Jump to content

Some questions about XRP and the market place


Recommended Posts

Hello friends,

 

I've been following the topic of Ripple and XRP since 2018 and I noticed that there is a lot of talk about the visions, the benefits and the expansion, but little about the tokens in the escrow accounts and the OTC trading.

I have a few questions that I want to be answered.

What is the legal status of the XRP on the escrow accounts? What legal obligations do owners of XRP have on escrow accounts? -> By that I mean Ripple, Mccaleb and buyers of XRP over OTC trading.

I ask this because over the years, trading XRP from escrow accounts has been the primary source of income for the founders, Ripple, and the business partners related to OTC acquired XRP. Assuming there is no legal difference between the tokens on the free market and those that are in the escrow accounts, it doesn't take a lot of creativity to imagine an exclusive network trading, under exclusion of the public and legal regulation. And everything that can be imagined is usually done. For a long time, I had nothing against Ripple's sales, as it seemed to me to be a necessary step to expand the business structure. But it always seemed to me as if Ripple wasn't selling anything here, just putting new tokens into circulation, which in the end is the same as printing money. You'd have to get something of value for your Fiats to sell, but that's not the case.

 

What you can maybe explain at Ripple, remains incomprehensible when we talk about the large amounts of XRP from Mccaleb. Mccaleb has long since left the company and owns a large portion of the XRP which is in escrow accounts. What I don't understand is why it seems that Mccaleb is entitled to the funds of a large market without any obligations. Why is he allowed to circulate tokens that previously had no value and use the growing market of a company with which he has had nothing to do with for years?

With these tokens he can build up a huge private fortune without having done anything for it. For this reason, I would like to know what legal status the XRP have on the escrow accounts. For me, these sales increasingly seem like charity campaigns for founders.

 

Greetings from

a xrp long time investor

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If the mission is to make XRP a global bridge currency, then Ripple with their escrowed XRP will function sort of like the Monetary Authority or Central Bank of XRPL.  I'm not sure why people com

You have all kinds of questions here. To be honest, I'm not quite 100% clear on what your asking in each. It seems that some of your original conceptions were a bit off. To that extent, lemme share so

Oops ... I was afraid I was too broadly historical. But at least we've got common ground now.      hmmmm....I don't understand why you think XRP holders should get something in return

1 hour ago, Rasjell said:

Hello friends,

 

I've been following the topic of Ripple and XRP since 2018 and I noticed that there is a lot of talk about the visions, the benefits and the expansion, but little about the tokens in the escrow accounts and the OTC trading.

I have a few questions that I want to be answered.

What is the legal status of the XRP on the escrow accounts? What legal obligations do owners of XRP have on escrow accounts? -> By that I mean Ripple, Mccaleb and buyers of XRP over OTC trading.

I ask this because over the years, trading XRP from escrow accounts has been the primary source of income for the founders, Ripple, and the business partners related to OTC acquired XRP. Assuming there is no legal difference between the tokens on the free market and those that are in the escrow accounts, it doesn't take a lot of creativity to imagine an exclusive network trading, under exclusion of the public and legal regulation. And everything that can be imagined is usually done. For a long time, I had nothing against Ripple's sales, as it seemed to me to be a necessary step to expand the business structure. But it always seemed to me as if Ripple wasn't selling anything here, just putting new tokens into circulation, which in the end is the same as printing money. You'd have to get something of value for your Fiats to sell, but that's not the case.

 

What you can maybe explain at Ripple, remains incomprehensible when we talk about the large amounts of XRP from Mccaleb. Mccaleb has long since left the company and owns a large portion of the XRP which is in escrow accounts. What I don't understand is why it seems that Mccaleb is entitled to the funds of a large market without any obligations. Why is he allowed to circulate tokens that previously had no value and use the growing market of a company with which he has had nothing to do with for years?

With these tokens he can build up a huge private fortune without having done anything for it. For this reason, I would like to know what legal status the XRP have on the escrow accounts. For me, these sales increasingly seem like charity campaigns for founders.

 

Greetings from

a xrp long time investor

 

Welcome and Thankx for such an inciteful 1st Post. I too am looking forward to replies to your questions. Why isn't McCaleb included in the SEC's attack against Ripple ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rasjell said:

Hello friends,

 

I've been following the topic of Ripple and XRP since 2018 and I noticed that there is a lot of talk about the visions, the benefits and the expansion, but little about the tokens in the escrow accounts and the OTC trading.

I have a few questions that I want to be answered.

