Jump to content

Q4 2020 XRP Markets Report


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Gorgalosk said:

Please tell me what context that statement can be used in that doesn’t Make Brad either a liar, intentionally manipulative, or stupid. It has to be one of those three. There are literally no other answers.

They are not mutually exclusive. I think all three. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sales (net of purchases) is moving in the wrong direction. Majority of investors and community want to see this go down, not up.  I also counted Sec being mentioned 13 times in the article, while 0 me

Its all sour grapes, the tune would be different had XRP & their holdings reached ATH or better, after the sec announcement if the claim had been thrown out as soon as Clayton left. Brad &amp

I dunno. Assuming the SEC's numbers are correct, Chris sold about 15-20% of his XRP holdings. So what? I have too. So has most anyone who has seen an increase in value to their investment in abou

Let's say that Brad owned 3B XRP, on average over the last 3 years worth about 900M. If that is 90% of his total net worth, it's VERY logical to sell 150M worth (only 16% of his total stack) and diversify into other assets, whether that's gold, stock, BTC or tulips. Don't we tell ourselves ALL THE TIME that it's wise to diversify into multiple crypto, just in case shit hits the fan?

Keeping 84% of your original stack of XRP is still very LONG.

Edited by Gambaard
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Gambaard said:

''Let's say that Brad owned 3B XRP, on average...''

You don't have to guess. These are the facts: Garlinghouse was granted 750 million XRP over the years, of which Ripple transfered 521 million to Garlinghouse. 

He sold 321 Million XRP. and that makes him "long" 200million xrp.   Including the grants he hasn't received: 450million.
 

Edited by Gepster
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gepster said:

You don't have to guess. These are the facts: Garlinghouse was granted 750 million XRP over the years, of which Ripple transfered 521 million to Garlinghouse. 

He sold 321 Million XRP. and that makes him "long" 200million xrp.   Including the grants he hasn't received: 450million.
 

So he sold more than 50% of his available stock.  The interpretation of the word "long" is as long as a piece of string.  Words can mean what you want them to mean, and in retrospect you confabulate different meanings to the ones  experienced by your audience at that time.

The real points of contention are when he went around the studios, after having sold more than half his available XRP:

  • Did he use the term "long" with the intention to obfuscate about his selling behaviour?
  • Was there a conflict of interest between a CEO hyping up XRP and the XRPecosystem on the TV channels at the same time as selling his own stock into a bear market in an un-transparent way?

There are no definitive answers, each of us has to reach our own conclusions.  For me the answer are unambiguous:  yes and yes.

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

So he sold more than 50% of his available stock.  The interpretation of the word "long" is as long as a piece of string.  Words can mean what you want them to mean, and in retrospect you confabulate different meanings to the ones  experienced by your audience at that time.

The real points of contention are when he went around the studios, after having sold more than half his available XRP:

  • Did he use the term "long" with the intention to obfuscate about his selling behaviour?
  • Was there a conflict of interest between a CEO hyping up XRP and the XRPecosystem on the TV channels at the same time as selling his own stock into a bear market in an un-transparent way?

There are no definitive answers, each of us has to reach our own conclusions.  For me the answer are unambiguous:  yes and yes.

Timing is also an issue. Is it known when he sold vs when he hyped XRP on TV?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its all sour grapes,

the tune would be different had XRP & their holdings reached ATH or better, after the sec announcement if the claim had been thrown out as soon as Clayton left. Brad & Chris would be heroes. 

 thousands of people were granted free XRP initially by ripple, many were gifted by pay it forward (PIF by these recipients, many have none left, many sold when they made a profit, many have increased their holdings and value by trading from nothing, which means they have gained off of people losing, some made huge ammounts of free xrp ( millions) by by gaming the computing for good program, because they had the knowledge to do so, and first mover advantage. 

Ripple and founders plus other whales may have contributed to keeping the price low. that is by nature the effect of releasing such vast ammounts into the market, which is a fundamental necessity, hence the relative low value all along, as you all know too well.

but  which ever way you take it, they have the task of getting XRP out of their hands into the other side of the market, as well as utilising the xrp reserves for infrastructural & inovative purposes to the benefit of world financial system and its users.

Or else forever have the problem of owning too many hanging over the system,

(Microsoft and Apple are just two Companies that have made far too much money from 0s & 1s plucked from thin air) & there have been many toes trodden on there along the way.

The XRPL would be nowhere without the efforts, interests, determination, support, paticipation, and trading/market making by the community members, dont forget that.

we bootstrapped the xrp ledger into usefullness. whilst they took the risks of raising seed capital from venture capitalists, and maintaining a private Co, status, thus their reporting obligations to their share holders was / is probably all in tact, but hidden from us as no obligation and save rivalry inteligence.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RobertHarpool said:

I dunno.

