Topic: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD - page 101. (Read 251040 times)

https://etherscan.io/token/0x8f3470A7388c05eE4e7AF3d01D8C722b0FF52374#balances

one holds 98%.

One of the services that were discussed early on by Veritaseum was that contracts or DAO's would be created to invest and consume the research results. So when Reggie releases an analysis of a token, there will be a DAO that will exercise a position in that market; thus providing a consumer of the research that is produced and updated.
These alternate markets are exactly what hedgefunds and HNW individuals are looking for since there is almost no yield in anything other than equity positions. Veritaseum is the missing piece that they need to provide demonstrable yield. Risk is not a factor, nor is the volatility. If they can build a portfolio that has 1% exposure to cryptomarket, that is line item on the prospectus for the fund. Investors look at that and say well I've heard about bitcoin or ethereum, and here I have 1% exposure. The name of the game is diversification, you don't want all your money in buggy whip manufacturers if the automobile if going render them useless! At this time the only option is the GBTC OTC trust, and it is extremely illiquid as they are no longer issuing shares. Hedgefund managers would use veritaseum services, as an alternative. The first iteration of the P2P trading platform allowed you to easily swap exposure to BTC and USD. Easily taking a long or short position. My understanding is that currently shorting GBTC has a 80% cost which means that even if it it headed lower you could lose money with a short due to the carrying charges.

I just found out (thru email) that Rialto.ai now has bitcointalk topic (@ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2033346.new#new) and slack channel.
And this is actually after the "ICO" ended.
Very very low profile, and the "ICO" was very professionally done all the way to token distribution.

Look into the MASS ICO also not on the webbot's list. This one has pretty good potential as well and is still in pre-sale. http://mass.cloud/

My Discounted Cash Flow analysis says the fair price is conservatively around $20+ per token and optimistically around $30+ per token, with 4% long-term growth, around 20% market share in a multi-billion industry as a market maker, around 0.5% profit per arbitrage/market-making trade, and a whopping 24% discount rate.
I am using 24% discount rate to figure out what the price I would get with the kind of return that beats the stock market, beats the bond market, and beats top hedge fund performance.
At the moment Rialto.ai is still very much below most people's radar, but I suspect once it starts distributing its profit 6 months from now and people finally come to see it as a real deal, then price should take off.
Nevertheless, this is just my personal opinion and is not a financial advice.

I use the DCF calculator here @ buffettsbooks.com/howtoinvestinstocks/course3/intrinsic-value-formula.html
And no, I don't own/run the website. I just use it for convenience.

I did miss this one and I am impressed although I think it will be interesting to see how it plays out with the semi-annual profit distribution and what the price of XRL does leading up to and post-distribution.
I checked it out this morning at $.07 and didn't act. Now it is $.17...

Because marketcap is price.
Step 1. Imagine you were offered a 1000th share in a new Audi A3 for 8$. What would you do ?....you'd have no clue until you multiplied 8 x 1000 to determine what the seller valued their vehicle at, in this case $8000. The book value of an Audi A3 is $40k, so you'd conclude the deal was good and make the purchase.

Step 2. Now imagine there were actually 5000 shares and unknown to you the balance of 4000 were being sold to other buyers "under the counter". What would happen when this information became widely available ?

1. The value of the car would stay the same (Book value still = $40k)
2. The market (i.e. "you") would immediately revalue your unit share down by 80% to account for the newly reported unit liquidity

That's the recipe by which Veritaseum has gained such a high Token to Coin ratio at the moment.

What swung your decision in each case was the marketcap of your asset (=price of the car). That's the only handle you had in each case on the value of what you were being offered. You calculated that in the first case you were being offered an asset at below market price, in the second case you were being offered an asset above market price.

This is why Ethereum blockchain issuers do this trick of "holding back" tokens. It's nothing to do with garnering network effect and everything to do with passing risk from the issuer to the investor because the issuer is left holding all the capital while the investor is left holding bags of worthless tokens that took the issuer about 2 minutes to create.

In a classic equity exchange this doesn't happen, because your invested capital is held by the company in which you own shares, so your shares are worth something even if the entrepreneurial idea is crap. In token investments however you don't get squat of the issuers equity, just a bunch of tokens backed by a few lines of code.

Because marketcap is price.

Step 1. Imagine you were offered a 1000th share in a new Audi A3 for 8$. What would you do ?....you'd have no clue until you multiplied 8 x 1000 to determine what the seller valued their vehicle at, in this case $8000. The book value of an Audi A3 is $40k, so you'd conclude the deal was good and make the purchase.

