Watchdog

What about when you said this @JoelKatz? Original Statement (November 2017) In a now-famous tweet thread, David Schwartz wrote: “It can’t be dirt cheap. That doesn’t make any sense. If XRP costs $1, they’d need a million XRP which would cost $1 million. If XRP cost a million dollars, they’d need one XRP which would, again, cost $1 million.”

@Tom_Toman @InvestWithD I don't have that much left anymore. I've tried to get most of my assets (other than Ripple stock) away from crypto exposure. As I've said, I really don't like risk even though pretty much every risk I've taken has worked out amazingly well for me.

Let's always remember the story of @JoelKatz selling his $ETH for $1.05 🤣 If he thought there is 1% chance of $ETH hitting $2368 would he sell it? No

What about when you said this @JoelKatz? Original Statement (November 2017) In a now-famous tweet thread, David Schwartz wrote: “It can’t be dirt cheap. That doesn’t make any sense. If XRP costs $1, they’d need a million XRP which would cost $1 million. If XRP cost a million dollars, they’d need one XRP which would, again, cost $1 million.”

@Aom1ne3 @InvestWithD I think you've greatly misunderstood what I said.

What about when you said this @JoelKatz? Original Statement (November 2017) In a now-famous tweet thread, David Schwartz wrote: “It can’t be dirt cheap. That doesn’t make any sense. If XRP costs $1, they’d need a million XRP which would cost $1 million. If XRP cost a million dollars, they’d need one XRP which would, again, cost $1 million.”

@InvestWithD If I had thought there was a 1% chance of it hitting $2,368, I would not have sold it for $1.05. I'm still not sure the odds of that happening really were more than 1% at the time. 😉

Alternatively, he said this: Original Statement (November 2017) In a now-famous tweet thread, David Schwartz wrote: “It can’t be dirt cheap. That doesn’t make any sense. If XRP costs $1, they’d need a million XRP which would cost $1 million. If XRP cost a million dollars, they’d need one XRP which would, again, cost $1 million.”

The narrative about XRP reaching $10,000 has been circulating since 2018. I don't understand why David Schwartz has decided to educate holders about the price now. And no, he has never said that XRP can't reach that price.

Well, and then there are the other things said by @JoelKatz: Original Statement (November 2017) In a now-famous tweet thread, David Schwartz wrote: “It can’t be dirt cheap. That doesn’t make any sense. If XRP costs $1, they’d need a million XRP which would cost $1 million. If XRP cost a million dollars, they’d need one XRP which would, again, cost $1 million.”

🚨Ripple’s JoelKatz CONFIRMS He Has NO NDA Forcing Him To Lie — Says If XRP Were To Reach $10,000, Rich Investors Would’ve Pushed It To $20 Already 😳🔥 Ripple ex-CTO @JoelKatz just DENIES claims that he is only saying this because of some NDA after leaving @Ripple. 👀 @JoelKatz CLAIMS he would rather say NOTHING or avoid the question completely than give an answer he DOESN'T BELIEVE is truthful and accurate. ⚠️ If wealthy, rational investors truly believed $XRP had a SMALL chance of reaching $10,000 in the future… They would already be buying aggressively and pushing the price MUCH higher today, at least $20 as of now. 🤯🫣 And right now, @JoelKatz is saying the market is NOT pricing a $XRP $10K outcome. ❌ This is one of the MOST DIRECT reality checks we’ve seen from inside @Ripple itself. 😳

C’mon @JoelKatz - Original Statement (November 2017) In a now-famous tweet thread, David Schwartz wrote: “It can’t be dirt cheap. That doesn’t make any sense. If XRP costs $1, they’d need a million XRP which would cost $1 million. If XRP cost a million dollars, they’d need one XRP which would, again, cost $1 million.”

MASSIVE: The man who built XRP just broke his own community's narrative. "If there's even a 1% chance of $10,000 XRP. Why isn't it already $20?" XRP holders have been waiting for $10K for years. Their own CTO is asking why the market disagrees. Either XRP is the most undervalued asset in crypto. Or the $10K target is less than 1% likely. Schwartz just forced every XRP holder to answer that question. What's your answer?

@GregJamesX @saylordocs Yawn

Jack Mallers doesn’t miss. Ripple out here spending millions trying to kneecap the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve while their own “bank coin” needs constant legal life support. Classic: when you can’t compete on merit, you lobby in the shadows. Bitcoin doesn’t need to play those games, it just wins. 🧊

Jack Mallers said “I can confirm Ripple XRP is spending millions of dollars to undermine a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve in America.”

