaccount said:

I knew I shouldn’t have spoken...   but your questions are valid so it’s rude not to respond.

The fact that everyone moaned about Ripple being the lodestone on XRP price with their programmatic sales.  THAT was the reason that XRP performed poorly unlike everyone else’s coin.  Very few differed.  I did.

So when Ripple stop sales completely for months and the exact same market behaviours continue to happen it is proof that the thesis was wrong...  Ripple’s programmatic sales were NOT the problem.

Ripples’ sales rate and Jeds were similar so similar logic applies.

 

You are talking absolutely when we should be looking at the relative significance.  When I stick my hand into a swimming pool the water level will rise.  But is it noticeable or significant?   No.  It’s imperceptible.  The market absorbed those sales and their effect was essentially down in the noise.

 

Not at all...  I’m saying nothing like that at all.  I hope I’ve explained my view above.

 

 

I guess you are thinking of a case where the liquidity is so deep as in multitudes of billions/day that a 1M XRP/day transaction buying or selling doesn't create much of an impact. Again I don't think it wouldn't impact at all but I get your point on this.

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

But don’t sit here and say the people I cited above aren’t qualified

The people you cited where not around, involved or had anything to with XRP distribution. The people you cited are now involved because Ripple pays them just like Bill Clinton or Ben Ben Bernanke who spoke at a Ripple conference solely because they where paid to, doesn't mean they agree or endorse the distribution model.

Edited by LetHerRip
Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking:  having excellent qualifications may be a good start, but are in no way a garantee that one is always right. Incompetence exists at all levels and isn’t just reserved for people with poor qualifications. Even Einstein wasn’t always right ( quantum mechanics just wasn’t his thing, lol). Better look at factual arguments and not take opinions for granted because of qualifications. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Passengers said:

The market dynamics are repeatedly overlooked from the standpoint of what is 'left' in escrow after this repeated pattern, not what is consistently released. If they release 60B and retain 50B that makes no sense. If they IPO 'without' XRP as the bridge asset on their balance sheet what happens at IPO?

When the initial escrow plan was announced after Brad took office I thought holy sht they are actually taking ownership of those XRP. The price was not going up because people worried about who owned the 60B, it wasn't going up because no one actually used XRP. And then when the market boomed everyone was using XRP. Does ODL require 'XRP'? When David is done posting $20 on reddit as his target and two household names and not telling if someone de-risks on Discord in the midst of the bull run I'd be happy to know his current opinion.

Yes, this is an interesting point  as well. I almost forgot about this. There were supposedly household names lining up to use XRP all the way back in late 2017, Jan 2018. What happened there? Also what happened with the dozens of banks holding Digital Assets?  -> I think all of this is just lined up and waiting for regulatory clarity really. It's impossible to justify buying into these assets neither as a Bank nor as a major publicly traded company without having regulatory clarity around the DAs.

David's actions back in 2017 don't really have too much contradiction IMO. It's fair to suggest taking profit, especially for those investors who had bought XRP in December 2016-Jan 2017 for around 0.006 USD. It would be non-sensical to ask anyone to hold and wait for 20$ when the coin had gone up from 0.006$ to 3$. 20$ is an eventual estimate from David.

A lot of Ripple employees including David and Brad were simply very PUBLICLY enthusiastic (almost childishly jubilant) about the market and the coin at the time. They realized that this may end up being an issue for the company after the whole securities case, which again I think is total BS. We don't get the same type of information and enthusiasm from them regarding XRP any more simply because there is a bunch of BTC maxis and objectivity feigning legal advisors who are ready to jump on any statement about XRP to suggest it should be denoted a security.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ixarepe said:

OP here. Thanks for all the insights. 

It seems however that my idea of linking distribution to price development is not really addressed. 

In my view ownership stays with Ripple. The distribution is decentralized. E.g. by a smart contract or maybe by the validators. 

Take out the 'whale' aspect. Ripple has been a good whale (mostly) but a whale nevertheless.

I think when distribution is made more independent and quantifiable this benefits everyone including Ripple.  

