Quote from: Reggie Middleton on February 09, 2018, 06:25:07 PM

The FAQ was initially Masiah's idea, it just took time to implement because the site was not a priority at the time, the product was.

At least my hunch was right, that you will mention it was Masiah's idea.

Quote from: Reggie Middleton on February 09, 2018, 06:25:07 PM

Your thesis about recycling is academic. We obviously have not recycled your tokens if you are still HODLING them. We can't force you to redeem them, but even if we could we can't control the timing of the redemption.

That is completely irrelevant.

Quote from: Reggie Middleton on February 09, 2018, 06:25:07 PM

Think about what would happen if we burned our inventory and then you decide not to redeem your tokens, or even if you do decide to redeem the choose not to redeem at a schedule that matches our need to acquire new customers. We're essentially out of business. Why? Because we foolishly burned out own inventory and revenue potential to satisfy a short sighted view of synthetically (and temporarily) raising the 2nd had price of our software licenses?
Does that sound like prudent business practices to you?

If your inventory management is based on such business mechanism, then definitely not a prudent business practice to me to burn tokens.
But I don't think the main problem is burning the token.
The problem is you put limitation to your inventory management into requiring redemption as a way of "replenishing stock" to sustain the business.

Quote from: Reggie Middleton on February 09, 2018, 06:25:07 PM

In addition, you defeated your own argument. If you can rent VERI and receive a token stream and your VERI back, you are in effect recycling your token. In and out (plus some) in and out (+ some)... Get it.

Getting some extra token back in return for renting is not my main concern. My concern is that if you ever manage to sell all your 100 million tokens, that circulating supply will be large enough to cause a significant decline in the price of the token. Assuming if the entire world economy is worth $1 quadrillion, and your 100 million tokens are worth $10 quadrillion in market cap (despite it not security), your market cap would be overvalued by an excess of $9 quadrillion. I agree network effect exists in the increasing adoption and use case of the token itself (excluding price element). But there is no such thing as network effect in this valuation (including price element) as much larger circulating supply would cause a fall in token price in general.

VERI is not a security and never sold as an investment. I know. So you should not refer to the market cap of Veritaseum as if it has one.