VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD

[toknormal]

"You don't seem to understand how the institutional market works."

This isn't an "institutional market". It's an unregulated, decentralised one.

As such it is 'policed' by holders, buyers, and anyone else with an interest in seeing open and free markets work efficiently. In an "institutionalised market" you might get away with the strategy of justifying a high unit price to the market based on low supply volume because you have a whole pile of regulations governing the release of that supply.

But in decentralised markets we only have marketcap to go by in doing comparative valuations. That's why it's important that all valuations are treated & reported consistently, using the blockchain-isssued supply as its basis. Satoshi has 1 Million Bitcoin in a wallet that "are not circulating" and apparently are even less likely to than the 98 Million under-reported VERI. They still get included in the marketcap valuation.

[paulmaritz]

I said it before that the 2 mil circulating supply will be an issue and true enough every now and then it is brought up as an issue.
But someone pointed out to me that market cap is based on the circulating supply, thus Veritaseum's pricing is as valid as every other listed cryptos and tokens.

With the correct understanding, it should not be an issue at all.

[paulmaritz]

"You don't seem to understand how the institutional market works."

This isn't an "institutional market". It's an unregulated, decentralised one.

As such it is 'policed' by holders, buyers, and anyone else with an interest in seeing open and free markets work efficiently. In an "institutionalised market" you might get away with the strategy of justifying a high unit price to the market based on low supply volume because you have a whole pile of regulations governing the release of that supply.

But in decentralised markets we only have marketcap to go by in doing comparative valuations. That's why it's important that all valuations are treated the same. Satoshi has 1 Million Bitcoin in a wallet that "are not circulating" and apparently are even less likely to than the 98 Million unreported VERI. They still get reported.

To attract clients from the institutional market, you need to have an understanding of the institutional market. There are certain things they like and certain things they don't. As Reggie mentioned: "Large investors rarely transact through exchanges in bulk because that is inefficient and slippage drives the price."

If you wish to convince them to make use of your software that enables P2P capital markets - trustless transactions between “person to person, company to company and entity to entity” - you have to meet them half way. Period.

[toknormal]

To attract clients from the institutional market, you need to have an understanding of the institutional market. There are certain things they like and certain things they don't. As Reggie mentioned: "Large investors rarely transact through exchanges in bulk because that is inefficient and slippage drives the price."

What's that got to do with anything ? All I'm saying is report the full marketcap according to convention in these markets or don't report it at all. Reggie can still do all the OTC selling he wants from his own wallet of 98 Million tokens.

[paulmaritz]

To attract clients from the institutional market, you need to have an understanding of the institutional market. There are certain things they like and certain things they don't. As Reggie mentioned: "Large investors rarely transact through exchanges in bulk because that is inefficient and slippage drives the price."

What's that got to do with anything ? All I'm saying is report the full marketcap according to convention in these markets or don't report it at all. Reggie can still do all the OTC selling he wants from his own wallet of 98 Million tokens.

"according to convention in these markets"? You meant to say according to your "circulating bs" based on half-assed assumptions. Sorry, it is a no can do. Now go cry a river.

[toknormal]

You meant to say according to your "circulating bs" based on half-assed assumptions.

Just for clarification, an appropriate description of "circulating bs" would be something along the lines of:

 • exchange traded token supply counts towards advertised marketcap
 • OTC traded supply doesn't

That's what you appear to be promoting, not me.

Be advised that all of these digital assets are traded OTC for large amounts. That doesn't mean they get away with underreporting the blockchain-issued supply.

[paulmaritz]

You meant to say according to your "circulating bs" based on half-assed assumptions.

Just for clarification, an appropriate description of "circulating bs" would be something along the lines of:

 • exchange traded token supply counts towards advertised marketcap
 • OTC traded supply does not

That's what you appear to be promoting, not me.

Be advised that all of these digital assets are traded OTC for large amounts. That doesn't mean they get away with underreporting the blockchain-issued supply.

Whatever tickles your fancy. Now go cry a river! 

[toknormal]

Whatever tickles your fancy. Now go cry a river!  

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.

[paulmaritz]

Whatever tickles your fancy. Now go cry a river!  

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. It's not a bad strategy (and is working so far) but it should be transparent and not hidden behind some "we don't understand institutional markets" nonsense.

I highly doubt it, but if you're really 5 figures into it and peddling the BS you're peddling, then to state it extremely mildly, I feel sorry for you.

According to CoinMarketCap.com...

What is the difference between "Circulating Supply", "Total Supply", and "Max Supply"?

Circulating Supply is the best approximation of the number of coins that are circulating in the market and in the general public's hands.
Total Supply is the total amount of coins in existence right now (minus any coins that have been verifiably burned).
Max Supply the best approximation of the maximum amount of coins that will ever exist in the lifetime of the cryptocurrency.

Why is the Circulating Supply used in determining the market capitalization instead of Total Supply?

