>>62704039
It's all going to work together. Ripplets (me) have to wait til 2030 for more than $7 though.

I was sitting in the cafeteria like 2 years ago and there was a table of younger guys on the other side. One of them was shilling XRP real hard. Like shilling it loud in a large hallway where I'm hearing everything he says from 200 feet away. On a different occasion this kid was talking about circumcision like its a great thing and how it's a covenant with God. XRP was like 3 bucks at the time and this guy was ready to buy more lmao.

>>62704039
Zcash is about to flip it

>>62704094
Your story doesn't add up actually. People would be 2x still if they bought when that kid told them to.
t. uncut chad

>>62704064
>It's all going to work together
Either banks use tokenized assets that swap atomically without needing a middleman, or they use XRP as a bridge asset.
Both can't coexist for the same assets.

Ripple benefits from the former, XRP only benefits from the latter.

>>62704113
It was 3 bucks in feb 2025. they would be down >50%.

>>62704039
Xerpies are mentally retarded. They think using another chain is....... bullish for XRPL.....? wtf

>>62704218
That too, but the guy saw "Ripple partners" and failed to read the part about those Ripple partners using Canton instead lmao

>>62704199
But that's not two years ago buddy.
Just saying, when you make up stories, make them believable based on the most obvious facts available.
It doesn't have to make THAT much sense, but it has to be believable that it even happened.

>>62704191
The the VOLUME market is what Ripple/XRP have always been after. The big numbers are for retards.
Banks make very few tx in total compared to other available avenues.
It's the fog of war. Their most practical use in the high volume, low value trading and payments, replacing cc backend and processing retail payments.
>they never said that
For a reason.

>>62704293
ok it was 1.5 years not 2. at least i dont hold that dogshit lmao

>>62704315
It's an odd thing how much people seethe about XRP. And its been for a very long time.

>>62704302
>the VOLUME market is what Ripple/XRP have always been after.
What the fuck does that mean kek
The VOLUME will be seen in tokenized assets sent and swapped ATOMICALLY; without needing a bridge coin.

>>62704339
There are 2.5B retail tx a day. The use of the ledger uses some of the token.
Their play is not banks for wholesale. That's fine but doesn't effect the price.
Their only real chance is massive tx volume. As in getting a billy of those processing cc payments and etc.
This is actually the floodgate for an operation like theirs. And the reason for RLUSD.

File: F3nmvAxXwAAY0X3.jpg (389 KB, 1560x2080)

389 KB JPG

>>62704260
Why even word it like that?

>>62704326
Cause the community are bunch of low IQ high school drop outs that dont know the first thing about global finance or even blockchain tech yet speak like theyre experts on the subject.

>>62704326
I also hate GME bagholders too. It's subsumed under the greater whole of retardation. I hate retards of all colors and so do many people. Xrp holders are like the future doctors of the subway system, or indian tourists in Japan. Xrp will never hit 5 dollars, 10 dollars and beyond. Literally the usd will be consolidated into another currency and traded as things are now. Xrp is a fool's gold

>>62704039
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

File: 1789749082560608.jpg (70 KB, 1024x768)

70 KB JPG

>>62704358
Lots of words there.

>>62704429
I didn't know 71 words was a lot for you, fucking retard.

>>62704345
>Their only real chance is massive tx volume
tx volume will be in tokenized assets that trade and setlle atomically, without a "bridge currency".

>>62704612
But the XRP is attached to every ledger tx. That's the point in regards to that.
XRP has to be bought to use it for that purpose.
Just watch Ripple become a retail payment processor.

>>62704626
>Just watch Ripple become a retail payment processor.
Why would it become that when it's a ghostchain now after 14 years?

Also, even if Swift's total current volume was all done via XRPL, it would take over 5,000 years to burn 1% of XRP's supply.

>>62704655
>ghostchain now
Because they are a highly competent group of business men with lots of money and backing.
PEOPLE MAKE DEALS.
Not shitcoins.
They don't have garlicbreadhouse there all the time for no reason.

