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.