Topic: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD - page 123. (Read 251040 times)

The question "reserved is by whom" ? Not by the blockchain which is what matters in a decentralised market.

Somebody filled a wallet with 100 million new tokens on a blockchain. Then they published a plan for creating an 'ecosystem' which would support the value of those coins. Then they started selling parts of their wallet - some to participants in the early investor sale, some to banks, some to sovereigns.

The full 'supply' of that wallet is 100 million tokens and there is no categorical "in circulation" not "in circulation" supply boundary. Tokens continue to be traded and they continue to be supplied from that same 100 Million bag.

Not only that, the "unreported" part of the supply is being valued and priced (albeit at a hefty discount I would imagine) based on what you call the 'circulating' supply so it's only right that it be included in the marketcap.

Reggie Middleton is not an equity issuer. He created a bunch of tokens on a blockchain and published some plans as to how he intended to support their value. But we're not purchasing equity in that new ecosystem. We're purchasing a holding of currently industrially worthless tokens and hoping that they play a significant enough role in that new market to gain a viable and sustainable real value. As such RM is simply a 'member of the public' holding a bigger bag than everyone else but promising a bigger input to that 'ecosystem' than everyone else.

Decentralised marketcap reporting should reflect that fact in order that investors can make appropriate comparisons between one asset and another.

Don't feed the troll: Use the ignore button.

All it proves is that you're either here to continue to spread FUD, in the hope to get in at lower price levels, is an outright idiot or are getting off on all the BS you're circulating (as all trolls do). I suspect it might be a mix of all.


For the last time... Veritaseum has previously made it clear that the 98 million or so are not available for sale to the public. Those VERI tokens are reserved for large private investors, institutions and sovereigns. Those are being sold OTC directly from Veritaseum offices. Those are not earmarked for trading, but to give access to the machine itself.

Why is the Circulating Supply used in determining the market capitalization instead of Total Supply?

We've found that Circulating Supply is a much better metric for determining the market capitalization. Coins that are locked, reserved, or not able to be sold on the public market are coins that can't affect the price and thus should not be allowed to affect the market capitalization as well. The method of using the Circulating Supply is analogous to the method of using public float for determining the market capitalization of companies in traditional investing.

Source: https://coinmarketcap.com/faq/

Indeed. And in VERI, the "circulating supply" by the best accounts that can be gleaned from this thread is the 98 Million, not the 2 Million. You're still making the false allusion to "circulating" and "non circulating" of exchange traded and OTC supplies respectively.

Would that all the premined wallet holders of the last few years could have gotten away with "hey my coins are not circulating so shouldn't be counted towards marketcap".

Whatever the letter of CMC reporting policy, it's being gamed to the extreme here.

I highly doubt it, but if you're really 5 figures into it and peddling the BS you're peddling, then to state it extremely mildly, I feel sorry for you.

According to CoinMarketCap.com...

What is the difference between "Circulating Supply", "Total Supply", and "Max Supply"?

Circulating Supply is the best approximation of the number of coins that are circulating in the market and in the general public's hands.
Total Supply is the total amount of coins in existence right now (minus any coins that have been verifiably burned).
Max Supply the best approximation of the maximum amount of coins that will ever exist in the lifetime of the cryptocurrency.

Why is the Circulating Supply used in determining the market capitalization instead of Total Supply?

We've found that Circulating Supply is a much better metric for determining the market capitalization. Coins that are locked, reserved, or not able to be sold on the public market are coins that can't affect the price and thus should not be allowed to affect the market capitalization as well. The method of using the Circulating Supply is analogous to the method of using public float for determining the market capitalization of companies in traditional investing.

Source: https://coinmarketcap.com/faq/

With the recent rise, I'm into this asset well into 5 figures now. I have no conflict of interest in making my case, in fact I'd be more conflicted by not making it. But I invested based on fundamentals, not some stock market 'trick' that came and infected the decentralised world of freely traded digital assets.

Here's the deal why the blockchain-supply is under-reported and why Veritasium's short term viability at least depends on it:

1. Traders make valuations based on marketcap, not coin-exchange rate

2. As such VERI's low marketcap looks extremely good value for new buyers because it's still below such benign offerings as Bytecoin etc al, even with the recent doubling of the last 24 hours

3. However, the small "reported supply" is not the real supply since new OTC trades are supplied from Reggie's 'wallet', not from the coinmarketcap.com reported quantity

4. If the full (blockchain issued) supply were to be correctly reported, what would happen ? You'd see a ranking like the one I posted earlier and an associated market correction since it would be unlikely to give a single token offering a higher valuation than the entire Ethereum blockchain coin supply

What Reggie is doing is making tactical use of marketcap reporting in order to price the non-ICO token supply based on the tiny ICO portion. Ok, it's one marketing strategy (and is working so far) but it should be transparent and not hidden behind some "we don't understand institutional markets" nonsense.