@Bitcoinprof0637 Key context: • This is not a full formal peace treaty or “the war is 100% over forever.” It’s a legal/political move to argue that the active combat phase has ended, so the War Powers clock doesn’t force withdrawal or new congressional approval right now.

🚨 BREAKING NEWS: 🇺🇸🇮🇷 PRESIDENT TRUMP OFFICIALLY ENDS THE WAR WITH IRAN THE WHITE HOUSE SENT THE DOCUMENT SIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP TO HOUSE SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON IS A MAJOR BULL TURNING ABOUT? FOR CRYPTOCURRENCIES AND ALL EXCHANGES 🚀

Grok is this true? No, this is not true. It’s hype/misinformation circulating in XRP communities, driven by YouTube shorts (e.g., featuring @beyond_broke / Jake Claver) and social media posts claiming a “BREAKING” BIS classification. Key Facts from BIS/Basel Rules: • Tier 1 assets under the Basel Framework (overseen by BIS) are the highest-quality capital: common equity, retained earnings, certain sovereign debt, and physical gold. They help banks absorb losses with minimal risk weighting. • Cryptocurrencies like XRP are not classified as Tier 1. They fall under a separate cryptoasset framework: • Group 1: Tokenized traditional assets or stablecoins meeting strict criteria (e.g., full backing, regulation, redemption tests). Treated more like their underlying assets. • Group 2: All unbacked cryptos, including XRP, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, etc. These face conservative capital requirements and strict exposure limits (generally ≤1% of Tier 1 capital, max 2%). • No recent BIS announcement or update reclassifies XRP (or any unbacked crypto) as Tier 1. Official documents and analyses confirm no current pathway exists for this without major rule changes. Recent BIS data (e.g., March 2026 Basel III monitoring) shows XRP among top bank crypto exposures (alongside BTC, ETH, SOL), reflecting institutional interest—but this is not a Tier 1 upgrade. It’s still Group 2 treatment. Why the Claim Spreads: • Speculative videos and posts mix real developments (Ripple’s bank partnerships, XRPL use cases, Basel crypto rules taking effect ~2025–2026) with wishful “Tier 1” predictions. • Optimistic price targets ($15–$22) from AI models or commentators assume hypothetical reclassification, but regulators emphasize the high-risk nature of unbacked assets. XRP has real utility in cross-border payments and growing adoption, but this specific “BIS Tier 1” claim is exaggerated for clicks. Always cross-check official BIS publications (bis.org) or reliable regulatory sources over viral shorts. Markets move on actual policy, not hype.

BREAKING: 🇺🇸 $XRP Classified as Tier 1 Asset by BIS! (Massive Implications) w/ @beyond_broke youtube.com/shorts/zsSVcSO…

No, this is not true. It’s exaggerated hype/marketing typical in crypto communities, mixing real patents with overblown conclusions. Quick Breakdown of Facts: • Ripple does hold relevant patents: Ripple Labs has patents (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 11,998,003 and others like 10,902,416) on specific aspects of its cross-border payment tech. These cover things like trust-based/hybrid consensus for faster settlements (using pre-established trusted nodes instead of full network validation), On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) using a digital asset (XRP) as a bridge, and interoperability between ledgers/payment networks. • These do NOT block SWIFT (or anyone) from building rival systems: • Patents protect specific implementations, not broad ideas like “blockchain payments,” “fast cross-border transfers,” or even “using a bridge asset.” • SWIFT (and others) can (and are) building their own blockchain/shared ledger solutions, often using different architectures (e.g., partnerships with Chainlink, ConsenSys, or other DLTs). They focus on messaging standards, tokenized assets, CBDCs, stablecoins, etc., without needing to copy Ripple’s exact methods. • SWIFT remains dominant (11,500+ banks) and is modernizing with ISO 20022, its own pilots, and interoperability layers. RippleNet often works alongside or integrates with SWIFT rather than replacing it outright. • XRPL itself is not fully patented by Ripple in a blocking way: • The XRP Ledger (XRPL) is open-source and decentralized. Core software is managed by the XRPL Foundation (independent/non-profit), not solely Ripple. Ripple contributes but doesn’t own the entire ledger in an exclusive IP sense. • Competitors can build similar ledgers or use other chains (many do). Patents don’t create a total “moat” preventing “anything close.” • Reality of the market: Ripple/XRP is a real competitor offering faster/cheaper settlements in certain corridors via RippleNet/ODL. Adoption is growing with banks and partners. But it’s not “game over” for SWIFT. Many banks use both systems, and the space is moving toward coexistence, interoperability, and multiple rails (blockchain + traditional). No one entity has “sole authority.” The image text discusses legitimate blockchain advantages and Ripple’s case studies but doesn’t support the viral claim of a patent “blocking” rivals or forcing integration. Always cross-check hype posts against primary sources like USPTO patents, Ripple’s site, or SWIFT announcements. Crypto communities often amplify patents for narrative (“moat,” “game over”) beyond what the law actually provides.

