Topic: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD - page 32. (Read 251024 times)

Yes, I initially figured it is a mental issue, but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt by conveying the idea that you might get paid for stirring the proverbial. Sorry, my bad.

"You a piece of shit" - Thank you. I take it as a compliment coming from you.

I am just a usual, like you. Don't act like you are specially involved.
I am not doing with so many other good projects. So far only Veritaseum and Populous (which I do not believe is under a good team).
Unless you have evidence, you should not make accusation that I get paid by anyone.
Just the same as I can also make accusation that some projects paid you to shill.
I didn't invite your response; if it is tiresome, then you can always freely get lost.
Complete waste of time and yet you try to provoke response from me.
You are the one wasting my time.
You a piece of shit.

I disagree with your limited viewpoints.
I see you are arguing for the sake of arguing and I do not wish to waste my time on you anymore.

I do not see what you know is even of any significance nor importance, and thus I disagree with anything you want to say from here onward.

I fail to see why it is a problem that bulk purchases are going through Reggie and his company - they legitimately own the tokens. You are like usual just here to mix the proverbial like you're doing with so many other good projects. I don't know how much they pay you, but it is getting tiresome. And no - I am not going to respond to you beyond this. Been there, done that. Complete waste of time.

Assuming a bulk purchase is defined as $100k+...
I can appreciate the benefits of automation, but for what would appear to be a low volume (low number of transactions), the expense and trouble of implementing a function on a website to automatically receive and process ACH or wire deposits of that size is fraught with trouble, especially concerning KYC/AML. Given the size and low number of transactions I don't see why this would or should be a priority at all and is best handled manually.

Right now the platform is still not fully independent, because bulk purchase of VERI still needs to go thru Reggie, manually.

If a system mechanism can be in place whereby bulk purchase is available thru the platform itself (without the need to go thru Reggie) and that such purchase will automatically expend the bought tokens almost immediately for investment exposure, then not only will the platform be more independent than ever, the price bullishness will also be maintained without the need to burn any unsold token.

I would have no problem burning all my tokens IF their values can be regenerated over and over and over again thru renting and recycling for reselling.

While my tokens cannot be regenerated, yours can (thru renting and reselling).
So it makes an unequal comparison.


Update:
In case of misunderstanding, my tokens rented out (temporary forfeiture of ownership) is not the same as the tokens rented out (to an end user) to be used in the platform.
My tokens earn a tiny fee from renting them out, but as they are used for the platform, it gets recycled into Veritaseum's inventory for reselling.

When you asked if I would burn my tokens, you are asking from the perspective of a seller to a buyer.
I am not a seller, and thus I have no advantages that the seller has.
For me (as a buyer) to burn my tokens is totally not the same as for Reggie (as a seller) to burn his.
A buyer cannot have spent tokens recycled back into his MEW wallet to be used again.
A seller can have spent tokens recycled back into his inventory to be resold again.
The amount of time a token can be used to a BUYER is one time (1).
The amount of time a token can be used to a SELLER is unlimited (~).
Similarly...
The amount of time a token will generate economic value to a BUYER is one time (1) per use, unless it keeps being rented out repeatedly for a tiny fee.
The amount of time a token will generate economic value to a SELLER is unlimited (~) regardless of the number of time it is being used.
Thus, for a BUYER to burn his token is NOT THE SAME as a SELLER to burn his.
A BUYER burning his token results in destroying his own economic value.
A SELLER burning his token results in NO destruction of any economic value, because existing supply can be resold over and over again to generate unlimited economic value to the SELLER.
By right I should not need to be saying all these because they are obvious to those already in the know.

Update #2:
The system is good, but can be perfected further.
Why not strive for perfection?
But of course perfection can still be attained without absolute necessity to burn any unsold token, provided the below is in place.


Update #3:
The economic value relates to the commercial industries that Reggie is tapping into thru professional means and services.
The supply game relates to how such economic value is being sliced and diced between Reggie and the rest.
I am not here demanding Reggie to forsake his own economic value for the benefit of others.
I am here suggesting Reggie to expand the economic value of others while at the same time has no impact to his own economic value.
Nobody is at loss here by following my suggestion; not Reggie, not Veritaseum, not the team members, and not the direct end users.
But the one that stands to benefit far more are the token holders.
If my suggestion to burn unsold token (or put in place assurance that tokens from bulk purchase will be used immediately for exposure) is a form of manipulation, then I say it is a manipulation where absolutely ZERO victim is involved.

Would you burn the tokens that you have, now? I likely feel the same way. I don't have time to engage in a debate with you, I just want you to think in terms of economic value and not supply games.

A lot of ICO investors are intellectually bankrupt and I am very confident that includes you too.

If you understand, you understand.
If you don't understand, there is no further need to keep repeating the same thing.

If my token holding suffers major loss, so will be the same to you.
So you better wish my token holding is doing astronomically great.
Unless if you are a retard, arguing for the sake of arguing.

Dorkie has nothing more to say because he clearly cannot refute the point, instead setting up straw men and resorting to ad hominem.

As answered elsewhere already, most would agree it stems from this https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/veritaseum/ and is an informal barometer for project growth.

Microsoft also don't do pier to pier financial transactions, furthermore rather than waste more time with this straw man, you can put "rent microsoft license" and "resell microsoft license" in your search engine of choice.



