VERITASEUM DISCUSSION THREAD

[azmojo]

If you keep believing reducing the excess unsold supply is equal to manipulating the price, or scam, or "get rich quick", then really I have nothing further to say.
Just as I have nothing further to say to someone who keep believing a cat is a dog.

2. It would be more financially rewarding for token holders if the total supply can be reduced.

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

There's a difference between following through on a promise which was made pre-ICO and asking VERI to burn inventory which they never promised and are under no obligation to do.

If you keep believing reducing the excess unsold supply is equal to manipulating the price, or scam, or "get rich quick", then really I have nothing further to say.
Just as I have nothing further to say to someone who keep believing a cat is a dog.

Um, in the second quote in this message (taken from the previous page in this thread) you state that it is "more financially rewarding for token holders" if the supply is reduced. So if, by your very words the intent of reducing supply is to boost the price, how is that not price manipulation, and further, if we believe what you say why do you have nothing more to say?

Reggie implied his Veritaseum is worth several billions of market cap, based on the total supply.
If VERI is not a security, then why relate it to the market cap?   <<< -- yeah, ignore answering this all you like
Reggie compared VERI to Microsoft's licenses but Microsoft does not rent nor resell its licenses.   <<< -- yeah, ignore acknowledging this all you like
You want to talk about legitimacy.

I don't know which of Reggie's references you are referring to but very recently the price of VERI was approaching $500 which gave it a market cap of close to $1B with a circulating (not total) supply of 2M. As you know, market caps are very often referenced with respect to all crypto projects in discussions. I very much disagree with the common perception or discussion of market caps for crypto in general because most aren't securities and can't be compared to the market cap of a company listed on a stock exchange. However, I do recognize that market cap is useful in discussions to relate to a project's size, importance, relevance, or overall acceptance by the crypto world and marketplace. I don't think Reggie's references are any different but I would need the full context of his statement to say that he was referencing what was the approaching $1B market cap based on circulating supply and token price approaching $500.

You guys have zero objectivity.
Now, you are against burning the excess unsold supply, because some idiot named Dorkie suggested so (I am speaking your mind).
But in an alternate world where the burning is carried out, you guys would sing praises at Reggie for being smart.
You guys are so blind.

I have no objection to burning the unsold supply if that's what Reggie wants to do. I just happen to agree with Reggie's logic that it is unnecessary. I also disagree that the price would go up on any kind of lasting basis if unsold tokens were burnt. I do agree that it could be done and it wouldn't significantly affect the operation so VERI but I do disagree about it hurting the bottom line. Right now Reggie can sell off inventory into the markets to raise cash. He loses that ability if he burns the tokens. It's basically a line of credit, and even unused lines of credit have value.

[1715103004]

1715103004

[1715103004]

1715103004

[Dorkie]

Um, in the second quote in this message (taken from the previous page in this thread) you state that it is "more financially rewarding for token holders" if the supply is reduced. So if, by your very words the intent of reducing supply is to boost the price, how is that not price manipulation, and further, if we believe what you say why do you have nothing more to say?

Indeed, I have nothing more to say to those that does not understand.

I don't know which of Reggie's references you are referring to but very recently the price of VERI was approaching $500 which gave it a market cap of close to $1B with a circulating (not total) supply of 2M. As you know, market caps are very often referenced with respect to all crypto projects in discussions. I very much disagree with the common perception or discussion of market caps for crypto in general because most aren't securities and can't be compared to the market cap of a company listed on a stock exchange. However, I do recognize that market cap is useful in discussions to relate to a project's size, importance, relevance, or overall acceptance by the crypto world and marketplace. I don't think Reggie's references are any different but I would need the full context of his statement to say that he was referencing what was the approaching $1B market cap based on circulating supply and token price approaching $500.

Go watch his videos again. Referencing the market cap is..... WRONG, regardless of what you recognize as useful. Once again, go watch his videos.

