1/7: I understand that #Ripple's selling concerns many people. But the question is... how do you responsibly distribute Ripple's 50B $XRP? Ripple holding so much #XRP is one of the biggest complaints about XRP and why so many people don't like it and may also prevent ODL adoption

2/7: Escrow was introduced to help this, but that $XRP is still in Ripple's custody. They really need to distribute it. But how? Ideally, it should already have already been done years ago, but you can't go back in time to do it. @JoelKatz has talked about this challenge before.
3/7: So we're against them holding it and we're also against them selling it. So how do they distribute it? They can't give it away, who gets it, how do they choose? Giveaways this late in the game also negatively affect prices. Higher supply = lower demand = lower prices.
4/7: Ideally, they would only distribute this to Financial Institutions for use in #ODL, but unfortunately, there's not enough demand for the utility of XRP through ODL. Perhaps because Finacial Institutions don't want to hold it/use it due to regulatory uncertainty.
5/7: As I see it, there are a few options for distribution:
a) Incentivize the use of ODL despite regulatory clarity - such as giving incentives to #Moneygram,
b) Lock it back up in escrow, effectively reducing supply, but giving #Ripple custody.
6/7: c) Sell it on open retail markets - this angers #XRPCommunity members, so they stopped doing this in 2019
d) Give it away to charity. But then the charity needs to sell it so there's the same issue
f) Sell it on a secondary market at a discount to institutions & investors
7/7: It looks like they have done all 5 of these things in varying degrees. The only other option is to burn the remaining supply which also causes issues.

So for all you armchair experts out there... how would you recommend #Ripple distribute their huge supply of #XRP?
Bonus Tweet: This same dilemma exists for the execs who have been accused of 'dumping' on the markets.
We don't want them to hold such a huge portion, but we don't want them to sell it either... They already hold it though... so wtf are they to do?

More from Trading

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?