Topic: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD - page 25. (Read 251007 times)

I have knowledge and common sense too.
And just because you disagree with me does not make me any less knowledgeable or any less common sense than you.


You did not answer to my question.


You can't agree on something that you don't really understand.
My agenda is to make money. What is your agenda? To do charity? Fair enough.

Nope, you got it wrong. You are taking things out of context.
Having 98 mil reserve will depress the price no matter the network effect.
Positive network effect (which there is none) = price depressed.
Neutral network effect = price depressed.
Negative network effect = price worthless.

The network effect as I meant refers to the network being participated by everyone, regardless of the amount of token circulating.
The less participation (regardless of the amount of circulating token, be it 2 mil or 100 mil), the less network effect.
When institutions buy in bulk from Reggie, they are effectively a non-participant of the network.
Even if they were to publicize their deal to use VeADIR, it gives no effect to the network (except in the form of hype, which is unsustainable).
Please go study business or economics before you take me out of context.


You are very dishonest with hidden agenda.
I already said Reggie got paid his worth when he did his ICO.
Where do you think his money collected during the ICO gone to?
Gone to pay for the bills, salaries, expenses, of course.
Subsequently if he wants to continue earning more economic gain, he will need to do it with his consultancy services.
Having a large pile of VERI that he hopes to see gain in value does NOT mean having any skin in the game.
Are you out of your mind?
If you pay for your VERI with your own fiat money or hard-earned savings, then you have skin in the game.
If you create your own VERI out of thin air through programming without the need to pay for it with your own fiat money or hard-earned savings, then you have NO skin in the game.
Jeez, do I even need to tell that to you?
Of course he is hard at work.
Because he wants huge economic gain from his 98 mil reserve.
Even if his 98 mil is suddenly wipeout by accident, do you think he will end up a poor man? Absolutely not.
Reggie's 98 mil reserve stake is free of charge to him.
The reserve costs him no money to own.
Maybe you are truthful (despite not smart enough), but obviously you have no logic.
I own some VERI.
Do you think those VERI costs me money to own? You can bet the fuck they do.
Do you own some VERI?
Do they cost you money to own? Maybe they don't, which would explain why you don't understand my points.


Those private deals mean NOTHING.
They may mean big things to you, but unless they involve direct participation in the network, i.e. buying and selling with you and each others to get the tokens for exposure, their involvement is closed-door and off the network, thus no network effect.
Please go help yourself understand what it means to have network effect.

Here's a simplistic summary:
Buy from Reggie to be used and recycled back for resale = no network effect.
Buy from the token holders of currently circulating 2 mil tokens to be used and recycled back for resale = yes to network effect.

You need to understand there is not many factor to network effect here.
Gaining exposure does not affect the network because the exposure has nothing to do with what you or anyone buys or sells, or what yours or anyone else's portfolio is like; it is only exposure from Veritaseum's consultancy services.
The exposure does not even include betting on how many token holders are buying a particular crypto and how many of the rest are selling the same, and try to bet on which side will win.
That leaves buying and selling the tokens in circulation as the only factor to the network effect.
No network effect means your token price will not grow, even if you have all the institutional buyers joining.
Please go educate yourself more.


You make getting listed in more exchanges sound like a big deal.
Let's do any illustration to you, a stupid fool, hopefully you will understand.

