<p>Yes the millions premined and owned buy a US company is a problem !</p>

<p>Yes the fact that it is not open source is a problem!</p>

<p>Also is it legal for a US company to issue debt money like that ?</p>

<p>What if the company is shutdown  ? </p>

<p>See also <a href="http://ripplescam.org/" rel="nofollow">http://ripplescam.org/</a></p>

<p>Personaly I wouldnt touch that, even with a barge pole.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T18:34:20.650Z
I don't think the ownership of the money is a problem per se.
I believe the code is going to be open source in the near future. Bitcoin was not public until Satoshi got a working version either.
I think you are mistaken. They are not issuing debt.
That web you point is plenty of miss-informed assertions. Not sure what is the purpose of attacking something with wrong arguments.
Fernando N.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T18:59:30.497Z
well at least my lawyer agrees with me ;) feel free to tell me what is so false on this website.
neofutur
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T19:11:48.960Z
@neofutur I left a comment on their site, but it's awaiting moderation:

`FBI: “UNIQUE FORM OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM”  
You’re misquoting the FBI; they arrested a guy for making a currency that was very similar to United States Dollars`
Nick ODell
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T22:12:51.977Z
@NickODell: Worse, he sold the currency to dealers at a discount from face value and encouraged them to give it to customers as change, at face value, for US dollar purchases. That's basically the definition of counterfeiting.
David Schwartz
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-15T04:16:11.733Z
@fnieto so you asked this question just because you already had the answers ?
neofutur
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-16T11:16:34.153Z
@neofutur Sorry, I'm only interested in serious objective answers, not subjective childish criticism.
Fernando N.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-16T21:09:40.757Z
its not open source, its 100 billion premined, and its owned by a US company, nothing here is false, and FACTS are never "childish"
neofutur
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T17:44:55.027Z
2013-05-12T17:44:55.027Z
neofutur
<p>If the company were to cease operations or break down in some way, the code would immediately become open source. At least one developer has that clause in their contract. If something were to happen to the company's store of XRP before the network is sufficiently distributed, at worst, the ledger would be reset. (We have contingency plans that mitigate damage, but they're not pretty.)</p>

<p>These are risks, and they're part of the reason that getting the network distributed and the server source code open is a high priority for us. It's not just a matter of trying to do the right thing, these are threats to OpenCoin and risk is a drag on adoption. So we want them gone as much as anyone else does.</p>

<p>Personally, I don't think XRP is a particularly good store of value now. It's not so much the risks you mentioned, because I think they're small. It's the unpredictability of the value of XRP due to market forces, widely variable speculation, and so on.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-15T06:43:34.473Z
its open source ! we will PERHAPS give the code some day . . . great vision of what is the open source . . .
neofutur
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-05-12T18:25:22.257Z
2013-05-12T18:25:22.257Z
David Schwartz
<p>The fact that the vast majority of XRP ownership is known represents from my point of view the main threat to the value of the currency and the project itself.</p>

<p>Do Ripple founders and OpenCoin have any strategy in case authorities confiscate their XRP funds? Government could try to do that in order to stop Ripple development as it is done at the moment.</p>

<p>Would they liberate the code then so the open source community can take over its development?</p>

<ripple>
Can Ripple XRP be a good store of value with >50% ownership known?
Fernando N.
# Can Ripple XRP be a good store of value with >50% ownership known?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-05-12)

The fact that the vast majority of XRP ownership is known represents from my point of view the main threat to the value of the currency and the project itself.

Do Ripple founders and OpenCoin have any strategy in case authorities confiscate their XRP funds? Government could try to do that in order to stop Ripple development as it is done at the moment.

Would they liberate the code then so the open source community can take over its development?

**Tags:** ripple


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2013-05-12. Score: 6 | Accepted answer

If the company were to cease operations or break down in some way, the code would immediately become open source. At least one developer has that clause in their contract. If something were to happen to the company's store of XRP before the network is sufficiently distributed, at worst, the ledger would be reset. (We have contingency plans that mitigate damage, but they're not pretty.)

These are risks, and they're part of the reason that getting the network distributed and the server source code open is a high priority for us. It's not just a matter of trying to do the right thing, these are threats to OpenCoin and risk is a drag on adoption. So we want them gone as much as anyone else does.

Personally, I don't think XRP is a particularly good store of value now. It's not so much the risks you mentioned, because I think they're small. It's the unpredictability of the value of XRP due to market forces, widely variable speculation, and so on.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: its open source ! we will PERHAPS give the code some day . . . great vision of what is the open source . . .  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2013-05-12. Score: -4

Yes the millions premined and owned buy a US company is a problem !

Yes the fact that it is not open source is a problem!

Also is it legal for a US company to issue debt money like that ?

What if the company is shutdown ?

See also <http://ripplescam.org/>

Personaly I wouldnt touch that, even with a barge pole.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I don't think the ownership of the money is a problem per se. I believe the code is going to be open source in the near future. Bitcoin was not public until Satoshi got a working version either. I think you are mistaken. They are not issuing debt. That web you point is plenty of miss-informed assertions. Not sure what is the purpose of attacking something with wrong arguments.  
> **username_1**: well at least my lawyer agrees with me ;) feel free to tell me what is so false on this website.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 I left a comment on their site, but it's awaiting moderation:  `FBI: “UNIQUE FORM OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM”   You’re misquoting the FBI; they arrested a guy for making a currency that was very similar to United States Dollars`  
> **username_3**: @username_2: Worse, he sold the currency to dealers at a discount from face value and encouraged them to give it to customers as change, at face value, for US dollar purchases. That's basically the definition of counterfeiting.  
> **username_1**: @fnieto so you asked this question just because you already had the answers ?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Sorry, I'm only interested in serious objective answers, not subjective childish criticism.  
> **username_1**: its not open source, its 100 billion premined, and its owned by a US company, nothing here is false, and FACTS are never "childish"  

---

