Just a thought - who (including 'they' and 'them') gain by bringing the price down? Where would be the benefit to 'them'? Yes, they could pick up more for less, but if by 'them' you're referring to the founders, they're holding back 60 billion of the 100 billion coins, so why would they crash the price of their own asset? Just curious?
It just flies in the face of logic, though, does it not? Sell 1%, pocket the profits, and crash the value of your remaining 99%. Remember - they're inside the banking fraternity, so the Ripple team can almost certainly borrow fiat against their XRP holdings, any time they like. Crash the value of their holdings, and their ability to borrow is instantly reduced.
I accept they MIGHT do this, in a very small way, very occasionally (though I struggle to see why) and this MIGHT cause a dip in price, but every crypto - indeed, every asset - goes through peaks and troughs. It's just part of the game, so where's the difference?
For me, this coin has a strong use case, with powerful backers, and an end result of lower transaction costs for trans-national banks. They face regulatory hurdles, but for a strong enough case, regulators bend to what banks want anyway.
Just a thought - who (including 'they' and 'them') gain by bringing the price down? Where would be the benefit to 'them'? Yes, they could pick up more for less, but if by 'them' you're referring to the founders, they're holding back 60 billion of the 100 billion coins, so why would they crash the price of their own asset? Just curious?
They would sell large amount and take the profit .even if you sell 1% of coin , it could crash the market because liquidity is too low .
They have done that previously . Just DYOR .
I am not saying this would happen but it may in future .
It just flies in the face of logic, though, does it not? Sell 1%, pocket the profits, and crash the value of your remaining 99%. Remember - they're inside the banking fraternity, so the Ripple team can almost certainly borrow fiat against their XRP holdings, any time they like. Crash the value of their holdings, and their ability to borrow is instantly reduced.
I accept they MIGHT do this, in a very small way, very occasionally (though I struggle to see why) and this MIGHT cause a dip in price, but every crypto - indeed, every asset - goes through peaks and troughs. It's just part of the game, so where's the difference?
For me, this coin has a strong use case, with powerful backers, and an end result of lower transaction costs for trans-national banks. They face regulatory hurdles, but for a strong enough case, regulators bend to what banks want anyway.
I like ripple , only reason i am not in it ,is because it is centralized .
Btw banks wont use this coin . They only want to use the network .
You're right - the banks are only using the underlying network and protocols