Bitcoin Forum
February 17, 2019, 09:31:12 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
1  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: April 05, 2018, 03:03:05 AM
If you don't understand the business model, how can you explain how an action has no effect on the business model?
I'm not shooing away CB, Cliff, etc. because they aren't claiming to understand something that they don't, while calling me greedy. You think Kevin's proclamations are a direct competitor that may teach me a lesson if they somehow issue a partial tokenization and bring it to market before I do something similar. You don't get it, which is evidenced by your repeated calls for burning tokens.
That, in itself, is not such a bad thing. Everybody can't understand everything... But the ad hominem attacks on top of the ignorance... Calling me greedy.... Come on dude. Chill out!
Just like Kevin is not trying to tokenize the Ritz Carlton for you, we are not aiming our services at you, either. I think Kevin will follow your management consulting advices before we will, so I suggest you bring your ideas over to him. I wish you the best of luck, my friend.
2  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: April 05, 2018, 02:46:33 AM
Are you a HNW or institution that will put between $1 and $50 Million USD to work? If not then you are not the target demographic. It's really that simple. There's no need for me to go further nor address your ad hominem attacks.
I could care less if a bunch of armchair biz operators (apparently such as yourself, reiterating  a call for burning inventory as if that would somehow reduce a contingent claim on a common pool of economic capital - which it won't) call something they do not understand a scam. My goal is to operate and execute. Thus, this scam has run circles around everything else that has launched around the same period.
3  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: April 05, 2018, 01:50:19 AM
What Kevin is claiming that he is trying to do has very little to do with what we do. Your misunderstanding of our business model is likely part and parcel of why you're advocating burning valuable tokens and why you feel the product is complicated. Be aware that the products and services that we are developing and selling is not directed at you or your demographic, hence your confusion and/or misunderstanding of the product's value proposition is not necessarily a bad thing. 
4  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: February 09, 2018, 06:25:07 PM
Dude relax, you made your point. You're a thought leader. You seem bright, let's make this a productive place.

How about making suggestions on how to improve the product?

What other ways could Veritaseum provide value to the world?

I have a very hard time giving suggestions on how to improve the product.
Last time I suggested having a FAQ on the website and even such simplistic suggestion was met with oppositions and I had to stand my ground firm.
Eventually, the FAQ got implemented and almost everyone praised Reggie for doing the right thing.
I have no problem if everyone forgets who was the real initiator of doing the FAQ, as long as money can be made.
It's not like my generosity will be appreciated even if given for free, so why fucking bother.
Now someone ask me what other ways to improve Veritaseum, I seriously ask myself why the fuck should I even bother to care.

The FAQ was initially Masiah's idea, it just took time to implement because the site was not a priority at the time, the product was.

Your response to burning tokens was inaccurate, and verbose. You and Veritaseum are the same in regards to the VERI tokens. You are owners. You are both prospective buyers and sellers, but one thing that is true right now is that you are owners.

So, once again, as an owner, will you burn your own inventory?

Your thesis about recycling is academic. We obviously have not recycled your tokens if you are still HODLING them. We can't force you to redeem them, but even if we could we can't control the timing of the redemption.

Think about what would happen if we burned our inventory and then you decide not to redeem your tokens, or even if you do decide to redeem the choose not to redeem at a schedule that matches our need to acquire new customers. We're essentially out of business. Why? Because we foolishly burned out own inventory and revenue potential to satisfy a short sighted view of synthetically (and temporarily) raising the 2nd had price of our software licenses?
Does that sound like prudent business practices to you?

In addition, you defeated your own argument. If you can rent VERI and receive a token stream and your VERI back, you are in effect recycling your token. In and out (plus some) in and out (+ some)... Get it.

Listen! I'm a businessman. Not a short term thinker. I have no problem creating value the old fashioned way, through economic profit. I have no need or desire to burn my inventory to mimic the facade of increased value.
Or put another way, I'll burn my inventory right after you burn your!!!
5  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: February 09, 2018, 02:08:09 AM
Um, in the second quote in this message (taken from the previous page in this thread) you state that it is "more financially rewarding for token holders" if the supply is reduced. So if, by your very words the intent of reducing supply is to boost the price, how is that not price manipulation, and further, if we believe what you say why do you have nothing more to say?
Indeed, I have nothing more to say to those that does not understand.

Dorkie has nothing more to say because he clearly cannot refute the point, instead setting up straw men and resorting to ad hominem.

If VERI is not a security, then why relate it to the market cap?   <<< -- yeah, ignore answering this all you like
As answered elsewhere already, most would agree it stems from this https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/veritaseum/ and is an informal barometer for project growth.

Reggie compared VERI to Microsoft's licenses but Microsoft does not rent nor resell its licenses.   <<< -- yeah, ignore acknowledging this all you like
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.

