kadscuk: I think beliefs are one of the hardest things to change, and if you believe that Olsen is dishonest, there's very little that can be done to change your mind. Here's my take on your questions: 1. Why is he talking about a jump if the market cap is already $481mn?I think there's insufficient info given in Olsen's reply in that reddit thread, and will personally wait for more details (an official announcement on their blog, hopefully). It seems like what wasn't tradable in the past is now tradable, so logically speaking it should contribute to the market cap. Why now though, that's a valid question but I'd rather wait for the answers than to jump to conclusions. 2. Why is he saying lykke is a high risk investment?Because it is? Would you have preferred him to not say it, or to say that Lykke is a low-risk investment? In either case, given your underlying belief that Olsen and the Lykke team are dishonest, there would have been an argument from you anyway, right? 3. Why is he saying they will make mistakes along the way?I think it's actually very respectable for Olsen to say something like that. It shows transparency. Of course, you can also view it as him given himself an escape route. It's all about perspective, and we all make decisions based on part facts and part beliefs. Ultimately, I believe you must have made a nice profit selling LKK  . So lighten up a little and enjoy the profits! I think your misunderstanding what Olsen meant in that post or what Im actually saying here, or what my actual questions were. Let me clarify: The chief guy who is extremely busy doesnt go on reddit to write about stuff that isn't relevant to the discussion. He is mentioning certain things because they are relevant to the points discussed. The points discussed are market valuation and its calculation, high risk and mistakes, which is exactly what he's mentioned and is talking about in that post. Add those all together because they are relevant to each other, and you'll understand better what he's saying...they are related within that context and are relevant to each other. What you're doing instead is taking each of these in isolation and seeing them as separate, resulting in you ending up missing the actual meaning. In simple terms you're showing inexperience and lack of insight to interpret things correctly. Olsen is an entrepreneur and entrepreneurs will understand him better than the average layman. Re: Why is he talking about a jump if the market cap is already $481mn? What this question means is: you wouldnt be talking about any "jump" if your valuation was already $481mn. He is talking about a jump because the valuation is NOT $481mn at the moment. This infers that the actual market cap he is talking about is not the total coin supply market cap (ie 90% coins + exchange traded coins) which would give the $481 mn, but the circulating supply market cap. The market cap reference he is referring to is the public market cap. You don't talk about a jump unless your talking about the public market cap in this context...not the private valuation (the $481mn one). The calculations given by Olsen to coinmarketcap are the valuations of the public market cap and is how it was supposed to go. Now he's changed this...can't get any simpler than that. Re: Why is he saying lykke is a high risk investment? Look at the context of his post. He isn't talking about high risk for the sake of it...there's a time and place to talk about certain things and a busy CEO doesnt just come out with random statements for the sake of it. He is talking about high risk because he just made a high risk announcement. Re: Why is he saying they will make mistakes along the way? Again, look at the context of his post and the thread he posted it on. He is talking about mistakes because it was a mistake to only include the exchange traded coins in the total market cap calculation. This is really simple for anyone who has been following LKK closely to understand... Olsen doesnt just add this in randomly you know. There is a time and a place to talk about mistakes, and he is talking about mistakes specifically in this context because he realises he made one. He is positioning it well and moving on. ------ I dont think Olsen is dishonest at all..he's made a legitimate mistake and he'll learn from it and move on. He's creating transparency through this move and that's totally fine for the long term viability of the project, which ultimately I believe will be very successful. However, as I've said its going to cause some investors to sell....because now the ROI is much less than it would have been, had Olsen stuck to his initial strategy. 1) I've replied on all of your points to be precise. If I am I would appreciate that you do that as well instead of simply writing down another long text.
2) What I really don't like is how you combine your concerns and opinions with given informations to come to conclusions that are often also only opinions, even hard accusations, that you state as facts.
With such a "communication-strategy" you could attack everything and always imply that Lykke and Richard Olsen would mislead and lie and whatever you come up with now.