Assuming the SEC's numbers are correct, Chris sold about 15-20% of his XRP holdings. So what? I have too. So has most anyone who has seen an increase in value to their investment in about anything.

No one cares about percentages, they ultimately care about other factors like the following that are different between Chis and you:

  1. How XRP was obtained- Chris was "gifted" XRP at no charge, then put in effort to increase value of XRP.  You bought XRP from an exchange and had no active involvement on development for XRP.
  2. How XRP was sold- Chris sold XRP via multiple methods like to Institutions (for them to eventually sell to retail holders) and donations (for them to eventually sell to retail holders). Chris never bought XRP from retail exchanges, but set up process to be able to indirectly sell to retail holders.  You sold XRP on retail exchanges, to and from the same retail market that you originally bought XRP from.
  3. Amount of XRP being sold- Chris has orchestrated selling over a billion dollars of XRP indirectly to the retail investors.  You have probably sold XRP in the thousand dollar range. The Sec and others in the community have no interest to focus on thousands of dollars being sold by one person. They care about a billion.

So you reverse the actions taken by Chris and you in the above ^. Then you would now be the focus of Sec, lawsuits, and community criticism (rather than Chris).

Edited by wogojump
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, paym8 said:

Its all sour grapes,

the tune would be different had XRP & their holdings reached ATH or better, after the sec announcement if the claim had been thrown out as soon as Clayton left. Brad & Chris would be heroes. 

 thousands of people were granted free XRP initially by ripple, many were gifted by pay it forward (PIF by these recipients, many have none left, many sold when they made a profit, many have increased their holdings and value by trading from nothing, which means they have gained off of people losing, some made huge ammounts of free xrp ( millions) by by gaming the computing for good program, because they had the knowledge to do so, and first mover advantage. 

Ripple and founders plus other whales may have contributed to keeping the price low. that is by nature the effect of releasing such vast ammounts into the market, which is a fundamental necessity, hence the relative low value all along, as you all know too well.

but  which ever way you take it, they have the task of getting XRP out of their hands into the other side of the market, as well as utilising the xrp reserves for infrastructural & inovative purposes to the benefit of world financial system and its users.

Or else forever have the problem of owning too many hanging over the system,

(Microsoft and Apple are just two Companies that have made far too much money from 0s & 1s plucked from thin air) & there have been many toes trodden on there along the way.

The XRPL would be nowhere without the efforts, interests, determination, support, paticipation, and trading/market making by the community members, dont forget that.

we bootstrapped the xrp ledger into usefullness. whilst they took the risks of raising seed capital from venture capitalists, and maintaining a private Co, status, thus their reporting obligations to their share holders was / is probably all in tact, but hidden from us as no obligation and save rivalry inteligence.

 

You are mixing up two issues; distribution is good and necessary, awarding yourself a big segment of the tokens and then selling them into a bear market behind the backs of your customers is unethical and wrong.  Yes, the scale, duplicity (Brad's) and timing make me far more aware than if it happened in a bull market where their customers were not so directly and adversely affected, but it would still have been unethical, wrong and in need of regulatory oversight.      

Link to post
Share on other sites

I rem

6 hours ago, Gepster said:

You don't have to guess. These are the facts: Garlinghouse was granted 750 million XRP over the years, of which Ripple transfered 521 million to Garlinghouse. 

He sold 321 Million XRP. and that makes him "long" 200million xrp.   Including the grants he hasn't received: 450million.
 

I think there was a question to BG, do they pay their employees in XRP or give bonuses, and his answer was: No!

Now correct if I am wrong 🤣🤣🤣

I guess when BG gets XRP is the different term and meaning! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, paym8 said:

(Microsoft and Apple are just two Companies that have made far too much money from 0s & 1s plucked from thin air) 

I mostly agree with what you're saying, but I feel like i have to reply on this.

Nobody bats an eye when Bill Gates wants to sell part of his shares, because we all agree he delivered with MSFT.

Brad en Chris profiting 100's of millions on a promise to deliver the IOV is not the same thing.

In the normal world they would have to ask for permission to sell their ''shares'' and they would be given a time window to sell after a quarterly report.

Crypto is the wild west and they can do whatever they like, but what they have done  is just in bad taste and they know it.