A lot of ICO investors are intellectually bankrupt and I am very confident that includes you too.

If you understand, you understand.
If you don't understand, there is no further need to keep repeating the same thing.

If my token holding suffers major loss, so will be the same to you.
So you better wish my token holding is doing astronomically great.
Unless if you are a retard, arguing for the sake of arguing.

Would you burn the tokens that you have, now? I likely feel the same way. I don't have time to engage in a debate with you, I just want you to think in terms of economic value and not supply games.
6  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: December 28, 2017, 08:12:10 PM
Sorry if this has been answered before but what is Reggie planning to do with the unsold remaining tokens? Im loving this project and all the progress that has been made.

As far as I can remember it will be used for testing and gradually sold off to large corporate entities, wealthy families, etc. that will actively use the software. A portion will also be used for marketing and to compensate VERI staff.

To be exact: "Research and Development 30%; Sales, Marketing, Business Development:30%; Operations: 13%; Legal: 10%; Reserves: 10%; DAO liquidity provisions: 7%" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By5WJsM3KjltOGJHYS1HT3Uyczg/view)

So basically any unsold token can be dumped into market as it isnt in escrow?

The tokens are our product, which we sell for profit. There is no "market" to dump them in from my perspective, for there is no common pool of earnings that will be diluted by the issuance of new tokens. As long as the tokens sold (or even given) are being put to active, productive use, the value of the tokens increase as per Metcalfe's law and the network effect. You seem to be confusing our prepaid fees with stocks.
7  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: December 28, 2017, 08:09:13 PM
HI,

how do I  download the rental app?
I've tried downloading from your website and blog and keep receiving this
ipfs resolve -r /ipns/Qmf2AieNkV9V9TPNCFvdfC1VJk1G7UJG52mvbJ7hRbnor9: Could not resolve name.

There seems to be an error with the download link. I've notified Reggie. Hopefully they will respond and fix it soon.
The standalone rental app is no longer available since the full suite is now in private beta. It will be in public beta early January"-ish".
8  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 27, 2017, 01:40:52 PM
I'll the board directly. Unortunately (or fortunately , depending on how you look at it) we don't have the time to address every silly little accusation because we are very busy working, generating value and making deals. Masiah and I (and his little sister - yes, I bring my kids to as many business meetings as possible, and they participate!) just got back into town fron our 2nd meeting with the top ten global securities exchange . It went very, VERI well, Our next engagement with them is about two weeks away and we are all very excited, yes... them , as well.
Of course, this is not a done deal and it could always fall through, but things look positive and if the next engagement goes as well as pllaned I wouldn't be surprised if we coundn't push a deal/trial through withing 6 to 8 weeks after that.

Here's a tidbit of informaton, we didn't talk tech until we actually I actally started walking out of the door, and this was a 2 and a half hour meeting with three top execs! This is the power of Veritaseum, a true multi-disciplinary approach, not websites and whitepapers. We are blockchain agnostic. The document that I and my team left the execs with was like nothing that they've seen before, and preceding me were all of the usual suspects in management consulting and blockchain tech.

Now, as for this hacking conspiracy nonsense, the stolen tokens belonged to Veritaseum. We do not have to steal our own stuff, If I was going to sell tokens that already belonged to us, I would just sell them... and I wouldn't sell the at half price, either.

The hack was fairly sophsiticated, and it is ongoing. Physical computers and devices are being stolen, even from other countires. These guys are determined, bu we are not by ourselves. We have a very strong and supportive community, and we are in the process of investigating bigger help, ie. state and federal prosecutors. So, whoever it is, keep it up. You will not be simply fighting the VERI team, but the US govt. and potentially the govt. from other countries as well should they decide to come on board. The consequences are high, with more than just a few years in jail. We are not joking around.

On a related note of unwarranted attacks, Veritasem is being misrepresented heavily in the media. Some entities have even crossed the line ino slander. We seek, and desire to have a strong and fruitfull relatioship with the media, so you can imagine our dismay when we get nothing but negative (and oft inaccurate) coverage when the vast majority of this token's life has been incredibliy postive and without precedent. I will put several examples here, and will reserve several other examples for strategic reasons.
This is an article from Ethnews.com. In all fairness, the reporter/editor that I spoke to sincerely tried to do the right thing. It appearse that his higher ups had different plans. On the left is the original article, on the right is the article ofter the original was pulled, leaving a 404 error for an unspecified amount of time. Is this what has happened to journalism in the digital asset space?
You guys should really be ashamed of youselves.@ReggieMiddleton: There's been a slew of unerhical hit pieces in the media targeting Veritaseum, ignoring plethora of good news. Can @ETHNews_ explain this?

Coindesk finally ran an article on us as well.
They didn't run an article on the #1 asset in cryptoland.
They didn't run an article on the best performing asset in cryptoland
They didn't run an article  on the precedent setting deal with the Jamacain stock exchange, a first in the crypto universe.