If current price is USD120 and the cost for 1 ETH worth of exposure is 0.1 VERI...
An institution wants to buy USD 10 mil worth of VERI for exposure.
If the selling supply is just USD 10,000 at USD 120 per token, then the institution will have a hard time accumulating enough for USD 10 mil worth of VERI.
That USD 10 mil worth of VERI would get 833,333 ETH worth of exposure (10 mil / 120 / 0.1 = 833,333).
So it buys all the way up, from USD 120 to USD 12,000.
Now everyone is selling at USD 12,000.
The institution managed to buy USD 10 mil worth of VERI, say CONSERVATIVELY 833.333 VERI.
The VeADIR adjusts the cost of exposure real-time, thus the latest cost is 0.001 VERI per 1 ETH worth of exposure (assuming ETH price remain the same).
Now the institution spends that 833.333 VERI for the exact same 833,333 ETH worth of exposure.
Is there any loss to the institution for bidding up the price? Absolutely zero loss.
But here's another thing...
That institution didn't just buy all its 833.333 at USD 12,000.
It also did buy many more while the price was at USD 120 all the way up to USD 11,999.
So the institution actually has far more than 833.333 VERI, which means it can now actually get far more exposure than just the 833,333 ETH worth.
Is there any gain to the institution for spending its USD 10 mil to bid up the price for exposure? Yes!
And if another institution wants to buy more VERI, the first institution that got more than 833.333 VERI due to averaging up can sell any excess to the second institution for trading profits.

If it is risky to you, it is because you think you are smarter than I.


Should or shouldn't, that is not your call.
If those bulk purchase touches the exchanges = price will depress far more.
There is no assurance that they won't.
Even so, such bulk purchase has ZERO network effect as falsely touted by Reggie, because they are over-the-counter, or off-market.
Once again, you don't understand what is network effect.
So please go do yourself some research.

And I have already "illustrated" for you how buying large quantities in ED is not fantasy.
It is not about large quantities, as in how many units of tokens.
Rather it is about the price.
If the price is USD12,000 per token and the sell supply at ED is 50, that still translates to USD 600,000.
And if the cost of exposure is 5%, do you know what that USD 600,000 means?
It means the exposure would be USD 12 mil.
A paltry sum to institutions.
But at that price level, many token holders would clamor to sell everything.
So you won't be seeing 50 VERI on sale.
Maybe 5,000 VERI would be on sale.
That translates to USD 1.2 bil worth of ETH exposure.
And without that 98 mil reserve, the sky is not the limit.
And if you still don't understand me, then I really feel sorry for you.
I hope many others that read my comments will understand and get smarter.

And hey, let's not forget, as tokens get used up for exposure, they get recycled back to Veritaseum for resale.
So at USD 12,000 per token, Veritaseum would earn that much per token resold back to the market.
Which is why I also said it before that my suggestion to burn the 98 mil reserve WILL NOT harm Reggie's bottom line.
Which is why I also said it before that there is no such risk of having no redemption.
Which is why I also said it before that the main problem is not about burning the 98 mil tokens in reserve, but about the adoption.
The 98 mil reserve serves as nothing but depressor, unnecessarily, because of Reggie's greed.
But I also said it many times in the past that burning the 98 mil reserve will not hurt his bottom line.
So his greed is not impaired by listening to my suggestion.


Update:
Reggie the dishonest says burning the token is manipulating the price.
So if Mercedes/Ferrari/Lambo does a super car and limit the production of such cars to limited edition of just 100 units, pricing each car beyond USD 1 million, can we say Mercedes/Ferrari/Lambo is manipulating its cars?

Update #2:
Another thing that you still need to understand, which you continue to fail to...
Is that as tokens are divisible, their supply is not a problem.
If VERI is priced at USD 1 per token, everyone can afford it and the get traded in quantities of 1, i.e. 1 VERI, 2 VERI, etc, no fractions.
This effectively means 2 mil circulating supply is exactly that... 2 mil.
But if the price adjusts to USD 1,000,000 per token (example), nobody can afford it now in quantities of 1.
So now it gets traded in fractional quantities of, say, 0.000001, i.e. 0.000001 VERI, 0.000002 VERI, etc, in fractions.
This effectively means 2 mil circulating supply is equivalent to 2 tril (yes, trillion) circulating supply at USD 1 per token.
This is made possible because of the high divisibility of erc20 tokens.
Which is why I said it before the 2 mil circulating supply is not a problem because it is highly divisible.
Which is also why I said it before that 2 mil circulating supply cannot meet demand excuse is simply bullshit.