>>62705131
>Because they are a highly competent group of business men with lots of money and backing.
Probably why they spent billions buying other companies because they know their blockchain is a POS.

When verbose linkshill is making a xrp fudthread again its time to have a look at the portfolio.
Best indicator we are going up

>>62705131
>>62705227
If XRPL were to absorb all of Swift's transaction volume and operate for over 5,000 years, the total fees needed would amount to 1% of total XRP supply.

Did you know that?

>>62705350
No, you seem to know a lot about the ledger. Its almost like it, and ripple, lives rent free in your head!

Did you know that chainlink does not need a high price for the network to function? The tokn is just a quick hop from a fiat currency to the tokn and back to fiat?

>>62705227
>>62705416
BOOOOM SHAKALAKA THATS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT

Whenever the chainlink make the xrp fud it mean xrp going up very high soon

XRP is still the top #3 crypto when Chainlink not even top 10 Lol

File: 1770915541135724.jpg (8 KB, 293x172)

8 KB JPG

>>62706207
>Whenever the chainlink make the xrp fud it mean xrp going up very high soon

>>62705416
>No
wow, you never did this math for yourself?
That's insane. So why would XRP pump, according to you? Because it literally cannot pump from use.

>does not need a high price for the network to function
Neither do gold, stocks, cars, blockchains, ....
This is the most asinine shit imaginable.

>>62706220
>>62706251
Double post , good morning fudcuck.
None of what you mentioned is middleware software, they all have intrinsic use. You compare apples to pears (again).

>>62706220
>So why would XRP pump, according to you? Because it literally cannot pump from use.
High xrp value allows it to move more value with less xrp.

But its main function is to trigger you and bounce around in your head 24/7 so you can argue in bad faith again because you get paid per post engagement like the Israëli shill you are. I see you got your morning cup of vinegar this morning and are ready to verbally shit yourself in 5 threads at the same time again.

>>62706265
>High xrp value allows it to move more value with less xrp.
You mean as "bridge currency" middleware?
Nobody is going to use a bridge currency when they can settle tokenized assets atomically.

>>62706281
Sure buddy, let me know how that has worked out for you so far. You shouldv sold at 50 bucks.

>>62706281
>Nobody is going to use a bridge currency
You just cant grasp the concept in relation to the dollar as the world currency. You never could btw. You still shill your garbage on here all day , every week.

Its your job after all kekw

>>62706286
Let's talk about the bridge currency thing then.

Swift's monetary volume is roughly the world's GDP every three days.
An XRP bridge currency transaction takes about 5 seconds, so let's divide Swift's volume into 5-second intervals: $2-3 billion.
XRP's current MC is around $90 billion.

So even if XRP were used as the de facto bridge currency for all of Swift's monetary volume, the current market cap is technically around 40x higher than needed.

>>62706298
>market cap
You know that this is just current price x outstanding / circulating supply right?
It has not the same merit as with stocks.

Balance-sheet/treasury usage does reduce liquid supply and can support higher prices.

>>62706314
>Balance-sheet/treasury usage does reduce liquid supply and can support higher prices.
the XRP needed for bridging is infinitely recyclable.
Even at XRP's current valuation and circulating supply, it would take only a tiny fraction of circulating XRP to fulfill all of Swift's volume.

But here's the worst part: Schwartz has said that XRP's entire uncirculating supply is also "circulating".
That means Ripple's MC is actually more than $1.2 trillion.

So at XRP's current price, the actual MC is more like 60x higher than needed to handle all of Swift's current volume.

>>62706323
>the XRP needed for bridging is infinitely recyclable.
bridging is not treasury/balance sheet
Evernorth for example is a long term corporate treasury

>MC is more like 60x higher than needed to handle all of Swift's current volume.
MC is just a calculation, it has no relevance in this discussion

1.2 T is wild however, very good very nice

>>62706364
So we agree that XRP cannot pump from usage, even under the most insane scenarios like fully absorbing all of Swift.
All you're left with is "companies hold XRP just to hold it".

You don't get bullied enough.