But they did manage to run a hit piece on a hacking with some undfounded negative inferences.
I'm not going to include the email that was sent to me from Coindesk, out of professional courtesy, but I will post my reply to there queries about the hack and allegations on this thread that it was not really a hack, but something else. I want you to look at my email response, then look at Coindesk to see what they chose to release. Again, if you are looking for the news on one of the most innovative token offergins, gaining the most traction, making the most sigificant real world deals, performing the best, holding the number one, two or three spots on coinmarketcap, you really must query... Are these the sources to get fair and unbiassed reporting?
Remember, I'm not casting aspersions, I'm just asking the questions and scarttering a little fact here and there. If there is a news outlet looking for the scoop on high performance token concerns yet is also interested in fair and balanced reporting, hit me up. I'd love to chat and have a boatload of interesting things to say. Oh yeah, here's my email responseto Coinesk:


The address that was hacked was our address, and the address with the 97 million VERI is our address as well. We emptied the suspect wallet as soon as we sensed it may have been compromised. The hackers got to about 00.04% of the tokens.
Since the address is ours and we did not authorize the withdrawal, we came to the conclusion that it was hacked. The activity that you are referring to in the wallets (other than the hack) is regular ongoig business activity.
A renown company that we use was compromised (we are not going to name the company nor the attack vector, but it has been sealed quickly), which we now know led to the hack and we are currently weighing our options.
You saw "a" comment stating that, apparently a troll (yes, there are trolls on the thread).
These people seem to think we would find more value in playing games with[out] (this was a typo on my part) our own assets on an exchange rather than continue to execute at the breakneck pace that we have been doing thus far, landing UHNW medical practice owners, the 50/50 joint venture for what will likely be one of the most innovative digital assset exchanges in the world with Jamaica Stock Exchange - with meetings with the Financial Services Authority and the Jamaican Central (these were within 45 days of our ICO close), one of the earliest patent applications for the use of this tech in capital markets and hopefully a multi-trillion global exchange group and $20B+ hedge fund - both of whom have shown significant interest in becoming clients and whom we are on our second meeting with.

As you can see, we have a lot going on in regards to industry precedent-shattering business. See MOU attachaed.
9  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 24, 2017, 10:08:33 PM
Reggie the nog stock tout was involved with this? Yeah I think I know where those tokens went. Right into the coon's pockets.
...

"The talent of that team is what you are purchasing when you purchase VERI."

Nameless payets you found and hired over the internet you black shyster.

Overpriced LOTTORY tickets. If you don't see a SCAM or at least a bubble... then GREED has blinded you. Be careful people.

So, is this the true, and unsaid source of the movement against Veritaseum? At least your coming out and sayng it.
10  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 24, 2017, 06:52:33 PM
I would like to make it known that we had the option to fork VERI, but chose not to. At the end of the day, the amount stolen was miniscule (less than 00.07%) although the dollar amount was quite material.

How did you came up with this math magic, 00.07% of all VERI? $8,400,000.00 is a LOT and represents, 1.82% out of the $460M MC on July 23 or 2.24% out of the $375 MM on the time of writing. (July 24th, 12:05 PM EST)

Now, you can see how inconsequential the mere hack of a few million dollars

You're like Dimitry Karamazov, "yes, I drunk up half of your money but I am not a thief. For if I were a thief I would've drunk up 100%". Than again, after drinking up another half of what has remained...

Do not fucking downplay the seriousness of the heist. Or a "mere" $84M could be next in line.

Damn.

This is not magic math. There are 100M tokens issued, the hackers stole about 37k. As I said, it is quite disconcerting, but it is not the end fo the world. In the scheme of things, this is small. The tokens were stolen from me, not the token buyers. I am not downplaying the seriousness of the heist either, but I am looking at the heist for what it is. A company that we use was compromised, the vulnerability was closed, and we are investigating whether we should move against that company or not.

As for Dorky,  yes, execution of management and the team play a prominent role. That was evident in our marketing materials. Just as with EA, the quallity, dispersion and sales of their video games is highly reliant upone the execution of the management and the team behind them. This should be no surprise. I also was clear to say "team". This is not about me, its about the team. For some reason, you want to make this about me - as if I can write patent applications, write code, architect software, create valuation frameworks and analyze companies all on my own. The talent of that team is what you are purchasing when you purchase VERI. I have went out of my way to ensure that is the case.

If you are not comfortable with the team and the utlitly they enable the software endusers to manifest representing the value in lieu of an inanimate piece of code itself, then maybe you misunderstood the value proposition. There's no difference between Veritaseum and team representing the value than there is between Gates and his team (MSFT), Zuckerberg and his team (FB), Page and his team (GOOG), Bezos and his team (AMZN). or a whole host of other value creators.
11  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 24, 2017, 01:05:34 PM
We were hacked, possibly by a group. The hack seemed to be very sophisticated, but there is at least one corporate partner that may have dropped the ball and be liable. We'll let the lawyers sort that out, if it goes that far.

