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.
2. It would be more financially rewarding for token holders if the total supply can be reduced.
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.
There's a difference between following through on a promise which was made pre-ICO and asking VERI to burn inventory which they never promised and are under no obligation to do.
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.
Um, in the second quote in this message (taken from the previous page in this thread) you state that it is "more financially rewarding for token holders" if the supply is reduced. So if, by your very words the intent of reducing supply is to boost the price, how is that not price manipulation, and further, if we believe what you say why do you have nothing more to say?
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.
I don't know which of Reggie's references you are referring to but very recently the price of VERI was approaching $500 which gave it a market cap of close to $1B with a circulating (not total) supply of 2M. As you know, market caps are very often referenced with respect to all crypto projects in discussions. I very much disagree with the common perception or discussion of market caps for crypto in general because most aren't securities and can't be compared to the market cap of a company listed on a stock exchange. However, I do recognize that market cap is useful in discussions to relate to a project's size, importance, relevance, or overall acceptance by the crypto world and marketplace. I don't think Reggie's references are any different but I would need the full context of his statement to say that he was referencing what was the approaching $1B market cap based on circulating supply and token price approaching $500.
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.
I have no objection to burning the unsold supply if that's what Reggie wants to do. I just happen to agree with Reggie's logic that it is unnecessary. I also disagree that the price would go up on any kind of lasting basis if unsold tokens were burnt. I do agree that it could be done and it wouldn't significantly affect the operation so VERI but I do disagree about it hurting the bottom line. Right now Reggie can sell off inventory into the markets to raise cash. He loses that ability if he burns the tokens. It's basically a line of credit, and even unused lines of credit have value.