I have no objection to burning the unsold supply if that's what Reggie wants to do. I just happen to agree with Reggie's logic that it is unnecessary. I also disagree that the price would go up on any kind of lasting basis if unsold tokens were burnt. I do agree that it could be done and it wouldn't significantly affect the operation so VERI but I do disagree about it hurting the bottom line. Right now Reggie can sell off inventory into the markets to raise cash. He loses that ability if he burns the tokens. It's basically a line of credit, and even unused lines of credit have value.

Whether you agree or disagree, is irrelevant to me.
People here can disagree with every single point I make and you expect me to be troubled into explaining myself every time?

Update:
Nevertheless, do not misunderstand me into thinking I am against Veritaseum.
I see the project is as legitimate as it can be.
Just that burning unsold token would make things a whole lot much better to the token holders without any impact whatsoever to Veritaseum nor to the end users.
You can disagree that burning the token will have any impact to the price; I don't think you really understand how valuation works (despite being shown the calculation).

Update #2:
The only one thing that can make the price to be equally just as bullish as if the unsold tokens are burned without actually burning any unsold token is by making sure those who buy in bulk from Reggie will actually be the direct end user of the platform, maybe by signing an agreement that the bulk sold will be spent for actual use, i.e. getting exposure, and not for trading/speculating.
Or a system/platform mechanism in place whereby tokens bought in bulk from Reggie would be almost immediately/automatically be used/spent for exposure.
Unless such assurance is in place, there is always the risk of VERI getting overvalued due to manipulation, exploitation, or pure foolishness.

[paulmaritz]

I love the new website. It is well-designed and get to the point quickly. Look at the bios of "executive" team members to understand that they are as solid as it gets.

[1862]

Um, in the second quote in this message (taken from the previous page in this thread) you state that it is "more financially rewarding for token holders" if the supply is reduced. So if, by your very words the intent of reducing supply is to boost the price, how is that not price manipulation, and further, if we believe what you say why do you have nothing more to say?

Indeed, I have nothing more to say to those that does not understand.

Dorkie has nothing more to say because he clearly cannot refute the point, instead setting up straw men and resorting to ad hominem.

If VERI is not a security, then why relate it to the market cap?   <<< -- yeah, ignore answering this all you like

As answered elsewhere already, most would agree it stems from this https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/veritaseum/ and is an informal barometer for project growth.

Reggie compared VERI to Microsoft's licenses but Microsoft does not rent nor resell its licenses.   <<< -- yeah, ignore acknowledging this all you like

Microsoft also don't do pier to pier financial transactions, furthermore rather than waste more time with this straw man, you can put "rent microsoft license" and "resell microsoft license" in your search engine of choice.



A token burn could have worked, the time for it was immediately after the ICO, prior to making and setting up deals, doing it now or further down the line raises all the negative points previously highlighted.

Dorkie I wish you all the best in your token holding here, if you refuse to acknowledge there's a downside to a token burn so be it, regardless I think it's fair to say banging your token burn drum doesn't appear to be getting much traction.

[Dorkie]

Um, in the second quote in this message (taken from the previous page in this thread) you state that it is "more financially rewarding for token holders" if the supply is reduced. So if, by your very words the intent of reducing supply is to boost the price, how is that not price manipulation, and further, if we believe what you say why do you have nothing more to say?

Indeed, I have nothing more to say to those that does not understand.

Dorkie has nothing more to say because he clearly cannot refute the point, instead setting up straw men and resorting to ad hominem.

If VERI is not a security, then why relate it to the market cap?   <<< -- yeah, ignore answering this all you like

As answered elsewhere already, most would agree it stems from this https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/veritaseum/ and is an informal barometer for project growth.

Reggie compared VERI to Microsoft's licenses but Microsoft does not rent nor resell its licenses.   <<< -- yeah, ignore acknowledging this all you like

Microsoft also don't do pier to pier financial transactions, furthermore rather than waste more time with this straw man, you can put "rent microsoft license" and "resell microsoft license" in your search engine of choice.



A token burn could have worked, the time for it was immediately after the ICO, prior to making and setting up deals, doing it now or further down the line raises all the negative points previously highlighted.