>>62706382
>So we agree that XRP cannot pump from usage
No I dont. Thats just proving its built for purpose. The fee mechanism wont pump price no. Other products can.

>"companies hold XRP just to hold it"
At least its other companies and not a pathetic self started carrot bait like the chainlink reserve.

You clearly got bullied hard for you spastic nerd character trying to argue all the time. I was the one bullying your types in school, retard. It explains your fixation on ''bullying'' holders of a certain crypto on an online forum.

There are tiers to being pathetic and you are at the absolute bottom tier. Fascinating specimen. Are you Chainlink cuck or that fishy retard? Would fit

>>62706382
>You don't get bullied enough.

STFU transgender

hey guys. /biz/ oldfag popping in. I joined in 2017. I don't visit often anymore, but I do still visit sometimes. I must admit the xrpeepee retards, it's one of the "assets" where number went up. so we have to give cred where cred is due. I expected it to have been gigadumped by now but it didn't.

I remember buying xrpee for 21 cents per xrpeepee and selling it for 25 cents in 2017. after learing about the 50 billion or so xrp in escrow they try to dump a billiono or whatever every month. i didn't want to hold long term.

>>62706396
>The fee mechanism wont pump price no. Other products can.
Fees won't, and "bridge currency" won't.

There are no other functional uses for XRP.

>>62705191
Yes, they are using their money and competence to shoe horn their way into an arena that is highly scammed and gatekept.
>>62705350
>fees are good
What you said is actually the biggest reason to buy.

>>62706503
>What you said is actually the biggest reason to buy.
Do explain kek

>>62706323
I've told XSG that the $3 XRP price pretty well can support all of commerce for the next 50 years.
It's mathematically true and undeniable.
But, that's not what the price is based on in this world mate.

Apple is $340 and keeps going up. Their profits and revenues do not support that at all. Their dividend is literally less than half a percent.
The CONTROL OF APPLE is worth that much per share.

Many assess price based on "fundamentals" and leave out entirely the power of controlling interest in the operation. Controlling interest allows incredible grift on the side and manipulative control of the system.
This control is what prices are based on for large operations.

This is also why XRP price won't go up dramatically until Ripple has divested a much larger portion.

>>62706512
>Apple is $340 and keeps going up. Their profits and revenues do not support that at all. Their dividend is literally less than half a percent.
>The CONTROL OF APPLE is worth that much per share.

Ripple literally sells shares for this.

>>62706515
Yes, but not on the open market yet. The price of Ripple would then be based on what?
CONTROL of the assets under Ripple.

I'm just giving you some insight into how global assets are actually priced.
I was considering buying some Ripple, or I started at least, just to see the numbers they were giving investors.
You needed to have $250,000 and by accredited at the time, not sure what it is now.
Now, I have that and I am, but I wasn't going through the trouble just for curiosity as I only care about XRP and not Ripple.

>>62706528
>but not on the open market yet
Ripple shares are very easily available to the general public. David even openly recommends them on x

>>62706553
Private sales. I meant that they aren't traded publicly. We are on the internet. People just use shorthand. You haven't advanced the discussion here and your contrarian attitude reveals you aren't interested in actually talking about the thing.
>very easily
Yea, just show them you have $250,000 and are accredited. Those were the rules a year or so ago anyway.

>>62706457
This is not true.
Its main function is bouncing around in your head like the old windows screensaver from dusk till dawn.

You are double cucked, by holding link and mentally by ripple. What a cursed life, the ghoul of biz. Life long purgatory as baggie and fuddie.

>>62706528
>but not on the open market yet.
What difference does that make?
Also for all intents and purposes they are selling on the open market.

>I only care about XRP and not Ripple
XRP gives you literally nothing of that Apple stock dynamic you described. Only Ripple stock does.

>>62706684
>zero arguments
>only butthurt namecalling

you're done here

>>62706824
>>zero arguments
After he posts
>>62706457

As if any bank would outsource their bread and butter infrastructure to some sketchy jew they're not in clique with to start off with.

zcash, xrp, two biggest jewish outsider, completely centralized, chains.
One with 90% premine even, kek

>>62707244
Posting that when your argument was "ok maybe x and y can't pump the price, but other products can" is pretty funny. What other products precisely?

