VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD

[buyabit]

Some additional words from Reggie Middleton:

Diego Gutierrez tells me that Rootstock platform that allows smart contracts to be run on top of the Bitcoin blockchain is not only up and running but will allow me to directly port Veritaseum/VeADIR from Ethereum with no effort, and quickly. As I said, we're blockchain agnositc.

[azmojo]

I wonder, if BTC can be veritized, as well as potentially other cryptos not part of the Ethereum blockchain, does that mean Veritaseum can already do its own cross-chain transactions and/or atomic swaps?

No, VERI is not doing any cross-chain swaps. In the video he explained it and I'm not sure I understood what he said but it is most definitely not cross-chain swap. I think they have some other mechanism tying the ERC20 token version of (Bitcoin/whatever) to the price of (Bitcoin/whatever).

[buyabit]

Reggie Middleton is live right now.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxG_3Q2yXk0&feature=em-lbcastemail

[johny08]

That doesn't make any sense. You're basically saying that if he wants to target institutional users, he should start by approaching people that are not his target?

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?

If you disagree with the CEO's approach you probably should sell your VERI and move on. I don't see that changing... ever... no matter what is posted in this forum.

I for one, have full faith that Reggie is running his company very effectively and pursuing the highest value opportunities and customers first. Be aware that his priorities are going to be for long term sustainable profit for Veritaseum, and not necessarily for token holders. Although I will argue that most things good for the company are good for the token holder.

You suggest some measures to manipulate token value by manipulating supply, but I do not see the current supply and distribution as a problem. Until this big dump, VERI had a $1B valuation which is phenomenal by any measure. I fail to see the driving need or value in making any changes to token supply, distribution, or usage.

its a scam. anyone knows. just ignore this token and you will be happy at the end. but this $50 Billion marketcap is nice, guys just dont trade this coin higher then Apple, ok? LOL

[buyabit]

Johny08.

Your math sucks. The current market cap. of VERi is approx. $ 920M. Perhaps you should stick with something a little easier to comprehend.

Veritaseum will disrupt a lot of businesses in the future and in time the markets will continue to reward those companies with solid fundamentals. I will be using my VERI tokens within the companies platform for a long time to come.

[azmojo]

The latest video mentions that there have been non-public deals for physical assets. One of which is a Caribbean airline I'm sure there will be more info coming...

[fishervwb]

Fireside Chat With Reggie Middleton on Veritaseum's VeADIR & the Disintermediation of Wall Street
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHuHUQ35khQ

[Opossum Minister]

Anyone know if the public beta is still on for today? No link on the website for it yet.

[panorama]

Anyone know if the public beta is still on for today? No link on the website for it yet.

Not sure, but I'm still expecting it unless we hear otherwise.

[buyabit]

Reggie Middleton is live right now at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n15EYnAsVNY&feature=em-lbcastemail

[panorama]

Reggie Middleton is live right now at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n15EYnAsVNY&feature=em-lbcastemail

Did he say anything noteworthy?

[bytonaire]

how many veri tokens do we need to make it? just need 1 to get access to Veritaseum exchange? Or do we need 3? Would like some help on that. Thanks. 

[azmojo]

how many veri tokens do we need to make it? just need 1 to get access to Veritaseum exchange? Or do we need 3? Would like some help on that. Thanks. 

A page or so ago I reviewed the VeADIR. The price to buy VEADIR exposure is currently set at 1%. That is, .01 VERI for 1 ETH of exposure. I thought I heard Reggie say it was changing to 5%, so .05 VERI to buy 1 ETH of VEADIR exposure.

At $400 VERI and $1050 ETH, the new price would amount to about a 2% fee, or 0.4% if left at 1%. I would expect them to adjust the price to keep the fee at 1-2% as prices change.

[candyconstantino11]

Another innovation in smart contract project such this veritaseum.niced one,want to follow

[swisstortue]

Just found this thread but didn´t have time yet to read all...
Coinbase hacked!! Eth DOWN: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1977571.0
Edit: Probably just somebody spreading panic again

[Dorkie]

A page or so ago I reviewed the VeADIR. The price to buy VEADIR exposure is currently set at 1%. That is, .01 VERI for 1 ETH of exposure. I thought I heard Reggie say it was changing to 5%, so .05 VERI to buy 1 ETH of VEADIR exposure.

