Fishy Catfish

The funniest things about the whole narrative around $XRP as a "bridge currency" are: 1. Any token can be a "bridge currency" onchain. 2. Every L1 gas token, across hundreds of L1s, has been a "bridge currency" this entire time on their chains. It simply means being the most liquid, often-used trading pair on that chain. $XRP people think that it's something unique/special property of $XRP. It's not. 3. XRP could hypothetically only be the "bridge currency" on just the XRPL. But, in order to use XRP as a "bridge currency" requires asset issuers to actually issue assets on the XRPL. Yet, XRPL has dismal adoption among asset issuers, which is why it has less than 1% marketshare on RWAs and less than .01% in stablecoins (and 75% of that .01% came from Ripple themselves) 4. This Blockworks research post shows that all of the major L1 gas tokens, such as ETH, SOL, and BNB, have all been displaced as "bridge currencies" on their own respective chains by USDT/USDC. So, if stablecoins have already dethroned L1 gas tokens as "bridge currencies" on chains with 1000X more usage than XRPL (and stablecoin growth will continue), then XRP has ZERO shot of being some special "bridge currency." x.com/SilvioBusonero… 5. Being a "bridge currency" on any single, siloed peer-hosted ledger doesn't solve "liquidity fragmentation." Especially, when 99.999999% of the world's value sits outside of that chain, where XRP can't even reach it. It simply shifts the burden elsewhere on who has to hold a particular asset to supply liquidity. XRP solves literally nothing, as explained in this post by the CIO of an organization owned, operated, governed, and used by 12,000 banks, who presumably were supposed to be using XRP to solve their "nostro/vostro funding" 2016 fever dream fantasy meme as sold by carnival barker Garlinghouse:

Thread👇 Since I've seen the topic of LINK token releases come up often, I wanted to a short thread to clear up some misconceptions around them. 1) Token unlocks are *NOT* the same thing as token sales. 70M LINK is released to the team per year regardless if they’re actually sold or not. In fact, if you look at the supply of LINK on exchanges (cryptoquant.com/asset/link/cha…), it's closing in on a 3 year low, despite the total number of token unlocks we've had being at an all time high (because that's a cumulative number) It's actually at the lowest level as far back as this tracking tool even goes, but I don't want to overstate it if we can't see it. 2) Unlike other projects, LINK token releases don’t just fund the team, but also fund staking rewards and node oracle rewards, and other forms of network incentives. Because Chainlink is not a blockchain, it doesn't have programmatic block rewards by which to distribute inflation. Furthermore, because Chainlink is comprised of hundreds of oracle networks, it cannot have a "one size fits all" block reward because different networks have wildly varying costs due to chain gas cost and node count. Therefore, the manual token unlocks allow Chainlink Labs to use a scalpel to distribute rewards in a fine-tuned way to not overpay for node operations. 3) There is **NO** negative correlation between price and token release. Price has actually gone up after token releases historically + the period of time when LINK perfomed the worst, there was zero token releases happening. You will see my Lookonchain tweet in my thread with evidence: "Before this, Chainlink had unlocked 10 times in total, and 9 of them saw price increases 30 days after unlocking." 4) LINK is capped at 1B max supply, so token releases are finite and have an end date (with lowering inflation each year), whereas reserve buybacks will only grow in size tied to network adoption and will continue far beyond when token releases end.

LATEST: @Ripple's share buyback program values the firm at $50 billion. The blockchain firm has begun a $750 million share buyback that would value the company at about $50 billion, Bloomberg reported.

🚨NEW: After a Senate Republican meeting on crypto market structure attended by White House Crypto Council Executive Director @patrickjwitt, @SenLummis told reporters negotiations around yield/rewards are making progress but remain “in a delicate state,” with the focus shifting from imminent legislative text to “who we need to be reaching out to.” “I think some major light bulbs were switched on during this meeting. So, there's a path forward that is not a path that I would have expected to encounter when I walked in the room,” said Lummis. Patrick Witt, who emerged from the meeting looking frustrated, had no comment on the meeting. @SenatorTimScott emerged, smiling as always, but declined to comment, noting he doesn’t speak to reporters in the hallways.