I really don't see an issue with Ripple's XRP holdings. In fact, concentration in Ripple's hands is actually a positive as long as Ripple's interests are aligned with the XRP which is simply economically the case. I would be more concerned if Ripple only had a small amount of XRP, then they could essentially pivot away from the XRP strategy to promote other DAs, or simply DAless alternatives etc. Now we know for a fact that XRP is an undeniable part of their vision for the company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I would guess is - if XRP is ruled a non-security it doesn't mean it succeeds. Frankly, it might not help if the CEO is playing childish games on Twitter. Novogratz and Garlinghouse are too successful to establish that for future generations to read the history books...on Twitter. 

XRP is a part of the company's balance sheet because 'they were gifted' the XRP, so they actually had no choice...

Novogratz and Garlinghouse have done a lot in life. But Novogratz had a point while Garlinghouse 'may be' preparing (this is my guess) what a Ripple IPO looks like on paper. Did SWIFT IPO? Do Central Banks IPO? In my opinion, the IPO seems to me to prove XRP's worth and then they could pull the IPO pre-valuation to prove a point. Doesn't happen often.

Edited by Passengers
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also relevant to this conversation

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ripple-co-founder-jed-mccaleb-sold-a-billion-xrp-and-has-47b-left

Quote

In a Medium post published on Feb. 6, Whale Alert estimated that McCaleb has another 4.7 billion XRP left to sell, equating to around 5% of the total supply. At today’s prices, the hoard is worth more than one billion U.S. dollars.

"At the current rate it would take him around 20 years to sell all of it, however, his activities have been limited by the settlement agreement with Ripple, which is likely to expire sometime in 2020."

“We didn't want to alarm people, but I hope they now have a better view of what's going on,” Whale Alert told Cointelegraph.

"Whether or not you believe the future is bright for blockchains like Ripple, the economic power and consequences of whales like Jed McCaleb cannot be ignored and he is not the only one; co-founder Arthur Britto also holds billions of XRP in escrow that will expire sometime in the future."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LetHerRip said:

This is deliberately misleading and false. It is as Trump would say: FAKE NEWS!

The agreement in 2014 is not valid, it was rectified in 2016 after the settlement with Ripple.

https://www.coindesk.com/ripple-jed-mccaleb-settle-suit-over-1-million-in-disputed-funds

"

As part of the settlement, McCaleb has sold his equity in Ripple, and has agreed to sale controls on 5.3bn XRP owned by him and his children. An additional 2bn XRP will be donated to an as-yet-undisclosed charitable fund.

The sale controls are tied to daily volume in XRP markets. For the first year, according to Ripple, McCaleb will be unable to sell more than 0.5% of average daily volume “for each day of the week, including weekends and holidays”.

During the second and third years of the agreement, this amount grows to 0.75%, while it accounts for 1.0% in the fourth year. Beyond the fourth year, the amount is set to 1.5%.

“The results of this settlement agreement show that I fully complied with the terms of the previous agreement. Personally, I am excited to see the conclusion of these baseless allegations,” McCaleb wrote in a blog post following the announcement of the settlement."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ed1 said:

This is deliberately misleading and false. It is as Trump would say: FAKE NEWS!

The agreement in 2014 is not valid, it was rectified in 2016 after the settlement with Ripple.

https://www.coindesk.com/ripple-jed-mccaleb-settle-suit-over-1-million-in-disputed-funds

"

As part of the settlement, McCaleb has sold his equity in Ripple, and has agreed to sale controls on 5.3bn XRP owned by him and his children. An additional 2bn XRP will be donated to an as-yet-undisclosed charitable fund.

The sale controls are tied to daily volume in XRP markets. For the first year, according to Ripple, McCaleb will be unable to sell more than 0.5% of average daily volume “for each day of the week, including weekends and holidays”.

During the second and third years of the agreement, this amount grows to 0.75%, while it accounts for 1.0% in the fourth year. Beyond the fourth year, the amount is set to 1.5%.

“The results of this settlement agreement show that I fully complied with the terms of the previous agreement. Personally, I am excited to see the conclusion of these baseless allegations,” McCaleb wrote in a blog post following the announcement of the settlement."

 

 

Jed isn't the one using or not using banks via XRP. Nostro-vostro isn't something major companies care about and there's a reason for it - tax. Repo in my opinion is not a nostro-vostro issue, it's geopolitical which is why central banks are creating the trans-coin which everyone has but no one owns.

Edited by Passengers
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.