At $400 VERI and $1050 ETH, the new price would amount to about a 2% fee, or 0.4% if left at 1%. I would expect them to adjust the price to keep the fee at 1-2% as prices change.

Assuming...

Bitcoin market cap is USD 137.6 bil
Ethereum market cap is USD 81.4 bil
NEO market cap is USD 6.8 bil

Totaling 225.8 bil in market cap (for platform-based cryptocurrencies)...

Then the cost of using VERI at 5% would mean its market cap is 225.8 * 0.05 = USD 11.29 bil

At 100 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 112.9
At 50 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 225.8
At 10 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 1129
At 5 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 2258
At current 2,036,645 circulating supply (assuming the total supply is equally the same), each VERI would be at USD 5543

... at time of writing.

If Veritaseum will provide more business units in addition to exposure to the cryptocurrency world, then that may add further value to the price tag.

As the VERI token can be rented out AND recycled to be resold...
1. Veritaseum's bottom line remain unaffected regardless of the total amount of supply, be it 100 mil or 2 mil.
2. It would be more financially rewarding for token holders if the total supply can be reduced.

Assuming the total supply is reduced way too much, that will simply translates to much lower cost in using VERI (below 5%).
If Veritaseum's platform is significantly value-added, then we may see the market bid up the price of VERI to be back at 5%.
Either way, reducing the total supply of VERI does NOT impair Veritaseum's bottom line (because token can be rented out and recycled to be resold over and over again) while at the same time will be more rewarding to token holders.

Update:
Reggie talks about being a capitalist and thus does not burn his own token/product. But if the total supply does not affect his profit potential, then it has nothing to do with being a capitalist, which is irrelevant as a point of argument.
While burning unsold token may "artificially" increase the price, Reggie cannot ignore the fact that the price will remain purely driven by the value the platform brings to the users, irregardless of whether there will be any artificial increase or decrease of price as a result of burning unsold token.
Obviously, Reggie is not very savvy in this line of reasoning but I hope he will come to his senses to the benefit of the token holders.
While Microsoft has unlimited software licenses, none of those licenses sold can be recycled to be resold again like VERI, so I don't think this is an equal comparison.

Update #2:
My point of argument is simple.
As the features of VERI allow it to be rented out and recycled to be resold over and over again, it makes the argument for excess supply of token to facilitate market demand to become redundant.

[azmojo]

A page or so ago I reviewed the VeADIR. The price to buy VEADIR exposure is currently set at 1%. That is, .01 VERI for 1 ETH of exposure. I thought I heard Reggie say it was changing to 5%, so .05 VERI to buy 1 ETH of VEADIR exposure.

At $400 VERI and $1050 ETH, the new price would amount to about a 2% fee, or 0.4% if left at 1%. I would expect them to adjust the price to keep the fee at 1-2% as prices change.

Assuming...

Bitcoin market cap is USD 137.6 bil
Ethereum market cap is USD 81.4 bil
NEO market cap is USD 6.8 bil

Totaling 225.8 bil in market cap (for platform-based cryptocurrencies)...

Then the cost of using VERI at 5% would mean its market cap is 225.8 * 0.05 = USD 11.29 bil

At 100 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 112.9
At 50 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 225.8
At 10 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 1129
At 5 mil total supply, each VERI would be at USD 2258
At current 2,036,645 circulating supply (assuming the total supply is equally the same), each VERI would be at USD 5543

... at time of writing.

If Veritaseum will provide more business units in addition to exposure to the cryptocurrency world, then that may add further value to the price tag.

As the VERI token can be rented out AND recycled to be resold...
1. Veritaseum's bottom line remain unaffected regardless of the total amount of supply, be it 100 mil or 2 mil.
2. It would be more financially rewarding for token holders if the total supply can be reduced.