Whatever tickles your fancy. Now go cry a river! 

Just for clarification, an appropriate description of "circulating bs" would be something along the lines of:

 • exchange traded token supply counts towards advertised marketcap
 • OTC traded supply doesn't

That's what you appear to be promoting, not me.

Be advised that all of these digital assets are traded OTC for large amounts. That doesn't mean they get away with underreporting the blockchain-issued supply.

"according to convention in these markets"? You meant to say according to your "circulating bs" based on half-assed assumptions. Sorry, it is a no can do. Now go cry a river.

What's that got to do with anything ? All I'm saying is report the full marketcap according to convention in these markets or don't report it at all. Reggie can still do all the OTC selling he wants from his own wallet of 98 Million tokens.

To attract clients from the institutional market, you need to have an understanding of the institutional market. There are certain things they like and certain things they don't. As Reggie mentioned: "Large investors rarely transact through exchanges in bulk because that is inefficient and slippage drives the price."

If you wish to convince them to make use of your software that enables P2P capital markets - trustless transactions between “person to person, company to company and entity to entity” - you have to meet them half way. Period.

With the correct understanding, it should not be an issue at all.

This isn't an "institutional market". It's an unregulated, decentralised one.

As such it is 'policed' by holders, buyers, and anyone else with an interest in seeing open and free markets work efficiently. In an "institutionalised market" you might get away with the strategy of justifying a high unit price to the market based on low supply volume because you have a whole pile of regulations governing the release of that supply.

But in decentralised markets we only have marketcap to go by in doing comparative valuations. That's why it's important that all valuations are treated & reported consistently, using the blockchain-isssued supply as its basis. Satoshi has 1 Million Bitcoin in a wallet that "are not circulating" and apparently are even less likely to than the 98 Million under-reported VERI. They still get included in the marketcap valuation.

Yeah, selective timing. The price is now at $183.58.

As Reggie previously posted in response to your assertions:

"You don't seem to understand how the institutional market works. Let's pick apart your assertions.

Large investors rarely transact through exchanges in bulk because that is ineffecient and slippage drives the price. I made three deals in the last 24 hours, one was with one of the largest stock exchanges in the Caribbean region (can't quantify the VERI value, but expect it to be big), one was with a UHNW individual (starting with a $1-$1.5M purchase), and one with a sovereign nation. There's another I'm looking to close next month that will be bigger than these three combined. Not one of them will go through the extant exchanges (as a matter of fact, two of them are for building exchnages). Not only will these transactions not drive the price of VERI down, they should drive it higher since significantly more value will go though Veritaseum systems relative to the ROW (rest of the world) than before.
Every single big block sale I make out of the 98M outstanding is extremely bullish for the existing VERI holders. It's Metcalfe's law and the network effect, my friend.

Your argument is akin to saying the Internet is overvalued because there's the potential for 100s of millions of new users to come onboard.... What!!!???"

I said it before that the 2 mil circulating supply will be an issue and true enough every now and then it is brought up as an issue.
But someone pointed out to me that market cap is based on the circulating supply, thus Veritaseum's pricing is as valid as every other listed cryptos and tokens.

Selective timing... Someone bought a tiny amount at 1.0ETH. Price is now at .7ETH on Etherdelta, about $182.

I predict true sustained ethereum parity before the end of July.

Although I don't make any judgment over the ICO policy in general, ngin-x is at least correct in one principle.

These are not stocks - where some trusted entity "issues" the new stock. They are decentralised assets and the issuer is the blockchain. In that respect, Reggie Middleton is no different in status from any other wallet holder - he just happens to hold the largest wallet. Further, the conventional definition of "circulating supply" for decentralised assets is what the blockchain has issued, not what the largest holder manages to sell out of their particular wallet.

Even if we were to stretch the definition of "marketcap" just to suit this one asset and redefine "circulating supply" as that which is being made available to markets, the ~1.9 Million ICO tokens are probably less qualified than the 98 Million in RM's wallet since that's the part of the supply being actively marketed to OTC customers such as banks and sovereigns while the proportion of traded volume involving the minority reported supply is miniscule.

The correctly calculated marketcap for Veritasium is therefore currently as shown below:




based on...

Kind of funny/sad. ALL coins seem to have the same FUD in their forums.