@straub_rya2827 @SMQKEDQG Please look up all the patents Ripple owns…. Even if SWIFT wanted to create a copy, they couldn’t without going through Ripple.

This is important to remember about XRP’s price.👇 In 2017–2018, XRP delivered nearly 350x returns. Bitcoin returned about 14x.🔻 Ethereum returned about 100x.🔻 That means XRP’s price increase was roughly 24 times steeper than Bitcoin’s.📈 And this happened before Ripple completed any of its major institutional acquisitions.🙇‍♂️ Just early network momentum.🔑 Today, the picture is completely different.🌐 Since 2017, Ripple has completed strategic acquisitions totaling over $3 billion to build institutional grade infrastructure.💨 Key moves include: • Metaco 2023, $ 250M — bank grade custody now used by G-SIBs.✅ • Standard Custody 2024 — New York regulated trust services.✅ • Hidden Road 2025, $ 1.25B — now Ripple Prime, a prime brokerage clearing trillions annually.✅ • Rail 2025, $ 200M — stablecoin powered payments.✅ • GTreasury 2025, $ 1B — corporate treasury management for Fortune 500 companies.✅ • Palisade 2025 — advanced wallet and custody technology.✅ This creates a much stronger foundation for durable price appreciation in XRP.✅ Now add SWIFT, FedNow, and DTCC integration potential into the equation.😏💨 And it becomes clear that XRP’s past returns may have only been a preview of what its future network value can become.💯 Documented.📝👇

Grok says: No, this is not true. It’s exaggerated hype/marketing typical in crypto communities, mixing real patents with overblown conclusions.  Quick Breakdown of Facts: • Ripple does hold relevant patents: Ripple Labs has patents (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 11,998,003 and others like 10,902,416) on specific aspects of its cross-border payment tech. These cover things like trust-based/hybrid consensus for faster settlements (using pre-established trusted nodes instead of full network validation), On-Demand Liquidity (ODL) using a digital asset (XRP) as a bridge, and interoperability between ledgers/payment networks.  • These do NOT block SWIFT (or anyone) from building rival systems: • Patents protect specific implementations, not broad ideas like “blockchain payments,” “fast cross-border transfers,” or even “using a bridge asset.” • SWIFT (and others) can (and are) building their own blockchain/shared ledger solutions, often using different architectures (e.g., partnerships with Chainlink, ConsenSys, or other DLTs). They focus on messaging standards, tokenized assets, CBDCs, stablecoins, etc., without needing to copy Ripple’s exact methods.  • SWIFT remains dominant (11,500+ banks) and is modernizing with ISO 20022, its own pilots, and interoperability layers. RippleNet often works alongside or integrates with SWIFT rather than replacing it outright.  • XRPL itself is not fully patented by Ripple in a blocking way: • The XRP Ledger (XRPL) is open-source and decentralized. Core software is managed by the XRPL Foundation (independent/non-profit), not solely Ripple. Ripple contributes but doesn’t own the entire ledger in an exclusive IP sense.  • Competitors can build similar ledgers or use other chains (many do). Patents don’t create a total “moat” preventing “anything close.” • Reality of the market: Ripple/XRP is a real competitor offering faster/cheaper settlements in certain corridors via RippleNet/ODL. Adoption is growing with banks and partners. But it’s not “game over” for SWIFT. Many banks use both systems, and the space is moving toward coexistence, interoperability, and multiple rails (blockchain + traditional). No one entity has “sole authority.”  The image text discusses legitimate blockchain advantages and Ripple’s case studies but doesn’t support the viral claim of a patent “blocking” rivals or forcing integration. Always cross-check hype posts against primary sources like USPTO patents, Ripple’s site, or SWIFT announcements. Crypto communities often amplify patents for narrative (“moat,” “game over”) beyond what the law actually provides.