Assuming the total supply is reduced way too much, that will simply translates to much lower cost in using VERI (below 5%).
If Veritaseum's platform is significantly value-added, then we may see the market bid up the price of VERI to be back at 5%.
Either way, reducing the total supply of VERI does NOT impair Veritaseum's bottom line (because token can be rented out and recycled to be resold over and over again) while at the same time will be more rewarding to token holders.

Update:
Reggie talks about being a capitalist and thus does not burn his own token/product. But if the total supply does not affect his profit potential, then it has nothing to do with being a capitalist, which is irrelevant as a point of argument.
While burning unsold token may "artificially" increase the price, Reggie cannot ignore the fact that the price will remain purely driven by the value the platform brings to the users, irregardless of whether there will be any artificial increase or decrease of price as a result of burning unsold token.
Obviously, Reggie is not very savvy in this line of reasoning but I hope he will come to his senses to the benefit of the token holders.
While Microsoft has unlimited software licenses, none of those licenses sold can be recycled to be resold again like VERI, so I don't think this is an equal comparison.

I don't understand why the VEADIR access fee percentage has a relationship to crypto market caps? The fees charged by hedge funds have nothing to do with the price of anything. Hedge funds charge 2% and 20% of profits. VERI's fee is just a rate the Reggie thinks is reasonable for the service VERI's platform provides. This rate should have nothing to do with the price.

Update #2:
My point of argument is simple.
As the features of VERI allow it to be rented out and recycled to be resold over and over again, it makes the argument for excess supply of token to facilitate market demand to become redundant.

Assuming I understand what you are saying, does it make sense for VERI tokens to become increasingly rare as the platform is used, as your scenario suggests? I think not.

[Dorkie]

I don't understand why the VEADIR access fee percentage has a relationship to crypto market caps? The fees charged by hedge funds have nothing to do with the price of anything. Hedge funds charge 2% and 20% of profits. VERI's fee is just a rate the Reggie thinks is reasonable for the service VERI's platform provides. This rate should have nothing to do with the price.

Assuming I understand what you are saying, does it make sense for VERI tokens to become increasingly rare as the platform is used, as your scenario suggests? I think not.

Imagine the fee is 500%. Meaning to say you need 500 VERI for 100 ETH exposure. ASSUME the entire crypto market cap is in ETH. The total market cap now is 290 bil and ETH price is $620. That translates to 467 mil circulating supply of ETH. For the entire world to have 467 mil worth of ETH exposure, it will need 2335 mil VERI. At current supply, VERI will be in severely short supply and the price will have to go way up.

Imagine another scenario where the fee is 0.1%. Meaning to say you need 0.1 VERI for 100 ETH exposure, or 467,000 VERI for the entire 467 mil worth of ETH exposure. In this case, what use will we need for the remaining 100 mil - 467,000 = 99.533 mil of excess supply?

It does not make sense for VERI to be increasingly rare, as in going to zero. It makes sense for VERI to have low supply vs large supply, or fixed low supply vs increasingly larger supply. Even Reggie himself sometimes imply Veritaseum's market cap to be worth billions in some of his videos by taking the 100 mil supply into account. Thus Reggie indirectly imply that market cap is very relevant, despite the fact that VERI is a utility token, not securities.

Update:
As VERI can be rented out and recycled back to be resold over and over again endlessly (unlike Microsoft Windows software licenses), why do you even think the token can ever be rare as the platform is used? If it becomes so rare to the point of having no supply, then the buyers can borrow the token from us renters. If it becomes so rare to the point of having no supply, then the buyers can buy the token in bulk from Reggie that got his token back from the popular use of the platform. Why is this still very hard to be understood?

Update #2:
What I am suggesting (reducing supply) is not harmful, but instead very beneficial, to everyone (Veritaseum and token holders alike). Why do you guys hate the thing that benefits you?

Update #3:
Reggie is very scared that reducing the supply, or burning unsold tokens, will cause him to make far less money in return for his services. If that is true, then I say Reggie is very narrow-minded.