What is the legal status of the XRP on the escrow accounts? What legal obligations do owners of XRP have on escrow accounts? -> By that I mean Ripple, Mccaleb and buyers of XRP over OTC trading.

I ask this because over the years, trading XRP from escrow accounts has been the primary source of income for the founders, Ripple, and the business partners related to OTC acquired XRP. Assuming there is no legal difference between the tokens on the free market and those that are in the escrow accounts, it doesn't take a lot of creativity to imagine an exclusive network trading, under exclusion of the public and legal regulation. And everything that can be imagined is usually done. For a long time, I had nothing against Ripple's sales, as it seemed to me to be a necessary step to expand the business structure. But it always seemed to me as if Ripple wasn't selling anything here, just putting new tokens into circulation, which in the end is the same as printing money. You'd have to get something of value for your Fiats to sell, but that's not the case.

 

What you can maybe explain at Ripple, remains incomprehensible when we talk about the large amounts of XRP from Mccaleb. Mccaleb has long since left the company and owns a large portion of the XRP which is in escrow accounts. What I don't understand is why it seems that Mccaleb is entitled to the funds of a large market without any obligations. Why is he allowed to circulate tokens that previously had no value and use the growing market of a company with which he has had nothing to do with for years?

With these tokens he can build up a huge private fortune without having done anything for it. For this reason, I would like to know what legal status the XRP have on the escrow accounts. For me, these sales increasingly seem like charity campaigns for founders.

 

Greetings from

a xrp long time investor

 

You have all kinds of questions here. To be honest, I'm not quite 100% clear on what your asking in each. It seems that some of your original conceptions were a bit off. To that extent, lemme share some background. 

Jed got 9B XRP as a founder. (Larsen 9B, Britto 2B ... ie the typical 20% to founders) Jed parted ways with the company and took his XRP. He later had a hissy fit in '14 and said he was going to dump all his XRP. (Stupid story about what upset him, but not relevant) Ripple management negotiated a deal with him to limit the amount he would sell per year for several years. (You can find those specific terms in dusty corners of the internet). This stability was obviously necessary for the growth of the RXTP (Ripple Transfer Protocol) The XRP community however busted Jed repeatedly selling more than he had contractually agreed to. Again, he was screwing us all. So Ripple struck a new agreement. As part of a new agreement, Ripple took custody ... not ownership ... of Jed's XRP. Ripple doled 'em out on some formulated basis to Jed, who in turn sells them. This kept Jed from inundating the market. 

Larsen's and Britto's belong to them respectively. Larsen put the lion's share of his in some foundation. (A bit of googling will tell you details)

Now...at the same time, the broader crypto community was paranoid that Ripple the company would itself dump their stash of XRP. To allay this concern, Ripple locked up THEIR XRP into multiple escrow accounts...with one 1B XRP account to be opened each month. Those 1B were to be sold, distributed, given away, incentivize partnerships, etc. each month. What wasn't used of that 1B was to be locked up in escrow again and put at the end of the batting order. (You can find the specific terms of Ripple's self imposed escrow schedule in various corners of the internet too)

You are welcome to put YOUR XRP into your own escrow account if you wish. The XRPs that Ripple put into escrow years ago belong to them. You, me and any other XRP holder have no claim to them.

(FWIW: Of the 80B XRP that Ripple was given by the network's creators, 60B XRP were to be distributed in such a way to enhance network growth, and the other 20B were to fund Open Coin's (ie Ripple's) future operations.)  

I hope I didn't waste your time with all this. I apologize if I did. 

Edited by RobertHarpool
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RobertHarpool said:

You have all kinds of questions here. To be honest, I'm not quite 100% clear on what your asking in each. It seems that some of your original conceptions were a bit off. To that extent, lemme share some background. 

Jed got 9B XRP as a founder. (Larsen 9B, Britto 2B ... ie the typical 20% to founders) Jed parted ways with the company and took his XRP. He later had a hissy fit in '14 and said he was going to dump all his XRP. (Stupid story about what upset him, but not relevant) Ripple management negotiated a deal with him to limit the amount he would sell per year for several years. (You can find those specific terms in dusty corners of the internet). This stability was obviously necessary for the growth of the RXTP (Ripple Transfer Protocol) The XRP community however busted Jed repeatedly selling more than he had contractually agreed to. Again, he was screwing us all. So Ripple struck a new agreement. As part of a new agreement, Ripple took custody ... not ownership ... of Jed's XRP. Ripple doled 'em out on some formulated basis to Jed, who in turn sells them. This kept Jed from inundating the market. 