That is especially a problem, whenever you imply that Lykke changes a strategy and that is totally wrong but you don't get or just hide, that coinmarketcap also changed the way how they display the supply.
What I would like to know is:
Why are you so critical now while I'm not aware that you have said anything all the time before if that is your point? It was wrong in the past. What have you missed in the past that you didn't say that?
Edit: not saying I won't reply on your previous post. There is enough I should reply on, because I wouldn't like to see all the accusations without putting things into perspective (again). Sorry, i'd love to reply in detail but im far too busy, so i'll be brief: Everything I've said is based on what Olsen himself has said.....I havent just come up with something random out of the blue. Olsen himself posted on the reddit post and you can see clearly what he wrote. There is no mistaking that whatsoever. That is the basis for this whole discussion and everything else is just assumption. Within the context of that thread and discussion, he is very clearly talking about the valuation of lykke, the high risk nature of lykke and mistakes that will be made. The CEO doesnt just say that out of the blue and in a random way. All of these points are related - he made a mistake with the way the valuation was calculated (the public valuation) and now he has done a u-turn (a high risk move) to give a more transparent valuation. In the long term it will be better for lykke of course that the mistake is corrected now. And yes, I do believe the lykke project will make a lot of money and will ultimately become highly successful. That is total common sense to me....if you can't see that, then that show's you lack a deeper insight...no offense I've sold my LKK and am moving on...if your just looking for an average profit then LKK might be a good investment for you...but that's not for me. (and Im talking long term investment for the average profit, who knows what will happen when the market cap updates...also it depends on the timescale that existing investors are looking at for their ROI). |
|
|
|
It would take me an hour to address all these points Tempus but in summary I will say this: Olsen has made a bold move and its a high risk move. He is doing it to correct a mistake because he even says so... Here is the statement from Olsen: Thank you for all the comments about the valuation of Lykke.
Coinmarketcap computes the market capitalization of Lykke based on the coins that are held in the trading wallets and does not include the coins held in other wallets. When Lykke was founded and started the first rounds of fund raising, the coins were issued to other wallets, because the trading wallet was not yet developed. In June we will move all the Lykke coins to the trading wallet. If the price of LKK does not change and remains at 0.374716 USD the total market capitalisation will jump to 481,772,471 USD.
Every buyer of LKK needs to be aware that the Lykke project is high risk – we are reinventing finance and build an emergent organization that is inspired by the principles employed by nature and where all the software and knowledge is open source. We will make mistakes and these mistakes can be costly, so there is risk and any investor should only buy LKK, if he can afford to lose his money.
Few things you need to be aware of: 1. Why is he talking about a jump if the market cap is already $481mn? 2. Why is he saying lykke is a high risk investment? 3. Why is he saying they will make mistakes along the way? The answers are: 1. Its because the market cap isnt $481mn..its $50-60mn, according to the calculations agreed between Olsen and coinmarketcap. 2. Its because he's making a high risk move 3. Its because he's correcting a mistake This is from his own words....he has said the valuation would be jumping, that there is high risk, and they will make mistakes. It is circulating supply which matters and this is what was agreed between Olsen and coinmarketcap to agree the valuation.. The way to resolve the issue with the market cap would be one of 2 ways: a) Declare that pre-investors would have their coins in a separate wallet from the circulating supply system, to avoid confusing the figures. This is taking the XRP and Ripple route by keeping pre-investor coins separately to avoid flooding the system, and would protect the current price and market cap (the $50-60mn one). Flooding the system doesnt mean there would be big sell orders. Flooding the system means changing the circulating supply unnecessarily to inflate the agreed market cap valuation. This was the initial route which Olsen took. The circulating supply of coins bought on the exchange is what counted towards the market cap - which is why the agreement was made between Olsen and coinmarketcap. Otherwise why not just make all the coins - the full 100% count to the market cap from the start? Why did Olsen not add all the coins into the market cap at the start then? Why was