I have no problem with the price of VERI increasing of course, but accomplishing that by manipulating supply is.... not right.
Again, a hedge fund charges 2% + 20%. If the VEADIR can return 100%+ annual returns I am happy to pay any fee that amounts to 1-5% or maybe even more. That's a sustainable and healthy business model. Unlike business models like PLR. PLR is a wallet that users are going to need PLR tokens to use. But if the price of PLR goes to $100/token, who is going to pay hundreds of dollars to use a wallet no matter how fantastic it is? the more sustainable model for PLR is to keep the price to use the wallet at a few dollars. BTW, I don't think we know yet how much PLR is going to charge, I'm just setting an example.
I think I am convinced that you have a handicap in comprehension.
Manipulation of supply is... not right.
Being overtly greedy using capitalism as excuse is... not right.
Being unable to set the optimal level of supply to facilitate exchanges is... not right.
There are many ICOs that totally burn all unsold token, including Proof ICO project that you are still endorsing. And if reducing excess supply (or burning them) is considered manipulating supply, then you are endorsing a wrong ICO project.
Are you aware (or not aware) that cryptocurrencies are highly divisible?