Jump to content

What should we ask (demand?) Ripple from now on ?!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm sure Ripple will win the "utility" case. While this case continues, we will support Ripple company to the end! I think it is a matter of principle to support Ripple in this case, not only as

not sure how to say it more bluntly  but the irony of everything you wrote: you start by stating that you have no doubt ripple will in the “utility” token reason but all the points you expect from the

There is no demand to be made. Just because you bought XRP doesn't mean you are entitled to something in return from Ripple.

There is absolutely no point in asking or demanding them anything. For the most part they have not been interested in what community has to say since ~2014 (around the time Jed left), when they decided to start chasing banks and went for this so called "bottom down" approach. Instead of pointlessly asking or demanding anything, better lets put in some real work. Therefore thread:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What could be proposed, and may or may not be ok is to write code that if the SEC deems xrp a security then burn all or half of the supply released each month out of escrow in order to show that Ripple does not have control of the xrp. While also not completely hindering the long term supply if things change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After court decision it will be too late if it is declared a security. The point is to do it now in order to hopefully prevent XRP being declared as security as it is right this moment. Remember reading SEC comments that they can deem some crypto to be a security for some initial time period, but if there's enough decentralization after some time, the token can be deemed not a security anymore. So decentralization is key here. Burning escrow will help with XRP supply decentralization.

It is absolutely obvious now that Ripple has no idea on what to do with all this XRP except for dump it on our behinds. If 45B XRP escrow was burned, they would have 6B left, more than 10% of the remaining XRP. That is more than plenty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, velmet said:

After court decision it will be too late if it is declared a security. The point is to do it now in order to hopefully prevent XRP being declared as security as it is right this moment. Remember reading SEC comments that they can deem some crypto to be a security for some initial time period, but if there's enough decentralization after some time, the token can be deemed not a security anymore. So decentralization is key here. Burning escrow will help with XRP supply decentralization.

It is absolutely obvious now that Ripple has no idea on what to do with all this XRP except for dump it on our behinds. If 45B XRP escrow was burned, they would have 6B left, more than 10% of the remaining XRP. That is more than plenty.

I chuckle, because two years ago when I was saying this people were laughed at me and claimed that 100 billion coins was not going to be enough.

People acted like putting all those coins in escrow with some kind of miracle solution. All it did was delay the inevitable. A supply of 100 billion coins was never going to allow XRP to reach the Heights the coins with a fraction of that supply would reach. But I can’t tell you how many times people on here told me that supply doesn’t matter to price. 😳

Edited by ringer2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if we are talking about market manipulation,

simply locking up half the available supply in escrow is simple market manipulation full stop.

to quell the fear of a ripple dumping situation tanking the price.

But the community was fine with that as it was beneficial to them at that time.

My point is that SEC should have jumped very hard at that time in defence of investors and their own mission statement,

and also it would support their current suit.

But as it stands it further shows their negligence. in my mind,

and displays a regulatory vendetta rather than protection of investors, which this suit is counter productive.

The SEC should be acting in current acts and events not years after the facts.

also what has changed in a few days, what happened to the mantra-- 

Ripple is a private company and is not required to report to us in any way and owe the xrp holder nothing?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, yugioh said:

I got you @JustKevStockholm.

But look at this screenshot from ripple's website.

It says that : Ripple is focused on building technology to help unleash new utility for XRP and transform global payments.

We bet on XRP because we believed that Ripple is going to build use cases with ODL product.

We didn't know that they will use marker makers to dump on us.

This is what I am saying.

I know that having XRP doesnt mean to have a pie from the company Ripple.

It also doesn't eliminate the Ripple's responsibility to XRP holders. 

 

 

On the contrary: what ripple, CL and BG did is a fraud.

They state in their defence that Ripple never pursued the goal of increasing xrp value, but liquidity. At the same time they state that increasing liquidity xrp will increase in value. This way they attract investors but don't sell a share , which would give the investor some rights. No they sell something different that doesn't give the investor any right. They earn money with these sales and constantly keep the price from lifting because they not only flood the market, but they also sell at prices below the market..

I would be very angry if only Ripple were doing it for financing the business. But at least I would understand that. But that the two guys in addition also sell their personal amount of xrp to fill their pocket is a very dishonest behaviour deserving jail.

 

So BG and CL shall give up their entire xrp amount, and leave the company.

Ripple shall reduce the amount of xrp it sells.

those companies getting xrp shall stop receiving it at a price below market.

they shall be forced to reduce the amount they can sell each day at a very low rate in order not to impact the market.

Only if dumping is eliminated there will be new buyers. Otherwise who will want xrp now knowing that if the same practice is carried forward the price will be dumped for the next 20 years?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pucksterpete said:

and this has already been determined to be true?  The sec allegations are ALL true? 

Of course, not everything written on that paper is correct.
But I think they have an important piece of evidence for writing item 176.
Lots of other articles have claims made up of the air and general phrases. But I think a few items in this paper are directly based on the evidence.
And very likely, item 176 could be one of these.

Maybe they got the evidence from "Market Maker" or sometype of e-mail evidence etc..

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mrhat75 said:

Because they are already set for life and it is smart to not have a huge portion of your net worth in one asset.

Correct.

 

They were set for life at $20 million USD. They continued offloading XRP far beyond what was necessary to secure their wealth. Many investors on xrpchat have a higher portion of their net worth tied up in xrp than the Ripple executives.

Edited by garlichouse
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.