Although I hate to see assets stolen, and I hate theives, the incident proved both the resilient demand for our tokens and the utility of the decentralized exchange EtherDelta.

The hacker(s) made away with $8.4M worth of tokens, and dumped all of them within a few hours into a heavy cacophony of demand. This is without the public knowing anything about our last traction.

I would like to make it known that we had the option to fork VERI, but chose not to. At the end of the day, the amount stolen was miniscule (less than 00.07%) although the dollar amount was quite material.

Another point that I would like to make clear is that Veritaseum tokens are software that represent our knowledge, advisory and consulting skills, products and capabilities. Without the Veritaseum team, the tokens are literally wortheless! If someone were to someone confiscate 100% of the available tokens, all we need to do is refuse to stand behind them and recreate the token under a new contract. Again, we aren't selling currencies, we aren't selling securities. We are selling capabilities, and ability for those capabiliteis to connect parties P2P for the autonomous transfer of value. You can get away with a large securiteis heist, or a large currency heist. The Veritaseum team is what powers the value behind the Veritas token. A large theft of those tokens after a fork is as valuable as stealing 90M empty plastic cups.

The "marketcap" as the media likes to refer to, may seem high to those who don't understand how we employ platform economics, but those who understand should see that number as drastically undervalued. We have a roadshow for the NYC & Conneticut hedge funds next week. The Sr. partner of distressed credit of one of the world's largest funds specifically took the meeting after hearing about what we are doing. "This is big, very big" (that is an exact quote from the person who arranged the meeitng, who is a 40 yr veteran of Wall Streat, a literal brand name know by nearly every experienced professional - someone who had aggressively jumped on board team Veritaseum to assist in business development), for we are simultamesouly lining up private and sovereign credits to Veritize. This is in addition to what may be our final meeting with one of the world's top ten securities exchanges to use our product. That is in addtion to our Veritizing a medical practice as a showcase for doctors and healthcare biz pros around the world to emulate (using Veritas, of course). Think of us just capturing 50 basis points of all of the medical practices and related healthcare businesses in the world https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Life-Sciences-Health-Care/gx-lshc-2017-health-care-outlook-infographic.pdf
Which will actually scale exponentially with out financial industry dealings (assuming we can capture .02% of that http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/what-percentage-global-economy-comprised-financial-services-sector.asp
We have already landed the Jamaican Stock Exchange as VERI client just 30 days after the initial token offering. Actually, quite amazing...

Now, you can see how inconsequential the mere hack of a few million dollars
12  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 14, 2017, 03:35:37 PM
Our patent apps predate the Goldman apps, and the Goldman apps cover less area.
13  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 12, 2017, 01:46:24 PM
So what stock exchange is next? He said top 10. If by value, it's one of these:

NYSE - $18.8T
NASDAQ - $7.5T
Japan - $4.9T
Shanghai - $3.9T
London - $3.6T
Euronext - $3.4T
Shenzen - $3.2T
Hong Kong - $1.9T
TMX Group — $1.9 trillion. ...
Deutsche Boerse — $1.7 trillion. ...

ANY OF THESE IS IMPRESSIVE!!!

Followed by...
National Stock Exchange of India — $1.6 trillion. ...
SIX Swiss Exchange — $1.5 trillion. ...
Korea Exchange — $1.4 trillion. ...
Australian Securities Exchange —$1.3 trillion. ...
NASDAQ Nordic Exchanges — $1.28 trillion. ...
Johannesburg Stock Exchange — $1.1 trillion.

It's one of those top ten.
14  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 09, 2017, 01:58:20 PM
I think by using the word "published", this guy confused his point. I think he means "released".

No. I meant "published".

We are in a decentralised, non-equity market. That means we are trading initially worthless tokens on a blockchain, not companies.

Ask yourself, what happens in an equity market when a company issues new shares at will and you purchase those shares. You still have your money because the company's entire asset base is owed back to you. Even if it converts your monetary capital into plant & machinery, those assets will be valued at an aggregate level, reconciled to a unit share value and their cost will always be owed back to you at LEAST at book value. Years later, if there's a discrepancy between the prevailing corporate valuation and what you paid for your share, that will be accounted for in a continuous sequence of annual trading accounts - even if it goes to zero.

Now lets compare that model with issuing tokens on a blockchain.

Centralised vs Decentralised Archetypes

The original (mining) archetype was that tokens would be "released" through a decentralised process whereby the market at least paid for the cost of production of the token. A common definition of "marketcap" evolved which was based on the "circulating supply" (the mined supply to date) and "total supply" (the maximum ever possible to be mined). This would allow investors to reference an aggregate value for the asset - in so far as it is traded as a security - and work back to a corresponding exchange ratio with other assets.