Update #3:
It is SELF-LIMITING that cost of exposure using the VeADIR needs to be set manually by Reggie.
Manual setup in this digital age = primitive mindset.
By right, the cost should be made dynamic in accordance to the latest market price, continuously.
This is to ensure institutions buying VERI for exposure at any price on the way up will not have speculative risk AND will not have increasing cost of exposure due to increasing token price.

Update #4:
Reggie's dream for his 98 mil reserve to be sold out to earn some several billions of USD will materialize extremely slowly, if ever at all.
He should pray and hope that his dream will materialize before the sentiment dies out, or before another competitor emerges.
Otherwise, he can kiss his dream goodbye.
Institutions are not stupid.
The market forces are not stupid.
The current price is depressed because the market forces somehow instinctively already factored in (or still in the process?) the 98 mil reserve as part of circulating supply.
If Reggie is smart, humble, and flexible enough and buys up as many tokens as he possibly can with his own fiat money and/or hard-earned savings before proceeding to burn the rest of the reserve (he could be buying from himself a tiny portion from the 98 mil reserve), then his dream to earn many hundreds of millions (depending on his % of stake in the overall) to several billions (depending on his consultancy services that generates mass adoption) will materialize very fast.

Because I have knowledge and common sense.

Because I know that no institutional buyer is buying VERI for speculation purposes. The VERI token simply doesn't meet the criteria most IB would have for an investment. Namely, volume and liquidity. If they buy VERI tokens it is to use the VERI services.

I mostly agree. Finally you have something right!
But I am not fighting on Reggie's side. I am on the side of truth and logic. Truth and logic has no agenda.

By this statement, you now understand why it is not necessary for Reggie to burn his inventory. He can keep his 98M tokens for the institutional deals which will have little or no effect (as you've just stated) on the 2M tokens already circulating.

No skin? I'm sure Reggie has a pile of VERI he'd like to see appreciate in value. I'm also fairly certain the company sells (or could sell) VERI that are redeemed for fiat or use VERI to pay their bills, including his salary, depending on where they are at with consuming their ICO money/ETH. He has plenty of skin in the game, and it sure looks to me like he's working pretty hard for a man you say has 'no skin' in the game.

Again I agree, this is probably not too significant other than media and notoriety that brings additional exposure and marketing for the token itself. They might be private deals as far as the details but I'm sure Reggie would require a press release to get the word out, and I think the press and advertising will bring more new token holders to the platform to use the VEADIR or rent/borrow tokens or buy research.

The only exchanges of note are ED and Mercatox. If Reggie burns his inventory tonight and makes a deal tomorrow, that's the only option.

Business decisions to use the VEADIR or license VERI services won't be made contingent on the ability to acquire tokens on those podunk exchanges. Why? Because it's impossible for a business to know how much it would cost them to buy 10,000 VERI tokens. Based on current price that should be $1.1M. A business can make a decision to use VERI if they know that they can execute their plans for $1.1M in this example and get an expected return. What they aren't going to do is go about buying 10k tokens on the open market, knowing that they will push the price up and with the uncertainty that buying that qty of tokens in a short period of time might actually cost $5M while driving the price of the token up with the huge purchase. Maybe it would cost $10M to get that many tokens. With the uncertain costs and risks of buying large quantities on podunk exchanges, no business is ever going to be able to commit to a deal to use VERI, it's just too risky. The only way is to make a direct deal with Reggie at a known price.

I disagree because the alternative scenarios you propose (institutional buyers buying large quantities on Etherdelta) are fantasy, for the reasons I've already mentioned. Reggie needs inventory to sell to make the institutional deals. Now maybe he could make do with 10M tokens or 20M instead of 98M, but it shouldn't matter since - as we've discussed - those tokens shouldn't ever touch the exchanges.