Also, stealing the verbose xrp shill moniker to designate the persistent link shill (who isn't verbose) is quite lame. Can't come up with anything yourself?

>>62707244
lmao why are you pretending there are no arguments in that post?

1) XRPL fees can't pump XRP
2) "Bridge currency" can't pump XRP
3) there are no other utility usecases for XRP

These are hard, objective facts that even Ripple itself agrees with.

>>62708290
That's been his MO for half a decade: take fud and insults that apply to him and XRP and simply throw them at Link and Linkies.

>>62704039
>check this shithole of a board after a year
>Its still fucking linkies seething for a decade plus
It’s been 10 years let it go

>>62708342
2 and 3 are opinions. Also pot calls kettle black. There is no use case for link , its a funding token that is usd > link > fiat.

Bottom line is you will continue to seethe and make these threads while xrp remains in the top 5.

>>62708389
>2 and 3 are opinions
If it takes 5,000 years of full Swift volume to capture 1% of total XRP supply as fees, that will not pump XRP.
If the current MC is enough to cover full Swift volume dozens of times over, that will not pump XRP.
These are facts, not opinions.

>>62708395
Thats point 1 again you brain damaged fudcuck.

>>62708413
There are no other functional usecases for XRP. Ripple themselves admitted this, for instance when they never refuted the SEC's claim in this sense.
If there are, go ahead and name them.

File: 1776503454703373.png (261 KB, 684x844)

261 KB PNG

This is all over X now
I swear 99% of cripples are functionally illiterate

>>62708493
Have you used it though?
Pretty cheap and fast amiright?

>>62708549
No more than half the top 50.
And private chains are even cheaper and faster. You know, the kind banks love to use.

And why does it even matter? XRP holders will never profit from it even if all the world's finances somehow transitioned to XRPL exclusively.

>>62704039
>THIS IS THE CHOSEN COIN
>start investing in it
>Company starts partnering with literal who's
>main coin becomes irrelevant or rug
>investment lost
>repeat

The /biz/ way

>>62708557
Here's the thing chud.
Banks are never going to give you anything better than now. You should support an operation in it's venture to give you free tx across all you digital purchases.
You are being anally raped. So you can cheer against it, but the will of those cheering for it will likely win.
I actually don't care who wins and gives it to me, but I see Ripple as FAR more likely to do so.
The new crowd will go easier on you because that's their only way to succeed.

>>62708557
For instance I like LTC quite a bit for payments as well. I cheer for them as well although my holdings are very "light" there.
But if they win, I win.

>>62708633
>I actually don't care who wins and gives it to me, but I see Ripple as FAR more likely to do so.

>>62706528
>I only care about XRP and not Ripple.

What are you doing nigger

>>62708655
The "only" part is in regards to a prior conversation where I'm comparing between "Ripple" and "XRP" which are distinct.

We are now talking about payment processing in general and it benefits me no matter who wins.
I hope this helps.

>>62704039
ETH has outperformed XRP on the 3 month chart by more than 2x.
embarrassing honestly

>>62708680
>it benefits me no matter who wins
You don't benefit from your XRP holdings even if XRPL wins all of global finance.

>>62708736
Well I disagree with what you intend to mean.
But I accept a lot of cc payments and will benefit massively from whichever option is eventually presented to me.

>>62708557
>And why does it even matter?
And yet you are here, officer fudcuck on duty.

>>62708866
People tend to benefit from using whatever system is run by volunteers, obviously.
But it's objectively impossible for XRPL usage to systemically pump XRP, even if the entire financial world were to switch to XRPL.

>>62709229
"Why does XRPL's speed even matter", brownoid.
It's not "the fastest", and even if it were, its functional usage literally cannot pump XRP.

>>62709234
>functional usage literally cannot pump XRP.
If this were true your fudcampain would not be needed, you would have already "won". Why keep beating a dead horse? Its getting silly now.

