VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD

[azmojo]

If Reggie wants to have institutional users for Veritaseum platform, he should be humble and approach small-timer users first.
Small-timer users are easier to approach, easier to close a deal, and less demanding.
He should aim low first (to promote adoption and increase participation) and only to aim high later once he has an existing + proven user base to convince the big-timer users.

Not sure what you are getting at either. The VEADIR and rental platforms under development are for all to use.

[1714485031]

1714485031

[1714485031]

1714485031

[Dorkie]

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?

[Dorkie]

Not sure what you are getting at either. The VEADIR and rental platforms under development are for all to use.

I refer to his Rolodex.

[Dorkie]

I've been in crypto for 5 years and Veritaseum is one of the biggest mysteries I've ever seen.

Can anyone please try to logically explain it's market cap?

Why it's so special?

Makes no sense to me.

Computing its market cap is no different from computing every other ICOs' market cap.

[buyabit]

From Reggie Middleton today:

We've already "Veritized" Bitcoin & evidence can be found right on the blockchain. Simply look for Veritized Bitcoin :-)
Reference the actual VeADIR, then follow to etherscan

https://etherscan.io/token/0xa549ef3164556b3fdba16680798032b993c2325b?a=0xA64983B89345AEa760Ec122f1DDA463EDc9100BF … and/or see the screenshots from the VeADIR below https://twitter.com/aczpublishing/status/953266978684375040 …

[panorama]

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?

I'm not faulting you for your poor English, but it makes it hard to understand what you're trying to say. However, I've read enough of your prior posts to know that you're not as smart as you think you are, so I don't really want to take the time to translate your post into something understandable.

[azmojo]

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.

[Dorkie]

I'm not faulting you for your poor English, but it makes it hard to understand what you're trying to say. However, I've read enough of your prior posts to know that you're not as smart as you think you are, so I don't really want to take the time to translate your post into something understandable.

I am definitely way much smarter than most of my male counterparts. When I make/evaluate a statement, I evaluate it based on objectiveness and what is right, not based on ego or false pride. If you evaluate my statement based on ego or falsehood or fantasy, then surely you will not understand. My writing is clear cut and direct to the point. Thus it may be understood as offensive or in your case, not understandable, if you expect something different or something that suit your liking or something that conform to what you believe.

[Dorkie]

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.

I did sold a portion of my VERI when it was around $450 and buy NEO when it was around $70. So looking in retrospect, I have done the right thing. But I am still holding substantial amount of VERI.

I, for one, do not subscribe to blind faith. I subscribe only to what is right. If I am wrong, I will judge myself accordingly too.

What you do not see as a problem, is your own problem. My argument is even if the supply is reduced, there is still no impact to Veritaseum's bottom line. The blockchain innovation is structured in such a way that there is simply absolutely no need for huge supply of token to facilitate economic transactions.

Update:
If I am right in reducing the total supply and Reggie seriously consider my suggestion and implement the reduction, then I can bet a lot of people will eventually be very very happy with what can result from that. And fans will sing song about how great is Veritaseum, and nobody will remember me, and I am okay with that.

Reggie implemented my suggestion for a FAQ. But I don't think the team is making the best use of it because the FAQ can be enhanced into becoming a prime source of reference.

This forum's admin implemented my suggestion for email confirmation to prevent hack after much criticism from me, and so far things seem fine. I recently received an email stating someone from France wants to hack my account but because of the email notification, the hack failed.

So if anyone thinks I am stupid or not smart, well, to be honest, I don't think so. I am not here to brag. I am here to solve problem or make things better.

And I believe if Reggie can reduce the total supply effectively, the outcome will be very desirable to all, users, buyers, traders, and investors alike. There is a right amount of reduction that VERI supply can be reduced to, at the most optimal level and justified. Certainly not something arbitrary.

[panorama]

I'm not faulting you for your poor English, but it makes it hard to understand what you're trying to say. However, I've read enough of your prior posts to know that you're not as smart as you think you are, so I don't really want to take the time to translate your post into something understandable.

I am definitely way much smarter than most of my male counterparts. When I make/evaluate a statement, I evaluate it based on objectiveness and what is right, not based on ego or false pride. If you evaluate my statement based on ego or falsehood or fantasy, then surely you will not understand. My writing is clear cut and direct to the point. Thus it may be understood as offensive or in your case, not understandable, if you expect something different or something that suit your liking or something that conform to what you believe.

This is r/iamverysmart material

[Dorkie]

This is r/iamverysmart material

Well, you are the one that started the smart-stupid argument. I just play along.

[azmojo]

I did sold a portion of my VERI when it was around $450 and buy NEO when it was around $70. So looking in retrospect, I have done the right thing. But I am still holding substantial amount of VERI.