Summary in 3 points:

1. Reggie's current 98 mil reserve adds ZERO value to token holders and to network effect. Spending his own fiat money to buy up as many tokens as possible before burning the reserve is the most ideal for all (for Reggie, for Veritaseum, for token holders, for institutions).

2. There is no risk of zero redemption as long as adoption is there for tokens to be used, recycled, and resold by Veritaseum. The main problem is not whether there is any reserve in case of institutional demand. The main problem is if the adoption does not take off, making the tokens worthless. If adoptions takes off, then there is no risk of zero redemption as many will be spending their tokens for exposure. Don't worry about the supply. If adoption takes off, the market will dictate the fair price of VERI as well as the cost of gaining exposure per every 1 ETH. By right, the cost of gaining exposure should not be manually dictated by Reggie. Even if price gets volatile, if the VeADIR allows immediate exposure right after purchase, then there will be little to no trading/speculative loss to those genuinely in it for the exposure. At the moment, signing MOUs to develop similar tech to VeADIR is NOT direct adoption of VeADIR, but merely signs of upcoming competing tech. If Reggie can increase the adoption of VeADIR, then burning the 98 million reserve is never an issue. If Reggie cannot increase the adoption of VeADIR, then even if he keeps 98 quadrillion reserve would still be useless. The issue is not about having or not having any reserve for increasing demand. Reggie should leave this to the market. But having a reserve will lead to price depression.

3. If possible, don't overcomplicate things with the renting feature. Make the tokens function solely for gaining exposure. I.e. I buy the tokens from an exchange. I spend them for exposure. If I want to gain more, I can buy more tokens for more exposure. Spent token can be recycled and resold back to me by Veritaseum. Even if I buy at much higher price, I am not worried because the VeADIR will continuously adjust the cost of exposure based on the current market price of the tokens. If I buy at higher price, I will just spend less tokens for the same ETH worth of exposure. There is no trading/speculative risk to me unless only if I want to take such risk by hoarding. I don't want to be messed up unnecessarily with how my tokens can be spent in one situation and how I can get back my tokens in another situation. Overcomplication is good if only it is necessary. Otherwise it is not.

And by the way, I don't mind if one day Reggie finally decide to burn the reserve and say it's Masiah's idea or Andrew's idea.
I don't mind if others take the credit for my suggestions.
Similarly, I don't mind if others will sing praises at Reggie for being such a genius if good things come out of burning the 98 mil reserve.
I am only in this for the money, just like everyone else.
And I believe my way/suggestion is the best way for making money, effectively, optimally and honestly.

You talk as if you have tons of clue, but are you sure you are not fooling yourself?

What is in place to give assurance that tokens bought from Reggie's bulk will never enter the circulating supply?

Previously I thought if those 98 mil reserve does not enter the circulating supply, things would be fine, but on second thought I think not.
The 2 mil circulating supply will still be open to market manipulation that will influence the purchase price of the 98 mil reserve.

You need to realize that NONE of the 98 mil reserve's economic gain, if ever they will be sold, will flow to you.
That's purely 100% Veritaseum's economic gain.
So why in the world are you fighting on his side?
Strange.
No! Even if all the 98 mil reserve is sold because of extremely high adoption, those adoption will NOT translate to higher economic gain to you because...
1st: They are bought and resold from the 98 mil reserve owned entirely by Veritaseum.
2nd: They do not enter the circulating supply, but instead gain exposure immediately after purchase, they do NOT influence the network as touted by Reggie, i.e. no network effect.

At the moment, Reggie and Veritaseum has ZERO skin in the game because whatever they have is either free or unpaid for.
Do you even fucking realize that? No skin in the game whatsoever!
If Reggie uses the company's own fiat money to buy up as many token as possible and proceed to burn all the reserve, then Reggie and Veritaseum will also stand to benefit greatly from burning the reserve!
Now Reggie and Veritaseum would have real skin in the game and whatever he does will stand to benefit us directly too.
What? You don't like such outcome? You don't think this outcome is far more ideal?

