If Veri is truly a tremendous economic value, then eth price fall will mean cheaper Veri, which means people will buy eth to get into Veri, indirectly giving support to eth as well. This should not be a worry.
So, in summary: in a decentralised context, Reggie is not the "issuer" and should not be presenting himself as such. He is a trader who is at liberty to sell as much or as little of his wallet as he likes. The difference being that if he was an "issuer", buyers would still own the Ether/bitcoin that they paid him for the tokens. His full wallet therefore counts towards marketcap just as much as mine or yours.
What you are trying to say is that Veri market cap is actually far larger than appear and thus is extremely overrated and overpriced and the best way we all should do now is to dump every Veri that we have while we still can. Am I right?
I think you are a very smart person. What do you think I should buy with the proceed? Which erc20 token do you think is the best? Which cryptocurrency do you think is the best?
Finally, lets consider the idea thatâs been posted both by Reggie and by others that VERI somehow âisnât a securityâ. All Iâd say to that is that itâs the market that decides whether itâs a security or not and basically anything at all that has a resale value and a variable price is a potential candidate.
There are indeed some justifiable cases for arguing that a âblockchain token is not a securityâ, but only when the market is deprived of making trading gains on it and theyâre more properly described here by one of the more respected Ethereum project staff (and none of which apply to the VERI token).
My friend, the only thing that is NOT a "security" (in your definition of a "security") is when you participate in an ICO with zero chance of making any form of return or economic value out of it. In other words, when you participate in an ICO you are actually doing 100% charity by donating 100% of your money to the project for the complete benefit of the ICO project team and its users (excluding you). In other words, such participation is stupid.
Everything is a security. Even a piece of toilet paper is a security if based on your definition of what a security is. I will just get a few members to trade the toilet paper among each other, every time paying slightly higher price than the previous transaction, thus conjuring the impression of trading gains, and including this toilet paper into my company as a valuable security.
Manipulation? Yes. The paper money you have in your pocket and bank account are ALL manipulated stuff, but I don't see you throwing them away. The money god is not eternal. Someday it will die. The money god is a product of our conjuration, to facilitate fair trade. The human lords that rule over all money matters are the rothschilds. If you want to bark at the right tree, please go bark at the rothschilds.
And for you (and everyone) to think Reggie is going to dump his 98mil supply on a 2mil (actually far less than that since there will be around half of the 2mil holders that may want to sell, thus the effective liquidity may just be 1mil) market supply, which is a far worse decision than institutional dump, means that you have got to be some seriously dumb person. I don't believe Reggie is that stupid.
Contrary to what Reggie asserts in that post, itâs not the âantithesis of what we have hereâ, otherwise heâd be selling software as a service and not as a tradeable âsecurityâ.
Correct me if I am wrong, I believe Reggie is indeed selling software as a service, but he make sure the price of such service is decided by the market (thus tradeable) instead of deciding the price himself (which may lead to underpricing or overpricing, doing disservice either to himself or to his customers). And he help facilitate the market pricing of his service by improving the exposure, adoption, and value of his services through project/product/service development and closing deals with exchanges, institutions, HNWI, etc to use the software for economic activities, which is probably the reason why he said the more people using it, the more value it brings to the token holder, thus this is not dilutive as misunderstood.
What's wrong with that?
Oh, yeah. I remember. The market cap, right?
Well, that is a non-issue to me now.