Larsen's and Britto's belong to them respectively. Larsen put the lion's share of his in some foundation. (A bit of googling will tell you details)

Now...at the same time, the broader crypto community was paranoid that Ripple the company would itself dump their stash of XRP. To allay this concern, Ripple locked up THEIR XRP into multiple escrow accounts...with one 3B XRP account to be opened each month. Those 3B were to be sold, distributed, given away, incentivize partnerships, etc. each month. What wasn't used of that 3B was to be locked up in escrow again and put at the end of the batting order. (You can find the specific terms of Ripple's self imposed escrow schedule in various corners of the internet too)

You are welcome to put YOUR XRP into your own escrow account if you wish. The XRPs that Ripple put into escrow years ago belong to them. You, me and any other XRP holder have no claim to them.

(FWIW: Of the 80B XRP that Ripple was given by the network's creators, 60B XRP were to be distributed in such a way to enhance network growth, and the other 20B were to fund Open Coin's (ie Ripple's) future operations.)  

I hope I didn't waste your time with all this. I apologize if I did. 

Good post, but the Ripple escrow releases 1B XRP per month, not 3B.

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

Good post, but the Ripple escrow releases 1B XRP per month, not 3B.

Oops ... fat fingered that ... fixing it now ... Cheers! 

(...err ... well ... I guess 'brain fart' is the better term as I did it 3 times!!! LOL)

 

Edited by RobertHarpool
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the mission is to make XRP a global bridge currency, then Ripple with their escrowed XRP will function sort of like the Monetary Authority or Central Bank of XRPL. 

I'm not sure why people comment about them burning it, or giving it away, or getting rid of it. None of that makes sense to me. 

It would make more sense to me that the existing monetary authorities would want some influence over the escrowed units. Sort of like RippleNet's Rules and Governance panel of Commercial banks.

This would make Ripple Inc just one vote, when decisions about expanding/contracting the money supply of XRP, and the existing monetary authorities would have a vote. This mirrors all the Central Bank's own structure, like the Fed's Board of Governors. 

Edited by KarmaCoverage
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RobertHarpool said:

You have all kinds of questions here. To be honest, I'm not quite 100% clear on what your asking in each. It seems that some of your original conceptions were a bit off. To that extent, lemme share some background. 

Jed got 9B XRP as a founder. (Larsen 9B, Britto 2B ... ie the typical 20% to founders) Jed parted ways with the company and took his XRP. He later had a hissy fit in '14 and said he was going to dump all his XRP. (Stupid story about what upset him, but not relevant) Ripple management negotiated a deal with him to limit the amount he would sell per year for several years. (You can find those specific terms in dusty corners of the internet). This stability was obviously necessary for the growth of the RXTP (Ripple Transfer Protocol) The XRP community however busted Jed repeatedly selling more than he had contractually agreed to. Again, he was screwing us all. So Ripple struck a new agreement. As part of a new agreement, Ripple took custody ... not ownership ... of Jed's XRP. Ripple doled 'em out on some formulated basis to Jed, who in turn sells them. This kept Jed from inundating the market. 

Larsen's and Britto's belong to them respectively. Larsen put the lion's share of his in some foundation. (A bit of googling will tell you details)

Now...at the same time, the broader crypto community was paranoid that Ripple the company would itself dump their stash of XRP. To allay this concern, Ripple locked up THEIR XRP into multiple escrow accounts...with one 1B XRP account to be opened each month. Those 1B were to be sold, distributed, given away, incentivize partnerships, etc. each month. What wasn't used of that 1B was to be locked up in escrow again and put at the end of the batting order. (You can find the specific terms of Ripple's self imposed escrow schedule in various corners of the internet too)

You are welcome to put YOUR XRP into your own escrow account if you wish. The XRPs that Ripple put into escrow years ago belong to them. You, me and any other XRP holder have no claim to them.

(FWIW: Of the 80B XRP that Ripple was given by the network's creators, 60B XRP were to be distributed in such a way to enhance network growth, and the other 20B were to fund Open Coin's (ie Ripple's) future operations.)  

I hope I didn't waste your time with all this. I apologize if I did. 

 

Hello RobertHarpool,

 

Thank you for your short summary about the internal development of Ripple and the handling of the XRP on the escrow accounts. Without mentioning it, I assume with my forum post that these general informations, which can be read in some news articles and Ripple reports, are already known. But maybe it is good that someone has briefly bundled these informations again.

