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

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

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

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

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

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