the agreement not made for this? Its a mute point to say just because the coins weren't on the trading wallet, that they shouldn't contribute if that's the argument someone wants to make. The answer is it was an intentional decision to not add all the coins into the market cap. The private pre-investor coins weren't supposed to be part of the circulating supply to influence the public market cap. b) The 2nd route is putting all the coins into the trading wallet so that all the coins are counted in the valuation figure. This is the route that Olsen has taken, which means its a U-turn. He made a mistake to say only the coins bought on the exchange should count to the market cap. To correct this mistake and to end any debate about the valuation, this move is being taken. It creates transparency and stability for the long term. He is saying lykke is high risk because he's making a high risk move. Nobody knows what will happen when the valuation jumps to $481mn in his own words and because of this u-turn...It could fall, it could rise etc. A change in valuation also means my ROI will be less. There is less growth % when the market cap is 500mn than if its 50-69mn , making it unattractive to many investors. ----- The breach of trust thing is because the initial idea was for the coins bought on the exchange to be the circulating supply, and this was the basis for the market cap figure in coinmarketcap. The pre-investor coins weren't supposed to be on the circulating supply at all. I honestly dont think Olsen is stupid enough to make a schoolboy error in not including the pre-investor coins in the circulating supply. It was INTENTIONAL to not include the pre-investor coins in the circulating supply initially because those are private coins linked to an internal valuation of the company.
Olsen is smart...the pre-investor coins weren't supposed to be in the circulating supply, which is why he didnt include them at the start. The reason they're doing it now is because Olsen believes the market cap figure is misleading (hence the debate on reddit and previously in this thread). He has done a U-turn to create transparency for the market cap figures and to end the market cap debate once and for all. My investment in Lykke was based on the understanding of circulating supply and visible market cap being just the LKK bought on the exchange, and that the pre-investor coins bought wouldn't contribute to the public market cap (not the internal valuation which is different). We saw that Olsen made the agreement with coinmarketcap to include just the exchange bought LKK...so my understanding was correct. Now though hes adding the pre-investor coins into the circulating supply, which is doing a U-turn. That to me makes this investment a lot less attractive. It doesnt matter if the market hasn't reacted...it just means to me Ive sold my LKK and there's much better investments out there. The higher valuation (if it holds) is very off putting. I can make a higher ROI on smaller techs with a lower valuation. |
|
|
|
|
Tempus I was very keen on Lykke up until the announcement by Olsen a few days ago...I had a lot of money in there but Ive been forced to sell it all
I dont think you understand the nature of the problem...its an attempt to mislead investors on the true valuation by using a technical issue. There has been a breach of trust as Olsen has backtracked. Maybe he realised he did, maybe not..in my eyes a breach of trust has happened.
There was no reason that Olsen had to keep the 90% tokens and not declare it to coinmarketcap due to an internal Lykke issue
Kawacaski....statement from Olsen:
"On April 12 we have agreed with Coinmarketcap.com on the rule of calculating the circulating supply based on the Lykke coins that are available in the trading multisig wallets. Previously the supply was fixed to 30m LKK that were distributed during the ICO in October 2016. However this hasn’t truly reflected the supply available on the market as a free float. Now all the coins in the trading wallets on Lykke Exchange are counted dynamically as a circulating supply."
I think Tempus posted about that in a shorter form above
Its complete and total nonsense to only use trading wallet coins in the valuation - makes no sense whatsoever.
Olsen again lied in reddit saying they didnt have the necessary infrastructure to make the 90% coins available so thats why it previously didnt count. The issue though is that if any transaction takes place, a trade has taken place. Doesnt matter if infrastructure is there or not.
Coins have been bought and the coins have been traded no matter what "status" they're in.
Just because the coins are in or not in a "trading wallet" doesn't mean trades for all the coins haven't taken place
The bottom line is: Olsen has been misleading people and it's clear here...he's trying to fix this issue and that's a good thing. I dont believe its intentional, but it is predatory for sure and has led to an unnecessary breach of trust to correct the problem.
