Topic: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD - page 137. (Read 251011 times)

Thank you. PM sent.

Paul, if you send me the logo you want extracted, I'll see if I can do it. Unless someone else has offered to help already.

pm me.

That's the spirit! I still believe we will see VERI at a $1000 by the end of the year, especially given that 18 decimal places. 

Market won't see some of my tokens (lets say 1000 or 2000) until the price hits at least 1000 USD. In the meantime will start renting my VERI.

"There is no difference between a "full" and "circulating" supply" - I beg to disagree! I thought you were only half full of it, but applying your logic, you're clearly full of it.

"I am sitting here with dry powder on Ether Delta ready to fire some more into it" - Exactly. Now you are here trying to stir the proverbial so that you can get in at 0.02! Good luck. I can give you a guarantee that I will be the last person to off load at that price.  

Very informative explanation.

Thanks for taking the time to elucidate. Much appreciated.

This has been extensively discussed earlier in this thread. If you have an issue with the marketcap reported by coinmarketcap.com you should contact them. Reggie has said repeatedly the Crowdsale for the token was equal to a gift card, he has steered this ship well. You can exchange VERI for services from Veritaseum. There would be no reason for them try to make existing tokens worthless and the token supports 18 decimal places which shows that fractions of VERI are intended for usage in the future.

The crowdsale was used to raise funds, which are used to build the Veritaseum software ecosystem. The token is not a share, or investment. It is a software object that is used for accounting the services you purchase.

Reggie has offered to refund crowdsale purchases for buyers that did not understand the use of the VERI token.

If you are looking for an investment, VERI is not for you. It is software to access services.

Sovereigns, large banks and hedge funds looking at this software will buy to use as intended; to purchase services from Veritaseum. For instance a bank buys a 5,000 seat subscription to the Wall Street Journal. Those papers are for business. Managers, analyst etc read them every day.
Those 5,000 new readers will be included in the circulation numbers for the paper, and it just isn't reasonable for them to take those papers out to the street corner and sell them in competition with street vendors. The VERI tokens are similar, you buy them because you are interested in the services that Veritaeseum offers. Reggie will expand the company and offer more services, that is his job to make you want services. Just like Steve Jobs worked to make you want an iPhone and other Apple products and services.

If you looked at business margins, the money is definitely on the side of software and services. Hardware is only profitable at a huge scale and is in a race to the bottom thanks to Moore's law in computing. Hardware margins always get squeezed - software and services are much much easier to make profitable.

This is why Bill Gates railed against the early pirates of his BASIC programing software which he sold. Piracy was theft of an easily copied digital product. The Blockchain reverses this and assigns value to the software objects, duplication or piracy is not possible.

Microsoft becomes more valuable the more copies that are shipped, this is the network effect just like the internet expanded exponentially. Reggie is building a platform. The more it is used the more valuable the services become. If you bought 100 tokens in the crowdsale, maybe you don't need that many. Maybe you sell half, the tokens are exchangeable for the services on that platform. You still have 50 VERI tokens and when you look at the what services cost, the 18 decimals places will work to your advantage.

Craig Newmark who created craigslist tried to pitch the idea to the editor of a newspaper. They refused it. Digital disruption has happened repeatedly in modern times, what is surprising is that so many people believe their industry or company cannot be disrupted. One of the reasons Facebook has been so aggressive in acquisitions is that they are trying to maintain market dominance; for them a Billion dollar takeover another company buys them breathing room as well as access to technology they may not have invented.

Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan & Barkleys are all ripe for disruption. The agile companies will adopt the new tools. Obstinate ones will be fenced out of a growing market. Blockchain is disruptive. If you believe this and that the pattern of disruption will continue you'll want to be a part of it.

There is no difference between a "full" and "circulating" supply.

If there is a potential seller of 98 million coins over the net 18 months or so, then that represents part of the 'circulating supply' at least for the purposes of marketcap calculation.


No. I hold some Veritasium and I am sitting here with dry powder on Ether Delta ready to fire some more into it, but I do my due diligence and I don't like buying grossly overvalued stuff however high it's expected to go. As such, it doesn't really matter whether coinmarketcap calculates the marketcap based on a supply of 100 million or 2 million since investors are free to value it as they see fit and if there are 98 million "new tokens" available for new institutional investors then that makes the supply 100 million from my point of view, not 2.

The reason this is important is because if I calculate it to be overvalued according to comparable assets then so too will some interesting contenders who like the idea making a few bucks out of this market, for example the Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan & Barcleys and they won't have 2 "analysts" programming their automated investment vehicles, they'll have 300.

Sorry about the late read and reply. I had errands to run.

I beg to disagree. You for one continue to hammer on the "full coin supply," failing to differentiate between that and the circulating coin supply. In addition, it is not only about numbers, especially when you drag Ripple into the equation. You're simply not comparing apples to apples. Quality and other factors, of which some are not easily measured in monetary terms, also count.  

Let me guess: You didn't get in and are now trying to push the price down to get in at 0.02? Good luck with that. If not, perhaps you can off load at 0.02? I am sure there will be plenty of takers.

In short: Run your concerns via Reggie as advised. I don't wish to entertain it beyond what I've already stated in principal.

I mostly don't disagree with you. But need to correct you on this one.

Here is partial list of top 10 assets

Golem
Iconomi
Augur - reported full supply equals circulating supply
Gnosis
MadeSafeCoin  - reported full supply equals circulating supply
Ardor  - reported full supply equals circulating supply
Veritaseum
DigixDAO  - reported full supply equals circulating supply
Basic Attention Token
Tether

Only 4 out of 10 have the same total and circulation supply.

