Topic: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD - page 112. (Read 251011 times)

I don't believe toknormal is an authoritative figure in any field. Not legal. Not accounting.

The next time toknormal comes and talk nonsense again, please keep asking him this "Do you honestly have any idea what is the definition AND formula of calculating the market cap (accounting-wise) used by coinmarketcap AND stock exchanges?" question.

Keep asking him the same question over and over again (which I believe he is denying) because that I believe will reveal the flaw of his intellect.

I also i'm curious about this , anyone care to shade some light on this ?

After reading toknormal's comments, I believe the toughest person to deal with in life is not someone who is a dumbfuck, but someone who is a smart alec.

I am on Reggie's side.

Reggie -

Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid (IMHO) your post is the one better characterised as "throwing around terms as jargon that have very little correlation to the topic at hand"

If you care to reread my summary, "the topic at hand" is the clear distinction between 2 types of "issuer":

 • the classic equity sense (where investors retain ownership of the capital paid to the 'issuer')
 • the blockchain sense (where they don't)

I made the case that in the second of those two, there is no distinction (as far as supply counting towards 'aggregate valuation' is concerned) between one wallet holder and another since the 'issuer' is the blockchain and the 'supply' is the sum total of all wallets. You are using the word "issuer" in a market distribution sense, I am using it in an accounting sense for purposes of valuation.


This is a qualitative distinction you are making between different types of token holders. The distinction of stakeholder and trader is arbitrary and irrelevant to "the topic at hand" since it's moot in the context of accounting for aggregate value. Both are in posession of 'circulating supply' from the perspective of the blockchain-issued capital. Both are at liberty to exchange that supply for money and therefore both 'wallets' count towards the aggregate valuation of that supply. Again, the fact that they have different motivations is moot from an accounting point of view.

On "software as a service"...


I wasn't "stating as fact" that you were selling "software as a service". I was simply pointing out that you had no grounds for expecting 98% of your blockchain supply to be exempted from the commonly understood 'marketcap' based on the role of the token as long as it's tradeable with a reseale value on the open market. Ironically, the implication of that point was specifically that you were not selling a "SAS" business model  


You're confusing methods of equity valuation with the calculation of marketcap of a blockchain token. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Having challenged your perspective on accounting for token supply 'marketcap', I should add that I'm not otherwise challenging the viability of the token. I'm simply pointing out that the immature and unregulated conventions in this sector are being taken advantage of (gamed) by all and sundry ICO offerings with an audacity that is un-precendented in the sector. Ostensibly, we are in a period where more formal conventions will eventually evolve and right now it's arguably one person's reasoning against another which is why it's important that this debate be had and that (IMO) the view you are taking not be allowed to prevail.

The previous beta Veri app was running on a sidechain? and not the mainchain? are you sure about that?

WolVERIne

how much is sold to institutions?

Not only that, but remember, Veritaseum was already running on the Bitcoin blockchain/sidechain before this.  It's now being ported to run on the Etherium blockchain.

People in this forum would probably be surprised at how much VERI Reggie Middleton has sold to institutions already. There is high demand for it, and the demand should only increase over the next year.

Reggie is an extremely smart, experienced and honorable man, and he is not going to dump all his 'software' on us and crash the value of the current supply

I might not look like it,  but I was in 'nam trading crypto's

6 posts = newbie. Just how long have you been around?

Newbie?... is that what I'm categorized as? Damn, that's pretty cool. ... I've been around, a long time. Trust me.

I believe both bitcoin and ethereum will need PoS.
And this is actually a very good thing.
Of course people will fear what they don't know.

More FUD about something Reggie has already answered

"Now... it was stated earlier that they can move it to a diiferent chain, if they can great because I think they won't have choice soon. Again, IMHO."



Veritaseum is platform agnostic per CEO Reggie Middleton

End of discussion .... oh in my fn humble opinion lol   

Anything else Activity 2 Newbie?


 

If Veri is truly a tremendous economic value, then eth price fall will mean cheaper Veri, which means people will buy eth to get into Veri, indirectly giving support to eth as well. This should not be a worry.