Dorkie I wish you all the best in your token holding here, if you refuse to acknowledge there's a downside to a token burn so be it, regardless I think it's fair to say banging your token burn drum doesn't appear to be getting much traction.

A lot of ICO investors are intellectually bankrupt and I am very confident that includes you too.

If you understand, you understand.
If you don't understand, there is no further need to keep repeating the same thing.

If my token holding suffers major loss, so will be the same to you.
So you better wish my token holding is doing astronomically great.
Unless if you are a retard, arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Reggie Middleton]

Um, in the second quote in this message (taken from the previous page in this thread) you state that it is "more financially rewarding for token holders" if the supply is reduced. So if, by your very words the intent of reducing supply is to boost the price, how is that not price manipulation, and further, if we believe what you say why do you have nothing more to say?

Indeed, I have nothing more to say to those that does not understand.

Dorkie has nothing more to say because he clearly cannot refute the point, instead setting up straw men and resorting to ad hominem.

If VERI is not a security, then why relate it to the market cap?   <<< -- yeah, ignore answering this all you like

As answered elsewhere already, most would agree it stems from this https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/veritaseum/ and is an informal barometer for project growth.

Reggie compared VERI to Microsoft's licenses but Microsoft does not rent nor resell its licenses.   <<< -- yeah, ignore acknowledging this all you like

Microsoft also don't do pier to pier financial transactions, furthermore rather than waste more time with this straw man, you can put "rent microsoft license" and "resell microsoft license" in your search engine of choice.



A token burn could have worked, the time for it was immediately after the ICO, prior to making and setting up deals, doing it now or further down the line raises all the negative points previously highlighted.

Dorkie I wish you all the best in your token holding here, if you refuse to acknowledge there's a downside to a token burn so be it, regardless I think it's fair to say banging your token burn drum doesn't appear to be getting much traction.

A lot of ICO investors are intellectually bankrupt and I am very confident that includes you too.

If you understand, you understand.
If you don't understand, there is no further need to keep repeating the same thing.

If my token holding suffers major loss, so will be the same to you.
So you better wish my token holding is doing astronomically great.
Unless if you are a retard, arguing for the sake of arguing.

Would you burn the tokens that you have, now? I likely feel the same way. I don't have time to engage in a debate with you, I just want you to think in terms of economic value and not supply games.

[Dorkie]

Would you burn the tokens that you have, now? I likely feel the same way. I don't have time to engage in a debate with you, I just want you to think in terms of economic value and not supply games.

I would have no problem burning all my tokens IF their values can be regenerated over and over and over again thru renting and recycling for reselling.

While my tokens cannot be regenerated, yours can (thru renting and reselling).
So it makes an unequal comparison.


Update:
In case of misunderstanding, my tokens rented out (temporary forfeiture of ownership) is not the same as the tokens rented out (to an end user) to be used in the platform.
My tokens earn a tiny fee from renting them out, but as they are used for the platform, it gets recycled into Veritaseum's inventory for reselling.

When you asked if I would burn my tokens, you are asking from the perspective of a seller to a buyer.
I am not a seller, and thus I have no advantages that the seller has.
For me (as a buyer) to burn my tokens is totally not the same as for Reggie (as a seller) to burn his.
A buyer cannot have spent tokens recycled back into his MEW wallet to be used again.
A seller can have spent tokens recycled back into his inventory to be resold again.
The amount of time a token can be used to a BUYER is one time (1).
The amount of time a token can be used to a SELLER is unlimited (~).
Similarly...
The amount of time a token will generate economic value to a BUYER is one time (1) per use, unless it keeps being rented out repeatedly for a tiny fee.
The amount of time a token will generate economic value to a SELLER is unlimited (~) regardless of the number of time it is being used.
Thus, for a BUYER to burn his token is NOT THE SAME as a SELLER to burn his.
A BUYER burning his token results in destroying his own economic value.
A SELLER burning his token results in NO destruction of any economic value, because existing supply can be resold over and over again to generate unlimited economic value to the SELLER.
By right I should not need to be saying all these because they are obvious to those already in the know.

