M

@galgitron Where would the yield come from?

@Qrypt0s x.com/galgitron/stat…

Brian Armstrong is fighting for our yield. Lots of cartel propaganda Twitter accounts trying to make him look like the bad guy for holding up the CLARITY act, but we deserve to choose where we get our fucking yield. Fuck the banks.

@robbiepetersen_ @OnchainLu wrt point 2: You can call them hallucinations or poor judgement as the analogue in the human world. Either way, and in both cases, it only sharpens the mental model. Free markets reward good data and wise judgment over time.

re 1 – This is true in theory but in practice I still think there is so much inertia to overcome here on both the supply and demand side. Further, my expectation is most enterprise deployment will be top down from existing SaaS providers already embedded in these workflows who already have vendor contracts re 2 - Instant settlement eliminates counterparty risk, not fraud risk. Those are different problems. If an agent mistakenly pays a merchant due to hallucination or an ambiguous prompt, instant settlement means that transaction is already final. Auth and settlement are separate layers. Collapsing one doesn't solve the other. Fraud will still matter at scale even if transactions are smaller

@pol_correct17 @RTSG_News galgitron.net/Post/Jobpocaly…

@RTSG_News God forbid people have jobs

🚨🇨🇳 REPORT: China is reducing the burden on the service and manual labor industry with the introduction of bathroom cleaning robots. The Zerith H1 is a wheeled humanoid designed specifically for the jobs nobody is fighting to keep: toilet cleaning, shower scrubbing, sink wiping, vacuuming, and restocking amenities. The robot is already operating in hotels, malls, and public buildings in China. Follow: @RTSG_News

@CatfishFishy @1MisterR No vision.

@1MisterR What about it? It means nothing. Citing examples of something, or even including something as one option, amongst many others, doesn't translate into usage or value accrual.

Announcement that has nothing to do with $XRP -> $XRP social media slop merchant -> $XRP cultists

@ChainLinkGod @followthedoe Show evidence to the contrary since you made the original claim.

@Qrypt0s @followthedoe That site is trying to sell you on a subscription, anyone can put whatever they want in a site, doesn’t make it true

🚨This is a MUST WATCH video for all $XRP holders🚨 This changes EVERYTHING🤯👇

@ChainLinkGod @followthedoe #overview" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">pitchbook.com/profiles/compa…

@followthedoe Chainlink doesn’t have equity investors, they didn’t double dip like Ripple did, there is only the LINK token

@ScamDetective5 Layer 2 is the exchanging of derivatives.

Wow 8 years already 🤯

@ChainLinkGod @gabegarciazen Who owns Chainlink equity?

@gabegarciazen CLL didn’t sell equity and create a competing investor group like Ripple did, there is only the LINK token to accrue value

