Quote from: azmojo on February 08, 2018, 09:04:23 AM

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?

Indeed, I have nothing more to say to those that does not understand.

Quote from: azmojo on February 08, 2018, 09:04:23 AM

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.

Go watch his videos again. Referencing the market cap is..... WRONG, regardless of what you recognize as useful. Once again, go watch his videos.

Quote from: azmojo on February 08, 2018, 09:04:23 AM

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.

Whether you agree or disagree, is irrelevant to me.
People here can disagree with every single point I make and you expect me to be troubled into explaining myself every time?

Update:
Nevertheless, do not misunderstand me into thinking I am against Veritaseum.
I see the project is as legitimate as it can be.
Just that burning unsold token would make things a whole lot much better to the token holders without any impact whatsoever to Veritaseum nor to the end users.
You can disagree that burning the token will have any impact to the price; I don't think you really understand how valuation works (despite being shown the calculation).

Update #2:
The only one thing that can make the price to be equally just as bullish as if the unsold tokens are burned without actually burning any unsold token is by making sure those who buy in bulk from Reggie will actually be the direct end user of the platform, maybe by signing an agreement that the bulk sold will be spent for actual use, i.e. getting exposure, and not for trading/speculating.
Or a system/platform mechanism in place whereby tokens bought in bulk from Reggie would be almost immediately/automatically be used/spent for exposure.
Unless such assurance is in place, there is always the risk of VERI getting overvalued due to manipulation, exploitation, or pure foolishness.