No other coins have this issue with their market cap (except the dodgy coins like XRP lol), so go figure
----------
Here's what Ive just posted on the reddit:
The real question is: Why would Olsen agree with coinmarketcap to only show trading wallet coins in the market cap then? There is no reason for this decision, unless the initial plan was for the 90% not to be added to the trading wallet at all. Read that again as its very significant. The initial plan was to not make the 90% get added to the trading wallet, which is why the agreement was made by coinmarketcap not to add them
However because so many people are questioning the valuation and the figures showing, Olsen is more or less changing his track and his mind.
Whereas before the 90% coins weren't to be in the trading wallet, due to investor disgruntles he is now putting them in the trading wallet for transparency.
He has decided one thing, and then backtracking to change his mind.
The issue with that is its a breach of trust. Its like ripple and XRP making an announcement that they wont flood the market with their XRP, and then going ahead and doing it.
It seems to be Olsen thinks he can do whatever he likes and people wont notice it.
Last thing: If your arguing that the 90% coins dont need to be sold, then that again means they dont need to be on the trading wallet.
---------
Again, Ive sold all my LKK as there's been a breach of trust...everyone else make up their own minds.
|
|
|
|
Yes, anyone who bothered to do 5 mins research or read the documentation on the website, or spent 5 mins with the app would understand that limit orders are not yet in place, and the market trading is managed by a bot.
Limit orders not being in place is a convenient excuse to cover up the fact that the algo is artificially increasing the price. You are forced to buy at the price that Lykke sets, which is at a premium than if limit orders were allowed. To simply say "limit orders aren't ready yet" is you not understanding the actual reality of the situation. No. This is false. The market is setting the price of LKK based on the constraints of the algo bot. If nobody is buying, and people are selling, the bot will drop the spot price for buys. That's how it works. See above..the algo bot is setting the price to help the LKK price movement. If limit orders were allowed, the LKK price wouldn't appreciate in the same way. If you don't like the way the Lykke market is currently set up with the algo trading bot. Don't buy. It's pretty clear and simple. Nobody is forcing you to. I have sold all my LKK when olsen announced he's moving all the coins to the trading wallet and updating the market cap figures for coinmarketcap. If the valuation was $450mn+ already, he wouldn't say that the valuation of the company would move to $450mn would he? He would say the valuation was ALREADY $450mn...he wouldn't say it would move to that!! You are busted - read what he said on reddit Here it is: If the price of LKK does not change and remains at 0.374716 USD the total market capitalisation will jump to 481,772,471 USD.^He says it will JUMP to $450mn - why doesn't he say it ALREADY IS $450mn??? Because he wasnt being transparent from the beginning and gave the wrong figures to coinmarketcap to mislead investors...that's all he's done. Now he is attempting to correct his mistake before it's too late. This nonsense that "oh its not in the trading wallet! It doesnt count!" is chronic bullshit. The coins were bought and so they have value. Coins not counting to market cap happens when you have a mineable coin..not when the coins have already been bought Uh, this isn't Lykke doing that. It's coinmarketcap. Look here at a different website that calculates correctly: https://bravenewcoin.com/market-cap/If you have a problem with coinmarketcap, don't use it. It's coinmarketcaps problem. Again, do 5 mins research on Lykke and you'd see the error in coinmarketcaps calculation. Perhaps you can email them and get them to fix how they calculate market cap? Wrong again. It was Richard Olsen who told coinmarketcap to only make the trading wallet coins as contributors to the total market cap. It was a lykke decision to do this and coinmarketcap obliged. But that's not how this works. Again, your entire premise is based on the false representation given by coinmarketcap. If you have a problem, it's with them. You haven't done your research - it was Olsen who said that only trading wallet coins should contribute to the total market cap. Otherwise why is he saying the valuation will move to $450mn+ if the price holds when the coins are moved?
