Topic: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD - page 24. (Read 251007 times)

What is this? I haven't heard about either of these things and search doesn't bring anything up, can someone briefly fill me in? was Ritz Carlton mentioned in a video?

I think its a legit question. After watching the website I'm having the same questions. What is this exactly? Looks like a Komodo or Bancore look-a-like project. Buy pretty sure I'm wrong ;-)

REMOL

Surely you are joking with your message. Perhaps you may click on the web-link below and within 30 seconds of due-diligence you should be able to see an answer to your question.

https://veritas.veritaseum.com

What is the main purpose of this $350m market cap coin? It's still unclear for me. Incredibly low vol too for such an high market cap!

Nah... flexibility. Cheers!

Why are no VERI's talking about the apparent kvein o leary address leak? Where did soemone get ahold of kevins address. All speculation that veritaseum does deal with ritz carlton???

I thought you were looking for a debate on why some of my points are wrong, no?
Otherwise, pardon me.
Most members here think everything I say is wrong, so there is a bias acquired.

Huh?

whats the top 10 stock exchange VERI is partnering with?

Yes, the fundamentals remain unchanged.
Which is why the current VERI price is quite fairly valued.

Consider if the VeADIR can gain exposure to Bitcoin, Ethereum (incl. all the erc20 tokens within its network but excl. their separate market cap because they are just subset of the whole ETH network), and NEO...

Currently...
Bitcoin market cap = USD 152 bil
Ethereum market cap = USD 55 bil
NEO market cap = USD 4.9 bil
Totaling USD 211.9 bil

Assuming cost of exposure is 5%...

USD 211.9 bil x 0.05 = USD 10.595 bil

Current VERI circulating supply is 2 mil...
BUT total supply is 100 mil...!
So USD 10.595 bil / 100 mil = USD 105.95

The current price of VERI is currently probably coincidentally fairly valued.

Why I don't include market cap of the rest of the other erc20 tokens like EOS, OMG, PPT, etc?
Because they are still subsets of the Ethereum network (regardless of whether they will be blockchain agnostic later). Thus including them may result in double counting.

Why I don't include market cap of other major cryptos like cardano, ripple, dash, etc?
Because some of them are still conceptual/experimental and the rest are excluded to be conservative.

Why I don't valuate the token price based on the circulating supply of 2 mil?
Because having the total 100 mil as circulating supply is very possible in the future. And thus, if the market buys the token based on 2 mil circulating supply, it would be grossly overpaid as per ratio in ETH (the dollar value may change but the ETH ratio will mostly assuredly go downward) when more of the 98 mil reserve gets sold and enter the circulating supply. The market is not stupid. Thus to stay safe, the 100 mil supply is used for valuation. Additionally, even if the 98 mil reserve never enters the circulation, there would still be no positive effect to the network despite whatever institutional deal because purchase from the reserve will be OTC, outside the network.

So don't be sad. The price is probably fairly valued.


Update:
I hope Reggie will not keep adjusting the cost of exposure from 5% to another %.
Otherwise, such act IS manipulation.
If Reggie wants the cost of exposure to be updated and timely in accordance to the price of ETH and the price of VERI, then he should make sure the cost of exposure can be dynamically, automatically, and continuously adjusted based on the price of ETH and VERI in real-time.
Then the cost would stay at 5% regardless of the current market price.
Is Reggie smart enough to understand that?

In my experience in life, stubborn people are always naturally stupid.

Update #2:
What would happen if the 98 mil reserve is totally burned?
Why Reggie and everyone else do not want it?
Why is it considered manipulation?
Who would be the victim of such manipulation (please read my previous explanation on institutions bidding up price as well as other technicalities before you answer this question)?

Food is...
perishable,
has short shelf-life,
has high carrying cost,
not divisible,
not replenishable, as in recyclable,
not resellable,
has fixed market price within certain time period,
and has value dependent on its own utility value as nourishment.

VERI is...
not perishable,
has indefinite shelf-life,
has minimal carrying cost,
has high divisibility,
recyclable,
resellable,
has dynamic market price,
and has no value of its own but dependent on Veritaseum's consultancy services to determine the value.

Notice you try to prove my point is wrong by using food as an example.
But now you said food is not the same as software.

