Cryptocurrencies

[Guest cherzeca]

I am looking for a good store of value. what is value? it's something to which human's attribute psychological significance.  something desired. there can be intrinsic value that a tool has, or an attributed value, such as fiat currency. and if it is to have value, it has to have longevity and widespread recognition.

 

Is bitcoin a store of value?  imo, not yet.  but it is interesting that in the world of the internet, where the cost of making copies is zero for digital assets, bitcoin is limited by design...I can think of no other store of value that is similarly limited.

 

I am reading a book about the constitutional convention, and one of the principal motivations of the founders to move away from the articles of confederation was the practice of the states to print money to allow debtors to pay off (stiff) creditors. they wanted to eliminate multiple state currencies and have a single gold based federal money system...which eventually was centered in a national bank. our search for a reliable store of value is centuries old.

 

given its limited supply, if demand increases, then of course the value increases. bitcoin is not a currency but I am beginning to think it is a store of value, and will become increasingly so.

[widenthemoat]

The answers to Lynch's theoretic query can be summed up in as little as 3 words and as many as one sentence.

 

3 words: supply and demand. bonus word: catalyst

 

One sentence: take everything people apply to gold, and it applies to BTC but put on steroids, with one notation; replace the physical brick and mortar aspect with a digital one.

 

I was referencing the “simple investment” piece more so, but I have a hard time believing you could describe bitcoin to a ten year old in one sentence. Supply and demand imbalance doesn’t really cut it for me. Nobody can seem to tell me why people demand bitcoin other than that it’s going up. It’s not a currency. Currencies do not fluctuate like this. And it’s not a store of value either - those don’t fluctuate wildly either, they store value. If it “might” become a currency or store of value that is speculating.

[rkbabang]

The answers to Lynch's theoretic query can be summed up in as little as 3 words and as many as one sentence.

 

3 words: supply and demand. bonus word: catalyst

 

One sentence: take everything people apply to gold, and it applies to BTC but put on steroids, with one notation; replace the physical brick and mortar aspect with a digital one.

 

I was referencing the “simple investment” piece more so, but I have a hard time believing you could describe bitcoin to a ten year old in one sentence. Supply and demand imbalance doesn’t really cut it for me. Nobody can seem to tell me why people demand bitcoin other than that it’s going up. It’s not a currency. Currencies do not fluctuate like this. And it’s not a store of value either - those don’t fluctuate wildly either, they store value. If it “might” become a currency or store of value that is speculating.

 

How's this: It will become a store of value.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

Manias don't happen twice. You can't get the public in a frenzy a second time about a distributed public ledger. I'll be glad to come back here again and admit that I was wrong but I think all the sharks cornering the float are like those guys who bought up all the hand sanitizer and had nobody to sell it to.

 

I don't know if I agree with you. Bitcoin has rallied to tops with several hundred percent gains followed by 80-90% corrections multiple times. I dunno why 2017 would've changed that dynamic. Particularly since you have big institutions stepping in with purchases of $50-250 million and not retail higher a buying 2-5k.

 

I've watched Bitcoin since back in 2011. I thought it was a bubble and felt vindicated every time it dropped 90%. Only to realize it recovered to new highs and the next 90% drop was higher lows. It had staying power that took my ~8 years to recognize and appreciate.

 

The reason I invested? Not because it's digital gold, or a store of value, or because it's here to replace the dollar (none of which I agree with). It's the protocol for payments on the web just like HTML is the protocol for webpages and SMTP is the protocol for email. Bitcoin is the protocol for payments on the web - the difference is you can own Bitcoin where you can't own HTTP protocol or SMTP protocol.

 

How much is it worth? No idea. But I don't think we've reached peak valuation of a network with less than 10% global adoption.

 

[Gregmal]

Every investment/speculation is a wager on where the puck is going. If it doesnt get there, it doesnt matter whether it was Sears, or Fairfax, or Bitcoin.

 

If you want certainty, you'll pay significantly more than you needed to, just ask the folks who finally came to the conclusions that Amazon was a real investment a year or two ago....