Edited by Gepster
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Julian_Williams said:

You are mixing up two issues; distribution is good and necessary, awarding yourself a big segment of the tokens and then selling them into a bear market behind the backs of your customers is unethical and wrong.  Yes, the scale, duplicity (Brad's) and timing make me far more aware than if it happened in a bull market where their customers were not so directly and adversely affected, but it would still have been unethical, wrong and in need of regulatory oversight.      

I like word "distribution", everyone use it but noone has clear definition and rules around it, so that everyone could build a prospective to where this distribution end eventually 🤣🤣🤣 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gepster said:

I mostly agree with what you're saying, but I feel like i have to reply on this.

Nobody bats an eye when Bill Gates wants to sell part of his shares, because we all agree he delivered with MSFT.

Brad en Chris profiting 100's of millions on a promise to deliver the IOV is not the same thing.

In the normal world they would have to ask for permission to sell their ''shares'' and they would be given a time window to sell after a quarterly report.

Crypto is the wild west and they can do whatever they like, but what they have done  is just in bad taste and they know it.

Long story, short:

If XRPL would be really decentralised, the right way would be vote to burn 50B XRP that Ripple holds. 

 

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

No one cares about percentages, they ultimately care about other factors like the following that are different between Chis and you:

  1. How XRP was obtained- Chris was "gifted" XRP at no charge, then put in effort to increase value of XRP.  You bought XRP from an exchange and had no active involvement on development for XRP.
  2. How XRP was sold- Chris sold XRP via multiple methods like to Institutions (for them to eventually sell to retail holders) and donations (for them to eventually sell to retail holders). Chris never bought XRP from retail exchanges, but set up process to be able to indirectly sell to retail holders.  You sold XRP on retail exchanges, to and from the same retail market that you originally bought XRP from.
  3. Amount of XRP being sold- Chris has orchestrated selling over a billion dollars of XRP indirectly to the retail investors.  You have probably sold XRP in the thousand dollar range. The Sec and others in the community have no interest to focus on thousands of dollars being sold by one person. They care about a billion.

So you reverse the actions taken by Chris and you in the above ^. Then you would now be the focus of Sec, lawsuits, and community criticism (rather than Chris).

Chris had 9%. That's pretty common for anyone who co-starts a business. 

He sold 1%. That's also pretty common to do once a business you start takes off. 

There is nothing sinister about this very normal behavior. 

 

 

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

Chris had 9%. That's pretty common for anyone who co-starts a business. 

He sold 1%. That's also pretty common to do once a business you start takes off. 

There is nothing sinister about this very normal behavior. 

 

 

Pretty normal for what, securities?  Yes this would be very typical for securities.  Chris and Brad are arguing XRP is not a security and fighting the upcoming lawsuits.  They could agree XRP is a security, pay the fine for not following security laws, then proceed forward selling XRP as a security.

Or are you saying normal for selling assets? I would argue this isn't the standard for how businesses sell off assets.  There are good examples like with Exxon and De Beers, that are similar to Ripple and XRP.  Although those examples are involving physical assets.  There is little precedence established at this time on how cryptocurrency and digital assets like XRP can be sold off, which is causing lack of clarity for businesses like Ripple.  Ripple's whole objective is to get clarity on how they can legally sell XRP going forward as a non security, based on lack of common legal consensus currently existing.

Edited by wogojump
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, wogojump said:

Pretty normal for what, securities?  Yes this would be very typical for securities.  Chris and Brad are arguing XRP is not a security and fighting the upcoming lawsuits.  They can agree XRP is a security, pay the fine for not following security laws, then proceed forward selling XRP as a security.

Or are you saying normal for selling assets? I would argue this isn't the standard for how businesses sell off assets.  There are good examples like with Exon and De Beers, that are similar to Ripple and XRP.  Although those examples are involving physical assets.  There is little precedence established at this time on how cryptocurrency and digital assets like XRP can be sold off, which is causing lack of clarity for businesses like Ripple.  Ripple's whole objective is to get clarity on how they can legally sell XRP going forward, based on lack of common legal consensus currently existing.

Chris, Arthur and Jed created the RXTP (Ripple Transfer Protocol) and then gifted 80B to Open Coin. Chris had his XRP before there was even a company.  We can compare the ledger transaction dates (June) to the incorporation dates (Sept). 

Usage of the protocol increased the value of Chris's XRP. He sold some of his just like everyone whoever obtained any crypto intends to do. 

It's disingenuous to begrudge someone the right to sell their own property when it increases in value, be it virtual or ITRW.

 

(Your wording is starting to muddy the water between Chris's founder-XRP, Brad's signing-bonus-XRP, and Ripple's stash. Chris didn't sell off any of the business's assets for his gain. That would be fraud.)

 

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.