Why do you keep avoiding the divisibility and recycle-ability/resell-ability features of the tokens as if they are none existent?
Strange.
Please read my last comments on how institutions bidding up the price will be beneficial.
And read why high token price with limited quantity will still satisfy market demand.
If you don't understand, the best is to read each line of sentence repeatedly over and over again, slowly, until you understand.
That's how I study things on my own on complicated subjects.

Update:
Microsoft OS license is...
not perishable,
has indefinite shelf-life,
has minimal carrying cost,
not divisible,
not recycable,
not resellable,
has fixed market price within certain time period,
and has value dependent on the utility value of the OS.

Please compare these features of Microsoft OS license to the tokens and spot the differences.

The advantages of being divisible, recyclable, and resellable should be clear to those that have the brains to understand that such features make the 98 mil reserve to meet market demand unnecessary.

USD as the reserve currency vs Bitcoin. An explanation from Reggie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72sElwEodho&feature=em-uploademail

The thing is that why would such a food producer bring to market more than current demand? Wouldn't it make more sense to park the PP&E for future expansion and to meet expected future demand. One major difference here is that food is perishable and has a short shelf-life, whereas software is not, and has de minimus carrying costs in relatives terms -- so we got that going for us, which is nice (I think).

True, it's been a crypto-bear market recently though so it's not surprising Veri is down (though we've seen up an uptick again, how long for who knows)

Fundamentals remain unchanged, though it gets frustrating at times to see BTC govern the price on so many projects that are very far removed!

Listen to Dorkie (to burn the 98 mil reserve, scrap that unnecessary renting feature, and make that cost of exposure dynamic), and everything will be super perfect.

Whether the sky will be the limit will depend solely on Reggie's competency in instilling adoption with his consultancy expertise.

That would be economic gain through pure meritocracy.

But then if you think listening to this "Dorkie" nick does not impart confidence, then maybe I should change my nick to "Super Intelligent".

But then my suggestion will still remain the same.

If the 98 mil reserve is totally burned, then the price to reach multiples of ETH would be fairly easy.

But unfortunately, nobody wants such outcome. They would say that is manipulation, as if having a much larger reserve (like 98 billion or 98 trillion) would mean no manipulation.

So in the end, everyone ends up making their money the very hard and slow way.

Truth is, if the 98 mil reserve is burned, then they will have to scrap their renting feature and some other major approaches of doing things.

But they don't realize these are the changes necessary for very significant growth.

Neither does Reggie realize that without the 98 mil reserve and token renting feature, the platform/system i.e. the way things are run, would end up much simpler and more effective.

Things would be more clear cut, direct, and easily understandable and use.

Simplification of the platform/system/business model of Veritaseum would not harm the company's bottom line a single bit.

But Reggie is greedily aiming for the big grand slam that is 98 mil x USD 100 (current price of VERI) = USD 9.8 billion for him and his family.

And he is very unwilling to change for a much smaller aim to the benefit of everyone.

That's why I said it several times that Reggie is a stubborn man.

I know a stubborn man when I see one.

Reggie, if you aim way too high and way too big, there is a huge chance that you will miss it by a long mile.

And if you are not willing to change your way to have an easier and better outcome for all, then not only are you stubborn and greedy, you are also dumb.

And yes, I am okay if you change your business model (i.e. burn the reserve and scrap the renting feature, you and I know that renting feature is just a feature for the community to sell the hype, you and I know the system would still work just as fine without any renting feature, so please don't pretend that feature is a critical feature) because it's Masiah's idea or Andrew's idea, or anyone else's idea, excluding my idea.

Reggie, you need to learn some wisdom in life.

Sometimes we need to let go in order to receive more.

In Buddhism, it was said that if we pull a string too hard, it will snap. And if we make it too loose, it will not make music.

Moderation is key. The same is with your greed.

The price of the coin is very sad. Although .. judging by the schedule - it's time to buy for those who believe in it

Reggie Middleton Live At Blockchain Investment Summit, Dubai


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM75LJy5T50&feature=em-lbcastemail

I don't know why more people aren't speaking about this project. Makes me think the market is still full of speculative investors and not value 

Looks like the certificate has expired,

"veritas.veritaseum.com uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate expired on 18 March 2018, 23:59"