Why has Ripple decreased so much in Market cap? Used to be second to Bitcoin

[Meuh6879]

all centralized money must and will die.

[jonald_fyookball]

Why do you like ripple?

Lots of reasons.  Here's a few:

1.  It's currency agnostic
2.  It eliminates central clearing houses and centralized exchanges
3.  It federates payment networks (SMTP for money)

Overall, I just think Ripple makes sense and allows access to monetary freedom for more people, while still allowing them to use their existing things of value.  Remittences for example, is a big reason I like Ripple.  I'm also a big merchant guy so, understanding merchants would prefer to make one integration and allow their customers to pay in any currency, while still receiving just USD, is huge.  That replaces the need for merchant accounts for credit cards, then a separate integration for each cryptocurrency you want to accept.  It's just common sense innovation, IMO.

Thanks for the explanation but at best it sounds like "monetary freedom" inside the prison of debt based fiat currencies... Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather skip it and go directly to bitcoin.

[Sukrim]

There seems to be confusion with mixing XRP ("ripples"), a centrally issued cryptocurrency and "Ripple", a decentralized market place and value net...

While you need about 0.001 BTC worth of XRP at current prices to use Ripple, you don't need any more than that. After that, Ripple can be used similar to Coinbase or BitPay for example, meaning you pay somewhere with BTC and the merchant receives USD.

I get it that people are not a fan of XRP (I don't like them either, they are more of a necessary evil than anything else and I wouldn't recommend to speculate upon them unless you really want to), Ripple's value is not in XRP though.

To answer the initial question: Actually you could ch3eck that yourself, all trades since January 1st 2013 are public data... it looks like an early spaculator is slowly offloading XRP at the moment and constantly selling for USD and BTC (https://ripple.com/graph/#rwDewhHaNdq5xA3Ku54VP8ze4UL6wvYCy9), he seems to be running out soon though.

If you believe Bitcoin to be the world currency that everything is priced in, of course Ripple makes little sense then. If you believe people will rather have the freedom to choose what currency they receive and what currency they pay in (which can include bitcoins, but also Dollars, Euros or ounces of gold), Bitcoin can NOT offer that and you might want to give BitPay, Coinbase or the decentralized ones like Ripple or upcoming markets like Counterparty, Mastercoin, Colored Coins, NXT(?), OpenTransactions etc. a better look beyond what your initial reaction might be.

[Peter R]

Let me try again:

XRP is not an IOU….with Ripple, instead of your IOU's being trapped and controlled by a central entity, you can move them freely…In Ripple, an IOU is not a means by which you can buy something now, and pay later.  It's a representation of actual assets you own. When you exchange those IOU's, the asset balance is transferred to the new owner.  The IOU simply determines who now owns that balance.

Sounds like it involves IOUs to me.  

Ripple does involve IOU's and that's a good thing.  XRP, however, is not an IOU.  It's an asset that exist within the network and stored without counter-party risk.

Exactly.  Ripple does involve IOUs which means there is counter-party risk.  If I hold a Ripple IOU for $100,000, then that $100,000 is at risk.

The statement that "xrp has no counter-party risk" is disingenuous.  No one really cares about xrp, they care about losing the value stored in the IOUs (which you admit do have counter-party risk).  

If digital hawala networks prove useful, we could have iRipple, youRipple, heRipples and sheRipples.  Xrps on any particular xrp ledger seem to me to be essentially valueless.  The point of these kinds of networks is a means of exchanging IOUs between trusted parties.  

[Walsoraj]

I'm tempted to invest in Ripple for no other reason than the bitcoin community being so paranoid and butthurt about it.

[twiifm]

Let me try again:

XRP is not an IOU….with Ripple, instead of your IOU's being trapped and controlled by a central entity, you can move them freely…In Ripple, an IOU is not a means by which you can buy something now, and pay later.  It's a representation of actual assets you own. When you exchange those IOU's, the asset balance is transferred to the new owner.  The IOU simply determines who now owns that balance.

Sounds like it involves IOUs to me.  

Ripple does involve IOU's and that's a good thing.  XRP, however, is not an IOU.  It's an asset that exist within the network and stored without counter-party risk.

Exactly.  Ripple does involve IOUs which means there is counter-party risk.  If I hold a Ripple IOU for $100,000, then that $100,000 is at risk.

The statement that "xrp has no counter-party risk" is disingenuous.  No one really cares about xrp, they care about losing the value stored in the IOUs (which you admit do have counter-party risk).  