Update #2:
The system is good, but can be perfected further.
Why not strive for perfection?
But of course perfection can still be attained without absolute necessity to burn any unsold token, provided the below is in place.

Update #2:
The only one thing that can make the price to be equally just as bullish as if the unsold tokens are burned without actually burning any unsold token is by making sure those who buy in bulk from Reggie will actually be the direct end user of the platform, maybe by signing an agreement that the bulk sold will be spent for actual use, i.e. getting exposure, and not for trading/speculating.
Or a system/platform mechanism in place whereby tokens bought in bulk from Reggie would be almost immediately/automatically be used/spent for exposure.
Unless such assurance is in place, there is always the risk of VERI getting overvalued due to manipulation, exploitation, or pure foolishness.

Update #3:
The economic value relates to the commercial industries that Reggie is tapping into thru professional means and services.
The supply game relates to how such economic value is being sliced and diced between Reggie and the rest.
I am not here demanding Reggie to forsake his own economic value for the benefit of others.
I am here suggesting Reggie to expand the economic value of others while at the same time has no impact to his own economic value.
Nobody is at loss here by following my suggestion; not Reggie, not Veritaseum, not the team members, and not the direct end users.
But the one that stands to benefit far more are the token holders.
If my suggestion to burn unsold token (or put in place assurance that tokens from bulk purchase will be used immediately for exposure) is a form of manipulation, then I say it is a manipulation where absolutely ZERO victim is involved.

[Dorkie]

Right now the platform is still not fully independent, because bulk purchase of VERI still needs to go thru Reggie, manually.

If a system mechanism can be in place whereby bulk purchase is available thru the platform itself (without the need to go thru Reggie) and that such purchase will automatically expend the bought tokens almost immediately for investment exposure, then not only will the platform be more independent than ever, the price bullishness will also be maintained without the need to burn any unsold token.

[azmojo]

Right now the platform is still not fully independent, because bulk purchase of VERI still needs to go thru Reggie, manually.

If a system mechanism can be in place whereby bulk purchase is available thru the platform itself (without the need to go thru Reggie) and that such purchase will automatically expend the bought tokens almost immediately for investment exposure, then not only will the platform be more independent than ever, the price bullishness will also be maintained without the need to burn any unsold token.

Assuming a bulk purchase is defined as $100k+...
I can appreciate the benefits of automation, but for what would appear to be a low volume (low number of transactions), the expense and trouble of implementing a function on a website to automatically receive and process ACH or wire deposits of that size is fraught with trouble, especially concerning KYC/AML. Given the size and low number of transactions I don't see why this would or should be a priority at all and is best handled manually.

[paulmaritz]

Right now the platform is still not fully independent, because bulk purchase of VERI still needs to go thru Reggie, manually.

If a system mechanism can be in place whereby bulk purchase is available thru the platform itself (without the need to go thru Reggie) and that such purchase will automatically expend the bought tokens almost immediately for investment exposure, then not only will the platform be more independent than ever, the price bullishness will also be maintained without the need to burn any unsold token.

I fail to see why it is a problem that bulk purchases are going through Reggie and his company - they legitimately own the tokens. You are like usual just here to mix the proverbial like you're doing with so many other good projects. I don't know how much they pay you, but it is getting tiresome. And no - I am not going to respond to you beyond this. Been there, done that. Complete waste of time.

[Dorkie]

Assuming a bulk purchase is defined as $100k+...
I can appreciate the benefits of automation, but for what would appear to be a low volume (low number of transactions), the expense and trouble of implementing a function on a website to automatically receive and process ACH or wire deposits of that size is fraught with trouble, especially concerning KYC/AML. Given the size and low number of transactions I don't see why this would or should be a priority at all and is best handled manually.

I disagree with your limited viewpoints.
I see you are arguing for the sake of arguing and I do not wish to waste my time on you anymore.