>>62709234
That's literally what will pump the token and only what will pump the token.

>>62709463
>If this were true your fudcampain would not be needed, you would have already "won".
It's 100% true, the numbers don't lie.
And the problem is you don't get bullied enough. No matter how bad the news, xerpies simply spin it into an imaginary positive, see >>62708510 >>62704039

>>62709581
What will?

>>62710523
>the problem is you don't get bullied enough. No matter how bad the news, xerpies simply spin it into an imaginary positive
Who is more retarded, the fidgets spinning or the retard getting riled up they spin?

File: 1763762449799912.png (23 KB, 600x98)

23 KB PNG

>>62710887
I wouldn't mind them spinning if they weren't getting up into literally everyone's business all the time.
Both Ripple and the XRP "community" are making all of crypto look bad.

>>62710973
Have you considered not following xrp holders on x and switching off the computer for a while?

Are also dissecting shitcoins, scams, hacks and pnds the same way or do you have a particular interest in ripple/xrp?

>>62710993
>Have you considered not following xrp holders on x
It's not just on x, and even on x you can't get around them even if you do block them; see Terrett.

>Are also dissecting shitcoins, scams, hacks and pnds the same way
Absolutely.
Ask me about BNB, Hype, ADA, ...

>>62710523
Usage of the XRPL for any purpose.

>>62711038
So usage that functionally cannot pump XRP (as you agreed) will pump XRP? How?

>>62711044
But functionally, every tx on the ledger destroys some XRP. The more that used, the more demand for something that will be used in the future.
But it's fine. You are new around here and desperate for 2019 to happen again given you missed it by nearly a decade.
It's okay. If you start buying now you can get 3% of my return eventually.

>>62711062
>But functionally, every tx on the ledger destroys some XRP. The more that used, the more demand for something that will be used in the future.
Even if Swift's total current volume moved 100% to XRPL, it would take over 5,000 years to burn 1% of XRP supply.

>>62711072
This is the fundamental misunderstanding. Swift has total dollar volume. But the payments are big, VERY big.
That doesn't do anything at all for the price of XRP by itself because $1 XRP can easily handle that.

The rise of the price of XRP will be when micropayments and regular processing start on the ledger because that occupies supply pools, burns a lot of XRP if the total amount of daily tx rises.
It doesn't matter to me. I'm massively up and have been correct and will continue to be correct.
Your obsession with "SWIFT" is like you are the first ever paid XRP hating shill. There have been NO updates to your shill flow chart?

You are trying to use something against XRP that I don't think even matters for XRP. It's just not a good strat bro.

>>62711095
>The rise of the price of XRP will be when micropayments and regular processing start on the ledger
Swift does roughly 60 million transactions per day. That's more than 40,000 per minute, or 700 per second.
The XRPL's max theoretical TPS is 1,500.

So at non-stop absolute full theoretical XRPL capacity, it would take around 3,000 years to burn 1% of XRP supply.

>>62711109
Yea, cc payments are 2.5B a day and use the same amount of XRP per tx as any tx.
Again, you are correct, SWIFT doesn't do it.
I'm not betting on that.
Consult your notes again.

>>62711004
Rent free lol

>>62711210
>cc payments are 2.5B a day
XRPL can theoretically only handle twice Swift's volume, anon. You're talking 40x Swift's volume.

But let's say somehow XRPL becomes 20x more efficient, and somehow absorbs ALL credit card payment traffic at 2.5B per day.
It would still take 110 years to burn 1% of XRP supply.

>>62711225
You're not renting, you're squatting.

>>62711244
Terret has been covering the XRP SEC case for the whole duration. Its very logical XRP holders follow her.

>you're squatting.
>Makes a thread about bullying XRP holders
>They show up
>yOu ArE sQuAtTiNg

>>62711304
>Its very logical XRP holders follow her.
They're not "following her", they're spamming her with the same mindless hype they spam at everyone from big banks to politicians.

