VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD

[jbl888]

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.

Another freakin' badass mic drop from Reggie

Can every idiot savant that comes on here thinking we're under some spell from the "Reggie Cult" be pointed to this post?

 

[Costix]

Need to share Mike B s video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVNwzuctlSA&spfreload=10
Thanks Mike for all those updates!

[AltCity]

https://youtu.be/sLAan2iZs_Y

Money never sleeps pal.
This is your wakeup call pal, go to work.

[WeatlhTransfer]

Fuck off troll!

Paul. Be a better man. OK? Instead of replying and acknowledging the likes you know who rather start posting something about VERI. Some technical or non technical stuff. Like user guide to understand VERI for dummies. Do not waste time on obvious trolls.

[endchat]

Fuck off troll!

Paul. Be a better man. OK? Instead of replying and acknowledging the likes you know who rather start posting something about VERI. Some technical or non technical stuff. Like user guide to understand VERI for dummies. Do not waste time on obvious trolls.

I would have to agree..

I have participated and watched (mostly) many threads over the years here on bitcointalk, and its always the same type of fudsters spreading the same BS, some have points, but most are just fluff and harsh words. Perhaps because they feel because they missed out or that their favourite token will fall out of favour. Who knows really, so many motivating factors, especially greed.
All to say that, in the end, a pattern builds and with enough time the real agenda is obvious to veterans of the community.


So Engaging theses types, is acknowledging them, and almost legitimises them in a way.


In the end, Be the better man.

Either point them to DATA to refute their "facts/points/ simple trolling", or, just pretend they are not there.


With the success VERI is having, expect this to ramp up in the future, the time to adapt is now.

[ansenl]

Not sure if this has been posted. But here's Reggie's most recent updates!

"I don't think you guys have any idea of the scope of the Veritaseum project. Beleive it or not, it's not even a financial services platform, we just chose to attack that industry's rent seeks first because there are so many of them. It's structurally overpriced and the employees are overpaid. We have many, many oher industry verticals to go after and disintermediate. VERI is the world's most dangerous token! Something like a digital version of Woverine!!!

PS We're boing back to Jamaica in two weeks, AND we're going to another country with one of the largest and most well respected financial systems in the world. They insisted that I come to them for the second because they couldn't get all of their decision makers to come to our offices in NYC at the same time. The meeting (this is the second one, the first was with the president) was set by them for FOUR ours in front of the C-suite decision making committee. This means they are dead serious, I'm offering them a deal that's hard to refuse, and they are top tem in the world.

We also will start selling off real world assets via VERI in a few weeks to a couple of months. These products were requested by hedge funds, one in NYC is over $20B.

Yes, we are working!!!!

I actually have another surprise as well, but I will keep that under the cuff."

[Haddem]

Not sure if this has been posted. But here's Reggie's most recent updates!

"I don't think you guys have any idea of the scope of the Veritaseum project. Beleive it or not, it's not even a financial services platform, we just chose to attack that industry's rent seeks first because there are so many of them. It's structurally overpriced and the employees are overpaid. We have many, many oher industry verticals to go after and disintermediate. VERI is the world's most dangerous token! Something like a digital version of Woverine!!!

PS We're boing back to Jamaica in two weeks, AND we're going to another country with one of the largest and most well respected financial systems in the world. They insisted that I come to them for the second because they couldn't get all of their decision makers to come to our offices in NYC at the same time. The meeting (this is the second one, the first was with the president) was set by them for FOUR ours in front of the C-suite decision making committee. This means they are dead serious, I'm offering them a deal that's hard to refuse, and they are top tem in the world.

We also will start selling off real world assets via VERI in a few weeks to a couple of months. These products were requested by hedge funds, one in NYC is over $20B.

Yes, we are working!!!!

I actually have another surprise as well, but I will keep that under the cuff."

Complete madness to sell now

[azmojo]

Not sure if this has been posted. But here's Reggie's most recent updates!

"I don't think you guys have any idea of the scope of the Veritaseum project. Beleive it or not, it's not even a financial services platform, we just chose to attack that industry's rent seeks first because there are so many of them. It's structurally overpriced and the employees are overpaid. We have many, many oher industry verticals to go after and disintermediate. VERI is the world's most dangerous token! Something like a digital version of Woverine!!!