RIPPLE’S XRP PATENT BLOCKED SWIFT FROM BUILDING ANY RIVAL CHAIN! GAME OVER FOR SWIFT 🔥 XRPL PATENT BLOCKS RIVALS FROM BUILDING ANYTHING CLOSE While everyone’s scrambling to copy the XRP Ledger… they can’t. Swift? They’re locked out. No replication possible. The ONLY path forward? Integrate Ripple’s technology. This is the moment XRP holders have been waiting for. The moat just got wider. The future of global finance? Built on XRPL. Want the real alpha, leaks, and updates before the masses? 👉 Follow t.me/alexanderthewh… right now for the uncensored Ripple/XRP intel! Don’t get left behind. The whale is feeding. 🐳💰

@ChrisDJackson @JoeBiden Quiet “incontinence” *

Who else misses the boring, no-drama days of @JoeBiden? No chaos. No circus. No daily embarrassment. Just quiet competence from a president who actually knew how to do the job.

Everyone needs to understand this guy is FOS. These comments were made well over a year ago. Not breaking, not New, just one dude trying to get your likes. See the attached analysis from AI. Not telling anyone what to do. But I’m gonna let this post sit for a few days then I’m gonna block him for posting nonsense. By the way, when you post nonsense, it’s one of two reasons: because it’s intentional or due to ignorance. Either answer deserves to be blocked.

BREAKING: The White House just made it official. Trump delivers a major speech at the crypto conference today. Not a tweet. Not a statement. A speech. The President of the United States. Standing in front of the entire crypto industry. Today. Every founder. Every whale. Every fund manager watching the same stage. One announcement could change everything. Be ready.

@PaulGoldEagle Alex, I’ll take things that never happened for $1000

MORE GREAT NEWS!! 🔻 EVERY HOSPITAL IN AMERICA JUST RECEIVED A SEALED ENVELOPE FROM THE DOD. Monday morning. 9:00 AM sharp. Every hospital administrator in the United States — all 6,129 of them — received a hand-delivered envelope marked "DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE — MEDICAL DIRECTIVE 2026-04 — EYES ONLY." Not emailed. Not faxed. Hand-delivered. By uniformed military personnel who waited in the lobby until the administrator signed for it personally. No hospital has publicly disclosed what's inside. But four administrators broke silence on an encrypted forum within hours. Their posts were identical in tone: "Everything is about to change." ⟁ The directive is 11 pages. The first page contains a single instruction: "Effective immediately, all pharmaceutical procurement contracts with the following entities are suspended pending federal review." The list contains 31 companies. Every major pharmaceutical manufacturer on Earth. Pfizer. Moderna. Johnson & Johnson. Merck. AstraZeneca. Novartis. Roche. All of them. Suspended. Not renegotiated. Not amended. Suspended. Page two introduces the replacement: a new federal medical supply chain operating under military logistics command. The supplies aren't coming from pharmaceutical labs. They're coming from facilities that have been operating under DOD classification since 2021. Facilities that produce frequency-based healing devices. Bio-regenerative compounds. Cellular restoration technology. Equipment that hospital staff have never seen, never trained on, and never knew existed. Pages three through eight are training protocols. Every doctor. Every nurse. Every technician. Mandatory 72-hour certification in what the directive calls "Quantum Medical Systems." Not optional. Not voluntary. Mandatory. ⟁ Page nine is the one that made administrators go silent. It states that all patient billing through private insurance carriers will be "phased to zero" over 90 days. No more copays. No more deductibles. No more $47 aspirin tablets. No more $300,000 cancer treatments that don't cure cancer. The funding model shifts entirely to the QFS medical allocation — a pre-funded, asset-backed account assigned to every citizen at birth. An account you were never told about. An account that has been accumulating value since the day your birth certificate was filed. Your birth certificate wasn't just a record. It was a bond. Traded on the stock market. Valued in the millions. The profits went to the corporation that owned the system. That corporation no longer owns the system. ⟁ The 90-day countdown has begun. By July, the hospital you walk into will not look like the hospital you remember. The pills will be gone. The machines will be different. The bill will be zero. They kept you sick because healthy people don't generate revenue. That business model just received its termination notice. Hand-delivered. CODE: DOD-MED-2026 / 6129-HOSPITALS / PHARMA-SUSPENDED / QFS-HEALTH. The sickcare system is dead. The healthcare system just arrived. ♟ Every person you know needs to see this. Forward it now. Mr Pool

