Jump to content

Brad Garlinghouse was right all this time..


XRPage
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JJJ2 said:

the monthly escrow is so big that they can place only 1/10 and you don't even know if this amount (100mln) are immediately bought by retail traders or stocked by MM and sold slowly during the next weeks/months.

Ripple releases the amount used in escrow to the public and I'm unaware of any single instance where they had used the whole amount of XRP released to them.  The SEC allegations indicated that Ripple were selling with the explicit intent of not having their sales impact the price of XRP so consumer sentiment wouldn't turn against them.  It's very dubious in terms of logic to simultaneously take the position that Ripple was both predatorily dumping XRP on consumers while doing their best to sell in a way that doesn't impact the price.  The only way that could ever be the case was that you could demonstrate the founders believed the ledger would never have any utility with anyone and was created with the sole purpose of selling to retail investors and if you can do that with any veracity, you really should be contacting the SEC right now.

Furthermore, when XRP had hit it's ATH, Ripple did not sell the entire amount of XRP released to them from escrow during that period.  If Ripple were intending to do nothing more than dump XRP onto retail investors to make money, they're doing a **** poor job of it.

 

1 hour ago, JJJ2 said:

They are continuously doing it. Haven't you realized that xrp is the only one not taking part to the party and if it increases value is this is only driven by throttling the dumping action?

It is in front of your face in the form of price chart.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Edited by macropolo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, macropolo said:

  It's very dubious in terms of logic to simultaneously take the position that Ripple was both predatorily dumping XRP on consumers while doing their best to sell in a way that doesn't impact the price. 

You lost track of the original point regarding control and the fact that RL "can" dump (and shut off the lights) if they choose.  I was not stating that they were dumping or will one day.

As far as your point quoted above: True unless you consider the possibility that RL was optimizing sales to maximize the long term price. (playing the long game)

Or using other words. If RL choose to "sell in a way that doesn't impact the price."  then they can tap this well until they exhaust all of their XRP. (or perhaps get sued by the SEC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

You lost track of the original point regarding control and the fact that RL "can" dump (and shut off the lights) if they choose.  I was not stating that they were dumping or will one day.

As far as your point quoted above: True unless you consider the possibility that RL was optimizing sales to maximize the long term price. (playing the long game)

Or using other words. If RL choose to "sell in a way that doesn't impact the price."  then they can tap this well until they exhaust all of their XRP. (or perhaps get sued by the SEC)

I'm not sure anyone could make a more ridiculous scenario as proof that they could half the price of XRP if they tried.  What do you think would happen to any of the major cryptos if their development foundations and prominent individuals simultaneously divest themselves of development on the project while they announced they no longer believed in it.  I suppose in this bizzaro world the prices of Ethereum, Cardano, Stellar all dutifully humm along while all of the major developers and code contributors do an about face and toss the development and evolution of the ledger into the wind.  The price would remain steady because they're sufficiently "decentralized."  Right.  Okay.

Never mind the fact that the vast, and I really mean vast, majority of Ripple's XRP holdings are placed in a cryptogragically secure programmatic escrow which only releases a certain amount of XRP to them per month - and yes they do sell and give those holdings away contrary to what was said above.  Then I'm supposed to believe that with these billions of dollars of XRP that they have trickling down to them each month, which as has been said before is essentially free money, they're going to wake up one morning, maybe after a night of heavy drinking, and just decide to walk way from development of the chain and reduce the real-world dollar value of their escrowed crypto holdings to zero.  And this makes sense to you?

I guess their master plan was to play the long game and sell XRP at anywhere between .16 to .45 for several years rather than dump as much as they possibly could when it was up at nearly $4.

Edited by macropolo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

Heck they can turn off the lights simply by announcing they were planning on dumping. 