PS We're boing back to Jamaica in two weeks, AND we're going to another country with one of the largest and most well respected financial systems in the world. They insisted that I come to them for the second because they couldn't get all of their decision makers to come to our offices in NYC at the same time. The meeting (this is the second one, the first was with the president) was set by them for FOUR ours in front of the C-suite decision making committee. This means they are dead serious, I'm offering them a deal that's hard to refuse, and they are top tem in the world.

We also will start selling off real world assets via VERI in a few weeks to a couple of months. These products were requested by hedge funds, one in NYC is over $20B.

Yes, we are working!!!!

I actually have another surprise as well, but I will keep that under the cuff."

Wow. How can anyone be selling right now?
When looking at and comparing various cryptos, one of the points of differentiation is the company/team behind the coin and what they are doing to promote and expand it. A lot of coins have great teams and ambitions, but the RESULTS I see here with VERI are impressive.

Is VERI hiring?

[dave3]

Holy cow!  Somebody is selling?!

[streetgainer]

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.

and... Reggie... mike drop. 

I think by using the word "published", this guy confused his point. I think he means "released". What he's trying to say is that he's afraid of the largest wallet holder, that being Reggie, dumping coins into the $VERI market. This phenomenon has been a MAJOR pet peeve amongst $XRP investors and buyers, to the point where the Ripple CEO had to release a pledge to not dilute the $XRP market.... http://www.coindesk.com/ripple-pledges-lock-14-billion-xrp-cryptocurrency/ this is real concern!!

I'm a $VERI holder, so I believe in this project. I've been following Reggie since his BBB days, and if you don't know what the initial's BBB represent then you haven't been following Reggie Middleton for long. Amongst many things, there is one thing I have learned the most from his publishings, and that is to NOT be sheepish. Always look under the hood, and be cautious when the crowd is chanting buy, buy, buy!! So I like to sometimes play devils advocate even for projects I support. This keeps me balanced and objective. So here's my devils advocate position I hope some of you can address...

I'm not concerned with the dilution issue the other poster has raised, as I believe Reggie knows better than anyone else what the imbalance of supply to demand can do to a market, for better and for worse. Example: He released a note on the collapse of oil (despite OPEC's promise to cut) that is so astonishingly accurate today, that it's f'king creepy!!.... but here's the kicker, he released this note over a year ago.. https://blog.veritaseum.com/current-analysis/1-blog/180-as-experts-speculators-await-higher-oil-prices-i-anticipate-a-new-energy-paradigm-monetize-your-outlook-through-veritaseum. So Reggie Middleton knows imbalance when he sees imbalance and I'm sure he won't go there.

My concern is his decision to run his coin under the Ethererum chain. The ERC20, where every ICO, and their mothers uncles brothers ICO is popping up!
I believe that this may be causing price problems for $eth, to put it mildly, and will invariably affect it going forward as more and more ICO's hit. Here's a good discussion thread on the issue.. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6ih5wc/icos_and_their_effect_of_eth_prices/

That being said, what happens to the price of $VERI, when the price of $ETH collapses back to... let's say... $50USD?.... I know what you're thinking... "WHAT?!! WHO!!?? WHERE??!!!...NO WAY IT GOES BACK TO $50!!!..."

Well, it can happen, and most likely will. So has anyone looked to see if there is any correlation in the movement of $VERI to $ETH?... There's a world of difference between .55 veri/eth cost, when $ETH is at $245USD, then there is when $ETH goes to $50.

By being an ERC20 coin $VERI is in a muddy pool right now. When $ETH blows, I don't think there's an ERC20 coin that will be immune. This is my concern!
He should have established his coin on a BTC Sidechain.

Your thoughts and comments are welcomed.

[azmojo]

I don't think Reggie has enough VERI. I'm not sure what quantities he's selling in these deals, but My guess is he's going to want/need every VERI he has to make these big institutional deals, rather than dump them on the market.

[Masiah]

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.

and... Reggie... mike drop.  

I think by using the word "published", this guy confused his point. I think he means "released". What he's trying to say is that he's afraid of the largest wallet holder, that being Reggie, dumping coins into the $VERI market. This phenomenon has been a MAJOR pet peeve amongst $XRP investors and buyers, to the point where the Ripple CEO had to release a pledge to not dilute the $XRP market.... http://www.coindesk.com/ripple-pledges-lock-14-billion-xrp-cryptocurrency/ this is real concern!!