So each of those two types of asset - corporate equity on the one hand and decentralised blockchain assets on the other - had their own respective valuation discipline which allowed markets to engage in a reasonable price discovery process.

The issue I've been raising in my previous, so called "troll" posts, is that we are now seeing a wholesale corruption of both these disciplines where ICO issuers simply cherry pick the capital generation properties from each paradigm while flushing all the key accountability properties down the toilet. Before illustrating why, lets recap the contrasting definitions of "token release" and "token supply" in the respective business models:

Summary of Distinctions

A. In the equity model, you can create 'tokens' (shares) at will, but the capital raised is still owned by the existing shareholders, not by the directors. Companies are therefore justified in calling themselves the 'source' of the equity and can fairly be described as "releasing" new shares in the sense of creating new capital that has immediate value for those investing, since investor capital is simply crossing from one side of a fence to the other and is still owned by the investor even though they’ve parted with their cash

B. In the (classic) blockchain model, the invested capital is not owed back to the investor, but, tokens cannot be created at will. The investment comes from the miner who creates a monetary token at cost which the market then executes a price discovery process over to establish a final traded value

C. In BOTH cases, there is a categorical protocol for establishing an AGGREGATE valuation for the asset which is the only meaningful reference since unit valuations are simply an arbitrary subdivision of this. In the centralised model, it's the number of shares times the traded price per share. In the decentralised model it's the number of blockchain tokens created to date times the market value of the last traded token

Corrupted Hybrid

Now lets observe how all the principle disciplines of accountability from the above protocols have been discarded in order to create a new "corrupt" hybrid:

From A. we've retained the ability to create tokens at will, while we've lost the condition that the invested capital is to be owed back to the investor

From B. we've lost the cost of production of the tokens

From C. we've lost the requirement to report an aggregate valuation appropriate to our business model which therefore leaves the unit exchange rate wide open to 'gaming' (i.e. we're issuing tokens as if they were equity but reporting them as if they were the current 'mined' supply).

So, in summary: in a decentralised context, Reggie is not the "issuer" and should not be presenting himself as such. He is a trader who is at liberty to sell as much or as little of his wallet as he likes. The difference being that if he was an "issuer", buyers would still own the Ether/bitcoin that they paid him for the tokens. His full wallet therefore counts towards marketcap just as much as mine or yours.


’The more the merrier’

Lets turn for a moment to all the hand waving surrounding the idea that it’s actually a good thing that more tokens are sold - the so called “Metcalfe's Law”:

…platform business model or you would realize that the more the merrier (you know, Metcalfe's Law, and all...). Again, you are consistently looking at the economics as a inflationary item count or some sort of dilutive effect similar to traded equities. That is almost the antithesis of what we have here

There was no dispute here. It’s almost a universally understood concept that greater adoption garners value - even if it comes out of “Reggie’s wallet”. However “Metcalfe’s law” is no more than a philosophical nuance unless its effect can be measured and quantified at an aggregate level - independently of the type of asset concerned. Contrary to what Reggie asserts in that post, it’s not the “antithesis of what we have here”, otherwise he’d be selling software as a service and not as a tradeable “security”.

The reason this is significant is because there are two ways in which Metcalfe’s law can have an impact and only one of them benefits the small investor holding a fixed quantity of tokens. In particular, if all the new sales come out of a part of the supply that is not currently counting towards marketcap, then the Metcalfe’s law all goes into the hidden supply growth but the market’s valuing the unit rate as if there was none, so you’ve got this timebomb waiting to go off as soon as the real valuation is known. (NOTE: Nothing to do with ‘dilution’, simply establishing an authentic, commonly accepted aggregate valuation).

What’s a ‘Security

Finally, lets consider the idea that’s been posted both by Reggie and by others that VERI somehow “isn’t a security”. All I’d say to that is that it’s the market that decides whether it’s a security or not and basically anything at all that has a resale value and a variable price is a potential candidate.

There are indeed some justifiable cases for arguing that a “blockchain token is not a security”, but only when the market is deprived of making trading gains on it and they’re more properly described here by one of the more respected Ethereum project staff (and none of which apply to the VERI token).



You stated:
"So, in summary: in a decentralised context, Reggie is not the "issuer" and should not be presenting himself as such. He is a trader who is at liberty to sell as much or as little of his wallet as he likes..."