>>62711313
>Spamming her with the same mindless hype they spam at everyone from big banks to politicians.
He said while verbally shitting himself on /biz in his own fudthread. KEK

>>62711323
>can't argue with the numbers
>start ad homming

classic

>>62711331
Pointing out facts is an ad hominem, dont get stingy boi.

Your numbers are wrong. It takes 5 seconds to double check:

SWIFT messages transmit within minutes, but actual fund settlement through correspondent banking requires 2-5 business days. Credit card authorizations complete in 2-3 seconds, but final settlement between merchants and card networks occurs in batch processes spanning 24-72 hours.

Off-ledger payment channels enable theoretical throughput exceeding 70,000 TPS for micropayments while maintaining the same settlement speed

https://xrpacademy.com/blog/how-fast-are-xrp-transactions-speed-benchmarks

>>62711345
>actual fund settlement
>final settlement
Settlement times have nothing to do with the transaction volume numbers.
Even if XRPL absorbed ALL of today's Swift and CC payment transactions, it would take over 100 years to burn 1% of XRP supply.

>Off-ledger payment channels
Those batch transactions off-chain, meaning they actively reduce the number of on-chain transactions. Which in turn means even less XRP is burnt.
oops

>>62711382
As already said in this thread, burning fees is not how xrp price rises.

The claim that the ledger cant process the transactions is hereby debunked. You just like to argue in bad faith. You are a paid shill.

>>62711406
>As already said in this thread, burning fees is not how xrp price rises.
Tell it to these people:
>>62704345
>>62711062

The discussion you jumped into was about how higher demand is bullish because it means XRP is burnt.

>The claim that the ledger cant process the transactions is hereby debunked.
The ledger can't handle 30k transactions per second, its TPS ceiling is 1.5k. This is on Ripple's website.
Offchain batching obviously helps, but since the discussion is about XRP burns, offchain batching is a negative.

>>62711406
Also, please for the love of god enlighten us and tell us how the xrp price IS supposed to rise.
Because it's not from usage; neither fee burns nor "bridge currency" can ever make XRP pump, as the numbers show.

Unless you can name a third utility for XRP that isn't just speculative.

>>62711428
Burning doesnt pump price, else it wouldnt be as scaleable for all the money.

Price will rises from use however. Spot ETFs, Evernorth-like companies having a reserve, any entity using XRP will have a strategic amount in reserve for their own payment flows/use. Growing corridor volume needs higher liquidity buffers. As scaling continues, market makers and liquidity providers may hold larger XRP inventories to avoid slippage on large flows.

Ripple also can decide how much xrp flows into the market with escrow timing.

>Offchain batching obviously helps, but since the discussion is about XRP burns, offchain batching is a negative.
But the claim that it cant scale payments is untrue. The 1500 is also more of a hardware constraint as mentioned in the documents. At the end of the day the mechanism is just a discussion point for purists to somehow critique. It can scale and move the value/

>>62711462
>Burning doesnt pump price
clearly

>Spot ETFs, Evernorth-like companies having a reserve, any entity using XRP will have a strategic amount in reserve for their own payment flows/use
>market makers and liquidity providers may hold larger XRP inventories
These rely on nothing but speculation.
They're basically "people hold it because it has price, and it has price because people hold it".

>Growing corridor volume needs higher liquidity buffers
You mean for ODL?
A tiny buffer will suffice as ODL's XRP consumption is immediate and demand neutral.

>But the claim that it cant scale payments is untrue.
The argument you jumped into was about XRP burns.
Yes you can make XRPL scale beyond 1,500 TPS through offchain batching, but that directly means less XRP is burnt.

>>62711490
>"people hold it because it has price, and it has price because people hold it"
Many such assets. They speculate the use/adoption will increase and thus the needed buffers will increase. At the end of the day the financial products and reserves DO lock up xrp. It would be stupid not to include them in the liquid/illiquid story.

Market makers may choose to hold larger standing inventories to minimize slippage. it’s an inventory/liquidity story, not really burn fees.

Dont forget its status as neutral , SWIFT is per definition also used as a weapon. As recent with the war between Russia and Ukraine, Russia was cut off from SWIFT. This makes a ''neutral'' asset with a clear regulatory status an attractive option for other actors outside the SWIFT system. Clear commodity status and compliant custody/banking rails don’t create demand by themselves, but they enable more actors to hold.