I'm a $VERI holder, so I believe in this project. I've been following Reggie since his BBB days, and if you don't know what the initial's BBB represent then you haven't been following Reggie Middleton for long. Amongst many things, there is one thing I have learned the most from his publishings, and that is to NOT be sheepish. Always look under the hood, and be cautious when the crowd is chanting buy, buy, buy!! So I like to sometimes play devils advocate even for projects I support. This keeps me balanced and objective. So here's my devils advocate position I hope some of you can address...

I'm not concerned with the dilution issue the other poster has raised, as I believe Reggie knows better than anyone else what the imbalance of supply to demand can do to a market, for better and for worse. Example: He released a note on the collapse of oil (despite OPEC's promise to cut) that is so astonishingly accurate today, that it's f'king creepy!!.... but here's the kicker, he released this note over a year ago.. https://blog.veritaseum.com/current-analysis/1-blog/180-as-experts-speculators-await-higher-oil-prices-i-anticipate-a-new-energy-paradigm-monetize-your-outlook-through-veritaseum. So Reggie Middleton knows imbalance when he sees imbalance and I'm sure he won't go there.

My concern is his decision to run his coin under the Ethererum chain. The ERC20, where every ICO, and their mothers uncles brothers ICO is popping up!
I believe that this may be causing price problems for $eth, to put it mildly, and will invariably affect it going forward as more and more ICO's hit. Here's a good discussion thread on the issue.. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6ih5wc/icos_and_their_effect_of_eth_prices/

That being said, what happens to the price of $VERI, when the price of $ETH collapses back to... let's say... $50USD?.... I know what you're thinking... "WHAT?!! WHO!!?? WHERE??!!!...NO WAY IT GOES BACK TO $50!!!..."

Well, it can happen, and most likely will. So has anyone looked to see if there is any correlation in the movement of $VERI to $ETH?... There's a world of difference between .55 veri/eth cost, when $ETH is at $245USD, then there is when $ETH goes to $50.

By being an ERC20 coin $VERI is in a muddy pool right now. When $ETH blows, I don't think there's an ERC20 coin that will be immune. This is my concern!
He should have established his coin on a BTC Sidechain.

Your thoughts and comments are welcomed.

If the price of ETH decreases and demand for VERI remains the same the VERI/ETH price will simply increase. For example, in countries with high inflation rates their food doesn't become cheaper, the price of the food in that particular unit of account simply increases. Also VERI can be moved to other blockchains if the ethereum blockchain is no longer the best option.

[YGung]

and... Reggie... mike drop.  

I think by using the word "published", this guy confused his point. I think he means "released". What he's trying to say is that he's afraid of the largest wallet holder, that being Reggie, dumping coins into the $VERI market. This phenomenon has been a MAJOR pet peeve amongst $XRP investors and buyers, to the point where the Ripple CEO had to release a pledge to not dilute the $XRP market.... http://www.coindesk.com/ripple-pledges-lock-14-billion-xrp-cryptocurrency/ this is real concern!!

I'm a $VERI holder, so I believe in this project. I've been following Reggie since his BBB days, and if you don't know what the initial's BBB represent then you haven't been following Reggie Middleton for long. Amongst many things, there is one thing I have learned the most from his publishings, and that is to NOT be sheepish. Always look under the hood, and be cautious when the crowd is chanting buy, buy, buy!! So I like to sometimes play devils advocate even for projects I support. This keeps me balanced and objective. So here's my devils advocate position I hope some of you can address...

I'm not concerned with the dilution issue the other poster has raised, as I believe Reggie knows better than anyone else what the imbalance of supply to demand can do to a market, for better and for worse. Example: He released a note on the collapse of oil (despite OPEC's promise to cut) that is so astonishingly accurate today, that it's f'king creepy!!.... but here's the kicker, he released this note over a year ago.. https://blog.veritaseum.com/current-analysis/1-blog/180-as-experts-speculators-await-higher-oil-prices-i-anticipate-a-new-energy-paradigm-monetize-your-outlook-through-veritaseum. So Reggie Middleton knows imbalance when he sees imbalance and I'm sure he won't go there.

My concern is his decision to run his coin under the Ethererum chain. The ERC20, where every ICO, and their mothers uncles brothers ICO is popping up!
I believe that this may be causing price problems for $eth, to put it mildly, and will invariably affect it going forward as more and more ICO's hit. Here's a good discussion thread on the issue.. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6ih5wc/icos_and_their_effect_of_eth_prices/

That being said, what happens to the price of $VERI, when the price of $ETH collapses back to... let's say... $50USD?.... I know what you're thinking... "WHAT?!! WHO!!?? WHERE??!!!...NO WAY IT GOES BACK TO $50!!!..."