Think about it this way. The other 90% of Lykke shareholders are just that, shareholders. They were not originally LKK holders but shareholders. Lykke is transitioning to an LKK holder based model. 10% of the shares of Lykke were available for sale on the Lykke exchange representated by LKK coins. The remainder 90% were already purchased / owned by the founders, angel investors, etc. who originally funded the project. Their shares were never on the market to begin with, so private wallet / trading wallet for them is irrelevant, as their stakes were locked as per shareholder agreement. You can read all about this on their website.
What matters is that the 90% coins were bought - doesn't matter if they're hidden on Mars or anywhere else..they were bought and they contribute to the market cap. All it seems is Olsen has realised his mistake and is attempting to correct it. He should NEVER have told coinmarketcap to only include the trading wallet coins in their figures - it was misleading from the start and doesn't create investor confidence at all. Now he is attempting to correct his mistake before it's too late He has intentionally played a clever trick not realising that everyone can see it I have sold all my LKK yesterday - he is thinking investors are fools and he has been called out on reddit big time. |
|
|
|
|
Just checked out the whitepaper and ICO details
This project looks hot...cant wait to invest in here!
Perfect location being in London, the insurance capital of the world and a super high productivity place...you can easily get a few blue chip clients very quickly and go exponential from there
I will be putting quite a big investment in this as I can see it has MASSIVE potential
Will be following this thread closely
|
|
|
|
That's not how it works. Lykkes trading is currently managed by a trading bot. You can check out how it works on their website.
Ok, if lykke is using a trading bot ie an algo, without their being an ability to buy on a limit price or market price, that means its using an artificial mechanism to set the LKK price. In other words, lykke is artificially setting the price of the LKK token which isnt using free market forces. In baby terms...it means their gaming their price to their advantage. LKK isnt trading on the free market ie on bittrex, polo etc so of course the LKK pricing system is biased. As a private company, lykke is entitled to do that obviously, but investors need to be aware that they're paying a substantial premium for LKK tokens than if it was on the free market. Its a clever pricing strategy resting on centralisation and a special technical angle There's a big difference between putting coins in circulation, and putting sell orders out for tonnes of coins.
What they're doing is simply giving the existing shareholders the ability to sell IF they wish. This means the angel investors, founders, institutional guys, and people who believed in Lykke can sell their original distribution if they wish.
The only thing that's happening is levelling the field between current LKK holders, and original shareholders. Yes theres no sell orders automatically set for coins but that's not what I mean at all. What lykke is doing is playing a technical trick: shareholder tokens count towards market cap just as much as tokens bought on the exchange. However, the way lykke has done its valuation (as it shows on coinmarketcap) is to only include the trading wallet tokens on its market cap. Just because lykke decides that only trading wallet coins should count in the valuation doesn't actually make it true. Its the free market and industry which decides your true valuation. As soon as people realise lykke isnt trading freely, there is less incentive for investors. It is absolutely necessary that this occurs, as it further distributes ownership over time. This is a good thing.
True, this transparency does help, but it should have been done from the very start. Olsen could have easily allowed all coins to contribute to market cap from the beginning - and he should have because 'private" tokens were still bought at a price, meaning they have value. So, by flooding the market, im not talking about their being sell orders because there's more supply of tokens. Im talking about an attempt to game the system by cooking your free token vs unavailable token numbers and thinking people won't notice when your valuation is totally out of whack. If they were transparent from the beginning they wouldn't have this problem. |
|
|
|
I noticed Lykke's price on coinmarketcap over the past couple of days went down from 0.395 to around 0.383 and yet the marketcap rose from around 56 million to 61 million despite the lower price per coin.
Has there been an employee bonus distribution or something that has increased the circulation of the coin?
I don't believe circulating supply (which is what coinmarketcap uses) has increased. Though I'm not certain. If it has increased, it's increased minimally. In any case, I wish coinmarketcap would use the total supply, and not the circulating supply, it's very misleading. I think the best chart is brave-new-coin - much more precise (gives a lot of infos by moving over it with the mouse) and they display the total: https://bravenewcoin.com/lykke#Trading-PairsRegarding the circulating supply: They move more into the trading wallets. Richard Olsen made a post about the supply and how it's handled, also about the value on reddit: "Thank you for all the comments about the valuation of Lykke.