>>62711541
All XRP has in terms of value proposition is 100% speculative.
That's a disaster, you realize that right? There's literally nothing backing it but psychology.

>>62711553
>There's literally nothing backing it but psychology.
The fact that it exists and has capacities/potential - even the BIS noticed that recently. Ripple also bought quite some interesting companies recently. not many players in the crypto space doing such acquisitions.

>That's a disaster
For your mind clearly, not for the rest of the market. How do you deal with a company like evernorth buying nearly half a billion worth of xerps? Does that tickle your brain in a funny way?

>>62711582
>has capacities/potential
Not when it comes to any value proposition for the token. It has zero reason to go up other than psychology.

>For your mind clearly, not for the rest of the market
If by "the rest of the market" you mean the cattle that thinks SBI using Canton is bullish for XRP, then sure.
Also, you severely underestimate the amount of people who still think XRP burns will pump the price.

>How do you deal with a company like evernorth buying nearly half a billion worth of xerps?
Evernorth is being paid by Ripple to buy XRP.

This whole Ripple business is fucking retarded no matter which way you look at it, holy damn.

>>62711638
>value proposition for the tokn
You need the tokn to access the ledger. The ledger does cool stuff. Its not that hard.

>>62711638
>you severely underestimate the amount of people who still think XRP burns will pump the price.
No, not at all. You are riled up at the idea. I get very happy. Nobody cares about the technical discussion, only you autists. Look where that left you. Bagholding link, tech is fantastic, tokn is absolute garbage.

>Evernorth is being paid by Ripple to buy XRP.
Ah, that sweet copium. I get erect.


>This whole Ripple business is fucking retarded no matter which way you look at it, holy damn.
Make that the title of your next fudthread so I know its you.

>>62711675
>You need the tokn to access the ledger. The ledger does cool stuff. Its not that hard.
This can't pump XRP though. We just went over this.

See? Even you are still under the delusion that there's a value proposition in the token burns.

>>62711681
I didnt say that. The value proposition is access to the functionality. You keep bringing up burning and burning mechanism. Its like you are mentally stuck on it, like a broken record. Very peculiar.

>>62711697
>The value proposition is access to the functionality.
It literally isn't.
If all credit card payment transactions in the world accessed XRPL, it would take 110 years to burn 1% of total supply.
There is no value proposition here.

Also, did you really not know that Ripple is literally a financial backer of Evernorth?

>>62711718
>Ripple is literally a financial backer
Sure, they are all ex ripple and ripple members are on the board. Ripple backed evernorth by donating xrp, you cant donate xrp to then buy xrp with it. Evernorth raises cash from external investors to buy xrp with.

Again, you act like that is a gotcha, its not. Its a half truth thats good for my bags. You wish there was an external entity buying link in a reserve. Turns out everyone who looks into the tokn sees it has no purpose, else they would be stacking it.

>>62711718
>burn 1% of total supply.
For the 3rd time. Burn doesnt matter, are you a bot? Is your programming to always resort back to burning? I explained above what increases price. You just get paid by the post.

>>62711767
>donating xrp
Ripple transferred 126.79M XRP in exchange for company units lol In what world is that a "donation"?

>>62711767
>you act like that is a gotcha, its not
It is. Evernorth is basically a Ripple subsidiary.

>For the 3rd time. Burn doesnt matter,
Then stop pretending having to buy XRP to access XRPL is a value proposition. Maybe after 1,000 years of absorbing ALL of today's credit card payments when 10% of XRP is burnt will there be a measurable impact on the XRP price.

>>62711244
No, the price just goes up and accommodates. lmao brainlet topkek

>>62711459
>isn't just speculative
>stays poor eternally
There were people buying Apple at $3 on spec. That's how you make money actually.
I actually buy huge loads of physical items and speculate that I'll sell them for much more over a certain period of time.