If I am an institution buyer, and I buy in bulk from Reggie's 98 mil reserve and gain exposure immediately and ask that my purchase be private and confidential and my purchase will never enter the circulating supply.... in other words, the entire interaction/process between me and Reggie is "closed-door".... from buying the tokens in bulk, to gaining exposure, to recycling the token back into Reggie's reserve.... how in the world do you ever think my purchase will enhance/increase the network effect in any way?

Any exchange that sells VERI will do for the institutions, it doesn't necessarily mean the exchange has got to be ED.
And mechanism can be easily in place to make sure institutions buying even at very high price (due to limited supply) will be able to gain an exposure almost right away to avoid speculative loss.
Reggie's 98 mil reserve generates most of the economic gain to Veritaseum.
My suggestion to burn all the 98 mil reserve is so that most of the economic gain can be generated to us the token holders.
I am like a shareholder of a company that demand change of approach so that I and the rest of the minority shareholders can have a much bigger economic pie.
I am puzzled why you are so foolish to disagree with me.

You need to understand: Network effect is enhanced only if interactions happen directly on the network itself, i.e. institutions and non-institutions interaction with each others within a network. If any participant can interact with each other on a persistent basis outside the network, then whatever the interaction (buying from Reggie for exposure right away before being recycled and resold again as part of the 98 mil reserve) will have NO EFFECT on the network.

Chances are, YOU are the one that have no clue!

Update:
And by burning all the reserve, there will be no need to make things overtly complicated through renting.
In other words, tokens cannot be rented out; they are strictly only for exposure, and thereafter be recycled and resold.
This simplifies further what the tokens truly are, making them more of utility tokens than securities.
Renting out tokens may be seen as overcomplicated attempt by the regulators to hide the feature of being a security.
Token holders will still stand to benefit much even without the rent feature.

ETH and NEO are the true 2 cryptocurrencies that I like the most.

Update:
I don't dislike VERI. I only dislike Reggie's 98 mil reserve that can be recycled and resold over and over again without much of the potential economic gain going to the token holders. And previously I thought a policy in place to make sure any bulk sold from the reserve not entering the circulating supply will do, but further thinking made me realize those interactions will NOT improve the network effect.

Imagine you have a MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game). This MMORPG will have maximum network effect value if it remain massively played by everyone online. If out of a sudden, a separate network exists whereby a massive amount of players can play the game offline, then the online version of it would have very little network value.

If the world population is  7 billion, with each person eating 2 to 3 meals a day, totaling a max of 21 billion meals a day, what will happen if a food producer produces 21 trillion of meals a day? Yeah, sure. You can say the excess 20979 billion of meals be fed to both any pet dogs and stray dogs for free.

That's an old link. I believe all of the content has been migrated to: https://veritas.veritaseum.com/ve-blog

upset not so rapid growth as we would like. I think the project is good and interesting, but we should try to somehow draw attention to it to a wider audience

I do not know if the problem is in my browser, but when I try to access the webiste https://blog.veritaseum.com/ formatting is a bit unconfigured, which would be the best browser to access the platform?

You really have no clue! If hedge funds and exchanges buy tokens from Reggies' supply, those tokens will never see Etherdelta or any other exchange. They are not going to be purchased for speculation, they will be purchased to pay licensing fees and access fees (i.e. software licensing). These customers are not going to buy VERI to speculate on price appreciation. As the tokens will NEVER hit exchanges, they will NEVER affect price.

And although you laughably disagree, Reggie is never going to tell large customers to go buy their tokens on Etherdelta as the only source of tokens. I know you think these billion dollar operations are willing to piss around with half-assed exchanges like ED, but I can tell you with certainty that they will not. They want to write one check to Reggie and get the agreed upon services. That's how business works. It's a shame you don't see or know that. You could really benefit from an economics course and business degree.

is the top 10 exchange already revealed?