 

End of the day, if you look for something that is event or catalyst driven, or possessing a multi year momentum runway...you target stuff like this. If you put lets say 1% of your assets in it, fundamentally, the worst case scenario is that you lose 1%...who gives a flying fuck? Whereas more often than not, and on the upside, you can make many multiples. $1,000 in BTC in 2016 is $20k today. $1000 in Fairfax in 2016 in $750. $1000 in Sears is worth $0. $1000 in Berkshire is worth $1,700. Who was investing? The words/adjectives people ascribe to "their style" of investing, ie, value, momentum, arbitrage, who gives a shit, its a means to and end, which is making money. Thats all that counts. Its even easier when you look at the $1000 in BTC that you could easily have peeled off significant "returns of capital" along the way and plowed that into more conventional investments. If you had $1000 in BTC in 2016 and today have $5000 in BTC, and $1000 positions in BRK, SPY, AAPL with proceeds from along the way....bubble bursts, BTC goes to 0...who cares? Still ahead of the game.

 

And yea, BTC got to $20k in 2017 with retailers buying $100 at a clip and institutions basically barred from the asset class, or mocking it...Dimon, Buffett, etc. Now? We're just getting started and we're at $20k.

[clutch]

The answers to Lynch's theoretic query can be summed up in as little as 3 words and as many as one sentence.

 

3 words: supply and demand. bonus word: catalyst

 

One sentence: take everything people apply to gold, and it applies to BTC but put on steroids, with one notation; replace the physical brick and mortar aspect with a digital one.

 

I was referencing the “simple investment” piece more so, but I have a hard time believing you could describe bitcoin to a ten year old in one sentence. Supply and demand imbalance doesn’t really cut it for me. Nobody can seem to tell me why people demand bitcoin other than that it’s going up. It’s not a currency. Currencies do not fluctuate like this. And it’s not a store of value either - those don’t fluctuate wildly either, they store value. If it “might” become a currency or store of value that is speculating.

 

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/what-are-cryptocurrencies-(ontological-perspective)/

[ratiman]

The difference between 2020 and 2017 is that everybody's already heard of bitcoin. At it's peak in 2017 bitcoin was traded in NBA locker rooms. Those superspreaders have moved on to whatever is cool these days, I have no idea, probably Tiktok or something. But it's not bitcoin. Bitcoin is supposed to mature into a respectable institutional asset but all those institutional buyers are secretly expecting Bitcoin 2017 to happen again. It's not happening again and when it doesn't they will be left looking like the equally stale "hello fellow kids" meme.

[SharperDingaan]

BTC is just an app evidencing a use of blockchain. Sure, BTC can be used as ‘money' - but it is really an ‘asset class’; that can be hedged via options, futures, and OTC derivatives. Just as you don’t pay for coffee with fractions of a house, most don’t pay for coffee with fractions of a BTC either. Even though you can.

 

BTC trading is an evolving market.

Version 1; all trading limited to back street exchanges only. Version 2; institutional trading permitted, but confined to enhanced KYC accounts and limited to BTC, and CME options/futures. Version 3; institutional trading expanded to include margined long only, via ISDA compliant derivatives from a CB approved oligarch? Anonymous ownership preserved, beneficial ownership … not so much.  No going to a Coinsquare for 100,000 BTC.

 

Most would expect the price of BTC to rise, as incremental capital inflow from institutions and momentum trading, drive up demand on the same limited base. Those from capital markets, would expect a future increase in the 21M limit, and long only BTC trading (similar to the ADR market), to further promote liquidity. Version 4. (Even the great BRK did a 10:1 split at around the 235K/share mark)

 

The attraction with BTC, is that value change can be efficiently extracted as cash, via option/futures settlement guaranteed by the CME (backstopped by the Fed?). Investors have incentive to trade for serious money, on the regulated exchanges vs the Coinsquares of the world. The Coinsquares will still exist, but as secondary markets trading non fungible token (crypto kitties) and stable-coin.

