You stated:
"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..."
This is wrong. Reggie (or more appropriately, a company that Reggie works for has created a contract that) is both the issuer (creator) and a major stakeholder. You are loosely throwing around terms as jargon that have very little correlation to the topic at hand.
"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..."
This is wrong. Reggie (or more appropriately, a company that Reggie works for has created a contract that) is both the issuer (creator) and a major stakeholder. You are loosely throwing around terms as jargon that have very little correlation to the topic at hand.
Reggie -
Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid (IMHO) your post is the one better characterised as "throwing around terms as jargon that have very little correlation to the topic at hand"
If you care to reread my summary, "the topic at hand" is the clear distinction between 2 types of "issuer":
the classic equity sense (where investors retain ownership of the capital paid to the 'issuer')
the blockchain sense (where they don't)
I made the case that in the second of those two, there is no distinction (as far as supply counting towards 'aggregate valuation' is concerned) between one wallet holder and another since the 'issuer' is the blockchain and the 'supply' is the sum total of all wallets. You are using the word "issuer" in a market distribution sense, I am using it in an accounting sense for purposes of valuation.
Traders are speculators who chase price movement (in any direction they can monetize - whether up or down - with the anticipation of economic gain). Stakeholders seek economic gain from the increase in economic value of the asset
This is a qualitative distinction you are making between different types of token holders. The distinction of stakeholder and trader is arbitrary and irrelevant to "the topic at hand" since it's moot in the context of accounting for aggregate value. Both are in posession of 'circulating supply' from the perspective of the blockchain-issued capital. Both are at liberty to exchange that supply for money and therefore both 'wallets' count towards the aggregate valuation of that supply. Again, the fact that they have different motivations is moot from an accounting point of view.
On "software as a service"...
This is an arbitrarily contrived opinion of yours that you are stating as fact. We are distributed and autonomous software and financial engineering-based solutions provider. The token enables the distributed and autonomous attributes of the delivered solution. Attempting to pigeonhole us into either a SaaS or a security decision is simply a capricious lumping of every potential option into category A or category B, even worse, rendering category B potentially illegal.
I wasn't "stating as fact" that you were selling "software as a service". I was simply pointing out that you had no grounds for expecting 98% of your blockchain supply to be exempted from the commonly understood 'marketcap' based on the role of the token as long as it's tradeable with a reseale value on the open market. Ironically, the implication of that point was specifically that you were not selling a "SAS" business model
This is nonsense!!! Valuation is derived from economic cashflows. In essence, the amount of real, inflation and risk adjusted capital generated. You havent broached this topic ONCE in your entire diatribe, yet you haphazardly throw in the term and concept of valuation.
You're confusing methods of equity valuation with the calculation of marketcap of a blockchain token. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Having challenged your perspective on accounting for token supply 'marketcap', I should add that I'm not otherwise challenging the viability of the token. I'm simply pointing out that the immature and unregulated conventions in this sector are being taken advantage of (gamed) by all and sundry ICO offerings with an audacity that is un-precendented in the sector. Ostensibly, we are in a period where more formal conventions will eventually evolve and right now it's arguably one person's reasoning against another which is why it's important that this debate be had and that (IMO) the view you are taking not be allowed to prevail.