Shane Garbutt

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

Completely agree quite different than Colo - but isnt it sort of like NBIS leasing bare metal? I mean the mechanics of payment determination may be different but effectively they are saying provide us bare metal and we will pay you as we produce output to be sold to our customers.

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

@jiahanjimliu @buzurke Is Brun a rumor or known?

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

Excellent summary - I am still a little challenged about the potential magnitude (or lack thereof) of this and am curious on the margin. As noted by Koss, the capex piece creates huge returns - and that would be foregone. But obviously the partner would want that return still for that investment. Unless the incremental revenue from the NBIS software is astronomically higher, I cannot see how splitting the pie allows for such amazing returns to all parties. Also, isn't really the moat power and the datacenters themselves (including procuring financing). It is not like there is a surplus of power and data centers around where folks cant make the math work and that is what is holding it up. The power still needs to be procured, site built, GPUs procured etc. So again curious to how big this will get. As a shareholder I sure hope so but I am hesitant to see this more than a side niche.

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

@LadyP5652074923 @ChadSteingraber It flat out is saying it is worthless as collateral. It can double and it is still worthless as collateral. It can double off that again and it is worthless as collateral. Not sure what else to say.

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

@ChadSteingraber This is all retail speculating with themselves. i hate to break it to you but on chain settlement is not going to create multi billion assets - defeats the purpose - you will get some token usage fees but the true use value of that is much lower than speculative values

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

@SylentTrade I can only see two logical reasons: (1) prepping for PR battles in Australia and EMEA for expansion and they are planning to go heavy more direct AI cloud services to end customers as opposed to GAAS

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

reading comprehension is not your bag. it says you can touch the handle again before the hogline, but it explicitly states in the third dash point you cannot at any time touch the granite - which is far from controversial. Everybody knows that. Weird mountain to die on. How about the Canadian third starts throwing legal shots and this all goes away.

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

@DollarCostAvg did they not explain last quarter they are accelerated filers now for SEC purposes - so their q filing has been moved up and so will all earning calls - not sure why folks keep reading into this - they explained it

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

I will leave you with the last word on substance. In terms of my play, there really isn't one to be honest. I am not a crypto guy (i.e. I do not hold BTC etc). My interest is XRP was driven by the fact I had several people in my life bring it up to me over the past few years - yet when I probed they could not truly defend it. Really started when they all tried to explain to me that ISO 20022 was XRP in effect and mandated it. I could not believe sophisicated people were making this argument and while trying to explain to them that it was simply a messaging system that most of the banks in the world have done for years now it fell on death ears and I was told to wait for June 15, then July 15th then Nov 15th etc... That got me to deep dive in and what I have seen through my lens is so much misinformation and garbage (triple figures due to Japan reverse carry trade - first time in history a liquidity crisis will drive investors to a speculative asset? Cmon). Anyways, good luck with your investment. I have no skin in the game so would happy to be wrong .

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

I will add this one final word on this discourse related to this aspect (again appreciate the conversation).

1) If the banks truly own or have options on the escrow, it would show in various places and required public disclosures. Ripple may be private but the banks generally are not. Show me one bank 10-K that shows any disclosure of an ownership of the tokens in escrow. I understand Ripple may be lieing given the escrow document released publicly is pretty clear (and thus under your position they would have to be deceiving), but I doubt the banks have purposely put out materially I financial statements to keep some random secret like this. Luckily the vast majority of banks are public companies so we do not have to speculate - you should be able to show and prove your theory.

2) What large company does not have thousands of NDAs? I am actually shocked an established business only has that many. Those do not represent deals per se; any interaction corporation to corporation involves those. Banks are likely in the hundreds of thousands; they are standard and do not represent sales (which in this case is pretty evidence since they existed well before the lawsuit and basically no material contracts have come from it).

3) Finally, again I think people miss the fact that the banks own SWIFT. The bulls act as if: 1) SWIFT is independent; and 2) Swift charges banks untold hundreds and billions and thus banks will jump at a replacement. Both flat out false. SWIFT is a co-op owned by the banks. If the banks wanted XRP, SWIFT would not be developing an alternative with 30 of the largest banks in the world. It would not happen. They would develop with XRP. They are not. Secondly, SWIFTs financials are public and the fees they charge the banks (their owners) for the entire year is only $1 billion. The hundreds of billions in costs that bulls cite are not costs to the banks - it is their revenue they charge the end customer. Big difference. So the bulls expect banks to stop using themselves (SWIFT) and forego hundreds of billions in revenue from the fees they charge customers, just for the privilege of using XRP that they have stared at for 10 years and have said 'nope'. Sorry, I cannot buy that.