 

Point? This is not your grandpa’s, or your dad’s market.

You can do very well, but only if you can apply what you know and not have to rely on a crutch.

 

SD

 

Disclosure: We’re back into BTC; but only via the derivative markets, and only for training purposes.

Gains/losses are held in BTC, and updated every MTM settlement.

So far it has been going well ;)

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

BTC is just an app evidencing a use of blockchain. Sure, BTC can be used as ‘money' - but it is really an ‘asset class’; that can be hedged via options, futures, and OTC derivatives. Just as you don’t pay for coffee with fractions of a house, most don’t pay for coffee with fractions of a BTC either. Even though you can.

 

BTC trading is an evolving market.

Version 1; all trading limited to back street exchanges only. Version 2; institutional trading permitted, but confined to enhanced KYC accounts and limited to BTC, and CME options/futures. Version 3; institutional trading expanded to include margined long only, via ISDA compliant derivatives from a CB approved oligarch? Anonymous ownership preserved, beneficial ownership … not so much.  No going to a Coinsquare for 100,000 BTC.

 

Most would expect the price of BTC to rise, as incremental capital inflow from institutions and momentum trading, drive up demand on the same limited base. Those from capital markets, would expect a future increase in the 21M limit, and long only BTC trading (similar to the ADR market), to further promote liquidity. Version 4.

(Even the great BRK did a 10:1 split at around the 235K/share mark)

 

The attraction with BTC, is that value change can be efficiently extracted as cash, via option/futures settlement guaranteed by the CME (backstopped by the Fed?). Investors have incentive to trade for serious money, on the regulated exchanges vs the Coinsquares of the world. The Coinsquares will still exist, but as secondary markets trading non fungible token (crypto kitties) and stable-coin.

 

Point? This is not your grandpa’s, or your dad’s market.

You can do very well, but only if you can apply what you know and not have to rely on a crutch.

 

SD

 

Disclosure: We’re back into BTC; but only via the derivative markets, and only for training purposes.

Gains/losses are held in BTC, and updated every MTM settlement.

So far it has been going well ;)

 

The way to accomplish a BTC split is not to make more than 21 million of them, but to start measuring thingd in Satoshis instead of fractional BTC.

 

Stocks split because fractional shares didn't use to be a thing (not the case any more) and because of irrational behavioral issues where people tend to like to buy stocks ~$10/share. I'd imagine you'll actually see fewer stock splits in the future now that brokerages allow for fractional trading.

 

BTC is divisible, and liquid, at the satoshi level and doesn't need to split to accomplish smaller, bite size pieces.

 

Don't understand why institutions would feel the need to demand more than 21 million BTC for liquidity when there are 2,100,000,000,000,000 Satoshis available

[widenthemoat]

The answers to Lynch's theoretic query can be summed up in as little as 3 words and as many as one sentence.

 

3 words: supply and demand. bonus word: catalyst

 

One sentence: take everything people apply to gold, and it applies to BTC but put on steroids, with one notation; replace the physical brick and mortar aspect with a digital one.

 

I was referencing the “simple investment” piece more so, but I have a hard time believing you could describe bitcoin to a ten year old in one sentence. Supply and demand imbalance doesn’t really cut it for me. Nobody can seem to tell me why people demand bitcoin other than that it’s going up. It’s not a currency. Currencies do not fluctuate like this. And it’s not a store of value either - those don’t fluctuate wildly either, they store value. If it “might” become a currency or store of value that is speculating.

 

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/what-are-cryptocurrencies-(ontological-perspective)/

 

Thanks clutch, I appreciate the thoughtful post and it’s one of the few times I’ve actually gotten a legitimate response. I agree it has the ability to become a currency or store of value. As your post suggests, anything can become so if society accepts it as such. With that said, we don’t know if Bitcoin will or not. Even if it does become a store of value similar to gold, how can anyone calculate its intrinsic value with a straight face?  It’s just impossible. People are very interested in this again only because it has gone up in price.