By owning $XRP, you are funding a company that has openly stated it will prioritize its equity shareholders over you Ripple wrote the playbook on this. Let me walk you through how it works👇 When a company sells both tokens and equity to investors, it creates two competing stakeholder groups whose economic interests may not, and often do not, align For example, when there’s excess revenue or profits, where does that value ultimately go: to equity holders via buybacks/dividends, to token holders via buybacks/staking rewards, or some split between the two? There is a fixed pot of revenue to distribute, and equity investors often have superior, clearer economic rights to that revenue that can be legally enforced, while token investors often do not Look at Circle’s recent acquisition of Interop Labs (Axelar team), Coinbase’s acquisition of Tensor, PumpFun’s acquisition of Padre, Ripple vs XRP. etc These are all situations in which equity holders benefited at the expense of, or isolation from, token holders In Ripple’s case, they have spent the past decade+ systematically selling XRP to retail while spinning a story of inevitable institutional adoption In reality, Ripple uses the proceeds of XRP sales to acquire real companies and fund Ripple Labs stock buybacks, to the sole benefit of Ripple Labs shareholders No value is created for the XRP token, even Ripple admitted under oath in court filings that the bridge currency use case of XRP is demand neutral and does not impact price Ripple Labs socializes its costs to XRP holders to fund product launches and corporate acquisitions, then privatizes the value for its own shareholders XRPL is an obsolete ghost chain that's not even in the top 40 chains by usage. It has less than 1% marketshare in RWAs and less than 0.01% in stablecoins. There is no metric the chain leads in Ripple themselves issued 90% of RLUSD on Ethereum and have now expanded it to even more chains outside of XRPL including BNY Mellon's private EVM chain and L2s The list goes on By owning XRP, you do not have complete exposure to the success of the ecosystem Ripple is building, because you do not own the equity, you own some undefined percentage of the success This issue doesn’t exist for Chainlink, because there are no equity investors. There is only the $LINK token to accrue value from the network’s growth. Even CLL employees receive long-term incentives rewards in LINK, not equity Unfortunately, depending on how you want to put it, there is no mass social media misinformation campaign driving retail towards Chainlink like we see with XRP However, Chainlink‘s clear dominance in DeFi (70%+ marketshare w/ $60B in DeFi TVL secured) and its tangible verifiable institutional adoption by the largest institutions in the world (Swift, DTCC, Euroclear, SBI, UBS, JP Morgan, Fidelity, ANZ, etc) will inevitably become too impossible to ignore While the XRP army comes up with bizarre conspiracy theories about why institutions don’t talk about XRP, enterprises adopting Chainlink have no issue publicly talking about their use of Chainlink And before you say Chainlink and Ripple/XRP are not competitors bc they do different things, I would agree from tech perspective, Chainlink actually offers useful products for banks and isn’t a retail grift Chainlink is the only unified platform that provides the critical data, interoperability, compliance, privacy, and orchestration standards that financial institutions need for advanced tokenization use cases None of these institutional use cases Chainlink powers have ever required a “bridge currency”, that is a fantasy narrative dreamt up by retail This has been proven time and time again The reality is that $LINK is the best index bet on the institutional adoption of blockchain, while $XRP is a bank themed memecoin that Ripple sells to retail to fund corporate acquisitions and stock buybacks Documented.📝

@dompeet_ @DBCrypt0 What is that saying? Two wrongs..

@Qrypt0s @DBCrypt0 wait til you see the [lack of] distribution of xrp

Chainlink buys $LINK. Ripple buys shares. NOT $XRP. Notice the difference?

@CatfishFishy @Belisarius2020 Complete agreement with you. We shall see...

@Qrypt0s @Belisarius2020 XRPL is basically free to use and has no adoption. If something is useful, people are willing to pay to use it. That's how all products and services work.

This guy has an unhealthy obsession with XRP. People like him criticise ripple for holding too much XRP and criticise ripple for selling XRP.

@CatfishFishy @Belisarius2020 If you build in token value as a mechanism, then the system is no longer useful to the widest possible market. It becomes captured by those that would benefit most from its design to accrue value.

>designing a token such that it accrues value as a fundamental premise creates perverse incentives; not in favor of those who actually want to use a fast, cheap, and decentralized bridge asset. No. It doesn't. What creates perverse incentives is creating dual sets of competing stakeholders, which is what Ripple did. Ripple socializes their corporate overhead costs onto XRP holders, and then privatizes the value creation from that capital raise solely to benefit Ripple Labs shareholders. That is misalignment and a perverse incentive. If the token actually accrued value, then Ripple would be aligned with XRP holders. They wouldn't be doing buybacks of Ripple Labs shares. They would be doing buybacks of tokens, like a dozen other crypto protocols with actual aligned values and tokenomics.

@CatfishFishy @Belisarius2020 Correct. The token is not *designed to accrue value. Designing a token such that it accrues value as a fundamental premise creates perverse incentives; not in favor of those who actually want to use a fast, cheap, and decentralized bridge asset.

1. XRPL did have incentives. Except, Ripple Labs seized 100% of the incentive supply for themselves and use them as cannon fodder to pay for all of their corporate overhead, while selling a slop story expecting validators to run infrastructure for free. 2. If the token isn't designed to accrue value, then you're admitting there is no investment thesis behind it. It's simply fun collectible fan merchandise for Ripple's version of a Disney adult buying Micky Mouse ears.