What I'm about is the questionable use of the XRPs, which have been kept out of the free market and have been used for years to raise capital without XRP owners getting anything in return. Why don't Ripple or its founders seem to have any legal obligations other than those they impose on themselves?

There must be a clear legal status about the XRPs in the escrow accounts, which define what these XRPs are. Are there licenses to print XRP? Are these stocks that Ripple issues? You can't say that these are the same type of tokens as those on the free market. Because their value is 0 until the founders or Ripple sell them to the market.

The one-time act of assigning a certain amount of XRP to oneself when creating the XRP cannot serve as a sufficient reason to withdraw money from investors over the years without submitting to any regulation. Logically, when Mccaleb left the company, Ripple would have had to create a settlement at the value at that time and either keep its XRP in their own hands or burn it. That allows numerous ways to control the market and to enrich oneself privately with the money.

 

And that's what happens.

Via OTC sales, Ripple distributes XRP to other investors whose conditions are completely unknown to us. Incidentally, in the past also on McCaleb. It doesn't take a lot of creativity to imagine what these sales are. Ripple owns XRP, which is nothing more than a mere license to raise capital. This creates the ability to print money yourself. Ripple and the founders trade with these licenses. Who gets nothing are the investors in the free market. Therefore I would like to know what legal status the XRP have on these escrow accounts.

 

Greetings

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

But maybe it is good that someone has briefly bundled these informations again.

Oops ... I was afraid I was too broadly historical. But at least we've got common ground now. 

 

3 hours ago, Rasjell said:

What I'm about is the questionable use of the XRPs, which have been kept out of the free market and have been used for years to raise capital without XRP owners getting anything in return.

 

hmmmm....I don't understand why you think XRP holders should get something in return from the XRP owned by others, in this case the company Ripple. As a Forever Stamp holder, I don't 'get anything' based on the number of stamps held by the U.S. Post Office. Nor can I imagine why I should. That is what XRP are, first and foremost, is a utility coin (i.e. stamp) to prevent abuse (i.e. spam and DoS attacks) of the XRPL. 

3 hours ago, Rasjell said:

There must be a clear legal status about the XRPs in the escrow accounts, which define what these XRPs are.

IRS says they're property. Dept of Treasury called 'em a currency. Most every major world government calls them a Convertible Virtual Currency (meaning non-fiat currency). Do we need more clarity? Obviously. I've personally contacted the SEC, the Fed, et al numerous times over the last 8 years on this topic. Prior to the IRS's first guidance in '14 it was truly the wild, wild west ... 

 

3 hours ago, Rasjell said:

Are there licenses to print XRP?

There are only 100B. You can't just make more. It's a deflationary currency. Last I remember, Stellar was inflationary. 10% more per year or something. Not XRP though. 

3 hours ago, Rasjell said:

Are these stocks that Ripple issues?

No. They are not stocks. If you want to own stocks of the company you can buy some. Ripple is not publicly traded though, so you'd have to be a 'qualified investor' and get them from Sharespost. Where would you have ever gotten the idea that XRP were stocks? 

  

3 hours ago, Rasjell said:

The one-time act of assigning a certain amount of XRP to oneself when creating the XRP cannot serve as a sufficient reason to withdraw money from investors over the years without submitting to any regulation.

Tell that to anyone who separated their personal assets from their business assets and were later sued or filed bankruptcy....It's how things work. The history of incorporation establishing an entirely separate legal entity goes back several hundred years. 

 

3 hours ago, Rasjell said:

Logically, when Mccaleb left the company, Ripple would have had to create a settlement at the value at that time and either keep its XRP in their own hands or burn it

Not seeing that logic. McCaleb owned his XRP and later left. CL and AB owned their XRP. Ripple was formed as an entity long after the ledger was created and got their XRP later. The ledger transaction dates and the incorporation dates are public records. 

 

 

Recently I was on Wikipedia. I was utterly shocked!! It's really sad what Bitcoin maximalists have done to public explanations of the XRPL. They've deleted it all. Like religious zealots destroying the symbols of other beliefs. So, go to Wikipedia ... hit the "History" tab ... scroll back to 2014 or so ... and take some time to learn. FWIW Ripple had to take  down their own forum and wiki sites long ago as an eventual repercussion of the settlement with the Dept of Treasury's FINCEN when XRP was determined to be a currency.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gates made billions from plucking 0s & 1s from thin air and unlimited supply, and organising them into applications running over thin air while selling licenses to use these combinations of 0s & 1s on machines that you yourself owned,

hence the old april fools joke that msoft was patenting the digits 0&1

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.