We've found that Circulating Supply is a much better metric for determining the market capitalization. Coins that are locked, reserved, or not able to be sold on the public market are coins that can't affect the price and thus should not be allowed to affect the market capitalization as well. The method of using the Circulating Supply is analogous to the method of using public float for determining the market capitalization of companies in traditional investing.

Source: https://coinmarketcap.com/faq/

[toknormal]

What is the difference between "Circulating Supply", "Total Supply", and "Max Supply"?

Circulating Supply is the best approximation of the number of coins that are circulating in the market and in the general public's hands.

Indeed. And in VERI, the "circulating supply" by the best accounts that can be gleaned from this thread is the 98 Million, not the 2 Million. You're still making the false allusion to "circulating" and "non circulating" of exchange traded and OTC supplies respectively.

Would that all the premined wallet holders of the last few years could have gotten away with "hey my coins are not circulating so shouldn't be counted towards marketcap".

Whatever the letter of CMC reporting policy, it's being gamed to the extreme here.

[paulmaritz]

What is the difference between "Circulating Supply", "Total Supply", and "Max Supply"?

Circulating Supply is the best approximation of the number of coins that are circulating in the market and in the general public's hands.

Indeed. And VERI, the "circulating supply" by the best accounts that can be gleaned from this thread is the 98 Million, not the 2 Million. Thanks for making my case for me

All it proves is that you're either here to continue to spread FUD, in the hope to get in at lower price levels, is an outright idiot or are getting off on all the BS you're circulating (as all trolls do). I suspect it might be a mix of all.

For the last time... Veritaseum has previously made it clear that the 98 million or so are not available for sale to the public. Those VERI tokens are reserved for large private investors, institutions and sovereigns. Those are being sold OTC directly from Veritaseum offices. Those are not earmarked for trading, but to give access to the machine itself.

Why is the Circulating Supply used in determining the market capitalization instead of Total Supply?

We've found that Circulating Supply is a much better metric for determining the market capitalization. Coins that are locked, reserved, or not able to be sold on the public market are coins that can't affect the price and thus should not be allowed to affect the market capitalization as well. The method of using the Circulating Supply is analogous to the method of using public float for determining the market capitalization of companies in traditional investing.

Source: https://coinmarketcap.com/faq/

[paulmaritz]

Don't feed the troll: Use the ignore button.

[toknormal]

Those VERI tokens are reserved for large private investors, institutions and sovereigns

The question "reserved is by whom" ? Not by the blockchain which is what matters in a decentralised market.

Somebody filled a wallet with 100 million new tokens on a blockchain. Then they published a plan for creating an 'ecosystem' which would support the value of those coins. Then they started selling parts of their wallet - some to participants in the early investor sale, some to banks, some to sovereigns.

The full 'supply' of that wallet is 100 million tokens and there is no categorical "in circulation" not "in circulation" supply boundary. Tokens continue to be traded and they continue to be supplied from that same 100 Million bag.

Not only that, the "unreported" part of the supply is being valued and priced (albeit at a hefty discount I would imagine) based on what you call the 'circulating' supply so it's only right that it be included in the marketcap.

Reggie Middleton is not an equity issuer. He created a bunch of tokens on a blockchain and published some plans as to how he intended to support their value. But we're not purchasing equity in that new ecosystem. We're purchasing a holding of currently industrially worthless tokens and hoping that they play a significant enough role in that new market to gain a viable and sustainable real value. As such RM is simply a 'member of the public' holding a bigger bag than everyone else but promising a bigger input to that 'ecosystem' than everyone else.

Decentralised marketcap reporting should reflect that fact in order that investors can make appropriate comparisons between one asset and another.

[paulmaritz]

This user is currently ignored.

[Ant1Tr0ll]

I'm the anti-troll wizard come to exorcise toknormal!!!! He's just a wannabe troll trying to drive price down so he can get some VERI cheap VERI.... the fool doesn't even understand the value proposition!!!!!!!!!!! Jamaica Stock exchange.... top 10 world exchange negotiations... ultra high net worth investors.... marijuana startups.... electric motorcycle company.... Reggie has been VERY OPEN & STRAIGHTFORWARD about EVERYTHING he's doing. He WILL SUCCEED because he has a PHENOMENAL track record spanning the last 15years & is a man of integrity who offers a superior product. Most people seem to get it toknormal, but for some reason you're evidently caught back in the stone ages trying to trade fossils for gold!!!!!!!!

Go crawl back into the cave where you belong ahahahahahahahahahha!!!!! You can do that while the rest of us who actually understand veritaseum smash the ball out of the park!!!

[Josef27]

Those VERI tokens are reserved for large private investors, institutions and sovereigns

The question "reserved is by whom" ? Not by the blockchain which is what matters in a decentralised market.

Somebody filled a wallet with 100 million new tokens on a blockchain. Then they published a plan for creating an 'ecosystem' which would support the value of those coins. Then they started selling parts of their wallet - some to participants in the early investor sale, some to banks, some to sovereigns.