---

What you are trying to say is that Veri market cap is actually far larger than appear and thus is extremely overrated and overpriced and the best way we all should do now is to dump every Veri that we have while we still can. Am I right?

I think you are a very smart person. What do you think I should buy with the proceed? Which erc20 token do you think is the best? Which cryptocurrency do you think is the best?

---

My friend, the only thing that is NOT a "security" (in your definition of a "security") is when you participate in an ICO with zero chance of making any form of return or economic value out of it. In other words, when you participate in an ICO you are actually doing 100% charity by donating 100% of your money to the project for the complete benefit of the ICO project team and its users (excluding you). In other words, such participation is stupid.

Everything is a security. Even a piece of toilet paper is a security if based on your definition of what a security is. I will just get a few members to trade the toilet paper among each other, every time paying slightly higher price than the previous transaction, thus conjuring the impression of trading gains, and including this toilet paper into my company as a valuable security.

Manipulation? Yes. The paper money you have in your pocket and bank account are ALL manipulated stuff, but I don't see you throwing them away. The money god is not eternal. Someday it will die. The money god is a product of our conjuration, to facilitate fair trade. The human lords that rule over all money matters are the rothschilds. If you want to bark at the right tree, please go bark at the rothschilds.

And for you (and everyone) to think Reggie is going to dump his 98mil supply on a 2mil (actually far less than that since there will be around half of the 2mil holders that may want to sell, thus the effective liquidity may just be 1mil) market supply, which is a far worse decision than institutional dump, means that you have got to be some seriously dumb person. I don't believe Reggie is that stupid.

---

Correct me if I am wrong, I believe Reggie is indeed selling software as a service, but he make sure the price of such service is decided by the market (thus tradeable) instead of deciding the price himself (which may lead to underpricing or overpricing, doing disservice either to himself or to his customers). And he help facilitate the market pricing of his service by improving the exposure, adoption, and value of his services through project/product/service development and closing deals with exchanges, institutions, HNWI, etc to use the software for economic activities, which is probably the reason why he said the more people using it, the more value it brings to the token holder, thus this is not dilutive as misunderstood.

What's wrong with that?
Oh, yeah. I remember. The market cap, right?
Well, that is a non-issue to me now.

No. I meant "published".

We are in a decentralised, non-equity market. That means we are trading initially worthless tokens on a blockchain, not companies.

Ask yourself, what happens in an equity market when a company issues new shares at will and you purchase those shares. You still have your money because the company's entire asset base is owed back to you. Even if it converts your monetary capital into plant & machinery, those assets will be valued at an aggregate level, reconciled to a unit share value and their cost will always be owed back to you at LEAST at book value. Years later, if there's a discrepancy between the prevailing corporate valuation and what you paid for your share, that will be accounted for in a continuous sequence of annual trading accounts - even if it goes to zero.

Now lets compare that model with issuing tokens on a blockchain.

Centralised vs Decentralised Archetypes

The original (mining) archetype was that tokens would be "released" through a decentralised process whereby the market at least paid for the cost of production of the token. A common definition of "marketcap" evolved which was based on the "circulating supply" (the mined supply to date) and "total supply" (the maximum ever possible to be mined). This would allow investors to reference an aggregate value for the asset - in so far as it is traded as a security - and work back to a corresponding exchange ratio with other assets.

So each of those two types of asset - corporate equity on the one hand and decentralised blockchain assets on the other - had their own respective valuation discipline which allowed markets to engage in a reasonable price discovery process.