[azmojo]

I don't understand why the VEADIR access fee percentage has a relationship to crypto market caps? The fees charged by hedge funds have nothing to do with the price of anything. Hedge funds charge 2% and 20% of profits. VERI's fee is just a rate the Reggie thinks is reasonable for the service VERI's platform provides. This rate should have nothing to do with the price.

Assuming I understand what you are saying, does it make sense for VERI tokens to become increasingly rare as the platform is used, as your scenario suggests? I think not.

Imagine the fee is 500%. Meaning to say you need 500 VERI for 100 ETH exposure. ASSUME the entire crypto market cap is in ETH. The total market cap now is 290 bil and ETH price is $620. That translates to 467 mil circulating supply of ETH. For the entire world to have 467 mil worth of ETH exposure, it will need 2335 mil VERI. At current supply, VERI will be in severely short supply and the price will have to go way up.

Imagine another scenario where the fee is 0.1%. Meaning to say you need 0.1 VERI for 100 ETH exposure, or 467,000 VERI for the entire 467 mil worth of ETH exposure. In this case, what use will we need for the remaining 100 mil - 467,000 = 99.533 mil of excess supply?

It does not make sense for VERI to be increasingly rare, as in going to zero. It makes sense for VERI to have low supply vs large supply, or fixed low supply vs increasingly larger supply. Even Reggie himself sometimes imply Veritaseum's market cap to be worth billions in some of his videos by taking the 100 mil supply into account. Thus Reggie indirectly imply that market cap is very relevant, despite the fact that VERI is a utility token, not securities.

Update:
As VERI can be rented out and recycled back to be resold over and over again endlessly (unlike Microsoft Windows software licenses), why do you even think the token can ever be rare as the platform is used? If it becomes so rare to the point of having no supply, then the buyers can borrow the token from us renters. If it becomes so rare to the point of having no supply, then the buyers can buy the token in bulk from Reggie that got his token back from the popular use of the platform. Why is this still very hard to be understood?

Update #2:
What I am suggesting (reducing supply) is not harmful, but instead very beneficial, to everyone (Veritaseum and token holders alike). Why do you guys hate the thing that benefits you?

Update #3:
Reggie is very scared that reducing the supply, or burning unsold tokens, will cause him to make far less money in return for his services. If that is true, then I say Reggie is very narrow-minded.

I have no problem with the price of VERI increasing of course, but accomplishing that by manipulating supply is.... not right.

Again, a hedge fund charges 2% + 20%. If the VEADIR can return 100%+ annual returns I am happy to pay any fee that amounts to 1-5% or maybe even more. That's a sustainable and healthy business model. Unlike business models like PLR. PLR is a wallet that users are going to need PLR tokens to use. But if the price of PLR goes to $100/token, who is going to pay hundreds of dollars to use a wallet no matter how fantastic it is? the more sustainable model for PLR is to keep the price to use the wallet at a few dollars. BTW, I don't think we know yet how much PLR is going to charge, I'm just setting an example.

[Dorkie]

I have no problem with the price of VERI increasing of course, but accomplishing that by manipulating supply is.... not right.

Again, a hedge fund charges 2% + 20%. If the VEADIR can return 100%+ annual returns I am happy to pay any fee that amounts to 1-5% or maybe even more. That's a sustainable and healthy business model. Unlike business models like PLR. PLR is a wallet that users are going to need PLR tokens to use. But if the price of PLR goes to $100/token, who is going to pay hundreds of dollars to use a wallet no matter how fantastic it is? the more sustainable model for PLR is to keep the price to use the wallet at a few dollars. BTW, I don't think we know yet how much PLR is going to charge, I'm just setting an example.

I think I am convinced that you have a handicap in comprehension.

Manipulation of supply is... not right.
Being overtly greedy using capitalism as excuse is... not right.
Being unable to set the optimal level of supply to facilitate exchanges is... not right.

There are many ICOs that totally burn all unsold token, including Proof ICO project that you are still endorsing. And if reducing excess supply (or burning them) is considered manipulating supply, then you are endorsing a wrong ICO project.

Are you aware (or not aware) that cryptocurrencies are highly divisible?