@CatfishFishy @Belisarius2020 The best incentive is no incentive if you want a pure payment mechanism. The token is not designed to accrue value outside providing value to actual users.

Why are you linking this post? This is basic 2016 XRP meme slop that isn't relevant and doesn't refute any of my points I've made. 1. XRP has no token value accrual. 2. XRP is just a gas token for the XRPL. Everything else about "bridge currencies" and "settlement currencies" are 2016 memes. 3. XRPL is an irrelevant, obsolete ghostchain. It's ranked 47th by TVL, 46th by developer count, 1% RWA marrketshare, .01% stablecoin marketshare, etc. 4. Ripple socializes their costs onto XRP holders, while privatizing all of the gains to Ripple Labs shareholders. XRP holders have zero exposure to Ripple, and, to be frank, anything at all, in fact.

@CatfishFishy @Belisarius2020 x.com/AJH_1957/statu…

x.com/i/status/20324… The criticism has nothing to do with Chainlink's ICO. It's about what happens afterwards. Chainlink didn't create dual competing stakeholders between token and equity; Ripple Labs did. See attached screenshot. Therefore, Ripple socializes their costs onto XRP holders, while privatizing spoils to Ripple Labs shareholders. This is why Ripple sells XRP, but does buybacks of Ripple Labs shares. Chainlink protocol revenue -> LINK token buyback Aave protocol revenue-> AAVE token buyback Hyperliquid protocol revenue ->  HYPE token buyback Ethena protocol revenue -> ENA token buyback Maple protocol revenue -> Syrup token buyback Jupiter protocol revenue-> JUP token buyback VERSUS Ripple dumps XRP -> Ripple buys companies for itself and does Ripple stock buybacks Can you spot the difference?

@CatfishFishy @MrEllzee @showmeyourseed x.com/AJH_1957/statu…

Chuck E Cheese Labs: Hey, I want you to give me your money to launch Chuck E Cheese. I'm going to keep 100% of the profits from the pizza sales, arcade games, merchandise, parties, etc. I'm even going to acquire other companies using the money you give me and keep all the profits from those, too. Chuck E Cheese Army: Uhhh, that sounds laughably terrible for us. Why would anyone on Earth ever do something so one-sided? Chuck E Cheese Labs: For giving me your money, I'm going to give you some of my Chuck E Cheese arcade tokens. These tokens will be the pre-funded liquidity layer of my entertainment playscape. Here's the best part: For every one-millionth token put into skee-ball, we'll burn one of them. Chuck E Cheese Army: Shut up and take my money.

$XRP is at the center of everything we do! First, we sell $XRP to launch products and buy companies. Then, with the remaining money we do buybacks of Ripple Labs stock! We socialize all of our corporate overhead to XRP holders, and then privatize all the spoils to Ripple Labs shareholders! $XRP is at the center of it all!

@ChainLinkGod x.com/AJH_1957/statu…

Personally I would never buy a crypto token from a project that has also sold equity to investors Such “double dipping” creates unavoidable economic misalignment between investor classes and muddies the value capture story At some point, the market will force these projects to either merge token and equity into one asset, or clearly separate what each one represents This is one of the biggest structural problems in crypto today, and it is not a discussion that is going away anytime soon It is not a coincidence that some of the biggest crypto blue-chip assets do not have this issue BTC ETH LINK HYPE SOL Good luck out there, avoid the landmines

@AJH_1957 @ChainLinkGod @0xfudamentals This.

Alright, so we’ve definitively established you have no damn clue what you’re even talking about. All of these comparisons only work if XRP was designed as a revenue-sharing token, like every other protocol you just listed. But it wasn’t. The others are structured so protocol fees flow back to token holders. XRP was built as a liquidity asset for payments, not equity in Ripple. You’re basically whining that “Ripple doesn’t route revenue to XRP holders”. That’s exactly the point. And that’s exactly why the SEC lost the securities argument in secondary markets.

@ScamDetective5 @SylvainWathier @ShaMustard x.com/DianaWallace88…

@SylvainWathier @ShaMustard If that were true, wouldn’t you be able to show an email from Epstein proving this?

Why is XRP red while the rest are green? Could it be the Mastercard news?