Coinmarketcap computes the market capitalization of Lykke based on the coins that are held in the trading wallets and does not include the coins held in other wallets. When Lykke was founded and started the first rounds of fund raising, the coins were issued to other wallets, because the trading wallet was not yet developed. In June we will move all the Lykke coins to the trading wallet. If the price of LKK does not change and remains at 0.374716 USD the total market capitalisation will jump to 481,772,471 USD.
Every buyer of LKK needs to be aware that the Lykke project is high risk – we are reinventing finance and build an emergent organization that is inspired by the principles employed by nature and where all the software and knowledge is open source. We will make mistakes and these mistakes can be costly, so there is risk and any investor should only buy LKK, if he can afford to lose his money.
What is the appropriate valuation of LKK?
LKK is not just a normal crypto currency that can be used to make payments. LKK is also a share participation in Lykke Corp and entitles to dividend payments, when Lykke earns a profit. 1 LKK represents a share participation of 0.0000000778% of Lykke Corp to be exact.
Lykke is more than a regular stock exchange, because we will be one of the liquidity providers on the exchange and will ourselves offer investment products for our users to invest. In addition, we have our accelerator business, where we help incumbents to retool their business and move to blockchain. We are acquiring the regulatory approvals to turn the Lykke marketplace into an industry strength organisation that institutions can use. There is a lot of upside for the Lykke business model. An increase of the LKK price is positive for us, because it makes it easier to fund our expansion plan and attract top talent.
Lykke does not have any shareholder agreements, etc. preventing investors to sell their LKK. This strategy is in line with my approach to build a fragile company – my reasoning is as follows: If investors can at any time sell their coins, then selloffs will be spread out over time and are helpful warning signals for the company. We have seen a few early investors selling, which has slowed the upmove of LKK but was easily absorbed by other investors. We are observing a rapid increase of daily liquidity in LKK (yesterday 1 Mio USD). This is a healthy development that will cushion strong sell offs."https://www.reddit.com/r/lykke/comments/6fvxqc/50m_market_cap/dipmw4u/Ok so according to this, they are going to move ALL the lykke coins into the trading wallet, meaning the supply of coins will be flooded big time. Which tells me that the project will be overvalued in many people's eyes (the free market), leading to a substantial drop in price I am selling all my LKK immediately and will wait until the dust settles before re-buying again. There is no need to flood the market with so many coins whatsoever This move isnt respecting the investors who bought LKK on the Lykke trading wallet..its making a mockery of them I believe Richard Olsen realises he made a mistake and is trying to correct it before the situation gets much worse |
|
|
|
Bear in mind that Stratis has had 129335.14% growth since its ICO...the highest out of ANY crypto tech in the last 2 years.. See here  |
|
|
|
|
Breeze wallet will cause stratis to get direct exposure to bitcoin users - thats 17million+ wallet holders
Massive game changer just around the corner....I would expect the price to level out at a new floor shortly, then gain accumulation slowly again
|
|
|
|
fud ? a coin with this manipulation dont have future And certainly does not encourage real investors
You are thick as two shits Stratis is based in central London - the banking capital of the world, and the team has massive experience with corporate IT They have the world's biggest banks and companies right next door to them and are already working with a few big corporations They also have a big VC funding round happening Breeze wallet coming Cloud stratis coming Baas coming etc etc |
|
|
|
Firstly, learn to put commas!
Secondly, I still wait on your superb fundamentals insights! Though, your posts shows that you simple incapable of grasping one.