Also it's quite hilarious, if one notices, that when the thread was made the price of XRP was $1.32 and now it's price is $1.55.
KEK!
Literally kekking so hard rn at shills and fudsters.

File: b1pssw.jpg (52 KB, 500x661)

52 KB JPG

>>62704655
i see this ghostchain rhetoric all over x these days from BTC and SOL fan boys.
we get it, you don't like XRP. you think it's worthless and that's fine! i just don't understand why you waste so much energy talking about a ghostchain?

also, SBI is not using canton exclusively. Instead, SBI is explicitly pursuing a multi-chain, "dual-rail" institutional strategy that keeps Ripple and the xrpl as central pillars of its payments infrastructure while adopting Canton and other networks for distinct institutional use cases.

you'll see a multichain strategy with many financial institutions - XRPL cannot handle the entire global financial system, nor does it claim to be able to. in fact no one chain can or should!

>>62713883
>the price just goes up and accommodates
Accommodates for what?
1% of XRP supply is currently enough to accommodate 110 years of ALL credit card transaction volume. The price doesn't have to do shit.

>>62714642
>you'll see a multichain strategy with many financial institutions
1,000 times yes.
The difference being that most other chains do have significant structural demand, unlike XRPL.

>>62714740
>The difference being that most other chains do have significant structural demand, unlike XRPL.
which chains have "significant structural demand"?
are they in the room with you now?

>>62714824
At an average of 1 gwei gas price, if Ethereum absorbed all credit card transaction volume, that would require around 50% of all circulating ETH to be used as user fees per year (disregarding systemic gas price increases under such demand)
Compared to 1% in 110 years in the case of XRPL

In other words: Ethereum's structural demand is 5,500 times greater than XRPL's.

XRPL was basically designed to be free to use. Great for users, bad for XRP holders.
Nodes don't care, they're volunteers anyway.

linktards are genuinely mentally ill

>>62714854
Like I asked before; where is the structural demand?

your post conflates transaction costs with “structural demand”, and your math is off

At 1 gwei, a basic 21k-gas ETH transaction costs 0.000021 ETH. Even with all of the 150 billion credit card transactions, it would still only consume ~3.15M ETH/year, or ~2.6% of supply, not 50%.

and let's be real, that volume wouldn't run on L1 anyway. Ethereum scales through L2s, dramatically reducing the ETH consumed per transaction.

More importantly, burning more of the native asset to process the same economic activity isn't inherently “greater structural demand”. By that logic, making transactions 100× more expensive creates 100× more demand.

XRPL's tiny fee is a design feature: it's built to move value with minimal friction, not maximise the amount of XRP destroyed while doing it.

So you've demonstrated that Ethereum transactions consume more ETH than XRPL transactions consume XRP. You still haven't demonstrated the supposed 5,500× greater “structural demand”.

File: banks make their own xrp.jpg (994 KB, 1200x800)

994 KB JPG

>>62714740
Look dude. I'm the ham sandwich XSG poster. I spent years already doing this math for XSG and telling them a ham sandwich would be $2,000 by the time XRP was $2,000.

You are many years too late and don't have a gimmick to your shitposts.

>>62715022
>let's be real, that volume wouldn't run on L1 anyway. Ethereum scales through L2s, dramatically reducing the ETH consumed per transaction.
Notice how everything else "scales" by not even using the token at all?
topkek

>>62715022
>your post conflates transaction costs with “structural demand”
I was talking about structural demand for the system's native coin as the system is used. Other chains have significant amounts of it, XRPL does not.

>a basic 21k-gas ETH transaction
We're not talking about basic ETH transactions, we're talking about credit card payments, meaning tokenized assets like stablecoins and RWAs. Those cost roughly 65k gas at the moment.

>let's be real, that volume wouldn't run on L1 anyway
It would never run on a singular L1, no. It will run on an increasingly large number of L1s.

>XRPL's tiny fee is a design feature: it's built to move value with minimal friction
That's what I said: XRPL was basically designed to be free to use. Great for users, bad for XRP holders.
Nodes don't factor into this discussion because they're volunteers.