Hello Dorkie,
I have been reading your messages for quite a while, mostly on PPT.  You helped me break out of my 'married to my favorite tokens' mindset and you were also the one to first alert me to the PPT FUD.  Oh, how I wanted to believe you were wrong!  Anyway, I have been studying global finance for over a decade, which ultimately brought me to BTC many years ago, but I cannot say I understand everything you are writing about PPT and VERI.  Indeed, I find VERI actually very difficult to understand, with the off-chance that it is actually rediculously easy to understand and I am just over-complicating things.  Anyway, here is my question for you: what coins and tokens DO you like?  I mean, you seem to be on a rampage against the cryptos you dislike, but I do not believe I have ever heard you mention those that you do. Perhaps I missed those posts, not sure.  Married with kids and only so much time to devote to this stuff.  PS: I have recently pulled back out of most alts and am hiding in BTC.  The exceptions are platforms, I am holding these (am I married to my favs again here???).  Would love to hear your list or just a 'hit' or 'shit' answer on ICX, AION, WAN, THETA, TAU, ETH, POA, ZIL.  Thanks!

Food. The more food available, the more populations grow -- increasing the demand for more food. Reflexive self-reinforcing nature. Is very big food amounts in the world?

Reggie: "Ah ha ha hah... Will you burn your own money? I won't burn mine. So I rest my case."

Dorkie: I have already rebutted your "burn your own money" fallacy.




Reggie: "Look, I am a businessman. I am for-profit, not for-charity. I need to have reserve in case of no redemption."

Dorkie: I have already rebutted your "no redemption" fallacy.


I know you are a businessman. And I can feel the extent of your materialistic greed.
We are all greedy, but at least try to do things in a fair and balanced approach to garner the most support.


Update:
Imagine the real estate industry.
Imagine there is a total of 1.5 billion households worldwide.
Imagine every property developer in aggregate develop 1.5 trillion units of property.
Assuming each household has only the need for 1 property (no need for more as there is nobody in need of renting)...
What do you think will happen to the remaining 1498.5 billion of excess property units?
Whether the token is security, or utility, or software license, it cannot escape the balancing forces of demand and supply.
If you have too much of something, be it a financial product or non-financial product, the oversupply will always bring down the price overall.
There is absolutely no such thing in this world that having more of it will make its price go higher, or having lots more of it will make its price go much higher.
This is devoid of economic science and logic.

Update #2:
Now imagine all the 1.5 billion households that own 1 property each, can also rent out their property to tenants.
If you happen to be so broke that you cannot afford a house on your own, you will now have no problem finding a place to stay because oversupply of houses will see all the 1.5 billion householders competing with each other to rent their property as cheap as possible to you.

Household #1: "I will rent you a room for USD1,200 a month."
Household #2: "No, I will rent you one for USD1,000 a month."
...
Household #1,500,000,000: "Rent from me. My best price is USD1 per month!"

At the moment, the best strategy for the tokens is getting the 98 mil reserve burned.
And the best strategy for Reggie and Veritaseum is to spend his own real fiat money to buy up as many of the 2 mil circulating tokens as possible before burning the 98 mil reserve.

In this way, Reggie will have real skin in the game.
And token holders' interest will be protected.

Reggie using few millions of his own dollars to try out the VeADIR to gain exposure is not equivalent to having a skin in the game.
His fiat money in exposure can be withdrawn once the exposure is over.
His 98 mil reserve is not skin in the game because those are free "money" to him.
His ICO sold 2 mil worth of tokens and that is not skin in the game because those were money paid to him to develop his project.
If Veritaseum fails, Reggie will not lose any money.
If Veritaseum fails, Reggie will only lose his opportunity to make big money. He will not lose any money vested because there is none.