The issue I've been raising in my previous, so called "troll" posts, is that we are now seeing a wholesale corruption of both these disciplines where ICO issuers simply cherry pick the capital generation properties from each paradigm while flushing all the key accountability properties down the toilet. Before illustrating why, lets recap the contrasting definitions of "token release" and "token supply" in the respective business models:

Summary of Distinctions

A. In the equity model, you can create 'tokens' (shares) at will, but the capital raised is still owned by the existing shareholders, not by the directors. Companies are therefore justified in calling themselves the 'source' of the equity and can fairly be described as "releasing" new shares in the sense of creating new capital that has immediate value for those investing, since investor capital is simply crossing from one side of a fence to the other and is still owned by the investor even though they’ve parted with their cash

B. In the (classic) blockchain model, the invested capital is not owed back to the investor, but, tokens cannot be created at will. The investment comes from the miner who creates a monetary token at cost which the market then executes a price discovery process over to establish a final traded value

C. In BOTH cases, there is a categorical protocol for establishing an AGGREGATE valuation for the asset which is the only meaningful reference since unit valuations are simply an arbitrary subdivision of this. In the centralised model, it's the number of shares times the traded price per share. In the decentralised model it's the number of blockchain tokens created to date times the market value of the last traded token

Corrupted Hybrid

Now lets observe how all the principle disciplines of accountability from the above protocols have been discarded in order to create a new "corrupt" hybrid:

From A. we've retained the ability to create tokens at will, while we've lost the condition that the invested capital is to be owed back to the investor

From B. we've lost the cost of production of the tokens

From C. we've lost the requirement to report an aggregate valuation appropriate to our business model which therefore leaves the unit exchange rate wide open to 'gaming' (i.e. we're issuing tokens as if they were equity but reporting them as if they were the current 'mined' supply).

So, in summary: in a decentralised context, Reggie is not the "issuer" and should not be presenting himself as such. He is a trader who is at liberty to sell as much or as little of his wallet as he likes. The difference being that if he was an "issuer", buyers would still own the Ether/bitcoin that they paid him for the tokens. His full wallet therefore counts towards marketcap just as much as mine or yours.


’The more the merrier’

Lets turn for a moment to all the hand waving surrounding the idea that it’s actually a good thing that more tokens are sold - the so called “Metcalfe's Law”:


There was no dispute here. It’s almost a universally understood concept that greater adoption garners value - even if it comes out of “Reggie’s wallet”. However “Metcalfe’s law” is no more than a philosophical nuance unless its effect can be measured and quantified at an aggregate level - independently of the type of asset concerned. Contrary to what Reggie asserts in that post, it’s not the “antithesis of what we have here”, otherwise he’d be selling software as a service and not as a tradeable “security”.

The reason this is significant is because there are two ways in which Metcalfe’s law can have an impact and only one of them benefits the small investor holding a fixed quantity of tokens. In particular, if all the new sales come out of a part of the supply that is not currently counting towards marketcap, then the Metcalfe’s law all goes into the hidden supply growth but the market’s valuing the unit rate as if there was none, so you’ve got this timebomb waiting to go off as soon as the real valuation is known. (NOTE: Nothing to do with ‘dilution’, simply establishing an authentic, commonly accepted aggregate valuation).

What’s a ‘Security

Finally, lets consider the idea that’s been posted both by Reggie and by others that VERI somehow “isn’t a security”. All I’d say to that is that it’s the market that decides whether it’s a security or not and basically anything at all that has a resale value and a variable price is a potential candidate.

There are indeed some justifiable cases for arguing that a “blockchain token is not a security”, but only when the market is deprived of making trading gains on it and they’re more properly described here by one of the more respected Ethereum project staff (and none of which apply to the VERI token).

^^Well the only caveat with that is, as Reggie alluded to in one if his videos, porting it to another blockchain could take a significant amount of man/code hours (referencing move from bitcoin blockchain to eth chain)...Its possible to say the least though, and there are def other blockchains taking on ICOs.

 

Thanks for responding Masiah,

We're not simply talking about a generic inflation 101 formula here, there's an actual "affect" on price across the board if and when $eth goes. I think more analogous to deflation, prices declining as less and less people use/trust $eth, or at least find alternatives. Which brings me to your next point you said... "VERI can be moved to other blockchains if the ethereum blockchain is no longer the best option." ... This is ABSOLUTELY the best thing I've seen or read in all discussions and posts. If this is a fact, and I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying, if the Veritaseum machine is portable enough to be moved from $eth (Solidity) to a BTC Sidechain, then hands down without a shadow of a doubt it's a winner.