If digital hawala networks prove useful, we could have iRipple, youRipple, heRipples and sheRipples.  Xrps on any particular xrp ledger seem to me to be essentially valueless.  The point of these kinds of networks is a means of exchanging IOUs between trusted parties.  

Correct me if I'm wrong but that Ripple IOU exists only to do the exchange.  So why is there counter party risk?  Once the exchange is finished there is no risk. 

Lets say I wanted to send you $100,000.  That $100K leaves my bank account and goes into the Ripple gateway, then gets converted to XRP,  then goes into your account as $100K.  Where is the risk?

[Peter R]

Whether we are talking about MtGox, Ripple, TradeFortress, Bitstamp, Coinbase or bitcoins in cold storage, this is how I see things:

1.  If I am the sole controller of the private key to 25 BTC, then there is no counter-party risk.

2.  If I am not the sole controller of the private key for "my" 25 BTC, then what I essentially "own" is some sort of IOU and there must be counter-party risk.  I believe it is wise to ensure that I can measure what that risk actually is should I choose to use the third-party service.  

Correct me if I'm wrong but that Ripple IOU exists only to do the exchange.  So why is there counter party risk?

 
In the IOU.

Once the exchange is finished there is no risk.  

If you no longer hold the IOU and instead are the sole controller of the private key to 25 BTC there is no longer any counter-party risk.

[BittBurger]

I agree that Ripple has potential.

Fair enough:  they're not a consumer oriented technology.

However, I'm pretty sure they're not doing jack shit in the way of courting banks and other financial institutions either.

That's what I meant by not doing jack shit.

It seems as if they're sitting stagnant.  Someone has to go out there and sell the idea to financial institutions.

Is anyone doing that?

-B-

[zzojar]

My opinion is because Ripple just makes no sense. Can anyone explain it to a 5th grader? Nope. I've tried to read about Ripple on several occasions and I end up totally confused. Bitcoin at least makes sense to me, but nobody can explain Ripple in terms that make sense.

[Sukrim]

Correct me if I'm wrong but that Ripple IOU exists only to do the exchange.  So why is there counter party risk?  Once the exchange is finished there is no risk.  

Lets say I wanted to send you $100,000.  That $100K leaves my bank account and goes into the Ripple gateway, then gets converted to XRP,  then goes into your account as $100K.  Where is the risk?

The bolded part is where you're wrong.

Unlike Bitcoin (where you indeed have to exchange the 100k USD to BTC to transfer them), you can send them along just fine as USD held by this gateway, in case we both use it. There is no inherent need to exchange them for XRP.

I agree that Ripple has potential.

Fair enough:  they're not a consumer oriented technology.

However, I'm pretty sure they're not doing jack shit in the way of courting banks and other financial institutions either.

That's what I meant by not doing jack shit.

It seems as if they're sitting stagnant.  Someone has to go out there and sell the idea to financial institutions.

Is anyone doing that?

Ripple Labs has several people working in business bevelopment positions, probably more than any other Bitcoin related company. I'm quite sure they are not publicly going to talk about their deals and negotiations with the public (or you...) before their partners are ready.

My opinion is because Ripple just makes no sense. Can anyone explain it to a 5th grader? Nope. I've tried to read about Ripple on several occasions and I end up totally confused. Bitcoin at least makes sense to me, but nobody can explain Ripple in terms that make sense.

You want to trade something on a market. Since it is a big place, you take whatever you want to trade to a stand/warehouse at the gateways of that market place, deposit your goods there and get a receipt that is signed by the person you deposited with. You then proceed to trade these receipts for whatever you want to have and at the end of the day take you different receipts to a different stand/warehouse and get the thing back that you bought. To make sure receipts are not faked, they are signed by the warehouses and to make sure they don't fill the whole market place with paper, they are required to put an official stamp (XRP) on that too. Some people also like to collect/trade these stamps, they are useless and worthless outside of that marketplace though.

I could go on with that analogy, but is that around the level of your understanding?

[Peter R]

@ BittBurger

I believe there are two questions:

Q1.  Are digital hawala networks useful?

Q2.  Are entries (xrp or the like) on a particular hawala ledger a valuable asset?


In my opinion, the answers are:

A1.  Perhaps for small networks of like-minded entities where sufficient trust can be established to surmount the counter-party risk associated with the IOUs.

A2.  No, they simply facilitate the exchange of IOUs.  