Well, it can happen, and most likely will. So has anyone looked to see if there is any correlation in the movement of $VERI to $ETH?... There's a world of difference between .55 veri/eth cost, when $ETH is at $245USD, then there is when $ETH goes to $50.

By being an ERC20 coin $VERI is in a muddy pool right now. When $ETH blows, I don't think there's an ERC20 coin that will be immune. This is my concern!
He should have established his coin on a BTC Sidechain.

Your thoughts and comments are welcomed.

If the price of ETH decreases and demand for VERI remains the same the VERI/ETH price will simply increase. For example, in countries with high inflation rates their food doesn't become cheaper, the price of the food in that particular unit of account simply increases. Also VERI can be moved to other blockchains if the ethereum blockchain is no longer the best option.

Pretty much totally agree with that take.

Ey Reggie, lol, you should've never called it the wolverine of tokens man, now every time I talk to my boys about VERI I gotta introduce it as the wolverine of tokens now.

CONTRARIAN BADASS
CONTRARIAN BADASS

REGGIEEEEEEEE
REGGIEEEEEEEE MIDDLETOOONNNNNN

[streetgainer]

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.

and... Reggie... mike drop.  

I think by using the word "published", this guy confused his point. I think he means "released". What he's trying to say is that he's afraid of the largest wallet holder, that being Reggie, dumping coins into the $VERI market. This phenomenon has been a MAJOR pet peeve amongst $XRP investors and buyers, to the point where the Ripple CEO had to release a pledge to not dilute the $XRP market.... http://www.coindesk.com/ripple-pledges-lock-14-billion-xrp-cryptocurrency/ this is real concern!!

I'm a $VERI holder, so I believe in this project. I've been following Reggie since his BBB days, and if you don't know what the initial's BBB represent then you haven't been following Reggie Middleton for long. Amongst many things, there is one thing I have learned the most from his publishings, and that is to NOT be sheepish. Always look under the hood, and be cautious when the crowd is chanting buy, buy, buy!! So I like to sometimes play devils advocate even for projects I support. This keeps me balanced and objective. So here's my devils advocate position I hope some of you can address...

I'm not concerned with the dilution issue the other poster has raised, as I believe Reggie knows better than anyone else what the imbalance of supply to demand can do to a market, for better and for worse. Example: He released a note on the collapse of oil (despite OPEC's promise to cut) that is so astonishingly accurate today, that it's f'king creepy!!.... but here's the kicker, he released this note over a year ago.. https://blog.veritaseum.com/current-analysis/1-blog/180-as-experts-speculators-await-higher-oil-prices-i-anticipate-a-new-energy-paradigm-monetize-your-outlook-through-veritaseum. So Reggie Middleton knows imbalance when he sees imbalance and I'm sure he won't go there.

My concern is his decision to run his coin under the Ethererum chain. The ERC20, where every ICO, and their mothers uncles brothers ICO is popping up!
I believe that this may be causing price problems for $eth, to put it mildly, and will invariably affect it going forward as more and more ICO's hit. Here's a good discussion thread on the issue.. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6ih5wc/icos_and_their_effect_of_eth_prices/

That being said, what happens to the price of $VERI, when the price of $ETH collapses back to... let's say... $50USD?.... I know what you're thinking... "WHAT?!! WHO!!?? WHERE??!!!...NO WAY IT GOES BACK TO $50!!!..."

Well, it can happen, and most likely will. So has anyone looked to see if there is any correlation in the movement of $VERI to $ETH?... There's a world of difference between .55 veri/eth cost, when $ETH is at $245USD, then there is when $ETH goes to $50.

By being an ERC20 coin $VERI is in a muddy pool right now. When $ETH blows, I don't think there's an ERC20 coin that will be immune. This is my concern!
He should have established his coin on a BTC Sidechain.

Your thoughts and comments are welcomed.

If the price of ETH decreases and demand for VERI remains the same the VERI/ETH price will simply increase. For example, in countries with high inflation rates their food doesn't become cheaper, the price of the food in that particular unit of account simply increases. Also VERI can be moved to other blockchains if the ethereum blockchain is no longer the best option.

