Jump to content

Ripple files response..


RussianStandards
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Archbob said:

Other people started mining really early as well. Ripple was the only one who created all of the XRP instantly at the beginning without having to mine or anything. No one else or entity could have created of gained XRP at that point. Once the BTC network was up, it was open to mining from everyone.

Satoshi mined 1 million out of the 21 million early on. Ripple created 100% of the Ripple and gifted nearly all of it to themselves.

What does it matter if it was mined or created? Satoshi and Vitalik took advantage of creating their network to enrich themselves big time before the masses can get in and when very very few people even understood cryptocurrency

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, solid102 said:

What does it matter if it was mined or created? Satoshi and Vitalik took advantage of creating their network to enrich themselves big time before the masses can get in and when very very few people even understood cryptocurrency

A lot of the SEC argument has to do with how much XRP Ripple and the execs still have. The centralization and decentralization of the supply is a huge point of contention in this case and comparing yourself to BTC and ETH isn't doing you any favors. If this is the crux of Ripple response, then they are getting desperate.

The SEC even said that Ethereum might have been a security at first but because Vitalik and Ethereum don't own a huge % of the supply anymore, its no longer such, but XRP is still controlled by a number of people I can count with my fingers on one hand.

Edited by Archbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Archbob said:

A lot of the SEC argument has to do with how much XRP Ripple and the execs still have. The centralization and decentralization of the supply is a huge point of contention and comparing yourself to BTC and ETH isn't doing you any favors. If this is the crux of Ripple response, then they are getting desperate.

It is only a desperate to you because it threatens the very foundation and narrative of your "decentralized" mining token but it raises a very strong question about transparency and if they are truly decentralized. Who are the top holders of BTC and ETH, Can you name them and can you disclose how much they each own in each token? Why does Satoshi remain anonymous while owning millions in BTC? What is the distribution of the tokens amongst the holders? 10 million BTC(47% of supply) have been sitting dormant since 2017 who owns them and why have they not moved? How come people keep punching holes in Vitaliks narrative about how much ETH he own over and over while he keeps rectifying?

 

Compare that to Ripple and XRP I knew damn well from the day I invested how much Ripple, Chris, Brad, Jed and the rest owned so I was fully aware and was fully aware how much they sold and I know the position of the company, the executive and the strategy. Give me transparency any day than the shady hush world of BTC and ETH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, solid102 said:

 

 

 I knew damn well from the day I invested how much Ripple, Chris, Brad, Jed and the rest owned so I was fully aware and was fully aware how much they sold and I know the position of the company, the executive and the strategy. Give me transparency any day than the shady hush world of BTC and ETH.

Damn right, I’m guessing 99% of early investors knew this as well, shameful that the people who fomo into it 2018 didn’t do their homework and now ***** about it 🤨

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Archbob said:

Well, yes. But for Bitcoin and Ethereum, they didn't just gift them all to themselves. They had to mine them just like everyone else. I think pre-mined tokens are going to face a lot of scrutiny because they are exactly like stocks. Diamonds, oranges, apples, whatever else usually aren't created out of thin air. It takes resources to produce those things.

@Archbob @Ripple

1. Debeers does also produce and sell synthetic diamonds in a lab, and these are not natural.

2. It took resources (brain, time and coding and electricity) to produce XRP.

3. stamps are also created to provide a mailing service and transport tickets serve the same purpose. You do NOT hold a share in the future gains of the mail company or the transport company. You simply pay the ticket or stamp to use their service. 

 

Edited by Althair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, wogojump said:

This is mainly the same responses and feedback provided previously from Ripple's legal team. I do like them calling out this analogy:

DeBeers does not create diamonds. They mine them. Just like other commodities. So to me that's a bad comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BillyOckham said:

Can you see that:

cannot be true?

 

That the funds were their own personal funds and were not $600 million “out of the company”?  The implication that they were taking a scarce resource from a fledgling company and crippling it while enriching themselves is a long way from the truth.

 

To be honest I think you are mixing up a lot of personal feelings in amongst the facts.  It’s fair enough to be personally offended and confronted by the sales (I am not) but you are often lately drawing wide brushes across the picture.

For instance you claim that the judge can’t extract his personal feelings from the legal arguments.  I think that might be disputed somewhat by the entirety of the legal profession...  and with good cause in the vast majorit6 of cases.

 

You’ve lately gone into hyperbole repeatedly about Brad and Chris.  Calling them sleazy amongst other slurs.  I think it would be better if you disconnected the personal feelings from the factual matters when discussing the SEC case but that is just my view.

