With the recent rise, I'm into this asset well into 5 figures now. I have no conflict of interest in making my case, in fact I'd be more conflicted by not making it. But I invested based on fundamentals, not some stock market 'trick' that came and infected the decentralised world of freely traded digital assets.

Here's the deal why the blockchain-supply is under-reported and why Veritasium's short term viability at least depends on it:

1. Traders make valuations based on marketcap, not coin-exchange rate

2. As such VERI's low marketcap looks extremely good value for new buyers because it's still below such benign offerings as Bytecoin etc al, even with the recent doubling of the last 24 hours

3. However, the small "reported supply" is not the real supply since new OTC trades are supplied from Reggie's 'wallet', not from the coinmarketcap.com reported quantity

4. If the full (blockchain issued) supply were to be correctly reported, what would happen ? You'd see a ranking like the one I posted earlier and an associated market correction since it would be unlikely to give a single token offering a higher valuation than the entire Ethereum blockchain coin supply

What Reggie is doing is making tactical use of marketcap reporting in order to price the non-ICO token supply based on the tiny ICO portion. Ok, it's one marketing strategy (and is working so far) but it should be transparent and not hidden behind some "we don't understand institutional markets" nonsense.