RIP bitconnect

Now people can pay attention to populous instead of ponzi schemes. Daily wrote in here how bitconnect is a ponzi hope nobody was in that.

I didn't.

Where/when did they announce that?

I didn't.


They did revise it, however it's not fixed $3 million, but 30% of total contributed ETH and no less than $3 million.

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?

They can't get exchanges because they don't have an active telegram feed with open discussion. Exchanges look at volume.

It has more to do with people understanding the fundamentals and deriving their proper conclusions whether to dump their tokens or not. As a matter of fact hardly anyone understands what the token that they received is actually meant to do or deliver. That's why they dump. But the same goes for large parts of investors. Even they don't know what they actually bought very often.

Hey Everyone,

We just published an Update for our Community
https://medium.com/@Realisto/update-for-our-investors-and-our-community-8fd28bc6979e

If Reggie wants to have institutional users for Veritaseum platform, he should be humble and approach small-timer users first.
Small-timer users are easier to approach, easier to close a deal, and less demanding.
He should aim low first (to promote adoption and increase participation) and only to aim high later once he has an existing + proven user base to convince the big-timer users.

Does anyone know what the plans are for the pxt token? Can't see anything on populous's twitter feed. Is there a new company coming, or an ico?

They said that about Ethereum when it went from $8 dollars to $400 in afew months time. "oh its overvalued"   few months later it's over 1k lol

In terms of being overvalued that's up to each and every person to decide on their own. My opinion is that PPT is actually undervalued. Populous is rank 26 right now on CMC, which is still very good! But Tron doesn't deserve to be in rank 13,  Heck,  Bitconnect doesn't deserve to be ahead of Populous in the rankings but it is.  Are these projects really worth more than Populous?

Again i'm going state that Populous is undervalued in my opinion. Simply because there are so many other useless projects are valued at 10x or more than what populous is valued at,  you could also just say everything ahead of populous is overvalued,  but will the market agree with you?  

Populous to me is worth alot more than these projects.

 Pretty sure this is a token that i'll be able to pass down to my children. Business invoice factoring will be here forever. Populous are the first to bring this to the blockchain. And they are serving a market that will never stop growing.   PPT is priceless to me. Because i don't plan on selling it... Ever.


My local Cafe love's crypto's,  they accept Bitcoin and Ethereum as a method of payment, They were already interested in populous before i'd even mentioned it to them, They really want to try out the Beta i don't know if they'll get in or not but they are much happier to be financed by Populous which goes to be helping someone like me a PPT holder than deal with the banks,  I think this gives you an idea of just how ready business's are to jump on board


 If you want to talk overvalued just look at Tron. or Ripple for that matter. Multi billion dollar market caps yet they don't even offer anything new, Tron has its competitors, And people can just use Bitcoin instead of Ripple. In terms of actual "intrinsic value" Tron and Ripple don't offer anything new

Populous on the other hand are about to launch the the first invoice financing platform on the blockchain. They have no competition in the blockchain space. Giving PPT a value that is truly unique

Tron may be a good project but they are still a very long way from achieving their goals, and the "value" that TRX has to offer will never match PPT's


The fact that PPT has managed to keep a $40+ evaluation for so long only goes to show that the market itself does not see PPT as being overvalued

I think he is only implying that ALT has a great uture fr 2018. Meaning what ATL price now can still be surpassed wiyhin the year. So we better hold it.

In bounties, it stillot distributed, after they send the last spreadsheet for checking, then distribution process takes place.

I was doing some sort of a research and imo ATL is one of the blue gems for 2018. HODL on this is only a start of the party

i always believe blockchain can change the world.so i will hold it.

So tell us what is that?
I have followed this project before pre sale start, and the ico running well without any big issues. Did you see the price right now? If you see it, study the chart since the first time ATL hit the market, and you'll understand how precious is this project idea.
If you holding some of ATL tokens, then you have to be happy. Read this https://medium.com/@bitcoin_fox/atlant-benefits-for-tokenholders-e600f8b952f1

not really. 2 years ago there was a bear market in crypto, did people lost faith? it has nothing to do with having faith. its about over valuation.

hah, I already forgot about this character. everything happened as we predicted, he/she just disappeared