Feel free to join the queue.

Because marketcap is price.

Step 1. Imagine you were offered a 1000th share in a new Audi A3 for 8$. What would you do ?....you'd have no clue until you multiplied 8 x 1000 to determine what the seller valued their vehicle at, in this case $8000. The book value of an Audi A3 is $40k, so you'd conclude the deal was good and make the purchase.

Step 2. Now imagine there were actually 5000 shares and unknown to you the balance of 4000 were being sold to other buyers "under the counter". What would happen when this information became widely available ?

1. The value of the car would stay the same (Book value still = $40k)
2. The market (i.e. "you") would immediately revalue your unit share down by 80% to account for the newly reported unit liquidity

That's the recipe by which Veritaseum has gained such a high Token to Coin ratio at the moment.

Now consider the Audi A3 example in terms of "marketcaps" (i.e. we see the value of the car as the 'marketcap' of the issued shares. Never mind whether they're circulating or not, it's the 'issued' shares that we're interested in).

Go back to step 1. When you originally were offered the price of 8$ per share, if you now use the correct unit supply factor to calculate the price of the Audi A3 you'll arrive at the full $40k. (Your $8 unit price x 5000). You compare that to a VW Gold at $30k and decide it's a bad deal.

What swung your decision in each case was the marketcap of your asset (=price of the car). That's the only handle you had in each case on the value of what you were being offered. You calculated that in the first case you were being offered an asset at below market price, in the second case you were being offered an asset above market price.

This is why Ethereum blockchain issuers do this trick of "holding back" tokens. It's nothing to do with garnering network effect and everything to do with passing risk from the issuer to the investor because the issuer is left holding all the capital while the investor is left holding bags of worthless tokens that took the issuer about 2 minutes to create.

In a classic equity exchange this doesn't happen, because your invested capital is held by the company in which you own shares, so your shares are worth something even if the entrepreneurial idea is crap. In token investments however you don't get squat of the issuers equity, just a bunch of tokens backed by a few lines of code.

P.S. Mined coins are a whole different case which is why I made a distinction between "coins" and "tokens" in a previous post. With mined coins, issuance is decentralised and an ICO entity cannot determine the distribution.

Here's some more 'hilarious' commentary for you:

Close Brothers plc Marketcap is around 2.6 Billion GBP. The UK monetary base (M0) is around 500 Billion GBP* which would put Close Brothers cap at just below half a percent of that. Close Brothers has 139 years of  trading and returns behind it. I cite it simply because it they are a going concern with a measurable value in terms of both marketcap and viability, a long history, comparable trading sectors to the "Clif High" pumps of VERI (securities exchange) and PPT (invoice factoring) and stable both in operation and valuation. They're not huge - they only employ 3000 people, so no Goldman Sachs (34,000 employees).

If you want a comparison at the absolute extreme, take British Petroleum: marketcap is around 114 Billion GBP = 20% of UK M0. (A more realistic monetary base for the UK is M4=around £2.1 Trillion, but being conservative in all appraisals).

Now lets consider the prospect for Token to Coin exchange rate of VERI in this context:

Veritasium marketcap calculated by the most conservative of means is currently around 1.8% of its monetary base (Ethereum) with another 98% of its actual value excluded from this calculation. If we (properly) take the "value contained in blockchain" cap against its native monetary base it's at 100% ! (The reason I use Token-to-Coin exchange rate is because as more fiat denominated capital moves into crypto, some will go to the monetary base and some will go to assets denominated in that monetary base. So the ratio gives us an early insight into whether a particular non-monetary asset is over or under valued by comparing it with its 'price-discovered' equivalents in the legacy sector).

Lets be generous. Let's take Veritasium's value as a proportion of ALL cryptocurrency market capitalisations, in which case Veritaseum's reported marketcap is still around 0.5% of ALL capitalisations. i.e. the same size as 139 year old Close Brothers proportionally. But remember, there's still that 98% of marketcap sitting in the issuer's wallet and is "in circulation" (being the wallet who's contents are currently being traded in OTC trades in order to capitalise the issuer's corporate equity with fiat). When we properly include that in the calculation, Veritaseum's marketcap arrives at a cool:

$21 Billion $USD

i.e. Around 10 times that of Close Brothers plc.

No doubt there is upside for Veritaseum in terms of its dollar value. The more significant question is, is there upside in terms of Bitcoin/Ether value ?

So Where is The growth ?

Growth is a very general term. It can mean size, value, market liquidity, subscribers, transactions, adoption - anything. It doesn't necessarily mean "Token to Coin exchange ratio" which happens to be the priority of most small Veritaseum investors. VERI will possibly grow in some of those aspects, the question is how and to which stakeholder's benefit ?. Here's my analysis of that:

 • liquidity will grow (more buyers will be found for the contents of Reggie's [company's] wallet) which will help any large holders wanting to cash out to fiat

 • the fiat denominated market capitalisation of Reggie's company will grow (because as those 98 Million tokens get distributed, all the fiat received goes straight into a bank account that does not back VERI's value but does increase the equity value of the "company that Reggie Middleton works for")

 • the ecosystem will grow (because as Reggie rightly points out..."Metcalfe's Law and all that")

 • the token to coin ratio with fall and VERI holders will lose value against crypto monetary bases like Ether and Bitcoin (because that ratio has to fall to pay for all of the above gains. The big one being liquidity. The next one being compensating for the the huge disparity between perceived marketcap and real marketcap)

