That doesn't make any sense. You're basically saying that if he wants to target institutional users, he should start by approaching people that are not his target?
Whatever I say will not make sense to you. Even institutional users come in various range of size; small, medium, and large. Instead of targeting large institutional users (like stock market operators), he may want to target small institutional users (businesses having the need to tokenize assets) to establish a convincing user base first.
Or to put it differently, instead of going for institutional users with business operations in the multi billions of USD, try targeting institutional users with business operations in the multi millions of USD. This may come as a surprise to some with no business strategy skillset, but it actually makes things smoother and more promising. One small steps at a time instead of eyeing for a huge big leap.
And stay on course (don't divert to elsewhere) on the platform being used for asset tokenization as well, beside providing P2P exchange. Asset tokenization will be one of the major economic wealth generation in the future.
So far, using 1 VERI to get 100 ETH of exposure for trading purposes is a petty venture. Good short-term prospect, but lousy long-term prospect. Where is the feature for asset tokenization, which is a great long-term prospect? Asset tokenization opens up a huge market for commercial financing and ownership, and Veritaseum being very early to have a close to fully-functional commercial platform, should also start establishing itself as the first to do asset tokenization for real.
Update:
And since VERI is very divisible, it should not be negative if used token can be burned to reduce the supply, just like many other ICOs are doing. Then value gain from holding VERI would be more positive. Market value goes up along with declining supply = bullish. Otherwise, we will see market value going up to multiple figure (just imagine) and yet the supply remain the same, putting a big brake on token price bullishness. As the token is very divisible, burning used token does not cause harm to Veritaseum's bottom line.
If my suggestion to burn token is feasible, viable, practical, and reasonable/logical, then it should be seriously considered. That's how progress takes place. Not by stubbornness, but by flexibility.
Update #2:
In fact, if 50% of the total token supply is burned, leaving only 50 million instead of the original 100 mil with 98% waiting to be sold, then the token price would be super bullish. Economic value to Veritaseum isn't in selling the same supply of VERI over and over again repeatedly, but in selling a dwindling supply of VERI that continue to increase in value higher and higher. And whether the value will increase or decrease does not depend on how much supply Reggie is holding in reserve, but in the economic use case of Veritaseum. There is no point not to burn used token if adoption/participation is weak. But if adoption/participation is strong, then burning used token will give further boost to the wealth generation effect of holding VERI. And the adoption/participation of Veritaseum depends on its economic use case, not on recycling sold token back to Veritaseum to be sold again and again. Because this recycling does not add any economic value to everyone, then by reasonable and logical right, burning used token should be seriously considered. Or better still, burning the 50 mil in reserve that will very likely never ever going to be sold would be even better. And if Reggie stubbornly insist on recycling sold VERI back to Veritaseum to be sold over and over again, then what difference does it make having 50 mil in total supply vs having 100 mil in total supply? The supply will not dwindle to zero anyway. And if the turnover will be high, then it makes no difference having 50 mil vs 100 mil in total supply. But in term of wealth generation to VERI holders, having just 50 mil in total supply means a very big difference.
Update #3:
Nowadays there are many ICOs that burn all unsold token. Even with very limited circulating and total supply, the business operation remain as sustainable as ever because the token is very divisible. If token is not divisible, then 100 mil means exactly 100 mil. But since it is very divisible up to 18 decimal, then 100 mil can mean 100 mil x 10^18 in total supply in the absolute sense, which is insanely far more than necessary for everyone's use. Since Reggie is flexible in regulatory compliance, then why not be flexible in burning unnecessary supply of token too?
A person's family wealth is not dictated by how much greed he has in his heart and mind, but by how much economic value he can contribute to the society.
Update #4:
In fact, the more token is burned (from that 98 mil supply in reserve), the better. A poor guy can have 1 VERI to get 100 ETH exposure. If supply is burned by 10x less, then price will adjust to 0.1 VERI for 100 ETH exposure. Will this impact institutions trying to buy in bulk from Veritaseum to use the platform? Not at all. The value proposition will remain just the same as before. Institutions and government agencies are very hard and slow to change. Will Reggie be just the same?
If you disagree with the CEO's approach you probably should sell your VERI and move on. I don't see that changing... ever... no matter what is posted in this forum.
I for one, have full faith that Reggie is running his company very effectively and pursuing the highest value opportunities and customers first. Be aware that his priorities are going to be for long term sustainable profit for Veritaseum, and not necessarily for token holders. Although I will argue that most things good for the company are good for the token holder.
You suggest some measures to manipulate token value by manipulating supply, but I do not see the current supply and distribution as a problem. Until this big dump, VERI had a $1B valuation which is phenomenal by any measure. I fail to see the driving need or value in making any changes to token supply, distribution, or usage.