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

Banks have already walked. The Banks own SWIFT (something XRP bulls do not seem to grasp - SWIFT is a CO-OP). Swift walked from Ripple and is doing their own thing. The top 25 banks individually in the world have chosen to do their own stablecoin. JP morgan has developed its own internal blockchain. Schulz has admitted for 10 years banks have no interest. That was pre lawsuit, during lawsuit and now post lawsuit. If any major bank really planned to use it, their investment bank branch would have literally wiped the market clean of the coin eons ago. Are we to believe major banks plan to use it but are not telling their trading wing to accumulate (and we know from public filing there is no material accumulation) . Talk about as if....
-Again - we do not have to speculate what banks think of the tech - their actions speak loud enough both in terms of use and investment speculation (or lackthereof)

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

Appreciate the throughtful reply - refreshing compared to your fellow bulls.
-1st mover advantage - there has been none. No increased usage o f XRP per review of XRP scan etc. ETF is being sold by wallstreet, not bought by it with much of the inflow being in kind (which means existing folks gladly taking the liquidity of paper over the asset itself). Either way, ETF volumes are immaterial compared to daily volume of $4 billion even ignoring the constant drip of the escrow. XRp has been first in a lot of ways since inception and it resulted in zero true use. This is no different.
-Ripple has had a massive list for a decade and have no material sales to show for it. Getting 20 job interviews and no offers is not a bragging point. Again, all major players (large banks, Swift, DTCC) have made it clear they are going in a different direction.
- In terms of RLUSD, and being on both- I disagree on two fronts. 1) It demonstrates no material adoption of XRP and we are talking an immaterial coin to begin with. The big 25 banks have already announced their own G7 coins and those will demolish RLUSD (as circle and hell scary tether alredy has). Further stablecoins through the genius act are designed to effectively fulfill one of the main roles that XRP bulls perpetuate which is ODL. THe goal of the genius act is to ensure that USD remains the global currency and is designed to fulfill that role including ODL. Why use a speculative non backed ODL asset when you can use a multi trillion dollar backed liquid stablecoin as a bridge., with the US getting the reward of a global customer for US debt. Ripple sees it, that is why they talk more RLUSD than XRp and only talk up XRP to fund their acquisitions trhough the escrow drop.
- Bottom line, immmaterial volume, all major players have gone a different direction. XRPs burn rate is de minimis and doesnt drive value. There is no realistic DCF that substantiates current valuation or anything above it. This is substantiated by Ripple issuing equity at $40 billion EV last month - given the XRP they hold alone is 'worth' well over $100 billion on the spot, even if you value their growing businesses at nil it suggests they and their investor do not buy the current value of the coins.
-Again, feel free to show me on XRP scan where there is any evidence of material usage or acceleration in adoption. I can show you every major financial institution explicitly saying they are choosing or develiping an alternative. Your bull colleagues embarassingly held their breath on ISO - was all lies that it related to XRP. Show me any material usage and I will re-evaluate. Show me the blackrock disclosures of material RLUSD use or holding. Show me any financial instituation of merit with material holding. Who me material ODL on XRp scan. Show me material tokenization outside RLUSD which is mainly eth anyways. It is not there Otherwise, it is fantasty with no bais.
-I am sorry $40 million average ETF flows are not evidence of institutional anything - quite the opposite - stunningly low number.

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

you are right and i think very poorly of xrp's chances. Swift is developing its own blockchain instead of adopting, DTCC the same, big banks like j.p. morgan gone internalmwoth volumes already higher. US banks can't directly use xrp if they want as it is not kcy or aml compliant (have to use ripple). 15 year of no real usage in any form and that's not changing. He'll even Ripple does more on eth than xrp with its own stablecoin. No real ODL, burn rate is too minimal to pay out scarcity, and tokenization will always use an underlying wrapper of de minimis value to preserve the value is that of underlying asset (like stablecoins do). yes - poorly

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

@Antgvasq @ChadSteingraber These posts show the 'yes men' and it is not the on saying no. Yes - it is different - of course it is. Again - whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

@ChadSteingraber 20 million on an asset that trades about 4 billion a day - completely immaterial and irrelevant. Folks can pretend it's eating into mythical flat levels of OTC/Dark pools but the volume is de minimis - grasping at straws.

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

@RobertXRPFF @ChadSteingraber So why is $40 M in volume, which is less than 1% of the daily exchange volume of $4 billion and barely enough to cover what Ripple dumps a month considered a big deal? You guys are acting like 40 M in volume is material - it is literally less than 1% of what happens everyday.

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

@TomEMartinsen @ChadSteingraber ? Barely $45 million in volume today so inflows would be a fraction of that at best. And $45 million is barely 1% of volume on the exchanges - not sure what the premise is on this being such a big deal

[Shane Garbutt @igoringa]

@tarynbrent @xCut1onal @ChadSteingraber You do not think the OTC and dark pool players aren't hedging and transacting in the market? OTC's are absolutely engaging in the market - it is would negligent of them to not. I know that does not fit the narrative...