arthur

@JoelKatz @InvestWithD No way

@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. 😉

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

"Ripple has 300+ bank partnerships, but after 13 years, shouldn't there be billions in daily on-chain volume?" I think there are a number of reasons why institutions have historically preferred to use digital assets off chain rather than on chain. I think we're close to changing that because institutions are starting to see the benefits of moving on chain. But I agree it has been very slow. Even Ripple can't use the XRPL DEX for payments yet because we can't be sure a terrorist won't provide the liquditity for payment. Features like permissioned domains will address this. "If XRP is volatile, why use it over stablecoins for transfers?" There are use cases where volatility isn't a minus, or is even a plus. Generally, for most digital assets the general view is that the upside is worth more than the downside, so as long as you aren't very risk averse, holding it is not really a disadvantage. "If volatility is not an issue because it’s a bridge currency, what is the incentive to hold it?" A bridge currency only works if someone is holding it so that you can get it precisely when you need it. But I think that in practice if you don't know what asset you will need to hold next, you may hold the dominant bridge currency because it should be cheaper to exchange into whatever you happen to need next. "Are bridge currencies still necessary when stablecoins will cover most pairs in the future?" If one stablecoin wins, then no. You would just use that stablecoin as the bridge currency. But I don't think one stablecoin can win for several reasons, including that a stablecoin can only be stable relative to one particular fiat currency and will always have jurisdictional ties. If we're in a multi-stablecoin world, it still makes sense to have a bridge asset that serves the long tail of tokenized securities, loan portfolios, and so on. "Why would giants like BlackRock use XRPL for tokenization instead of building their own blockchain? (Robinhood uses Arbitrum and plans their own)" I'm not sure how much that will really matter so long as we have interoperability and asset portability. Multiple chains are a good form of scalability as well. But I think the best way to see why they might is to ask the same question about Circle -- why don't they launch USDC only on their own blockchain? You can see why that's obviously silly. I think the same kind of logic will apply to tokenized real world assets over the next year or two. "Geopolitical risk. Why would foreign countries trust a US based private company payment network?" If you're asking about XRPL, it's not really US based. It has never discriminated against any particular participant and if it ever started to, I would hope people would stop using it. If you mean Ripple's enterprise payment products, we have separately licensed entities in many jurisdictions. But obviously, you're not going to see it in North Korea or Cuba any time soon and their might be, in some cases, pushback to a US company having some control over, say, payments between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. We build trust and we make hay where the sun shines.

@s_alderoty Pathetic from you guys

With this, the ball is back in our court. The Court gave us two options: dismiss our appeal challenging the finding on historic institutional sales—or press forward with the appeal. Stay tuned. Either way, XRP’s legal status as not a security remains unchanged. In the meantime, it’s business as usual.

@ahbritto My lord

😶

@elonmusk #xrp logo

Soon it will fly

@attorneyjeremy1 Odds of each Jeremy?

Congratulations Ripple and XRP holders!

@bgarlinghouse What’s taking settlement so long?

Any criticism of today's press conference is absolutely missing the forest for the trees. Having the Chair of Senate Banking, the Chair of House Financial Services, the Chair of Senate Ag, and the Chair of House Ag join the Crypto Czar to commit to passing legislation for crypto clarity is 100% a big deal (and something we haven’t seen before).

@s_alderoty Coffee shouldn't be the reason for not having coffee since 2020

In 2020, Commissioner Peirce and I planned to meet for coffee at Ebenezer’s in DC, but COVID intervened. I look forward to finally having that coffee in 2025.

Throughout the former administration's War on Crypto, Commissioner Peirce remained a steady voice for regulatory sanity. Today's memo is another rapid step toward turning the page on the mess we all inherited (and suffered through).

@Cobb_XRPL Did Elon tweet xrp Cobb?

Crazy how everyone is talking about XRP

XRP has officially decoupled from BTC

@MasonVersluis Cos I’m all in xrp

Your portfolio still doesn’t have any $SUI?!?!?! 😳

@DavidSacks Hey David, any comments on @JohnReedStark’s lies about crypto on @60Minutes?

This was nice.