The full 'supply' of that wallet is 100 million tokens and there is no categorical "in circulation" not "in circulation" supply boundary. Tokens continue to be traded and they continue to be supplied from that same 100 Million bag.

Not only that, the "unreported" part of the supply is being valued and priced (albeit at a hefty discount I would imagine) based on what you call the 'circulating' supply so it's only right that it be included in the marketcap.

Reggie Middleton is not an equity issuer. He created a bunch of tokens on a blockchain, published some plans as to how he intended to support their value. But we're not purchasing equity in that new ecosystem. We're purchasing a bunch of worthless tokens and hoping that they play a significant enough role in that new market to gain a viable and sustainable real value. As such RM is simply a 'member of the public' holding a big bag and intending to do something to underwrite its value.

Decentralised marketcap reporting should reflect that fact in order that investors can make appropriate comparisons between one asset and another.

 Your wanting to demonize or twist this into a scenario that benifts whatever your adjenda is. There are plenty of cryptos out there with limited ICO issuance with reserves and a time in the future release plan. Some with a constant infinite/inflation model. Your just here to stir up shit!

[Ant1Tr0ll]

Reggie, Masiah & Co continue to succeed despite all of the major exchanges not yet listing VERI (what are we at now, a full month?!? It's totally laughable how long they're taking), all of the major crypto publication entities not publishing even a whisper about it.

We're sitting in top 20 territory as it is & haven't had any of the charity that some of the other coins/tokens get!!! That's because Veritaseum is such a superior piece of software! Just imagine what'll happen when we finally do get some recognition!!!

Reggie closes a HUGE deal with JAMAICA STOCK EXCHANGE, yet this is mentioned in none of the typical crypto publications. How is this even possible?!? LOL

Who cares if Bittrex doesn't list us?!? Reggie's shown it won't even matter because he's gonna make his own exchange that's even better than theirs. This is a man who kicks down the door to barriers & you can either ride the train with him ably conducting the enterprise or sit the sidelines trolling while he succeeds!!!!

[Haddem]

Reggie, Masiah & Co continue to succeed despite all of the major exchanges not yet listing VERI (what are we at now, a full month?!? It's totally laughable how long they're taking), all of the major crypto publication entities not publishing even a whisper about it.

We're sitting in top 20 territory as it is & haven't had any of the charity that some of the other coins/tokens get!!! That's because Veritaseum is such a superior piece of software! Just imagine what'll happen when we finally do get some recognition!!!

Reggie closes a HUGE deal with JAMAICA STOCK EXCHANGE, yet this is mentioned in none of the typical crypto publications. How is this even possible?!? LOL

Who cares if Bittrex doesn't list us?!? Reggie's shown it won't even matter because he's gonna make his own exchange that's even better than theirs. This is a man who kicks down the door to barriers & you can either ride the train with him ably conducting the enterprise or sit the sidelines trolling while he succeeds!!!!

LOL not sure yet if this is a reverse troll...... or antitroll so to speak

[Ant1Tr0ll]

I'm the baddest reverse troll you've ever encountered!!!!! muahahahhahahahahaaha

[toknormal]

Your wanting to demonize or twist this into a scenario that benifts whatever your adjenda is. There are plenty of cryptos out there with limited ICO issuance with reserves and a time in the future release plan. Some with a constant infinite/inflation model. Your just here to stir up shit!

I'm not here to "stir up shit".

The CMC policy of reporting marketcap based on somebody's (usually the issuer's) notional idea of "in circulation" is not necessarily a bad idea and its basis is intuitively obvious.

But once it starts to get gamed in any significant way it just turns marketcap into a meaningless football that's totally detatched from the 'real' level of capitalisation that exists in the 'real' market.

Name dropping of banks, celebrity 'issuers' and off the cuff "you don't know what you've got there" remarks from people like Clif High are all handy for boosting investment and I don't criticise that type of marketing in any way. But the fact is there's no quicker and dirtier way to boost the "token-to-coin" price ratio than finding ways to under-report marketcap. Excluding 98% of the tokens from the "reported supply" but including it in the "real supply" is probably the most extreme case of 'gaming' yet in that respect. The fact that there are "other assets out there" doing it doesn't make it any more justified.

I know why Reggie's doing it though. It's so he can let the open market skyrocket on a tiny supply and then go to OTC customers and say "look what a huge discount I'm giving you" while keeping those trades off-book so they can't be arbitraged by the public exchange markets.

These are bearer tokens, not equity investments. There are no 'owners' like in equity, simply wallet holders and that's the end of the story. Big wallets, small wallets, some that may sell, some that may not. They are all "in circulation" as far as the blockchain is concerned. I'm not addressing the viability of the asset or whether it's going to be successful or how it was launched. I'm simply saying that if the main value proposition early on comes from a tactical gaming of the marketcap reporting system and balance of Exchange vs OTC sales from a single pre-mined wallet then it will end up in a major corruption of this metric that will just lead to tears and big losses for the entire market.