 

Imagine ten people in a room, and everyone owns one bitcoin and one million dollars. For an entire year, people trade their bitcoins to each other for higher and higher prices. Each person is only willing to pay more because they see their neighbor make a tidy profit and get a little jealous of how easy it was. At the end of the year, that room  would have the exact same amount of bitcoins and the exact same amount of dollars in it, and a ton of wasted human potential trading it all around. If you think you can be  the winner in that scenario, then maybe Bitcoin is for you, but it sounds a lot like musical chairs to me. It  requires quite a bit of good luck, because nobody knows when the music will stop, and when it does you’re left holding a very expensive bitcoin that has zero actual value to human beings.

 

Note: I’m typing all of this on my phone so please excuse and typos or formatting issues.

[clutch]

The answers to Lynch's theoretic query can be summed up in as little as 3 words and as many as one sentence.

 

3 words: supply and demand. bonus word: catalyst

 

One sentence: take everything people apply to gold, and it applies to BTC but put on steroids, with one notation; replace the physical brick and mortar aspect with a digital one.

 

I was referencing the “simple investment” piece more so, but I have a hard time believing you could describe bitcoin to a ten year old in one sentence. Supply and demand imbalance doesn’t really cut it for me. Nobody can seem to tell me why people demand bitcoin other than that it’s going up. It’s not a currency. Currencies do not fluctuate like this. And it’s not a store of value either - those don’t fluctuate wildly either, they store value. If it “might” become a currency or store of value that is speculating.

 

https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/what-are-cryptocurrencies-(ontological-perspective)/

 

Thanks clutch, I appreciate the thoughtful post and it’s one of the few times I’ve actually gotten a legitimate response. I agree it has the ability to become a currency or store of value. As your post suggests, anything can become so if society accepts it as such. With that said, we don’t know if Bitcoin will or not. Even if it does become a store of value similar to gold, how can anyone calculate its intrinsic value with a straight face?  It’s just impossible. People are very interested in this again only because it has gone up in price.

 

Imagine ten people in a room, and everyone owns one bitcoin and one million dollars. For an entire year, people trade their bitcoins to each other for higher and higher prices. Each person is only willing to pay more because they see their neighbor make a tidy profit and get a little jealous of how easy it was. At the end of the year, that room  would have the exact same amount of bitcoins and the exact same amount of dollars in it, and a ton of wasted human potential trading it all around. If you think you can be  the winner in that scenario, then maybe Bitcoin is for you, but it sounds a lot like musical chairs to me. It  requires quite a bit of good luck, because nobody knows when the music will stop, and when it does you’re left holding a very expensive bitcoin that has zero actual value to human beings.

 

Note: I’m typing all of this on my phone so please excuse and typos or formatting issues.

 

Glad to help. Regarding your first point, yes it's completely speculative at this point to bet on whether Bitcoin will become a store of value or not. Hence, if anyone was to invest in this, they should have that expectation and size their bet accordingly. Having said that, note that it's also impossible to calculate the intrinsic value of gold. If you don't consider gold as an investment, then you would never see Bitcoin as an investment either. This is also Buffett's argument...

 

Second, the thought experiment you describe does not equate to the real-world situation because the amount of money in the room continues to increase in the real world. As the fiat money increases significantly and the bitcoin increases at a much slower rate, the value of the bitcoin will rise IF the people in the room perceive it as a store of value. Regarding the wasted productivity, you could say that about a lot of investment options so it's not exclusive to cryptocurrencies.

[SharperDingaan]

Retail might measure in Satoshi - but options/futures are based on whole lots (BTC); and institutions buy in whole lots (BTC), not partials (Satoshi). Capital Markets used to insist that it was not possible for a MM fund to 'break a buck', then found out that it can indeed happen. The tech community will similarly discover that the 21M limit can and will change.

 

BRK was split 10:1 to create cheaper shares that were more accessible to a wider range of buyers. The resultant incremental demand on the same total supply, pushing the price up. No INCREMENTAL split, no price increase. Dividing existing demand into smaller pieces (Satoshi) does nothing.