Thanks for responding Masiah,

We're not simply talking about a generic inflation 101 formula here, there's an actual "affect" on price across the board if and when $eth goes. I think more analogous to deflation, prices declining as less and less people use/trust $eth, or at least find alternatives. Which brings me to your next point you said... "VERI can be moved to other blockchains if the ethereum blockchain is no longer the best option." ... This is ABSOLUTELY the best thing I've seen or read in all discussions and posts. If this is a fact, and I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying, if the Veritaseum machine is portable enough to be moved from $eth (Solidity) to a BTC Sidechain, then hands down without a shadow of a doubt it's a winner.

[YGung]

^^Well the only caveat with that is, as Reggie alluded to in one if his videos, porting it to another blockchain could take a significant amount of man/code hours (referencing move from bitcoin blockchain to eth chain)...Its possible to say the least though, and there are def other blockchains taking on ICOs.

 

[toknormal]

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).

[Dorky]

If Veri is truly a tremendous economic value, then eth price fall will mean cheaper Veri, which means people will buy eth to get into Veri, indirectly giving support to eth as well. This should not be a worry.

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.

What you are trying to say is that Veri market cap is actually far larger than appear and thus is extremely overrated and overpriced and the best way we all should do now is to dump every Veri that we have while we still can. Am I right?

I think you are a very smart person. What do you think I should buy with the proceed? Which erc20 token do you think is the best? Which cryptocurrency do you think is the best?

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).

My friend, the only thing that is NOT a "security" (in your definition of a "security") is when you participate in an ICO with zero chance of making any form of return or economic value out of it. In other words, when you participate in an ICO you are actually doing 100% charity by donating 100% of your money to the project for the complete benefit of the ICO project team and its users (excluding you). In other words, such participation is stupid.

Everything is a security. Even a piece of toilet paper is a security if based on your definition of what a security is. I will just get a few members to trade the toilet paper among each other, every time paying slightly higher price than the previous transaction, thus conjuring the impression of trading gains, and including this toilet paper into my company as a valuable security.

Manipulation? Yes. The paper money you have in your pocket and bank account are ALL manipulated stuff, but I don't see you throwing them away. The money god is not eternal. Someday it will die. The money god is a product of our conjuration, to facilitate fair trade. The human lords that rule over all money matters are the rothschilds. If you want to bark at the right tree, please go bark at the rothschilds.

And for you (and everyone) to think Reggie is going to dump his 98mil supply on a 2mil (actually far less than that since there will be around half of the 2mil holders that may want to sell, thus the effective liquidity may just be 1mil) market supply, which is a far worse decision than institutional dump, means that you have got to be some seriously dumb person. I don't believe Reggie is that stupid.

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�.

Correct me if I am wrong, I believe Reggie is indeed selling software as a service, but he make sure the price of such service is decided by the market (thus tradeable) instead of deciding the price himself (which may lead to underpricing or overpricing, doing disservice either to himself or to his customers). And he help facilitate the market pricing of his service by improving the exposure, adoption, and value of his services through project/product/service development and closing deals with exchanges, institutions, HNWI, etc to use the software for economic activities, which is probably the reason why he said the more people using it, the more value it brings to the token holder, thus this is not dilutive as misunderstood.

What's wrong with that?
Oh, yeah. I remember. The market cap, right?
Well, that is a non-issue to me now.

[streetgainer]

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).

https://i.imgur.com/AmLC2r7.png

That debate of whether it's a security or not, I will leave for Reggie to tackle. However, this is actually a revealing video and speaks to eth's vulnerabilities. Here you have Vlad claiming PoS was never "promised" by eth devs, that's total BS!, as PoS was mentioned in their plans for some time. There's a HUGE problem on the horizon for Ethereum and it seems not many are willing to admit this. I think the Veri crew will soon realize that using the eth chain was a big mistake, IMHO. This is the only problem I see. Now... it was stated earlier that they can move it to a diiferent chain, if they can great because I think they won't have choice soon. Again, IMHO.

[jbl888]

More FUD about something Reggie has already answered

"Now... it was stated earlier that they can move it to a diiferent chain, if they can great because I think they won't have choice soon. Again, IMHO."



Veritaseum is platform agnostic per CEO Reggie Middleton

End of discussion .... oh in my fn humble opinion lol   

Anything else Activity 2 Newbie?


 

[Dorky]

I believe both bitcoin and ethereum will need PoS.
And this is actually a very good thing.
Of course people will fear what they don't know.