This is wrong. Reggie (or more appropriately, a company that Reggie works for has created a contract that) is both the issuer (creator) and a major stakeholder. You are loosely throwing around terms as jargon that have very little correlation to the topic at hand. Traders are speculators who chase price movement (in any direction they can monetize - whether up or down - with the anticipation of economic gain). Stakeholders seek economic gain from the increase in economic value of the asset in which they have some for of "economic" (and not necessarily equity) stake. This major misunderstanding on your part. I cannot overemphasize this point enough. I really do mean major - for this is massively inappropriate application of perverse logic that renders you incapable of both understanding how to value Veritas and Veritaseum, and anticipating the future action of the assets that I shepherd. It is in my best interest to perform in a fashion that maximizes the value of the economic stake that I shepherd and oversee. Thus what is good for the relatively smaller stakeholder (ie. many of those in this forum) is very, VERI good for me. What is bad for the relatively smaller stakeholders in this forum will be very, VERI bad for me. Your assert that I am a trader, where there's potential parting of interests between myself and the smaller stakeholders where what's good for me may not necessarily be good for the rest of you guys. That is simply wrong on a wide variety of levels.

You also stated:
"His full wallet therefore counts towards marketcap just as much as mine or yours."

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but it is also not necessarily a stated negative either. More on this later, though.

You stated:
"otherwise he’d be selling software as a service and not as a tradeable “security”."

This is an arbitrarily contrived opinion of yours that you are stating as fact. We are distributed and autonomous software and financial engineering-based solutions provider. The token enables the distributed and autonomous attributes of the delivered solution. Attempting to pigeonhole us into either a SaaS or a security decision is simply a capricious lumping of every potential option into category A or category B, even worse, rendering category B potentially illegal.  
You then go on to state:
“However “Metcalfe’s law” is no more than a philosophical nuance unless its effect can be measured and quantified at an aggregate level - independently of the type of asset concerned”.
I don’t remember reading that in Professor Metcalfe’s thesis, but let’s give you the benefit of the doubt. Using the undisputed poster child of Metcalf’s thesis, the Internet, what is the stated “measure[d] and quanty[ified] at an aggregate level - independently of the type of asset concerned”?Huh
Again, you are arbitrarily casting you opinion as stated fact, and more egregiously, doing so without any evidentiary or empirical backing. That may fool the uninitiated, but just a little critical thought pierces the illusion of intellectual authority, easily!

You then go on to state:
“The reason this is significant is because there are two ways in which Metcalfe’s law can have an impact and only one of them benefits the small investor holding a fixed quantity of tokens. In particular, if all the new sales come out of a part of the supply that is not currently counting towards marketcap, then the Metcalfe’s law all goes into the hidden supply growth but the market’s valuing the unit rate as if there was none, so you’ve got this timebomb waiting to go off as soon as the real valuation is known. (NOTE: Nothing to do with ‘dilution’, simply establishing an authentic, commonly accepted aggregate valuation).”

This is nonsense!!! Valuation is derived from economic cashflows. In essence, the amount of real, inflation and risk adjusted capital generated. You haven’t broached this topic ONCE in your entire diatribe, yet you haphazardly throw in the term and concept of “valuation”. That’s simply not how a prudent person approaches fundamental analysis. I’ve even been lenient enough to overlook the use of the term “marketcap” which although popular in the media and discussion boards, is highly misleading. Download our Gnosis report to glean an understanding on how to value tokens. In order for real valuation to be “known” of even honestly discussed, we need to broach topic of revenue generation and margins. I’m listening….
 
Then you go on broach the topic of what is a security. This is a legal issue, yet you are quoting a developer? It’s not in my best interest to open that hornets nest, but let it be known that we established nearly immediately, the utility value of out tokens through the issuance of research, and through the announcement of strategic deals wherein established institutions with strict regulatory oversight have agreed to purchase the tokens solely for their utility value in building their own constructs of value. It just so happens that the first of these deals to be announced was a securities exchange. You are purposely ignoring fact, to build an argument on fiction, and worse yet you are doing the equivalent of asking a law firm to build software. Head Smack!!!
15  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 07, 2017, 12:38:14 PM
Ok. Comical interlude over.

I apologise for winding you up @paulmaritz. I should not have done that as it isn't my intention to use these posts to make people feel uncomfortable.

But lets take stock as to who is the real troll here.

I have been contributing considered opinion, often accompanied by some reasonable argument and the odd bit of anecdotal illustration and calculation. I've done so in good faith because having traded these markets for 4 years you observe certain things that are blatantly obvious market movers. I've also been careful not to use the "s" word, nor have I dismissed this token's fundamentals, which I believe to be sound, and nor have I "ad hominem'd" anybody as far as I'm aware.

What have you contributed of illuminating value ? You posted that coinmarketcom quote which was useful - I hadn't seen that. Apart form that, a large amount of handwaving and pictures of trolls.

So maybe a truce would be fruitful plus a more constructive appraisal of the matter at hand.

The issue as I see it is that when you have a single holder with a large amount of asset to sell in an illiquid market you need some kind of market leader to act as a price discovery mechanism so you can go and negotiate with 'large buyers' and make so called 'institutional sales'. (Which are not actually institutional at all since there are no institutions regulating them, they're just sales).