 

The 21M limit assumed 21M token in circulation, but if token is inactive - it is not in circulation. Could be because wallet holders lost their private key (frozen token), or people are just not trading their token today. Point? the 21M limit is an 'interpretation', not what everyone thinks it is, and money trumps tech.

 

SD

 

[dpetrescu]

Crypocurrenies I think are most interesting as a human psychology experiment. They have the potential to be one of the biggest bubbles to date. Everyone is counting on the network effect of one coin when the supply is infinite will all the coins - everyone here could start one. The next generation will think this was the most obvious bubble.

 

1. Critical definition of a bubble is that it is something that will have a benefit and allow an evolution on the whole. Everyone in 1999 thought that the internet was going to change the world in a revolutionary way. They were right, it was actually a lot more more revolutionary than the crowds could ever imagine in 1999.  The internet bubble left behind such an amazing infrastructure and it did change the world. And 21 years later today it’s still a main theme.

 

2. Another definition, related to above is that it is a great story. When you have something evolutionary paired with a great story, that’s when you start hearing the water in the kettle.

 

3. From Soros’ old book on bubbles, they tend to follow a 2 stage up cycle. Usually a big rise a fall then the grad finale.

 

I think in 2040 we will be here trying to convince others how the big fad of the day resembles the Bitcoin bubble. We will also be talking about valuable blockchain companies to invest in. I do have a third of a Bitcoin, waiting to see $100,000 and $1 shortly after.

 

[Investmentacct]

Crypocurrenies I think are most interesting as a human psychology experiment. They have the potential to be one of the biggest bubbles to date. Everyone is counting on the network effect of one coin when the supply is infinite will all the coins - everyone here could start one. The next generation will think this was the most obvious bubble.

 

1. Critical definition of a bubble is that it is something that will have a benefit and allow an evolution on the whole. Everyone in 1999 thought that the internet was going to change the world in a revolutionary way. They were right, it was actually a lot more more revolutionary than the crowds could ever imagine in 1999.  The internet bubble left behind such an amazing infrastructure and it did change the world. And 21 years later today it’s still a main theme.

 

2. Another definition, related to above is that it is a great story. When you have something evolutionary paired with a great story, that’s when you start hearing the water in the kettle.

 

3. From Soros’ old book on bubbles, they tend to follow a 2 stage up cycle. Usually a big rise a fall then the grad finale.

 

I think in 2040 we will be here trying to convince others how the big fad of the day resembles the Bitcoin bubble. We will also be talking about valuable blockchain companies to invest in. I do have a third of a Bitcoin, waiting to see $100,000 and $1 shortly after.

. More can be learned about bitcoin by ordering 100$ hardware wallet and learning basic functionality of paradigm (bank accounts/movement of money) Similarly,  rather than arguing about Tesla Bubble  few years back, doing research on what product can be useful for and offers created more value. Traditional auto still working through their way out of maze. Bitcoin created situation, from which traditional finance will take some time to figure maze. 

[bearprowler6]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/05/bitcoin-price-buying-bitcoin-how-this-family-buys-sells-everything-in-cryptocurrency.html

[DooDiligence]

John McAfee stocks up on condiments over the holidays.

 

http://dickening.com

[rkbabang]

John McAfee stocks up on condiments over the holidays.

 

http://dickening.com

 

He's single handedly suppressed the price of Bitcoin, no one wants to buy it and cause the next rally, because everyone wants to see this.  It will shoot up to a Million in January.

[thepupil]

does anyone know of a good primer on Ripple Labs / XRP. <---this is probably the wrong word, as when i google "ripple labs primer" I mostly get crypto hyper promotional things and the pitch for why it is changing the world. i'm looking for something a bit more...skeptical/where the aduience is dumb non tech saavy / crypto ignorant investors like myself.

