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.

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.

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. 

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!!!

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.

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.

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".

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.

So, is this the true, and unsaid source of the movement against Veritaseum? At least your coming out and sayng it.

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.

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

Our patent apps predate the Goldman apps, and the Goldman apps cover less area.

It's one of those top ten.

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”?
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!!!

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.

VERI/BTC & VERI/ETH pairs now available for trade at https://mercatox.com/news/veri-added

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.

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.

Any slack group member can invite another to our group.

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!!!???