A token burn could have worked, the time for it was immediately after the ICO, prior to making and setting up deals, doing it now or further down the line raises all the negative points previously highlighted.

Dorkie I wish you all the best in your token holding here, if you refuse to acknowledge there's a downside to a token burn so be it, regardless I think it's fair to say banging your token burn drum doesn't appear to be getting much traction.

I love the new website. It is well-designed and get to the point quickly. Look at the bios of "executive" team members to understand that they are as solid as it gets.

Indeed, I have nothing more to say to those that does not understand.

Go watch his videos again. Referencing the market cap is..... WRONG, regardless of what you recognize as useful. Once again, go watch his videos.

Whether you agree or disagree, is irrelevant to me.
People here can disagree with every single point I make and you expect me to be troubled into explaining myself every time?

Update:
Nevertheless, do not misunderstand me into thinking I am against Veritaseum.
I see the project is as legitimate as it can be.
Just that burning unsold token would make things a whole lot much better to the token holders without any impact whatsoever to Veritaseum nor to the end users.
You can disagree that burning the token will have any impact to the price; I don't think you really understand how valuation works (despite being shown the calculation).

Update #2:
The only one thing that can make the price to be equally just as bullish as if the unsold tokens are burned without actually burning any unsold token is by making sure those who buy in bulk from Reggie will actually be the direct end user of the platform, maybe by signing an agreement that the bulk sold will be spent for actual use, i.e. getting exposure, and not for trading/speculating.
Or a system/platform mechanism in place whereby tokens bought in bulk from Reggie would be almost immediately/automatically be used/spent for exposure.
Unless such assurance is in place, there is always the risk of VERI getting overvalued due to manipulation, exploitation, or pure foolishness.

There's a difference between following through on a promise which was made pre-ICO and asking VERI to burn inventory which they never promised and are under no obligation to do.

Um, in the second quote in this message (taken from the previous page in this thread) you state that it is "more financially rewarding for token holders" if the supply is reduced. So if, by your very words the intent of reducing supply is to boost the price, how is that not price manipulation, and further, if we believe what you say why do you have nothing more to say?
I don't know which of Reggie's references you are referring to but very recently the price of VERI was approaching $500 which gave it a market cap of close to $1B with a circulating (not total) supply of 2M. As you know, market caps are very often referenced with respect to all crypto projects in discussions. I very much disagree with the common perception or discussion of market caps for crypto in general because most aren't securities and can't be compared to the market cap of a company listed on a stock exchange. However, I do recognize that market cap is useful in discussions to relate to a project's size, importance, relevance, or overall acceptance by the crypto world and marketplace. I don't think Reggie's references are any different but I would need the full context of his statement to say that he was referencing what was the approaching $1B market cap based on circulating supply and token price approaching $500.
I have no objection to burning the unsold supply if that's what Reggie wants to do. I just happen to agree with Reggie's logic that it is unnecessary. I also disagree that the price would go up on any kind of lasting basis if unsold tokens were burnt. I do agree that it could be done and it wouldn't significantly affect the operation so VERI but I do disagree about it hurting the bottom line. Right now Reggie can sell off inventory into the markets to raise cash. He loses that ability if he burns the tokens. It's basically a line of credit, and even unused lines of credit have value.

If you keep believing reducing the excess unsold supply is equal to manipulating the price, or scam, or "get rich quick", then really I have nothing further to say.
Just as I have nothing further to say to someone who keep believing a cat is a dog.

You want to talk about legitimacy.
Reggie implied his Veritaseum is worth several billions of market cap, based on the total supply.
If VERI is not a security, then why relate it to the market cap?   <<< -- yeah, ignore answering this all you like
Reggie compared VERI to Microsoft's licenses but Microsoft does not rent nor resell its licenses.   <<< -- yeah, ignore acknowledging this all you like
You want to talk about legitimacy.
Please make sure your so-called legitimacy is fair and objective.

You guys have zero logic.
You guys have zero objectivity.
Now, you are against burning the excess unsold supply, because some idiot named Dorkie suggested so (I am speaking your mind).
But in an alternate world where the burning is carried out, you guys would sing praises at Reggie for being smart.
You guys are so blind.

oh very nice project. i am really interested in this project. good roadmap, dev members

Interview with Reggie Middleton and Kavan Davani today:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhF5KUElPYc

wow, nice website! euhm, maybe i'm wrong, this could go a lot faster... 0.1 btc in march 

From Reggie Middleton:

Meet Team Veritaseum. WE HAVE 8 TECHNICAL & FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS WHO GRIND OUT PRODIGIOUS AMOUNTS OF VALUE FOR VERITASEUM. THE PEOPLE BELOW ARE THEIR BOSSES, and yes, Masiah is still here, launching a multi-exchange, multi-asset arbitrage bot shortly https://veritas.veritaseum.com/team

Somebody is sneaky buying all the veri in the dips since december. it hasnt falling out of its bullish trend since, even with the bear market. Not many tokens outperform btc, this one does. 
In this (slow) uptrend channel its likely veri hits 0.1btc in July. Thats like $2K a veri..   

From Reggie Middleton:

New Veritaseum website explains our VeResearch module. It enables our research team - the same team that called the fall of Bear Stearns, Lehman, GGP and the European Sovereign Debt Crisis - to work with our Financial Machine (VeADIR) in unprecedented ways https://veritas.veritaseum.com/veresearch-platform …