Currently Veritaseum's market cap is around USD 198 million.
Even if he is going to come out and criticize me for being wrong for saying he has no skin in the game, that he has invested personal money to develop his blockchain project, I say any amount involved is paltry compare to the USD 198 million that a majority of the token holders are owning.

My suggestion to burn all the 98 mil reserve tokens will help ALL token holders to realize their financial dreams.
How come nobody support my suggestions? I suppose nobody wants to realize their dreams anymore.
If burning the 98 mil reserve is manipulation, then...
Holding 98 mil reserve for sale is both manipulation AND ripoff.

I hope the next time Reggie the idiot ask anyone if he/she will burn his own money, someone that reads my points here will counter his question back.
And if Reggie uses his "no redemption" imaginary problem as justification, someone that reads my points will point out his fallacy.

What truly puzzles me is that while my suggestion to burn all 98 mil reserve will help the price to reach optimal level, and everyone here is looking for major gains to buy a lambo, it seems nobody agrees to my method.

Reggie says burning the token is a manipulation of the price.
And everyone blindly agrees to that.
It is as if Reggie says eating shit is nice, everyone would agree to that too.
But why is having 98 mil in reserve not a manipulation too?
Having 98 mil in reserve is manipulation + ripoff.

Reggie would then talk about redemption to justify the reserve, to which I recently just answered that risk of no redemption is a non-issue.
But Reggie being stupid (I was right when I said Reggie only has competency in financial analytics, and nothing else) can never see how and why the risk of no redemption is a non-issue.
And so he will continue to peddle his 98 mil reserve.
To which that approach will continue to depress the price.
Reggie's strategy to reserve 98 mil for sale is a value-sinking strategy.

I have my reservation for the project and if the news is true, it should not make some people blind to such a defect. The unburnt token at 98% is enough for a disastrous sell out of the profit on the project. The project was planning a 2x value of ethereum but struggling to make half of it. If just 20% of the unburn token is now sold it will crash the price more.

Nothing to back it up?

Really?

Seriously?

Honestly?

In the beginning, Reggie talked about how Veritaseum is going to disintermediate the financial industry by tokenizing assets and securities.

But now...

Veritaseum is nothing but a platform to gain exposure to trading cryptocurrencies.


1. If you think cryptocurrencies is the same as conventional financial assets, then you are very wrong.
2. If you think providing exposure to trading cryptocurrencies will disintermediate the financial industry, then you are very wrong.

You are very wrong because you still do NOT understand the fundamentals of trading, the fundamentals of the financial industry, and the fundamentals of the cryptocurrency industry.

You just think the ICO market will help you buy yourself a lambo and so here you are vested in it.
And when discussions take place to your dislike, you call it FUD because you don't want to lose your money.
In actual fact, you never really know how to make money in this ICO market.
You are just betting on pure dumb luck hoping everything will work out fine.

I thought fanatics exist only in religions.

I never thought fanatics can also exist in ICO.
In fact, it seems to me fanaticism in ICO is more serious than fanaticism in religion.

Fanaticism in ICO has everyone calling everything "negative" as FUD.
By right, proper evaluation of why something is negative should be done to learn the truth.
But fanatics take the easy way out by calling everything "negative" as FUD regardless of true or false.

All the hardest questions have already been answered repeatedly in my explanations.

Your replies reveal your ignorance because the answers were already given.

One buyer buying all of the tokens is the SAME as a hedge fund buying just $1 mil of it.
The market mechanism remain the SAME.

If you see me as ignorant, chances are YOU are the ignorant one.

If you cannot even understand my points in words, then you will understand it even less so if I explain things in mathematical equations.
Even if I were to explain things in charts, graphs, and infographics, it would still be not understandable to you.
I have already answered all the hardest questions.
If you don't yet know it, it means you have problem comprehending.
Otherwise, you still have no idea about trading in blockchain-based market microstructure.
If so, then it is your problem.