@elonmusk @DOGE Elon, you have to speak out against the obvious lies @60Minutes spewed all over crypto during @bgarlinghouse's interview

The current administration is doing everything possible to prevent government efficiency, but @DOGE is inevitable

The @60Minutes interview will make @Ripple and #XRP only stronger

@JoelKatz @DavidSacks @elonmusk Lock it in too guys!!

Lock in

@JoelKatz David, it should be flip the switch!!

@bgarlinghouse @60Minutes Yo, things like this can happen during the Biden administration but not during Trump’s! Crypto and everyone should come together and oppose this nonsense from @60Minutes @elonmusk @DavidSacks we need your voices

Crypto made its debut on @60Minutes tonight – there’s no doubt that these technologies will continue to become more and more mainstream - with influence and reach that will only continue to grow. A few things I do want to comment on after watching: I spoke with Margaret Brennan / 60Minutes for 90+ min straight. When discussing the SEC’s misguided lawsuit against Ripple, 60Minutes shockingly left out that a Federal Judge ruled that XRP is not a security…Gensler’s shill (John Reed Stark) knows better despite his comments that 60Minutes chose to air. Lastly, to say crypto has no utility is exactly what the naysayers said about the Internet in its earliest days - that it’s nothing more than illicit activity. How vastly they were proven wrong. Today, even JPMorgan is coming around on blockchain… (conveniently 60Minutes also failed to mention that Ripple is doing billions of dollars of KYC-ed transactions for our institutional customers - leveraging XRP to move money cross-border more efficiently than traditional payment rails.) cbsnews.com/news/crypto-sp…

I wonder how would @elonmusk respond to @60Minutes interview with @bgarlinghouse @Ripple #xrp

@JoelKatz Top signal

Definitely the best way to experience communism.

@JoelKatz David you need to shorten your posts. Thank you on behalf of everyone

Operation Chokepoint 2.0 was (is?) a government operation to pressure banks to unbank "disfavored" people and businesses, despite no evidence or accusations of unlawful conduct. The mechanism used, indirect regulation, is a despicable evil that is used as an end run around due process and should be discarded in the dustbin of history. Indirect regulation is when the government makes one party liable for the criminal actions of another party despite neither actual knowledge, nor willfull blindness, to the facts that makes the action criminal. In effect, it is an affirmative obligation one some to make sure that their perfectly lawful actions don't, without their knowledge, facilitate the unlawful actions of others. This is a terrible idea for a long list of reasons. Here are just a few:: 1) If my bank thinks there's some chance that I might launder money to terrorists and they close my account, I'll just open an account at some other bank that doesn't think that or use less traceable means. The opportunity to surveil my transactions and prosecute me for money laundering or facilitating terrorism is lost. 2) If the government wants to punish me for a crime, it has to charge me with the crime, let me confront its witnesses against me, and present a defense in front of a neutral judge. If the government convinces others that I might be doing something wrong and that they will be held liable if I am, I get no due process at all. 3) Often what makes others think we might be engaged in crimes is speech that is fully protected by the First Amendment and for which the government may not punish us. Indirect regulation allows the government to punish us indirectly (through loss of vital business relationship) for speech for which it is Constitutionally prohibited from punishing us. 4) It is also an end run around the Fourth Amendment. When we diclose information to others voluntarily, we lose Fourth Amendment protections for that information. But if the government uses the law to compel others to demand that information from us, they can (and do) later claim we "voluntarily" disclosed it to a third party and thus have no reasonable privacy interest in it. This is Orewellian nonsense. Our government has become addicted to indirect regulation precisely because of these evils. It is cheaper and easier to pressure someone else to punish me than to charge me with a crime and give me due process. But the government ought not punish people without giving them due process. It is easy to pressure banks to cut-off disfavored businesses than to make that business illegal. But if the government wants to stop some commercial activity, it should go through the proper lawmaking process, with full political accountability, to prohibit it, not use backdoor secret pressure to drive it underground. END ALL INDIRECT REGULATION. One last thing. I don't think we should do witch hunts to try to punish past incidents of indirect regulation, even when there's evidence of bad intent. I wish there was legal precedent to show these end runs around the First and Fourth Amendments were unlawful, but there isn't. That's why we need to do something about it. Getting obsessed about the past will lead to a lot of expensive and complex legal battles and won't do anything to fix the future. Let's change the future for the better.