P.S. However. Among top 10 VERI has the largest difference between total supply and circulation. Distant second is GNO (1 : 10)

For the monetary stocks, the circulating supply IS the full supply (minus future mining supply which is a known and slow annual emission rate). So that convention is reasonable. It also means that future investors - be they institutional or retail - require to acquire their holdings from the same supply that's reported in the marketcap calculation.

The speculative aspect of the valuation is based on future investment in that common asset - i.e. they require to purchase from the current holders.

With Veritasium, that's not the case. 98% of the potential supply is reserved for institutional investors. Therefore, what I'm saying is that for that fact to reflect adequately on the valuation of the current "circulating supply" it should be reported as such.


As I'm aware, all the assets have their full supply reported as "circulating supply", save for perhaps Ripple. I may be wrong on that - feel free to correct.

All the same I think it's reasonable to call the valuation into question when it's so many times over what I'd call "book value" when compared to similar assets that are years further down the line and actually have demonstrated commercial and technical viability under their belt.

I believe the Bancor price is currently lower than its ICO price.

"What should happen now is that VERI moves up a few notches in marketcap ranking - but with the full coin supply reported."

Do you actually know how market cap is calculated for all assets/currencies listed there? They consider only circulated tokens/currencies and this applies to all 900+. So according to you there should be different rule only for VERI ... Report this to coinmarket cap now! Do not hesitate and do not dawdle.

Real market price is the one that market decide upon (or manipulate) and not your perceived ratio. If ETH is currently worth approx. 300 USD then all fully functional (with real world use) tokens should be worth more per circulated token than ETH. Because they bring the extra value.

No. But he can't prevent the market from acting in an "irresponsible manner".

Lets think about this for a moment. That effective supply puts Veritasium's "real" marketcap at around 3.7 Million BTC. (Ripple is 4.1 Million). i.e. nearly a quarter of bitcoin's entire coin supply. So it would be the third or fourth largest asset in ranking on coinmarketcap.com.

Not saying that's necessarily unreasonable in terms of future potential (i.e. speculative) but for such a large valuation to have some genuine basis it must make the monetary cryptos massively undervalued (since they are going to form much of the lower capitalisation tiers of the coming synthetic 'vehicles' that will be traded on the VERI platform) - which in turn makes the current VERI/Ether or BTC price massively overvalued does it not ?

What should happen now is that VERI moves up a few notches in marketcap ranking - but with the full coin supply reported. So lets say it went to where Bitshares is (an equivalent type of asset but a mature platform so being kind to Veritasium by letting it get that far in only 30 days after launch instead of taking 3 years and needing to actually deliver some functioning software that's hosting trades like Bitshares has done).

That would put the VERI marketcap at around quarter of a million BTC. Coin exchange rate with Ether would therefore be around 0.02. i.e. 50 Veri per Ether.

Current price: 0.32.

16 times overvalued ?

You will have to ask Reggie himself, but as far as I know, the market asked for 1,967,276 during the TGE and got that many. In addition, no company has to release its total authorized share capital on day one. It is normally done gradually as a company grows and needs additional funds. I think it is going to be no different here. Reggie is not going to act in an irresponsible manner that will hurt VERI holders, especially those who have shown support from day one. That being said, it is definitely not too late to support this initiative.

Ah. So Reggie is using the trick of driving the price up on a tiny supply while holding the reported marketcap down (which I think he admitted was the strategy).

Then selling the corporate.sovereign cut at hugely inflated value prior to the entire supply being introduced into the marketcap reporting ? (At which point the per-coin price will tank as the market corrects).

51 million tokens were available during the token generating event. Only 1,967,276 were sold, which is now the circulating supply. The remaining tokens will be sold to large corporations, sovereigns and such for direct use. There will never be more than a 100,000,000 tokens.

Can anybody fill me in on the coin supply story with Veritasium ?

I've heard 100 Million and I've heard 2 Million (on coinmarketcap.com).

It depends on how you measure it. BNT tokens were issued during the token generating event (TGE) at 1 BNT per 0.01 ETH or a 100 BNT per 1 ETH. Using that as a measure, the price of BNT has pretty much stayed above or equal to 0.01 ETH per token as can be seen here: https://www.bancor.network/bnt

When it did temporarily dip below 0.01 ETH (earlier this week), the price floor implemented brought the price back to 0.01 ETH. This is made possible by a reserve that is currently at 108.12K ETH (originally a 112K ETH). This helps BNT to act according to what it was designed to do and be. The ultimate intend with BNT is to have a stable, liquid world reserve currency that is completely decentralized. It is not a token designed for a short-term "pump and dump" so to speak. E.g. watch 10:05-10:45 of the video to learn how the Bancor protocol prevents manipulation of prices by whales.

The price dropped as measured in fiat or USD. The reasons for this are three fold in my opinion:

1. BNT IOUs were sold via HitBTC before BNT were released for trading or listed on other exchanges. HitBTC is known for selling at heavily inflated prices.

2. The crypto market in general saw a decline in prices in recent days, including the price of ETH as expressed in fiat or USD.

3. People got scared and started to sell their tokens at a fiat or USD loss - mostly on the back of FUD posted by whales and their lackeys.

Anyway, back to VERI!  

going to watch it. i see that the price of Bancor collapsed, why is that?