[jonald_fyookball]

I'm tempted to invest in Ripple for no other reason than the bitcoin community being so paranoid and butthurt about it.

said the contrarian man with the upside-down avatar.

Go for it. 

That'll teach us a lesson we won't soon forget.

[smooth]

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been covered, but the reported market cap for ripple was wrong.

They could claim to have issued (but not distributed) a googol ripples instead of 100 billion and the market cap would be off the charts.

Market cap only properly refers to shares that have been sold (or given away) by the issuer. Shares held by the issuer don't count.

Coinmarketcap seems to have stopped incorrectly using the 100 billion number in the calculation. I don't know if they are doing the calculation correctly now but it looks more plausible.

[JoelKatz]

Thanks for the explanation but at best it sounds like "monetary freedom" inside the prison of debt based fiat currencies... Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather skip it and go directly to bitcoin.

The problem is that there's a multi-trillion dollar market in "legacy fiat currencies" that we can't afford to ignore. There needs to be a bridge from where we are to where we want to be.

[twiifm]

Whether we are talking about MtGox, Ripple, TradeFortress, Bitstamp, Coinbase or bitcoins in cold storage, this is how I see things:

1.  If I am the sole controller of the private key to 25 BTC, then there is no counter-party risk.

2.  If I am not the sole controller of the private key for "my" 25 BTC, then what I essentially "own" is some sort of IOU and there must be counter-party risk.  I believe it is wise to ensure that I can measure what that risk actually is should I choose to use the third-party service.  

Correct me if I'm wrong but that Ripple IOU exists only to do the exchange.  So why is there counter party risk?

 
In the IOU.

Once the exchange is finished there is no risk.  

If you no longer hold the IOU and instead are the sole controller of the private key to 25 BTC there is no longer any counter-party risk.

Right..  But that risk only lasts for the duration of the exchange.  No?

[jonald_fyookball]

Thanks for the explanation but at best it sounds like "monetary freedom" inside the prison of debt based fiat currencies... Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather skip it and go directly to bitcoin.

The problem is that there's a multi-trillion dollar market in "legacy fiat currencies" that we can't afford to ignore. There need to be a bridge from where we are to where we want to be.

Agree.  So could I use ripple as a payment method instead of SEPA?  How easy would that be?

[leopard2]

Haha Ripple, Ripple relates to cryptocurrencies like hemorrhoides relate to peoples butt  

If you want a pre-mined PPS currency that needs no mining, use NXT, at least it does not belong to a single entity that can be killed with a simple subpoena

"We apologize, but the Ripple Client needs JavaScript and WebSockets in order to function.
Please refer to this page and download a browser that supports WebSockets. Thank you!
http://caniuse.com/websockets"

Even a monkey should recognize the difference, this webpage is all there is. OHNO where can I download the Ripple-QT client? HAHAHA!!

[smooth]

There seems to be confusion with mixing XRP ("ripples"), a centrally issued cryptocurrency and "Ripple", a decentralized market place and value net...

Yup, big screw up to use the same (or very similar) name for both, if the idea is to communicate the value proposition clearly.

I don't know if this was by design, to try to latch onto the hype associated with appreciating crypto currencies, or just a mistake.

[Peter R]

@ twiifm

Risk lasts for as long as you are holding an IOU.  This applies to all third-party services.  For example, if you wanted to use MtGox to exchange bitcoins to euros when the BTC exchange rate was favourable to Bitstamp, you were at risk from the moment you deposited bitcoins at MtGox to the moment the euro wire hit your bank account.  

Some people made it, some people didn't.

My point it that people need to evaluate these risks for themselves and use sensible techniques to mitigate them. E.g., you should have a way to assess the credit worthiness of the counter party and a plan to minimize the time you hold the IOU (as you implied).  In my opinion, the average human is extremely complacent and underestimates counter party risk as well as underestimates how long they will actually be holding the IOU.  (Or, even worse, doesn't even realize that what they are holding is actually an IOU--just look at how many people got stuck holding Gox IOUs despite ample warning signs).  

[smooth]

Thanks for the explanation but at best it sounds like "monetary freedom" inside the prison of debt based fiat currencies... Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather skip it and go directly to bitcoin.

The problem is that there's a multi-trillion dollar market in "legacy fiat currencies" that we can't afford to ignore. There need to be a bridge from where we are to where we want to be.

So Ripple's business plan is to build this bridge and help make itself obsolete. Why do I doubt that?