HarryPotterObamaPacMan8Inu (XRP)

$XRP 现货ETF在7月8日出现了 $7.29M 的净流出，全部来自 Bitwise——但其累计流入仍为 $494M。ETF 总净资产价值（NAV）为 $983M，累计流入额为 $1.479B。一天的红色表现并不能抹掉整体格局。 https://t.co/Mpuum07JpS

If you mean the partnership with and sponsorship of a college sports program.? Why would anyone have a problem with it. I would have a problem with someone who was seriously thinking of an investment in XRP primarily because of this sponsorship and i’m not considering more fundamental issues.

In you mean your theory of a misalignment between token and equity which you put as token v equity misalignment It has some merit and people should understand it and take it into account in a risk reward analysis of a token such as XRP. However, it is clear by the way you put it, token v equity, that it is over-simplistic and needs to be heavily nuanced, which you are incapable of doing in respect of XRP because of your obvious bias against that token.

To be clear, your adversarial way of putting the proposition, equity v equity as if they are naturally antagonistic or oppositional reinforced by using the adjective misalignment proceeds with assumptions treated as conclusions or as obvious unless you have established the premises for the conclusion or shown facts to why it is obvious.

The fact is that even if Ripple shares have increased in value more than the increase in value of XRP the fact is that despite the increase in the value of ripple equity there has been a substantial increase in the value of XRP since 2013. For the purpose of your theory, the entire history of the value of the shares in ripple and the XRP token should be considered as XRP has been sold by ripple since that company was formed.

Using any shorter timeframe is potentially misleading, especially as the value of XRP has a very high directional correlation with movement in the price of bitcoin which does not affect the value of ripple stock in the same way if at all.

Other reasons why I consider your misalignment theory overly simplistic are as follows:

1. Ripple sales are now to institutions or OTC not to retail. It is obvious but it seems to need to be said over and over for some reason, ripple has a duty to stockholders but does not have a duty to tokenholders.
2. The acquisitions that ripple is making can expand ripple’s reach into traditional finance which can indirectly support XRP demand and utility. In the absence of disclosure by Ripple or any tracking of relevant data showing this support you cannot conclude that ripple’s acquisitions will not ultimately add value both to ripple shares and the XRP token even if, in the short term, the impact on the value of ripple stock happens first or is more observable. If you make the assumption anyway, you should recognise and disclose that you are making the assumption and that it has not been proven either way.

3. Institutional demand for XRP including ETFs is increasing. With all due respect to your knowledge, you cannot honestly hold the view that these institutions are unsophisticated and do not know about the risk of any equity and token misalignment and are not smart enough to consider it or formulate a similar theory. It would be arrogant if you thought so.

4. Institutions have probably formed the same view as the market, that the value of ripple stock and the value of XRP can and do both increase over time even if not at the same pace. Call that misalignment if you want but it is apparently not a misalignment that is concerning institutions or the wider market. It’s not a fact that concerns me I have to say and although I would consider it in a risk reward analysis of XRP, I actually do not give it that much weight.