That was the role of the ICO and subsequent market rise on tiny volume.

What will happen now is that OTC (over the counter) sales will be made at significantly discounted token-to-coin exchange rates and large volumes which come from outside the published coin supply but which effectively qualify as 'circulating supply' since the tokens have now been distributed. This is great for large investors but for small investors there is considerably more risk from 2 sources:

1. a step change in published supply invoking a large and abrupt correction to the downside in token exchange rate to compensate for marketcap growth

2. an arbitrage driven correction between OTC and Exchange markets

I'm not necessarily saying that this will happen, I'm just pointing out that this risk is carried disproportionally by the small investor because:

 • they do not gain from the liquidity increase (as the ICO issuer does)
 • they do not gain from the OTC discount (as the 'institutional buyer' does)

Sure, it may all work out and as has been pointed out, some other assets do this to a limited extent. But the ratio of published to unpublished supply in this case is absolutely monumental (which is why I suggested the policy of marketcap reporting is being 'gamed') and its something that no investor has control over. Their interests do depend on things staying that way as far as I can see.

Litecoin has 84,000,000 million coins but they are currently only at 51,000,000 million...why are you not calling LTC a scam or XRP, or BTC or any others for that matter?

Because Litecoin is a mined coin. The 84,000,000 don't currently exist whereas the 100,000,000 VERI do, are currently in a wallet and ready to be sold at the holder's whim. There's no "2 Million liquid supply" and "98 million illiquid supply". There's just a 100 Million token wallet with a single holder.

I won't call you a troll. You actually do raise some points worth considering. The problem is that you are disseminating opinion as fact, and it is incorrect and simply wrong. For instance, you said "What will happen now is that OTC (over the counter) sales will be made at significantly discounted token-to-coin exchange rates".
That's simply incorrect. Ask anyone who has purchased in bulk, they will tell you that thus far we have sold at a "premium" to the so-called "token-to-coin exchange rates", not a discount. You see, the problem is that you do not understand the business model of Veritaseum. It is a software solutions and financial engineering platform, and not a make believe faux security. You reasoning keeps defaulting to the latter, despite my and others having corrected you several times.  

You also stated "I've done so in good faith because having traded these markets for 4 years you observe certain things that are blatantly obvious market movers."
It is apparent that you have not traded in anything similar to Veritaseum with a economic platform business model or you would realize that the more the merrier (you know, Metcalfe's Law, and all...). Again, you are consistently looking at the economics as a inflationary item count or some sort of dilutive effect similar to traded equities. That is almost the antithesis of what we have here. Basically you don't get it, but you are obvisouly an intelligent guy, so it is apparent that you can get it. This leads to troll comments from others in the forum, because it seems as if you don't want to get it.

The biggest visible distribution from "reggie's wallet" of tokens thus far would be the proposed Jamaican Stock Exchange deal. That caused VERI price to more than double, So here, we have a real world example of what you declaring, yet the real world effect is the opposite of what you are asserting. There are many more deals in the pipeline, most are as large, and many are larger than the JSE deal. I would expect a pop with each deal as the network effect grows stronger, but you will be left in a lurch as you look at things from a value dilutive perspective. It's accretive, if anything.

You also stated "But the ratio of published to unpublished supply in this case is absolutely monumental ". That comment is nonsensical. The entire issuance is published, it's called the blockchain - the point of this entire exercise. Isn't that how you came to find out about the amount? Everyone else in the world can do the same thing.
16  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 06, 2017, 02:38:51 PM
VERI/BTC & VERI/ETH pairs now available for trade at https://mercatox.com/news/veri-added
17  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 06, 2017, 12:36:46 AM

Whatever tickles your fancy. Now go cry a river!  Cry

With the recent rise, I'm into this asset well into 5 figures now. I have no conflict of interest in making my case, in fact I'd be more conflicted by not making it. But I invested based on fundamentals, not some stock market 'trick' that came and infected the decentralised world of freely traded digital assets.

Here's the deal why the blockchain-supply is under-reported and why Veritasium's short term viability at least depends on it:

1. Traders make valuations based on marketcap, not coin-exchange rate

2. As such VERI's low marketcap looks extremely good value for new buyers because it's still below such benign offerings as Bytecoin etc al, even with the recent doubling of the last 24 hours

3. However, the small "reported supply" is not the real supply since new OTC trades are supplied from Reggie's 'wallet', not from the coinmarketcap.com reported quantity

4. If the full (blockchain issued) supply were to be correctly reported, what would happen ? You'd see a ranking like the one I posted earlier and an associated market correction since it would be unlikely to give a single token offering a higher valuation than the entire Ethereum blockchain coin supply

What Reggie is doing is making tactical use of marketcap reporting in order to price the non-ICO token supply based on the tiny ICO portion. Ok, it's one marketing strategy (and is working so far) but it should be transparent and not hidden behind some "we don't understand institutional markets" nonsense.