I do not see what you know is even of any significance nor importance, and thus I disagree with anything you want to say from here onward.

[Dorkie]

I fail to see why it is a problem that bulk purchases are going through Reggie and his company - they legitimately own the tokens. You are like usual just here to mix the proverbial like you're doing with so many other good projects. I don't know how much they pay you, but it is getting tiresome. And no - I am not going to respond to you beyond this. Been there, done that. Complete waste of time.

I am just a usual, like you. Don't act like you are specially involved.
I am not doing with so many other good projects. So far only Veritaseum and Populous (which I do not believe is under a good team).
Unless you have evidence, you should not make accusation that I get paid by anyone.
Just the same as I can also make accusation that some projects paid you to shill.
I didn't invite your response; if it is tiresome, then you can always freely get lost.
Complete waste of time and yet you try to provoke response from me.
You are the one wasting my time.
You a piece of shit.

[paulmaritz]

I fail to see why it is a problem that bulk purchases are going through Reggie and his company - they legitimately own the tokens. You are like usual just here to mix the proverbial like you're doing with so many other good projects. I don't know how much they pay you, but it is getting tiresome. And no - I am not going to respond to you beyond this. Been there, done that. Complete waste of time.

I am just a usual, like you. Don't act like you are specially involved.
I am not doing with so many other good projects. So far only Veritaseum and Populous (which I do not believe is under a good team).
Unless you have evidence, you should not make accusation that I get paid by anyone.
Just the same as I can also make accusation that some projects paid you to shill.
I didn't invite your response; if it is tiresome, then you can always freely get lost.
Complete waste of time and yet you try to provoke response from me.
You are the one wasting my time.
You a piece of shit.

Yes, I initially figured it is a mental issue, but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt by conveying the idea that you might get paid for stirring the proverbial. Sorry, my bad.

"You a piece of shit" - Thank you. I take it as a compliment coming from you.

[Dorkie]

Yes, I initially figured it is a mental issue, but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt by conveying the idea that you might get paid for stirring the proverbial. Sorry, my bad.

"You a piece of shit" - Thank you. I take it as a compliment coming from you.

I am glad at least you admit you have mental issue.
I am glad you still have a tiny bit of objectivity in you.

You like to take comfort dwelling in the idea that anyone that goes against you is a paid shill, that anyone that is not a paid shill would absolutely agree with you, even if you put up shit on display.
No, I get paid by no one.

But if you insist, okay, I got paid in the millions by HIVE.
Now I have enough money to buy several units of lambo.
I figured in this world of human dishonesty and corruption, it is very hard for me to be honest.
If I have to lie by saying I got paid by HIVE (even though I am not, even though I believe nobody here is) just to be able to deal with a corrupt shithead like you paulmaritz, then so be it.

If you behave like a shit, then you are a shit.
I hope you can take time to re-read what you wrote about me over and over again, and that by doing so it will come to your rightful and honest realization that your comments are full of false accusations.

...but wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt by conveying the idea that you might get paid for stirring the proverbial.

You are indeed a very "funny" person. Despite being "funny", nobody is laughing.
Who are you to convey to me the idea that I might get paid for stirring whatever proverbial you personally perceive?
You would think I am not aware of any payment to me to shill?
Like I just wake up in the morning and then suddenly I feel compelled to give my opinion/suggestion for improvement?
And then in the afternoon when I check my bank account and to my surprise found some millions deposited into it by someone named "HIVE"?
And I need you to wake me up from some sort of trance or hypnosis that those deposit might be payment for me to shill?
Are you a totally fucking idiot?
If you want to argue, at least observe the line of good reason and logic.

[Dorkie]

What do you call a person that is the opposite of being an independent thought-leader? A dependent thought-follower?

What do you call a dependent thought-follower that also happens to be a total yes-man to Reggie? A Reggie's bitch?

I have substantial VERI. Despite that, I am not Reggie's bitch. I am an independent thought-leader.
Because of that, I am being opposed by several bitches here on whatever I say, regardless of right or wrong.

