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.
Dorkie has nothing more to say because he clearly cannot refute the point, instead setting up straw men and resorting to ad hominem.
If VERI is not a security, then why relate it to the market cap? <<< -- yeah, ignore answering this all you like
As answered elsewhere already, most would agree it stems from this
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/veritaseum/ and is an informal barometer for project growth.
Reggie compared VERI to Microsoft's licenses but Microsoft does not rent nor resell its licenses. <<< -- yeah, ignore acknowledging this all you like
Microsoft also don't do pier to pier financial transactions, furthermore rather than waste more time with this straw man, you can put "rent microsoft license" and "resell microsoft license" in your search engine of choice.
A token burn
could have worked, the time for it was immediately after the ICO,
prior to making and setting up deals, doing it now or further down the line raises all the negative points previously highlighted.
Dorkie I wish you all the best in your token holding here, if you refuse to acknowledge there's a downside to a token burn so be it, regardless I think it's fair to say banging your token burn drum doesn't appear to be getting much traction.