This guy 
Veritaseum is a business looking to sell Veritasuem tokens for services, you cannot just change the parameters of the token in order to "get rich quick" a bunch of previous investors which you seem desperate to see, meanwhile expecting to be taken seriously going forward, remember all those FUD cries of "scam"? Well they'd be fully legitimised with your token burning, how can you expect anyone to have faith in the Veritaseum ecosystem if they mess about with the core principles?
Veritaseum is a business looking to sell Veritasuem tokens for services, you cannot just change the parameters of the token in order to "get rich quick" a bunch of previous investors which you seem desperate to see, meanwhile expecting to be taken seriously going forward, remember all those FUD cries of "scam"? Well they'd be fully legitimised with your token burning, how can you expect anyone to have faith in the Veritaseum ecosystem if they mess about with the core principles?
If you keep believing reducing the excess unsold supply is equal to manipulating the price, or scam, or "get rich quick", then really I have nothing further to say.
Just as I have nothing further to say to someone who keep believing a cat is a dog.
You want to talk about legitimacy.
Reggie implied his Veritaseum is worth several billions of market cap, based on the total supply.
If VERI is not a security, then why relate it to the market cap? <<< -- yeah, ignore answering this all you like
Reggie compared VERI to Microsoft's licenses but Microsoft does not rent nor resell its licenses. <<< -- yeah, ignore acknowledging this all you like
You want to talk about legitimacy.
Please make sure your so-called legitimacy is fair and objective.
You guys have zero logic.
You guys have zero objectivity.
Now, you are against burning the excess unsold supply, because some idiot named Dorkie suggested so (I am speaking your mind).
But in an alternate world where the burning is carried out, you guys would sing praises at Reggie for being smart.
You guys are so blind.