 

 

If I remember correctly @BillyOckham your initial reaction to hearing the news that Brad and Chris had been selling on this scale was an empathic one (emotionally led).  You wrote that you understood the temptation and could imagine yourself giving in.  You also wrote that you thought the effect of selling this many tokens was probably not noticeable.  You also added that you did not want to make a judgement on the issue until you had heard their answers to the allegations (a very valid point)  I hope that is a fair summary?

My reaction from the start was  black and white  It seemed to me that what they had done constituted a huge conflict of interest between their personal interest in making themselves very, very rich, and the interests of their clients that they were were paid high salaries to serve and look after.  Like you I can imagine the temptation, I imagine could have sold a million or two, but in my view that would be wrong if it were not declared and done at arms length through a third party.  I can imagine myself selling more if they were sold by my company to fund a company sponsored project which coincided with the good of my clients.  In their situation I would always want my sales to be made openly and justified.

I always read your comments because you have knowledge and passion, which I like, and are forgiving which I like even more.  Your initial comments did make me examined my own thoughts and test them again and again to try and discover if I you were right in thinking I was being over emotional and over judgemental. 

Firstly I could never believe you, Billy Oakham, would have sold 112 million into a bear market at the same time as touring the studios telling the public that your company was being transparent about the amount of XRP they were selling.  Seriously, I have read thousands of your posts and it would have been out of character with your written content.  In my mind I know it would have bothered you that selling into a sinking market when your clients were suffering would have wrangled with your conscience.

SEC chose to put Brad and Chris behaviour centre stage for a good reason;  it is not that the tokens were securities in this case, it is that they think it will help sway the judgement of the court in their direction.   A surprising number of people on this forum are as tolerant as you, but this story really disgusts a sizable number of previously loyal XRP holders (I would suggest at least 40%).  Some simply left the forum, others have expressed their outrage many times, reduced their holdings and are holding their noses when reinvesting.  Brad and Chris have become the story, and they will be the story if/when it reaches courts and it is put before the jury.  Even amongst the judges there will be some who will be disgusted by this (sleazy, it is the correct word) attitude towards the public. 

About your point that judges can extract their personal feelings from the legal arguments.  This has been disproved again and again in studies.  The courts are universally lenient towards stereotypes they find attractive and hard on defendants they find unattractive.

I just do not get it.  When a prime minister loses the confidence of the the electorate they are changed.  What is it about CL and BG that make them so special that they can carry on after being discovered behaving so selfishly against the interest of their clients?   They messed up because they could not help falling for the temptation of making themselves stupendously rich through being devious.  Their presence jeopardises success at meetings and in court.  I cannot understand on what basis they are still here representing Ripple when their company and the stock of their clients is bleeding because of their continued presence in the management structure of Ripple.   

Edited by Julian_Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, solid102 said:

What does it matter if it was mined or created? Satoshi and Vitalik took advantage of creating their network to enrich themselves big time before the masses can get in and when very very few people even understood cryptocurrency

You are mixing things, back in 2009 it was not wealth, it was not advantage, it was just an idea. For everyone. So, anyone could download BTC client and mine thousands of BTC, you can read on btctalk forum how people were playing with 10s even 100s thousands of BTC and most lost them or got locked and etc. Satoshi mined his 1M mostly out of test of the software he wrote and as of time there are no advantage and this is fact, as they hang dead. Even if he tomorrow appear and start move his chest, you can not claim that this was some sort premining or advantage, as at that time it was worth nothing, you can say "but he could assume" in that case in 2009 anyone could download and assume, and this is the difference, that erases so called advantage, as everyone was at the same boat.

In 2012-2013, when BTC with the time created demand and price discovery become a process, premining indeed can be categorize, as an advantage that creator can use via different coool names lately: Foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, XRPage said:

The response is very weak. This is going to end sooo badly for Ripple... 

According to attorney Jeremy Hogan who goes over Ripple's answer to the lawsuit in his video (https://tinyurl.com/y3qp4nsn), highlighting the strongest arguments, Ripple's response is far from weak. You should watch it if you haven't done so.

Edited by Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Julian_Williams said:

I just do not get it.  When a prime minister loses the confidence of the the electorate they are changed.  What is it about CL and BG that make them so special that they can carry on after being discovered behaving so selfishly against the interest of their clients?   They messed up because they could not help falling for the temptation of making themselves stupendously rich through being devious.  Their presence jeopardises success at meetings and in court.  I cannot understand on what basis they are still here representing Ripple when their company and the stock of their clients is bleeding because of their continued presence in the management structure of Ripple.   

To be fair, they have built a company recognized as one of a few potential disruptors to a global legacy banking infrastructure that I was not even personally aware could be disrupted. 

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.