I, for one, do not subscribe to blind faith. I subscribe only to what is right. If I am wrong, I will judge myself accordingly too.

What you do not see as a problem, is your own problem. My argument is even if the supply is reduced, there is still no impact to Veritaseum's bottom line. The blockchain innovation is structured in such a way that there is simply absolutely no need for huge supply of token to facilitate economic transactions.

Update:
If I am right in reducing the total supply and Reggie seriously consider my suggestion and implement the reduction, then I can bet a lot of people will eventually be very very happy with what can result from that. And fans will sing song about how great is Veritaseum, and nobody will remember me, and I am okay with that.

Reggie implemented my suggestion for a FAQ. But I don't think the team is making the best use of it because the FAQ can be enhanced into becoming a prime source of reference.

This forum's admin implemented my suggestion for email confirmation to prevent hack after much criticism from me, and so far things seem fine. I recently received an email stating someone from France wants to hack my account but because of the email notification, the hack failed.

So if anyone thinks I am stupid or not smart, well, to be honest, I don't think so. I am not here to brag. I am here to solve problem or make things better.

And I believe if Reggie can reduce the total supply effectively, the outcome will be very desirable to all, users, buyers, traders, and investors alike. There is a right amount of reduction that VERI supply can be reduced to, at the most optimal level and justified. Certainly not something arbitrary.

You make a decent argument that the excess supply is unnecessary. However, I don't see an argument as to why it is a problem.

You imply that the price would be higher if the supply is reduced. I simply don't see it. I'd love to see the price at $500+, but I honestly don't think it would be if supply is reduced. With the price at $450-500 that's a market cap of $900M-$1B. Do you really think reducing the supply would increase the market cap by more than a few percent?

[Dorkie]

You make a decent argument that the excess supply is unnecessary. However, I don't see an argument as to why it is a problem.

You imply that the price would be higher if the supply is reduced. I simply don't see it. I'd love to see the price at $500+, but I honestly don't think it would be if supply is reduced. With the price at $450-500 that's a market cap of $900M-$1B. Do you really think reducing the supply would increase the market cap by more than a few percent?

Reducing the supply from 100 mil to just 10 mil (for example) has the potential to increase the price multiple fold without any negative impact to Veritaseum's bottom line and mode of operation. Reducing the excessive supply is desirable. That doesn't mean the increase will manifest right away, but it will manifest gradually into the future along with market adoption of the platform.

[zehro]

Can someone please explain what is this cryptocurrency for and its features? The website really looks bad and the text at the top "Imagine Having the Keys to the Internet in 1994" really fits the page as someone from that time lost those keys and nobody's been able to change it. Furthermore, what keeps it in the top 100 Market Cap for so long? And it's mostly traded on EtherDelta - seems sketchy.

[azmojo]

Can someone please explain what is this cryptocurrency for and its features? The website really looks bad and the text at the top "Imagine Having the Keys to the Internet in 1994" really fits the page as someone from that time lost those keys and nobody's been able to change it. Furthermore, what keeps it in the top 100 Market Cap for so long? And it's mostly traded on EtherDelta - seems sketchy.

Scroll back a few pages. This was all gone over recently.

[buyabit]

From Reggie Middleton today:

I'm at 1 Hotel in Miami through Sunday, demonstrating VeADIR w/ real capital to all who are interested. I'll create funded exposures (using our funds) for HNWs & those who run money at institutional level to show what we can do for you - NOW! Also discussing our latest research.

[azmojo]

I can't believe no one mentioned this tweet from today:

Screenshot of beta 2 of the VeADIR. The soon to be updated Veritaseum website will look very similar to this as the VeADIR will be integrated tightly into the Veritaseum home/landing page. Max duration limit has been lifted to 30 days for private beta testers, request URL from me

Did everyone catch that?

A NEW WEBSITE!

OK, Updated... assume that means new.

[azmojo]

Reggie Live Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKpqXN9ZD9Q

Updates:
-Public Beta expected Wed Next week
-Jamaica: "Ran into politics, working through it"
-Working on 5 more nations: 5 more (countries?) in the pipeline, 5 in Africa (?), 1 more Caribbean nation.
-Looking into trying other blockchains, but still is committed to ETH for now.
-May have ambassadors go to cities do demo the platform.
-Looking to Veritize portions of the political machine and voting, coming veri soon.
-There may be a Veritaseum super-PAC (political action committee)

[Dorkie]

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?

[buyabit]

Words from Reggie Middleton today:

Signs of conspicuous consumption at the Miami Bitcoin Conference. Veritaseum will introduce a new concept to the markets/consultant crowd: Conspicuous PRODUCTION! Our platform will enable value creation at a clip that'd be considered downright rude to the legacy establishment.