Topic: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD - page 98. (Read 251011 times)

Exactly... don't respond to trolls.  You keep quoting him and he thinks he's getting the attention he desperately needs.  Can you PLEASE STOP quoting him?!??!

Yeah, I do believe in lots of things, but it's not like you can list them all out here.
And you are just playing word game here with unsubstantiated claims.
From most of your comments, I can see you are not academically/formally educated, more like self-educated.
And you do not have professional background in any field.

big wall gets eaten

Indeed, you believe lots of things I notice. Nevertheless you can take it that I'm not suggesting that VERI itself is a corporate entity but rather that it can manifest as an asset of such a corporate entity.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DFaNbuOW0AASrAG.jpg:large

new slogan? like it!

By suggesting participation in VERI is an investment, you are implying the token is an equity.

Similarly, you also used a completely flawed example of accounting to indicate Veritaseum's equity is zero.

Thus, I strongly believe you do suggest the token was/is equity.

Veritaseum — Revolutionizing Smart Contracts and Peer-to-Peer Capital Markets: http://www.cryptocoinupdates.com/veritaseum-revolutionizing-smart-contracts-and-peer-to-peer-capital-markets/

VERI is a tradeable token and I didn't anywhere suggest it was equity.


Ah yes, the JSE, thanks for the correction. https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@mind-steem/update-from-reggie-middleton-veritaseum-is-taking-jamaica-to-the-next-level


So what is the nature of the MOU  and who are its signatories ? Is the actual text of the MOU in the public domain ?

Reggie, have you ever thought about shaving your head bald and your moustache/beard too?
You may actually look 20 years sexier if you do that.

It is unfortunate that toknormal is a cheerleader to Dash, because:
1) If bitcoin scales successfully, the role of providing anonymous/private transactions can be taken over by bitcoin.
2) If bitcoin does not scale, regulation will still eventually be in place and stifle Dash's future.

Either way, Dash is a sell.

toknormal is just making things up as he goes along.
Every single argument he make can be discredited.

All TokNormal ever post are to cheer the super instamined DASH and troll the VERI forum....   Why are you guys even responding to him.  Just stop.   

You clearly don't understand VERI. Watch Reggie's latest video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHFPGtVxq4

VERI is software, NOT equity, not anything else.

EDIT:
At the end of the video:
"There's going to be some media reports coming out, that's going to be an INTERESTING ride!"

I appears that you believe our venture is with the Bank of Jamacia, but it is with the Jamacian Stock Exchange. Also our venture with the JSE is not so they can speculate or invest in VERI. They are purchasing VERI to use it for it's utility value, in this case, the development of the digital asset exchange. Therefore it will not affect the market cap reported by coinmarketcap.

I wasn't alluding to market supply, I was talking about blockchain supply and how much of it counts towards "commonly reported" marketcap.

They are 2 distinct metrics.


"Institutional investors" (such as large hedgefunds) are generally prohibited from investing in unregulated markets such as Bitcoin. But if you can create a paper company, then create a token (on the Ethereum blockchain) and find a way to have that company "own" a portion of the blockchain value then you've basically packaged the blockchain asset into an "equity wrapper" which could in fact be digestible by "institutional investors".

That equity packaged token can be far more attractive to investors like Bank for Jamaica for multiple reasons:

[1] By investing in the equity of a company which owns 98% of the blockchain value, they still have huge exposure to the token trading price

[2] They bypass laws that don't let them operate in unregulated markets

[3] They potentially gain exposure to all of the intellectual property associated with the token technology (which token holders do not)

[4] The equity "buffer" passes exposure to downside risk from the equity holder to the "naked" token holders since equity holders retain a holding in their original investment capital which token holders do not

There are also advantages for "Reggie's Company"

[1] He can capitalise it from the ICO markets without loosing any equity (which he would do in VC markets)

[2] He needs to find liquidity for 98 million tokens than he could not find in the ICO market

[3] The tiny traded volume delivers him a price with which to negotiate with potential "institutional investors", but not without risk. So to mitigate that risk for the institutional investor he gives them access through the 'wrapper' which means that their investment is insured to some extent even if the token price crashes

[4] In that way he can further capitalise his company (but this time by compromising equity) from the institutional markets. However the huge abundance of tokens in his possession means he has nothing to loose and has passed the entire project risk to the token investor primarily and the institutional investor secondarily

The reason for the low initial offering was to mitigate the risk for small investors at the ICO stage. He had to do this to get some investment in at all costs otherwise there would have been no quotable market price for the tokens as an asset.

Those with most to loose therefore are "naked" token investors who invest now. They will carry the risk on behalf of:

 • Initial investors
 • "Reggies company"
 • Institutional Investors (who invest in the token asset through the "Reggie & Co" Equity wrapper)

Of course I am making assumptions here because we don't really know what the genuine business plan is behind this ICO. But either way, anyone investing in the "2%" market now will be checkmated into holding all the risk by the three groups above as far as I can see.

Why would a transfer of VERI from "Reggie's wallet" to JSE's wallet change the supply numbers or supply dynamics? Do you think JSE is buying VERI to turn around and dump them? They are not buying VERI to speculate, they are buying it to use.

Having JSE buy equity of Veritaseum makes no sense, no company operates like that.

How is veritasium different from EOS or ETH?

VERITIZE iT! YEAAYAA it is the best thing you can doooo...dont criticiiiize it.. VERATIIIIZE IT! YEAHYA  

Ok. I'll be patient.

But let's say JSE/Banks of Jamaica and other "institutional investors" make an investment of $400 Million in VERI (not unreasonable given that they did $47 million yesterday alone in foreign currency purchases).

That puts another 2 million VERI into 'circulation' which will send the commonly quoted marketcap to $0.9 Billion (just below IOTA) without any gain reflected in the value of current investors holdings and with still another 94 million tokens in reserve on the blockchain.

How will the existing market view that ?

As a huge shorting opportunity I would have thought.

That's why the only way I see round this is for Reggie not to sell the actual tokens but to sell equity in his 'company' instead which holds the balance of the blockchain supply. That way he can use the minority 'market traded' supply to support the equity value of his company and play both ends of the market (equity and token). Also, any intellectual property that gets developed as part of this project can be owned by the corporate equity holders, not the token holders, so that gives further incentive for 'institutional investors' to go for the equity rather than the tokens.

Just a thought. But that's how I'd be thinking if I was Bank of Jamaica (or Reggie himself for that matter). i.e. a recipe for a "convergence of will" concluding in a "convergence of wallets"

These things don't happen overnight. I don't know what kind of bureaucracy exists at the JSE, but I'm sure that takes time to work through. Additionally, it has got to take an enormous amount of designing and planning to this implementation which will completely revamp how business is done at the JSE. Be patient.

Maybe the JSE wants to do due diligence and wait for a measurable ROI - understandable.

A "convergence of will" is always important though. For example I'm sure that during the 60's there was a "convergence of will" between airlines that wanted to buy planes that carried passengers supersonically, for a cheaper than a Viscount per seat mile and the manufacturers who wanted to sell them said planes. Unfortunately that "convergence of will wasn't matched by a convergence of wallets due to a slight problem with the oil price and prevailing oil cartels.

However, Reggie isn't selling supersonic transport so we wait and watch wait said address for evidence of an "institutional sale" (as long as it isn't another address of Reggie's in which case it's contents would of course not count as being "in circulation").

The question is, how can Gliss tell the difference ? Does "the company the Reggie works for" give them regular updates or what ?