Traders are not my core consituency, and frankly we don't care about what they want. Utility seekers and long term network effect value consumers are who we cater to.
The supply in "Reggie's wallet" is actually likely to fall short of demand in the medium to long term if we succed in getting counterparties and utility seekers to recognize the true value. You are thinking in terms of crypto traders, and not in terms of those looking to build multi-generation spaning value creation through utility consumption. The more that comes out of "Reggie's wallet" the more value the entire platform becomes. I know this is the antithesis to what you have been taught and told about equity investments, but this is not an equity investment, it is programmable, distributed "smart" software.

With the acquisition of the top three global exchanges, one can easily justify a valuation in excess of a multiple of the Ethereum platform. Ethereum is simply a platform upon which more advanced applications are written. Google shares are worth more than TCP-IP packets sent back and forth through the internet, right?

What Reggie is doing is pricing the tokens according to the value that end users believe they are worth.
18  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 04, 2017, 09:59:58 AM
To be exact:

1. Clif's friend predicts VERI is going to $5000 next year.

2. Clif himself predicts that VERI is going to be on par with BTC this time next year (May/June). He predicts that BTC might get to $18,008 by that time... which means VERI will be at more or less the same price.

Will we get there? Hell yeah!  Cool



I've been dealing with a person who claims Veritaseum had no wallet or code since Ultra Coin ..Claims no product since 2014 and it's all a scam.  

I present exhibit A, 2014 video of Ultra Coin client, and Developer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV27kQnUKHc
2014 video of working code


Another Video basically the same 2015 Wallet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOlN6eWWFaA

That wasn't the developer, that was the CTO. There were 2 developers and an engineer below him that assisted in creating that app. In addition, there were 2 analysts, a strategist (Me)  and an IP attorney (who was also the CTO).
I've followed the troll feeding conest that you had. Outside of the guy being factually wrong about the code, he has no idea of what it takes to create and run a successful business. Here's a hint, it ain't code!
Harping on developers shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it takes to get the job done. Managefial capability is what everyone should be focused on, yet instead they discuss websife design, lines of code and white papers, as if any of that stuff will actually get you paid  by a competitive market place or competent investors.

Challenge the troll to compare our revenues, profit margins, business models, IP protections and strategic alliances with anyone else.
19  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: July 03, 2017, 10:42:20 AM
is there a slack channel?

Yep. Just drop an email to masiah at veritaseum.com and he will include you.

Can I get an invite to the slack too?

Thanks!

Here's his profile link.. Just PM him..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1014640


Any slack group member can invite another to our group.
20  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD on: June 30, 2017, 12:40:52 PM

You for one continue to hammer on the "full coin supply," failing to differentiate between that and the circulating coin supply.

There is no difference between a "full" and "circulating" supply.

If there is a potential seller of 98 million coins over the net 18 months or so, then that represents part of the 'circulating supply' at least for the purposes of marketcap calculation.

Let me guess: You didn't get in and are now trying to push the price down to get in at 0.02?

No. I hold some Veritasium and I am sitting here with dry powder on Ether Delta ready to fire some more into it, but I do my due diligence and I don't like buying grossly overvalued stuff however high it's expected to go. As such, it doesn't really matter whether coinmarketcap calculates the marketcap based on a supply of 100 million or 2 million since investors are free to value it as they see fit and if there are 98 million "new tokens" available for new institutional investors then that makes the supply 100 million from my point of view, not 2.

The reason this is important is because if I calculate it to be overvalued according to comparable assets then so too will some interesting contenders who like the idea making a few bucks out of this market, for example the Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan & Barcleys and they won't have 2 "analysts" programming their automated investment vehicles, they'll have 300.

You don't seem to understand how the institutional market works. Let's pick apart your assertions.

Large investors rarely transact through exchanges in bulk because that is ineffecient and slippage drives the price. I made three deals in the last 24 hours, one was with one of the largest stock exchanges in the Caribbean region (can't quantify the VERI value, but expect it to be big), one was with a UHNW individual (starting with a $1-$1.5M purchase), and one with a sovereign nation. There's another I'm looking to close next month that will be bigger than these three combined. Not one of them will go through the extant exchanges (as a matter of fact, two of them are for building exchnages). Not only will these transactions not drive the price of VERI down, they should drive it higher since significantly more value will go though Veritaseum systems relative to the ROW (rest of the world) than before.
Every single big block sale I make out of the 98M outstanding is extremely bullish for the existing VERI holders. It's Metcalfe's law and the network effect, my friend.

Your argument is akin to saying the Internet is overvalued because there's the potential for 100s of millions of new users to come onboard.... What!!!???
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!