You need commas because your a slow non English reader...commas arent required here As for the second point..everything is posted already. Everyone else take from that what you will You could use apostrophes as-well, as a second thing in your grammar belt! Nothing really to take from you, worthless, as usual. Into ignore. Im born and brought up in a native English speaking country - UK Don't tell me how about my own language you ignorant fool - you're wrong - 100% You don't speak English which is why you need hand holding on simple things like this A comma is used in specific situations, not because your a slow reader (which you are) An apostrophe isn't required in online forums - that is ad libbing conversation under a particular style, similar to how people use "lol" with a defined meaning or how people message through texts As for Ripple, support the banks all you want. You are just showing your a little sheep that can't stand on your own two feet I have made my money from XRP and now I'm out...other people may differ and that's totally fine with me |
|
|
|
Firstly, learn to put commas!
Secondly, I still wait on your superb fundamentals insights! Though, your posts shows that you simple incapable of grasping one.
You need commas because your a slow non English reader...commas arent required here As for the second point..everything is posted already. Everyone else take from that what you will |
|
|
|
you are racism with italian people? Well, but if stratis does not release anything for months (if not a buggy wallet) people sell
You are stupid...BREEZE WALLET is coming THIS MONTH. |
|
|
|
Though your grammar has to come over some improvements as-well, I want you to think about this:
In XXI century, if you want to look smart, you have to back your statement with reasonable facts. So far, your statement been no different from > XVI century, where people had too much time on speak about delusional things, because they could not read and understand?
If you can provide more weighted arguments apart "Ripple used by banks, I hate banks, ripple go down" than you are welcome for debate, otherwise you are another yet pathetic troll.
Im a fluent native English speaker and your English is rubbish....time to improve it a little bit more Learn to speak better English first before coming on an English-speaking forum and acting like some English grammar expert You didnt understand the discussion because your uneducated Go back to sleep  |
|
|
|
Is there a specific date breeze wallet will be releasing?
According to the slack, the CEO Chris Trew has said they are on target to release it by June 30th But im thinking they will release it BEFORE then, because they have said they are ahead of schedule Why is this BREEZE wallet update so meaningful ? This is sort of a silly question - please do some research on it first Breeze wallet will allow stratis to be directly linked to bitcoin, through anonymous privacy transactions. Bitcoin holders will be directly exposed to Stratis, causing stratis to explode |
|
|
|
Is there a specific date breeze wallet will be releasing?
According to the slack, the CEO Chris Trew has said they are on target to release it by June 30th But im thinking they will release it BEFORE then, because they have said they are ahead of schedule |
|
|
|
I am saying that you are using people, that want to make world better, to your advantage, covering your ass with banks and delusional excuses. You care only about money in your pockets, you have no respect to whatever is build or done, until your pockets are full, your aptitude no different from bank, the only key difference as of now is that bank - master, you - slave.
Not true because I am using my money for good causes...not just to seek profit. Banks are the devil...they take peoples money, charge interest on money which isn't theres and force millions of people into hardship because they've pushed house prices too high..so people are forced to work with the bank As for XRP...its reinventing wheels which are already being established through other cryptos The banks (and ripple) are just trying to cash in on people being dependant on banks You just completely lost and have no idea what are you talking about. No knowledge of fundamentals or whatever. I am happy for you and your profit and good causes, but just do not write something that you completely not aware of. Unless you can back it up with some proves, which should not be your FUD words, based on delusional thoughts. You need to improve your English badly...your making far too many grammar mistakes and clearly dont know the English language very well I guess because you are uneducated I invested in ripple about 3-4 years ago...before most people had even heard of it. I know my fundamentals extremely well You are just a little sheep that will do everything the banks tell you to do. You are unable to think for yourself. |
|
|
|
I am saying that you are using people, that want to make world better, to your advantage, covering your ass with banks and delusional excuses. You care only about money in your pockets, you have no respect to whatever is build or done, until your pockets are full, your aptitude no different from bank, the only key difference as of now is that bank - master, you - slave.
Not true because I am using my money for good causes...not just to seek profit. Banks are the devil...they take peoples money, charge interest on money which isn't theres and force millions of people into hardship because they've pushed house prices too high..so people are forced to work with the bank As for XRP...its reinventing wheels which are already being established through other cryptos The banks (and ripple) are just trying to cash in on people being dependant on banks |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