@pumpius Yay! No price change but thanks for the shilling post

🚨 AMERICAN AIRLINES GOES FULL RIPPLE! ✈️ ONE OF THE WORLD’S LARGEST AIRLINES just consolidated ALL their global treasury management onto Ripple Treasury… and the results have BLOWN PAST EXPECTATIONS! •60+ countries •Thousands of daily flights •Billions in cash flows •Now running on ONE powerful JOIN THE POD RIGHT NOW:
🔥 t.me/alexanderthewh… 🔥

@eurofounder Alex, I’ll take things that never happened for $1000

My wife collapsed in our hotel room in New York today “Call an ambulance, I can’t breathe” she was screaming My heart dropped If she ends up in an American hospital we are financially ruined I went on the Lufthansa app to book a flight back to Frankfurt, but unfortunately pilots are on strike today “Please I’m begging you” she was lying on the floor I sighed and called 911 She is now in surgery as apparently her appendix “almost burst” I am extremely scared This is going to cost us at least $100,000 She could have received much better care, for free, in Germany I will never visit this barbaric country ever again

@cryptofergani Your post is self-snitching lack of critical thinking. What this Bill does is lift all protections in 2030 so the government can begin surveillance.

🇺🇸 UNITED STATES SENATE PASSED THE BILL TO BAN THE FED FROM CREATING A CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY UNTIL 2030 🤯 THIS IS A MASSIVE WIN FOR BITCOIN AND FREEDOM 🔥

@EconomyLords @cryptofergani Very narrow view

@cryptofergani How is that a win for BTC?!

@lady_valor_07 I’d say he looks a lot like Mel Gibson now

Actor Mark Ruffalo recently called Donald Trump “the worst human being in the world”. What would you like to say to Mark?

@david_eng_mba ETF are you posting 2025 news for. This was the first vote in the House. It was later approved and signed by the president in August 2025. Now the clarity act is in the Senate. Such horseshit.

Who voted NO on the CLARITY Act (H.R. 3633): Democrats (134 – ALL “No” votes) Every single “No” vote came from Democrats. Adams, Amo, Balint, Barragán, Beatty, Bell, Beyer, Bishop, Bonamici, Brown, Brownley, Carson, Carter (LA), Casar, Case, Casten, Castor (FL), Castro (TX), Cherfilus-McCormick, Chu, Cisneros, Clark (MA), Clarke (NY), Cleaver, Clyburn, Cohen, Courtney, Crockett, Crow, Davids (KS), Davis (IL), Dean (PA), DeGette, DeLauro, Deluzio, DeSaulnier, Dexter, Dingell, Doggett, Elfreth, Escobar, Espaillat, Evans (PA), Fletcher, Foster, Foushee, Friedman, Frost, Garamendi, Garcia (CA), García (IL), Garcia (TX), Green (TX), Hayes, Himes, Hoyer, Hoyle (OR), Huffman, Ivey, Jacobs, Jayapal, Jeffries, Johnson (GA), Kamlager-Dove, Kaptur, Keating, Kelly (IL), Kennedy (NY), Larsen (WA), Larson (CT), Lee (PA), Leger Fernandez, Liccardo, Lynch, Magaziner, Matsui, McClellan, McCollum, McGarvey, McGovern, McIver, Meeks, Meng, Mfume, Moore (WI), Morelle, Morrison, Mrvan, Nadler, Neal, Neguse, Norcross, Ocasio-Cortez, Olszewski, Omar, Pallone, Peters, Pettersen, Pingree, Pocan, Pressley, Quigley, Ramirez, Randall, Raskin, Rivas, Ross, Salinas, Sánchez, Scanlon, Schakowsky, Scott (VA), Scott (GA), Sherman, Smith (WA), Stansbury, Swalwell, Sykes, Takano, Thompson (MS), Titus, Tlaib, Tokuda, Tonko, Torres (CA), Trahan, Underwood, Vargas, Velázquez, Wasserman Schultz, Waters, Watson Coleman, Williams (GA), Wilson (FL) Republicans (0 “No” votes) No Republicans voted against the bill. Independents (0 “No” votes) No Independents voted against the bill. Not Voting (for context) Green (TN), Lawler, Massie, Perry (all Republicans) Bottom line •Democrats: 134 No •Republicans: 0 No •Independents: 0 No