 • there is a speculative offset to the falling exchange ratio which is revenue or asset gains from use of the token, however this is as yet unquantifiable and its sources unidentifiable in anything other than a very general sense

TL;DR Conclusion:

 • If you want to accumulate dollars using VERI as a vehicle, possibly hold as there is more mileage in all of crypto and VERI will be riding the wave
 • If you want to accumulate Bitcoin or Ether, take profits now cos this is as good as it gets according to history :-)

Sources:

BP Market Cap:
https://ycharts.com/companies/BP/market_cap

Monetary Base (UK)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MBM0UKM

Close Brothers:
https://ycharts.com/companies/CBGPY

Total Cryptocurrency Capitalisation:
http://coinmarketcap.com/charts/

Veritaseum full Marketcap by Blockchain Issued Tokens
http://coinmarketcap.com/assets/views/market-cap-by-total-supply/

* The Bank of England stopped publishing M0 in 2006. The published M4 money supply is around £2 Trillion. (Source:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/Documents/bankstats/2017/jun/taba2.2.3.xls
http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/pages/bankstats/current/default.aspx)

The FED's figure of £500 Billion as a nominal base is around 6 times the 'notes and coins' quantity often quoted as M0 in other places).

1. It's not a "coin". It's a token - huge difference.

2. It "would" be great if its success was based on quantifiable fundamentals as opposed to Clif High's fanbase buying it and Gliss complying with under-reporting the marketcap by a factor of 50

No I'm not. "Authorized Capital" and "Share Capital" relate to corporate equity, not a bunch of blockchain tokens. Please re-read my post on the distinction here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887061.msg20021640#msg20021640

Plus my reply to Reggie's lame rebuttal here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887061.msg20032859#msg20032859

Here's a new word for you you may not have heard of:



What that means is if the currency is fungible then a token with a given valuation at one end of the blockchain is substitutable for a similar token at the other end.

I'm not aware of an accountant that would testify to the Veritaseum blockchain being any less fungible than any other, but if you are then be my guest and post their views here

In the meantime, if you need a real world example of how misrepresented marketcap grossly distorts token-to-coin exchange rates then here's a convenient one that appears topical given the last few posts on this thread:

For 1 Bitcoin, you can currently pick up a mere 9 VERI tokens, despite there being no real world use cases other than a lot of "it's coming' handwaving and mumbo jumbo about decentralised security trading which is a contradiction in terms since all traded equity securities are subject to regulation anyway right now.

Meanwhile over on the PPT market, you have a token with half the supply of Veritasium, a crystal clear use-case that's a far larger commercial market than Veritasium's, software about to roll out in alpha and a well defined & quantified revenue stream for token holders.

Despite having only half VERI's supply, you can still pick up 922 PPT for 1 Bitcoin.

Go figure.

Reached the top of the scamcoin list also:

https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/views/market-cap-by-total-supply/

FTFY

Past ETH on marketcap.

Closing in on Bitcoin.

We hit 1:1 with Ether on coin price.

Check this awsome commentary on reddit for the full politics surrounding the flawed economics and Segwit/BTC scaling, why they don't want to natively scale it etc.

TL;DR Version:
Blockchain loading isn't a linear function. You can get huge backlogs interspersed by smooth operation across the board on a stop-start basis and therefore the much vaunted "fee market" is an unrealistic illusion.



Full link: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/6ndfut/buttcoin_is_decentralized_in_5_nodes/

1. There's nothing "whole new" about it.

2. It's not a "stock market paradigm". It's an accounting paradigm in which (like any other accounting paradigm) value does not 'disappear'. It's simply accounted for somewhere else.

You don't appear to understand how things work around here.

Only 2 million of that supply is counted towards token marketcap. The other 98 million goes towards capitalising the issuer's corporate equity (presumably, since it is an asset of their's). You therefore might be better off investing in the company than the token if you're concerned about it
 

Be my guest.

All you need to know about Dash...

1

I think you have difficulty understanding the difference between value and turnover.

You can value something without having to trade it.

Lets say Ethereum blockchain contains a total (and current) supply of 10 ETH.

Somebody creates a smart contract that generates 100 tokens called 'trikToken' (TRK).

ETH trades at $1 per unit.
TRK trades at 30 cents per token.

ETH marketcap = $10
TRK marketcap = $30

TRK marketcap has exceeded ETH marketcap.

Dorky.

Your analogies with cars, highways and oil are endearing but slightly off target I'm afraid.

Go back and think again - this time ditch all notions of volume flowrates and go with exchange rates instead. You might get somewhere then  

A blockchain asset is no more "leverage free" than 19th century signal box. What do think exchange tokens are ?

Anyway, you're confusing the concept of "leverage" with that of exchange rates between independently traded assets. An Ethereum meta token (such as the ERC-20 token) does not derive its value from being backed by the Ether blockchain token. It derives it from an independent business model. The aggregate marketcap of all those tokens combined can therefore easily exceed that of Ether itself without there being any 'leverage' involved. Nor does their marketcap transmit directly back to the value of Ether (though it may do so indirectly).

By that warped logic, the credit market of a nation could never exceed the base money supply.

In fact it exceeds it many times. (Because slightly more sophisticated concepts than goldfish and tanks apply).