Step 2. Now imagine there were actually 5000 shares and unknown to you the balance of 4000 were being sold to other buyers "under the counter". What would happen when this information became widely available ?

1. The value of the car would stay the same (Book value still = $40k)
2. The market (i.e. "you") would immediately revalue your unit share down by 80% to account for the newly reported unit liquidity

That's the recipe by which Veritaseum has gained such a high Token to Coin ratio at the moment.

Now consider the Audi A3 example in terms of "marketcaps" (i.e. we see the value of the car as the 'marketcap' of the issued shares. Never mind whether they're circulating or not, it's the 'issued' shares that we're interested in).

Go back to step 1. When you originally were offered the price of 8$ per share, if you now use the correct unit supply factor to calculate the price of the Audi A3 you'll arrive at the full $40k. (Your $8 unit price x 5000). You compare that to a VW Gold at $30k and decide it's a bad deal.

What swung your decision in each case was the marketcap of your asset (=price of the car). That's the only handle you had in each case on the value of what you were being offered. You calculated that in the first case you were being offered an asset at below market price, in the second case you were being offered an asset above market price.

This is why Ethereum blockchain issuers do this trick of "holding back" tokens. It's nothing to do with garnering network effect and everything to do with passing risk from the issuer to the investor because the issuer is left holding all the capital while the investor is left holding bags of worthless tokens that took the issuer about 2 minutes to create.

In a classic equity exchange this doesn't happen, because your invested capital is held by the company in which you own shares, so your shares are worth something even if the entrepreneurial idea is crap. In token investments however you don't get squat of the issuers equity, just a bunch of tokens backed by a few lines of code.

P.S. Mined coins are a whole different case which is why I made a distinction between "coins" and "tokens" in a previous post. With mined coins, issuance is decentralised and an ICO entity cannot determine the distribution.

Check Rialto.ai out and learn what they do. You may be impressed.

Their must be a lot of suckers in crypto because this is a straight scam coin. Where is the value? Where are the partnerships? Where is any news? This is sad.

• but *all* the investment from the ICO and *all* of the investment by Bank of Jamaica (fiat and crypto) is wholy owned by the issuer, not by the investors so none of it is available to back the token value as it is with the equity example above.

DVDL Inc

Assets:
Bank Account = +£1000

Liabilities:
Owed to shareholders (Dorky): £1000 Share capital

Net Assets (DVDL):
===============
Zero

So Where is The growth ?

Growth is a very general term. It can mean size, value, market liquidity, subscribers, transactions, adoption - anything. It doesn't necessarily mean "Token to Coin exchange ratio" which happens to be the priority of most small Veritaseum investors. VERI will possibly grow in some of those aspects, the question is how and to which stakeholder's benefit ?. Here's my analysis of that:

 • liquidity will grow (more buyers will be found for the contents of Reggie's [company's] wallet) which will help any large holders wanting to cash out to fiat - nope, wrong

 • the fiat denominated market capitalisation of Reggie's company will grow (because as those 98 Million tokens get distributed, all the fiat received goes straight into a bank account that does not back VERI's value but does increase the equity value of the "company that Reggie Middleton works for") - nope, wrong, you have no proof

 • the ecosystem will grow (because as Reggie rightly points out..."Metcalfe's Law and all that")

 • the token to coin ratio with fall and VERI holders will lose value against crypto monetary bases like Ether and Bitcoin (because that ratio has to fall to pay for all of the above gains. The big one being liquidity. The next one being compensating for the the huge disparity between perceived marketcap and real marketcap) - nope, wrong. wrong on referring to ether bitcoin being a monetary base. wrong on implying VERI is a competitor to ether/bitcoin just as it is wrong to say ether is competitor to bitcoin.

 • there is a speculative offset to the falling exchange ratio which is revenue or asset gains from use of the token, however this is as yet unquantifiable and its sources unidentifiable in anything other than a very general sense - simply your personal opinion parlayed as "fact"

How can your shares be worth something even if the entrepreneurial idea is crap?

This is why Ethereum blockchain issuers do this trick of "holding back" tokens. It's nothing to do with garnering network effect and everything to do with passing risk from the issuer to the investor because the issuer is left holding all the capital while the investor is left holding bags of worthless tokens that took the issuer about 2 minutes to create.

In a classic equity exchange this doesn't happen, because your invested capital is held by the company in which you own shares, so your shares are worth something even if the entrepreneurial idea is crap. In token investments however you don't get squat of the issuers equity, just a bunch of tokens backed by a few lines of code.

Feel free to join the queue.