How many BTC transactions are there every day? How many ledger closes? Every BTC created by validations is dumped on the market at $47000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, macropolo said:

I'm not sure anyone could make a more ridiculous scenario as proof that they could half the price of XRP if they tried.  What do you think would happen to any of the major cryptos if their development foundations and prominent individuals simultaneously divest themselves of development on the project while they announced they no longer believed in it.  I suppose in this bizzaro world the prices of Ethereum, Cardano, Stellar all dutifully humm along while all of the major developers and code contributors do an about face and toss the development and evolution of the ledger into the wind.  The price would remain steady because they're sufficiently "decentralized."  Right.  Okay.

Never mind the fact that the vast, and I really mean vast, majority of Ripple's XRP holdings are placed in a cryptogragically secure programmatic escrow which only releases a certain amount of XRP to them per month - and yes they do sell and give those holdings away contrary to what was said above.  Then I'm supposed to believe that with these billions of dollars of XRP that they have trickling down to them each month, which as has been said before is essentially free money, they're going to wake up one morning, maybe after a night of heavy drinking, and just decide to walk way from development of the chain and reduce the real-world dollar value of their escrowed crypto holdings to zero.  And this makes sense to you?

I guess their master plan was to play the long game and sell XRP at anywhere between .16 to .45 for several years rather than dump as much as they possibly could when it was up at nearly $4.

You obviously are incapable of understanding the premise of the original statement. There is a difference between the words "can" and "will". Instead you keep debating a point that no one has tried to make.

Obviously, RL does not want to hurt or kill their own project. However the whole point is IF THEY WANTED TO THEY COULD (no one is saying they want to, or plan to) Ripple Labs holds central power, through domination of the assets. This is a simple truth. Most of the other projects you mention have multiple foundations behind them, or are simply running on top of BTC.

I have a simple question about the escrow....To date there has not been a single release that did not require a huge surplus to be placed back in escrow.  So... Why does RL choose to escrow the surplus each month, rather than sell them on the open exchange? 

"keep buying the dips"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Trickery said:

How many BTC transactions are there every day? How many ledger closes? Every BTC created by validations is dumped on the market at $47000.

Luckily validators have to do a lot of work to get that $47K. Otherwise anyone would do it.
You go on believing that value or money comes for free. That belief only works when you invent your own money. Of course you still will need to spend years trying to convince others it is valuable.
BTC is inherently valuable because it provides a service and rewards those that participate in facilitating the service.

Work matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

Luckily validators have to do a lot of work to get that $47K. Otherwise anyone would do it.
You go on believing that value or money comes for free. That belief only works when you invent your own money. Of course you still will need to spend years trying to convince others it is valuable.
BTC is inherently valuable because it provides a service and rewards those that participate in facilitating the service.

Work matters.

You're an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

You obviously are incapable of understanding the premise of the original statement. There is a difference between the words "can" and "will". Instead you keep debating a point that no one has tried to make.

Obviously, RL does not want to hurt or kill their own project. However the whole point is IF THEY WANTED TO THEY COULD (no one is saying they want to, or plan to) Ripple Labs holds central power, through domination of the assets. This is a simple truth. Most of the other projects you mention have multiple foundations behind them, or are simply running on top of BTC.

I have a simple question about the escrow....To date there has not been a single release that did not require a huge surplus to be placed back in escrow.  So... Why does RL choose to escrow the surplus each month, rather than sell them on the open exchange? 

"keep buying the dips"

Calling me out for debating a point no one is trying to make while in the same post using the same "could" and "would" statements as the basis of an argument against the ledger is a little inconsistent.  You can't wrap an argument in a "could" and "would" statement and then run away any criticism of that argument by saying you're not actually making the argument you're just saying it's possible.

You could use that argumentative form to justify any number of preposterously insane scenarios.  Bitcoin miners could one day wake up and decide they hate mining.  Oh you think that's ridiculous?  Well you're trying to argue a point no one's really making because I just said that someone could do it, not that they would.  But they COULD do it and that's the problem.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Trickery said:

You're an idiot.

But he's actually right. One of the reasons BTC and ETH grows is because it rewards the participants. The reason some of these stupid defi things have gotten so high is because of staking rewards. XRP doesn't really have any tokenomics outside of "hold and hope it goes up".

