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!

Looks like the certificate has expired,

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

Indeed, it's a waste of time to do so sadly, refute the point and another straw man is thrown in.

I think it's fair to say that everything crypto is below an all time high achieved months ago.

We get it, you don't like VERI!

A few of rookie mistakes revealing your agenda there Mr Fud,

1.) You've laughably chosen the peak (19th) for your July data point, at least wait until the 19th of this month and post it then.
2.) You've chosen the BTC high not the USD high to FUD from, the USD high was on the 23rd; I know the yellow line is higher, but work out what they mean.
3.) In massaging the figures to suit your agenda you've pushed your 6 month time frame out to 8.

Other than that though, top FUDDING

16th August 2017 - $117
16th February 2018 - $280

 

This guy

You're right, it must be everyone else in the thread outlining their reasons why they disagree with you, including now the project owner, that are "intellectually bankrupt"


I think you'll find you've just made your first statement that everyone will agree with unanimously, take a bow son.

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.

This guy

Veritaseum is a business looking to sell Veritasuem tokens for services, you cannot just change the parameters of the token in order to "get rich quick" a bunch of previous investors which you seem desperate to see, meanwhile expecting to be taken seriously going forward, remember all those FUD cries of "scam"? Well they'd be fully legitimised with your token burning, how can you expect anyone to have faith in the Veritaseum ecosystem if they mess about with the core principles?

If you're in the business of selling the token as the Veri team are, how would you explain a "token burn" to your next potential clients?

"Oh yeah, well we sold X amount to this company last week at $400 each, but now we've burned a load of the tokens, so it'll cost you $4,000 each"

 

I was thinking earlier about old time gold rushes and how other than those who got in really early, the smart money wasn't being made trying to find the gold, but selling the tools and carts.

I think this applies here, Bitcoin is the goldrush, and Veritaseum the tools and carts.

It's an impressive rise today given that Etherdelta is still currently stuffed.

This project really hasn't had the rub of the green! But importantly it keeps striding forward

This is looking slick, REALLY slick.

They often have interesting discussions, but yeah what is with the web-bot malarky, why do so many people pay so much attention to it Is there a verifiable track record of it being correct?

Interesting times ahead as we're Veri much under the radar here still, the FUDDERS are still FUDDING https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/19/100-cryptocurrencies-described-in-4-words-or-less/ <- though I don't think it's an intentional hit job, I think the author is ignorant and a bit of a PUDDING


If Reggie hits this out of the park as he's suggesting above the price will take care of itself and the fundamentals will be set for a solid long term hold. "Lambo" talk is crass and would, if you're familiar with the the objective of Veritaseum, be a potentially catastrophic misallocation of capital.

Read Reggie's statements RE multi generational wealth, that said, hell it's your money do what you want with it

If Reggie announces a killer deal in the near future would you still state he's "incompetent and has no will power"? Whether this happens of course remains to be seen.

Hell maybe your ICO stories happened, I'm not ruling it out, he's a busy guy and likely didn't have time to answer everyone mailing him direct.

Like I said I participated in the ICO with a small investment, you know what I had to do? Follow a step by step guide on the VERI website, a direct link to it was tweeted by Reggie more than once, sorry to hear those people couldn't follow simple instructions, perhaps they can join those in the salty corner who didn't invest due to the look of the website.


Well, Reggie currently defines "the right thing" as a route of action you're unhappy with, hopefully it'll still make you money, and by default everyone else here.

All the best.

Of course it's time consuming! And if he bites, the FUDsters will keep on fishing.

Having watched Reggie doing livestreams, they're usually between meetings so he's making the most effective use of his time possible, the FUDsters didn't even bother to attend his last livestream despite the start time being announced in advance.


Having participated in the ICO and ticking the box of making a small purchase (which went through fine) I'd like to hear more about this allegation.
Are you saying they refused or rejected ETH sent to the ICO address? Because we could check that using ethplorer or such.

If it wasn't time consuming they'd have already done it, if it was an effective usage of time above what they're dealing with now, they'd have already done it. They likely also realise that even if they refute everything from a FUDster they will just cook up more, why does it matter if a FUD company set up overnight "appears stupid"? It doesn't, they've effectively wasted the companies time and they can just create another account / domain / identity and start again with similar worded, but essentially the same old FUD.


Everyone is "idiotic and dumb" for not thinking the same as you? Including by your assertions the company founder who has refuted (with reasons) multiple times the needs for points 1 and 2, which is unfortunate for you because he runs the company, and you do not.

I don't think anyone here is going to argue against work needing doing on 3 and 4, and probably 2.
I agree that yes the FAQ could do with updating, yes team transparency could be better and yes the website could be slicker than it is. But, I also believe that Reggie is focusing his and the team efforts where he sees maximum value for the business, clearly this is not currently aligned with what you want to see and is irksome, especially if you have a large holding as you state.

I agree with you on the likely "price" action (ie tank) if there is a failure to seal deals such as the JSE and others, you raised this yourself, so I have to ask what do you want more? Deals closing, or your list of points to be addressed? Clearly there isn't the resources right now to do both.

All the best.

I'd rather Reggie be out doing deals and what he thinks is best for the business, which makes sense given he runs it...

The VERI team could spend days putting together the most comprehensive FAQ, or full lengthy video refutations (which would mostly be going over old ground) the FUDsters wouldn't stop, if they're not disclosing who they are and why they're paying to spread FUD then they clearly have an agenda and won't stop regardless of circumstances. These FUDsters know very well that the order of magnitude to refute BS is much, much higher than it is to spread it, it's an effective tactic to waste a companies resources and time.

We all have to remember this is a private company, so unfortunately we can't be privy to everything going on, whilst it's possible we have good suggestions we'll never be able to see the full picture as opposed to those working on the inside, you either trust Reggie and the team to do what's best for the business with the resources at his disposal, or you don't.