⍼ ScamDaddy

Kinda wild this random CEO billionaire with no affiliation to XRP is talking about it. Definitely a sign. Such alpha.

@TheOnlineMarke3 So to confirm, you agree your USDC is stuck on the XRPL, there is no bridge, they felt the XRPL out.

@ScamDetective6 It works for who it is supposed to work for on the XRPL. The qualified institutions. This should be understood.

This includes 17 chains but not the XRPL. Which makes sense, since the USDC issuance and liquidity in the XRP Ledger is the lowest in all the chains they support.

@TheOnlineMarke3 No. CCTP doesn’t work for the XRPL either. Can you cannot use Circle Mint. This is just for specific institutions for minting USDC.

@ScamDetective6 I do understand. USDC is not stuck on the XRPL because it is compatible with Circle Mint and the CCTP. This is the point.

@TheOnlineMarke3 I’m not sure you understand. This is to move USDC between chains that have USDC Natively. Say you want to move your USDC from Solana to Ethereum, you can do that using this. They both have USDC natively. However, for the XRPL your USDC is stuck there.

@ScamDetective6 #XRP $XRP #XRPArmy It does not need a bridge, because on June 12, 2025 Circle launched USDC on the #XRPL natively. By now everyone should know better to trust anything you post that is XRP related.

@Vet_X0 @saylor Transactions would still get through, just slower. You cannot blockade bitcoin.

@ScamDetective6 @saylor Read my OG reply again.

Impossible to blockade Bitcoin.

@Vet_X0 @saylor The largest miner has around 7% of hashpower, they would only mine 7/100 blocks. They would effectively slow down bitcoin by less than a minute over the span of a day.

@ScamDetective6 @saylor They would mine transactions they just wouldn't find a block nearly as often as someone with enough hashpower that empty block mines. For this whole time, Bitcoin is blockaded.

@JamesDula82 @USDC XRP doesn’t solve this at all. It only bridges on its own chain. There are very few assets to bridge, leading to low TVL and liquidity.

Circle just admitted the problem XRP already solves. Every chain has its own USDC. Moving between them requires a bridge. Circle built one — burn on Chain A, mint on Chain B. That's the architecture. But here's what they can't fix: USDC still has clawback. The bridge moves the problem, it doesn't dissolve it. And every new chain USDC deploys on creates another bridge need. More USDC chains = more bridge demand = more XRP utility. Circle is expanding the grid. XRP is the neutral conductor between every node on it. They're doing the work for us. 🪿

Introducing the USDC Bridge. A direct way to move USDC crosschain. Built and operated by Circle, USDC Bridge gives you a predictable, transparent way to move USDC between chains: → Native burn-and-mint transfers → Clear fees upfront, with live status and progress → No route selection. No bridge complexity. → Destination gas handled automatically Move USDC. That’s it. bridge.usdc.com

@Vet_X0 @saylor I’m not sure how you think bitcoin works..they would constantly mine the transactions. Also buying ASICS, is a long-term capital outlay. It’s takes, planning, ordering, wait/shipping time, and installation time. This has nothing to do with this short term theoretically situation

@ScamDetective6 @saylor Hashpower won't move to them because they would need to consistently mine those transactions to grab $ to buy asics. Someone with enough hashpower denies other participants of any $ at their own expense.

@Vet_X0 @saylor There is no blockade, transactions will mine with no issue with the other miners, fees will grow for the honest miners since the dishonest one is leaving them on the table. This will cause hashpower to move to them This incentive structure is why this never happened in 17+ years

@ScamDetective6 @saylor They can try to find a block and until then it's blockaded for anyone trying to use it.

@reece_merrick @xspectDS In the sake of transparency, why not report how much of these inflows was Ripple?

XRP ETFs - The numbers don’t lie 📈 🟢 U.S. spot XRP ETFs did not record a single net outflow day in their first month. 🟢 By December 16, 2025, cumulative inflows had crossed $1 billion, making XRP the fastest digital asset to reach that milestone since Ethereum's ETF launch. 🟢 By early March 2026, cumulative inflows had grown to over $1.50 billion, with five spot XRP ETFs trading in the U.S. and over 769 million XRP tokens locked across their combined custody arrangements. Full report 👇 ripple.com/insights/xrp-e…

@Vet_X0 @saylor Honest miners will continue to mine the transaction, bitcoin will continue to work.

@saylor That's a lie. Anyone or group with enough hash power can censor transactions on Bitcoin or even empty block mine (and still get coinbase rewards) Unlikely to happen? Yes. Impossible? Not at all.

@bgarlinghouse It’s cute to pretend this is organic demand and not Ripple arranged.

Demand for XRP keeps growing. More access, more ecosystems, more utility.

5

@ayang2294 @MHiesboeck @ScamDetective5 Looks like Coinbase is implementing the Lightning Network. x.com/lightspark/sta…

@MHiesboeck @ScamDetective6 what can you say? @ScamDetective5

Interesting and en-“lightening” discussion of the failed #Lightning network on @unsplash via @CoinDesk Ah, the #LightningNetwork. Hailed for years as #Bitcoin’s saving grace, the off-chain solution needed to finally make Satoshi Nakamoto’s “peer-to-peer digital cash” an actual functioning payments network, today appears to be losing faith.   Industry publication Protos recently published an article noting that numerous Lightning developers have walked away from the project, that there’s a growing list of complaints and bugs to address and that liquidity has been slowly drying up on the network.    This is all sort of true. Even as far back as 2019 the network's co-creator, Tadge Dryja, was willing to discuss the “limitations” of the scaling solution, and walked away from contributing directly to the project and quitting leading developers Lightning Labs that year (just months after Lightning launched and nearly four years after it was first proposed).   Similarly, Joseph Poon, another co-author of the Lightning white paper, has seemingly become more interested in blockchain scaling solutions happening on other chains, like Ethereum’s Plasma. He is now working on a new type of decentralized exchange.    Over the years, numerous bugs have been found impacting Lightning and some of its implementations. In 2022, for instance, bad code in Lightning Labs’ favored implementation, LND, prevented users from moving funds onto the mainnet for several hours. (Though to be fair, more often than not vulnerabilities are patched before they’re even exploited.)   Other bitcoiners have raised concerns about Lightning’s many privacy issues and that the scaling solution often can be surprisingly expensive to use. In particular, they complain about the design of “inbound capacity” on Lightning, which limits the amount of BTC you can receive, so that users sometimes pay to receive funds (or, that payment is subsidized by startups).   The latest round of Bitcoin Lightning discourse appears to have been kicked off by longtime bitcoiner John Carvalho, who was once one of Lightning’s biggest champions until he tried building software solutions on top of it. His recent interview with Vlad Costea caught the ear after Carvalho derided the “complexity and fragility” of the protocol.   “Going through that experience has made me realize that the design is kind of a joke,” Carvalho said. “We can make it work. We can do our best, but all of the narratives that came with [Lightning] in the first couple years were really exaggerated.”

@BitDrone_Crypto Bullish

@ScamDetective6 Cryogenics (Life forever) gift cards are on sale at your local CVS.

Just woke up. What did I miss?