Edited by Archbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, macropolo said:

Calling me out for debating a point no one is trying to make while in the same post using the same "could" and "would" statements as the basis of an argument against the ledger is a little inconsistent.  You can't wrap an argument in a "could" and "would" statement and then run away any criticism of that argument by saying you're not actually making the argument you're just saying it's possible.

You could use that argumentative form to justify any number of preposterously insane scenarios.  Bitcoin miners could one day wake up and decide they hate mining.  Oh you think that's ridiculous?  Well you're trying to argue a point no one's really making because I just said that someone could do it, not that they would.  But they COULD do it and that's the problem.

 

 

 

 

Last try: The point is that RL is the only entity that has the control to shut off XRP. Hence the system is centralized. Maybe it’s too simple of a concept for your elevated intellect. “Why or will” “should or could” or  “can and may”  DO NOT PLAY INTO THIS FACT. IT STANDS ALONE.

BTC has no central focal point, nor do any of the other projects you mention outside of Stellar.  Sure miners can stop mining but then they would lose the income from it.  

What is the benefit of setting up and maintaining a XRPL validator or node?
“Gee I get to participate in the free flow of money” Of course it is not free, rather it comes at the expense of the node operator. That’s quite an incentive, but only from RL’s and the FI’s perspective.🙄

Why haven’t you purchased the hardware and setup a node for yourself? Isn’t “helping the underserved” incentive enough for you? Obviously not, Instead you expect others to voluntarily do all the heavy lifting, forever. This way you can simply reap the profits from their hard work. Yep that is a sound system (sounds like forced labor to serve the elite)

I see you also ignored the direct question, I posed. Simply because you realized your answer makes my point about the power from dominating an asset?
 

I see another dip: time for you to start buying. 
Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

Last try: The point is that RL is the only entity that has the control to shut off XRP. Hence the system is centralized. Maybe it’s too simple of a concept for your elevated intellect. “Why or will” “should or could” or  “can and may”  DO NOT PLAY INTO THIS FACT. IT STANDS ALONE.

BTC has no central focal point, nor do any of the other projects you mention outside of Stellar.  Sure miners can stop mining but then they would lose the income from it.  

I thought we decided to drop this point since no one was actually making this argument.   Since we've somehow wound up back here, miners losing income when they irrationally decide to stop mining is probably less ridiculous than Ripple labs deciding to abandon the ledger when you consider how much XRP is still locked away in escrow.

 

26 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

What is the benefit of setting up and maintaining a XRPL validator or node?
“Gee I get to participate in the free flow of money” Of course it is not free, rather it comes at the expense of the node operator. That’s quite an incentive, but only from RL’s and the FI’s perspective.🙄

Why haven’t you purchased the hardware and setup a node for yourself? Isn’t “helping the underserved” incentive enough for you? Obviously not, Instead you expect others to voluntarily do all the heavy lifting, forever. This way you can simply reap the profits from their hard work. Yep that is a sound system (sounds like forced labor to serve the elite)
 

No one is required to participate in the consensus process in order to use a decentralized ledger.  I don't have to mine to use bitcoin.  I don't have to run a validator to use the XRPL or Stellar.  I'm not require to stake tokens to use Cardano.  Each system has it's own flaws and advantages.  I wouldn't expect my grandmother to participate in the consensus process.  And I certainly wouldn't gatekeep a whole technology just because someone might not want to run a validator node.

 

44 minutes ago, Valhalla_Guy said:

I see you also ignored the direct question, I posed. Simply because you realized your answer makes my point about the power from dominating an asset?
 

I see another dip: time for you to start buying. 
Cheers

I don't know why you expect me to extend you the curtesy of answering every point of yours considering you're consistently retreating behind "no one actually made that argument" tactic.  My understanding of the escrow is that they use what they need to build the ledger and the rest is put back.  If they were strictly seeking the maximum amount of profit they would have been dumping the whole amount onto exchanges and putting nothing back into escrow.  Whether you think that's simply because they want to keep up appearances the end result is the same.  They've so far been responsible stewards of the ledger.

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.