 

I have about 10% in Tetragon Financial which has 7.5% of NAV in Ripple Labs 2019 Series C at $10B. this gives me a 70 bp look-through position in Ripple Labs. since TFG trades at 40% of NAV, Ripple Labs can also be seen as about 20% of the market cap of TFG, so on the upper bound, I have 200 bps in this cryptothingamajig.

 

I recognize they have a website with lots of stuff, but really I'm looking for some kind of reasonably saavy neutral party / external investor who has commented on "why Ripple Labs is worth $0" or "why Ripple Labs could be worth $50B". if there's anything that comes to mind, would be most appreciated.

 

I'm not going to put too much time into it because it's not a huge part of the thesis, but if I can shamelessly piggyback off someone else's commentary in terms of deciding whether this has 20% chance of being worht $0 or 80% chance, it'd be helpful.

 

https://ripple.com/content-library

[rkbabang]

does anyone know of a good primer on Ripple Labs / XRP. <---this is probably the wrong word, as when i google "ripple labs primer" I mostly get crypto hyper promotional things and the pitch for why it is changing the world. i'm looking for something a bit more...skeptical/where the aduience is dumb non tech saavy / crypto ignorant investors like myself.

 

I have about 10% in Tetragon Financial which has 7.5% of NAV in Ripple Labs 2019 Series C at $10B. this gives me a 70 bp look-through position in Ripple Labs. since TFG trades at 40% of NAV, Ripple Labs can also be seen as about 20% of the market cap of TFG, so on the upper bound, I have 200 bps in this cryptothingamajig.

 

I recognize they have a website with lots of stuff, but really I'm looking for some kind of reasonably saavy neutral party / external investor who has commented on "why Ripple Labs is worth $0" or "why Ripple Labs could be worth $50B". if there's anything that comes to mind, would be most appreciated.

 

I'm not going to put too much time into it because it's not a huge part of the thesis, but if I can shamelessly piggyback off someone else's commentary in terms of deciding whether this has 20% chance of being worht $0 or 80% chance, it'd be helpful.

 

https://ripple.com/content-library

 

Ripple labs controls XRP and owns most of it, so it isn't really a public blockchain cryptocurrency, it is just a shitcoin some people are excited about for some reason that I can't fathom.  I'd be interested in hearing the otherside of this as well.  I don't understand the bull case at all.

 

 

[DooDiligence]

John McAfee stocks up on condiments over the holidays.

 

http://dickening.com

 

He's single handedly suppressed the price of Bitcoin, no one wants to buy it and cause the next rally, because everyone wants to see this.  It will shoot up to a Million in January.

 

I never thought of that.

I see a twig & berries chart formation.

Event driven trade?

[Gregmal]

Ripple Labs is now just Ripple. Outside of what I assume you are capable of finding yourself(having deduced from your posting history a reasonable competency with sleuthing publicly available data) there really isn't a whole lot more out there than likely what you've already seen.

 

Private market valuation range on Ripple is huge. Over the past 12 months shares have traded at anywhere from a $3B valuation to a $17B valuation. A big piece of the valuation is their holdings in XRP, which personally I would not pay for. It is pretty cool though being able to, in an unregulated manner, just dump your own crypto coin into the market for cash. That said, take a look at their financial backers and the folks who've participated in their funding rounds. Certainly nothing to sneeze at. They're probably more established with the big banks than any other crypto-ish outfit I'm aware of. I also believe if you're concerned with the 2019 Series C that there are IPO ratchets.

 

All in all, its definitely not a 0, and there's been some rumor they'll IPO soon. If they IPO in this market you're looking at a $25B + valuation with ease. How long that lasts? Who the f knows. I'd look at this as something to be excited about with respect to Tetragon, not something to dislike. Especially if you arent ascribing much to it anyway.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

Ripple Labs is now just Ripple. Outside of what I assume you are capable of finding yourself(having deduced from your posting history a reasonable competency with sleuthing publicly available data) there really isn't a whole lot more out there than likely what you've already seen.