If I say 1 + 1 = 11, these bitches will say I am spreading FUD, a troll, a paid shill, etc.
If I say 1 + 1 = 2, these same bitches will still say the same thing about me (spreading FUD, troll, paid shill, etc).

Nevertheless, I am proud being an independent thought-leader, regardless of shitty circumstances.

[bytonaire]

What do you call a person that is the opposite of being an independent thought-leader? A dependent thought-follower?

What do you call a dependent thought-follower that also happens to be a total yes-man to Reggie? A Reggie's bitch?

I have substantial VERI. Despite that, I am not Reggie's bitch. I am an independent thought-leader.
Because of that, I am being opposed by several bitches here on whatever I say, regardless of right or wrong.

If I say 1 + 1 = 11, these bitches will say I am spreading FUD, a troll, a paid shill, etc.
If I say 1 + 1 = 2, these same bitches will still say the same thing about me (spreading FUD, troll, paid shill, etc).

Nevertheless, I am proud being an independent thought-leader, regardless of shitty circumstances.

Dude relax, you made your point. You're a thought leader. You seem bright, let's make this a productive place.

How about making suggestions on how to improve the product?

What other ways could Veritaseum provide value to the world?

[Dorkie]

Dude relax, you made your point. You're a thought leader. You seem bright, let's make this a productive place.

How about making suggestions on how to improve the product?

What other ways could Veritaseum provide value to the world?

I have a very hard time giving suggestions on how to improve the product.
Last time I suggested having a FAQ on the website and even such simplistic suggestion was met with oppositions and I had to stand my ground firm.
Eventually, the FAQ got implemented and almost everyone praised Reggie for doing the right thing.
I have no problem if everyone forgets who was the real initiator of doing the FAQ, as long as money can be made.
It's not like my generosity will be appreciated even if given for free, so why fucking bother.
Now someone ask me what other ways to improve Veritaseum, I seriously ask myself why the fuck should I even bother to care.

[paulmaritz]

What do you call a person that is the opposite of being an independent thought-leader? A dependent thought-follower?

What do you call a dependent thought-follower that also happens to be a total yes-man to Reggie? A Reggie's bitch?

I have substantial VERI. Despite that, I am not Reggie's bitch. I am an independent thought-leader.
Because of that, I am being opposed by several bitches here on whatever I say, regardless of right or wrong.

If I say 1 + 1 = 11, these bitches will say I am spreading FUD, a troll, a paid shill, etc.
If I say 1 + 1 = 2, these same bitches will still say the same thing about me (spreading FUD, troll, paid shill, etc).

Nevertheless, I am proud being an independent thought-leader, regardless of shitty circumstances.

A self-appointed 'thought leader' who stir the proverbial - a perfect fit for a mutual admiration society consisting of one. This is unlike those who give valid criticism when it is due and valid support when it is due. Yet, the 'thought leader' fails to differentiate between the two.

[Dorkie]

A self-appointed 'thought leader' who stir the proverbial - a perfect fit for a mutual admiration society consisting of one. This is unlike those who give valid criticism when it is due and valid support when it is due. Yet, the 'thought leader' fails to differentiate between the two.

A self-appointed thought leader is far more noble than a scum like you that go around making accusations.
You imply you are someone that gives valid criticism?
Lol, I honestly have to 100% disagree.

But then I have to agree with you.
There is only 1 thought leader; which is why this person is a leader in the first place.
If my thoughts are widely admired and accepted, I wouldn't be a leader, but a follower of existing thought process.

[1862]

A lot of ICO investors are intellectually bankrupt and I am very confident that includes you too.

https://frinkiac.com/video/S05E20/0VqepDAqQoiCSg0jDAWgxT9WRqM=.gif

You're right, it must be everyone else in the thread outlining their reasons why they disagree with you, including now the project owner, that are "intellectually bankrupt"

I have a very hard time giving suggestions on how to improve the product.

I think you'll find you've just made your first statement that everyone will agree with unanimously, take a bow son.