 

Private market valuation range on Ripple is huge. Over the past 12 months shares have traded at anywhere from a $3B valuation to a $17B valuation. A big piece of the valuation is their holdings in XRP, which personally I would not pay for. It is pretty cool though being able to, in an unregulated manner, just dump your own crypto coin into the market for cash. That said, take a look at their financial backers and the folks who've participated in their funding rounds. Certainly nothing to sneeze at. They're probably more established with the big banks than any other crypto-ish outfit I'm aware of. I also believe if you're concerned with the 2019 Series C that there are IPO ratchets.

 

All in all, its definitely not a 0, and there's been some rumor they'll IPO soon. If they IPO in this market you're looking at a $25B + valuation with ease. How long that lasts? Who the f knows. I'd look at this as something to be excited about with respect to Tetragon, not something to dislike. Especially if you arent ascribing much to it anyway.

 

Yea, I know that Santander has been working with them over the last 2-3 years using their blockchain technology for ForEx operations and has been expanding that relationship - but that partnership does not use the XRP/ripple coin for execution. Very unclear to me what, if any, utility and value is driven by the XRP coin.

 

It does seem that Ripple itself has embedded itself as the go-to company for blockchain solutions with financial institutions which is a valuable place to be, but also skeptical of them because the bulk of their NAV and funding availability is based on the value of a shit coins that I don't understand the 'why' to it's existence. 

[rkbabang]

Ripple Labs is now just Ripple. Outside of what I assume you are capable of finding yourself(having deduced from your posting history a reasonable competency with sleuthing publicly available data) there really isn't a whole lot more out there than likely what you've already seen.

 

Private market valuation range on Ripple is huge. Over the past 12 months shares have traded at anywhere from a $3B valuation to a $17B valuation. A big piece of the valuation is their holdings in XRP, which personally I would not pay for. It is pretty cool though being able to, in an unregulated manner, just dump your own crypto coin into the market for cash. That said, take a look at their financial backers and the folks who've participated in their funding rounds. Certainly nothing to sneeze at. They're probably more established with the big banks than any other crypto-ish outfit I'm aware of. I also believe if you're concerned with the 2019 Series C that there are IPO ratchets.

 

All in all, its definitely not a 0, and there's been some rumor they'll IPO soon. If they IPO in this market you're looking at a $25B + valuation with ease. How long that lasts? Who the f knows. I'd look at this as something to be excited about with respect to Tetragon, not something to dislike. Especially if you arent ascribing much to it anyway.

 

Yes Ripple (the company) isn't a 0, but there is no easy way to invest in it right now.  XRP might be a 0, I don't know why it has the value it does.  I think many people are excited about Ripple (the company) and so are investing in XRP (the shitcoin), but that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Gregmal]

And ironically enough those excited but stupid and buying XRP and possibly doing so directly from the company, making the company more valuable at the expense of their fanboys...lol

[SharperDingaan]

Ripple is a tech community darling but just one of many 'wannabe' payments token.

IBM backs Stella token, Facebook backs Libra token, launching in January. Of all the non CBDC out there, Libra is both 'good enough', and offers the most opportunity; simply because of both the size of the Facebook P2P network, and the size of the global migrant workforce. Everyone is familiar with Facebook, most have an account, and with Libra - a migrant can now easily send money home at a fraction of the 7%+ that a WFC typically might charge. A built-in, and sizeable user base.

 

The break-up pressure on Facebook is temporary - until CBDC is introduced.

Sooner versus later, as Libra is both not under any sovereigns regulation, its P2P network is bigger than all major banks, and the Facebook 'experiment' can easily be repeated at a Google, Ali Baba, Ant Financial, etc. To do better - the payment token has to be backed by better than just the 'full faith and credit' of Facebook. It has to backed by the 'dark side' - (one or more) major central banks.

 

Developers need to continually raise $ to fund their projects, hence the hype and 'mystique'.

Simply, because if you look like the smartest guys in the room, you must be! Of course, if you're Taleb, these folks who looks and talk like doctors are the LAST people you want to talk to  ;)

 

SD