Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 37 results by Masiah
FAQ
1. What is the difference between Veritaseum and Veritas?
Veritaseum is the name of the company that issued a token called Veritas.
2. Is Veritas a form of investment? And why?
Veritas is not an investment, it is software. We cannot stop others from speculating on VERI.
3. Why is Veritaseum's market cap so underreported? And is this valid?
Coinmarketcap determines market cap using circulating supply as supposed to total supply. Whether this number is under reported is up to your preferred method of reporting. In addition, we dont feel it matters nearly as much as many assume. Market cap, in this sense, is not the same as valuation. Valuation takes a much more focused and rigorous approach than multiplying two numbers.
4. How dependent is Veritaseum to the Ethereum blockchain for its P2P platform?
Veritaseums products are not dependent on any blockchain because it can be moved to different blockchains. This being said, it will take some engineering effort to port from, and between blockchains. We feel that most new blockchains will be written in such a fashion as to be backwards-compatible with Ethereum applications.
5. When will Veritaseum's P2P platform be available to the public?
Veritaseum research is available now
Veritaseum rental contracts will beta around 8/29/17
Veritaseum will start announcing Veritazation deals during the month of August 2017, showcasing high end advisory services
Veritaseum VeADIR Financial Machines will beta around 9/29/17
Veritaseum/Jamaica Stock Exchange digital asset exchange joint venture will beta around 9/29/17
Veritaseum joint venture digital asset exchange joint venture with top ten global securities exchange is slated to debut as proof of concept in 10/15/17, assuming the deal goes through
Veritaseum P2P OTC direct value trading will debut in the 4th quarter of 2018
6. Can Veritaseum be made SEC complaint in case that becomes extremely necessary (i.e. SEC dictates ALL ICO entities are investment entities)?
Veritaseum was already planning to release public financial reports. We believe we are a software based consultancy, but if forced to comply with SEC regulation as something other than a software vendor, we should have no problem in doing so.
7. Can the platform be ultimately used between peers without going through Veritaseum's team?
The goal will be to have the VeADIR able to be 100% autonomous, but until we can develop AI that vets entities wishing to be veritized, the VeADIR will have to buy research from Veritaseum. Therefore making it rely partially on the team to prevent unwanted entities from being listed.
8. What does veritize mean?
Veritize meaning that an asset is assigned a customized VERI token and that asset is now represented on the blockchain. For example, you can take the lease on a building, veritize it, and now that lease can trade on our digital asset exchanges.
Share with others - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gEfEq779UXp8GKOjyOAICKvf_U8S3lBg1JJ90i9X2-8/edit?usp=sharing
1. What is the difference between Veritaseum and Veritas?
Veritaseum is the name of the company that issued a token called Veritas.
2. Is Veritas a form of investment? And why?
Veritas is not an investment, it is software. We cannot stop others from speculating on VERI.
3. Why is Veritaseum's market cap so underreported? And is this valid?
Coinmarketcap determines market cap using circulating supply as supposed to total supply. Whether this number is under reported is up to your preferred method of reporting. In addition, we dont feel it matters nearly as much as many assume. Market cap, in this sense, is not the same as valuation. Valuation takes a much more focused and rigorous approach than multiplying two numbers.
4. How dependent is Veritaseum to the Ethereum blockchain for its P2P platform?
Veritaseums products are not dependent on any blockchain because it can be moved to different blockchains. This being said, it will take some engineering effort to port from, and between blockchains. We feel that most new blockchains will be written in such a fashion as to be backwards-compatible with Ethereum applications.
5. When will Veritaseum's P2P platform be available to the public?
Veritaseum research is available now
Veritaseum rental contracts will beta around 8/29/17
Veritaseum will start announcing Veritazation deals during the month of August 2017, showcasing high end advisory services
Veritaseum VeADIR Financial Machines will beta around 9/29/17
Veritaseum/Jamaica Stock Exchange digital asset exchange joint venture will beta around 9/29/17
Veritaseum joint venture digital asset exchange joint venture with top ten global securities exchange is slated to debut as proof of concept in 10/15/17, assuming the deal goes through
Veritaseum P2P OTC direct value trading will debut in the 4th quarter of 2018
6. Can Veritaseum be made SEC complaint in case that becomes extremely necessary (i.e. SEC dictates ALL ICO entities are investment entities)?
Veritaseum was already planning to release public financial reports. We believe we are a software based consultancy, but if forced to comply with SEC regulation as something other than a software vendor, we should have no problem in doing so.
7. Can the platform be ultimately used between peers without going through Veritaseum's team?
The goal will be to have the VeADIR able to be 100% autonomous, but until we can develop AI that vets entities wishing to be veritized, the VeADIR will have to buy research from Veritaseum. Therefore making it rely partially on the team to prevent unwanted entities from being listed.
8. What does veritize mean?
Veritize meaning that an asset is assigned a customized VERI token and that asset is now represented on the blockchain. For example, you can take the lease on a building, veritize it, and now that lease can trade on our digital asset exchanges.
Share with others - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gEfEq779UXp8GKOjyOAICKvf_U8S3lBg1JJ90i9X2-8/edit?usp=sharing
The wallet address is in an earlier post in this thread, however it will be impossible to track them, since they got gobbled up by buyers in a matter of hours and swapped for ethers or bitcoin, so its no way to know as an outsider what has happened.
So no transparency then in this transparent system ? This is the reason people trust in the blockchain but seems like it's not happening here - time to move on
Veritas runs on the ethereum blockchain.
https://etherscan.io/token/0x8f3470A7388c05eE4e7AF3d01D8C722b0FF52374
Assume VERI is not a security, but bad things happen to ETH, and the value of VERI drops significantly. It might not even be possible to use VERI because ETH is not usable. I'd like to know if Reggie and the team have a contingency plan for those that own VERI? Could they jump on another currency such as EOS and issue tokens to VERI holders? Reggie's talk of patents is exciting, because his company will be able to do things others won't be able to (most importantly, the banks). I'm sure the patents aren't Ethereum-specific, so they should apply to EOS or any other currency that is capable of contracts.
VERI is not blockchain specific.
I agree that your suggestion of a FAQ would be a benefit. However, I would also agree with Reggie's implied position that it doesn't matter if we have one or not. Clients like the JSE or top 9 stock exchange don't need a FAQ, and that seems to be where Reggie is hyper-focused right now, and that probably is more important. He is more interested in acquiring new customers than pandering to us token holders, and I can't fault him for that. If a noob comes in here once a week and asks about the market cap, it really is no loss if they don't get an answer.
Soon we will have press releases for several major deals that are in the works, and that's all we need really.
Soon we will have press releases for several major deals that are in the works, and that's all we need really.
Having a comprehensive FAQ matters a lot. Here's why:
1. JSE and others (top 10 stock exchanges, MNCs, doctors, etc), while they do buy without any FAQ, their reference price is from the exchange where VERI is traded, i.e. EtherDelta.
2. EtherDelta's price of VERI is determined by our participation, i.e. buying and selling.
3. Our buying and selling is determined by expectations, i.e. having a comprehensive FAQ in place, in addition to many other things.
If expectation is bad, price will be negatively impacted.
If price is negatively impacted, an institution that purchased the price at much higher price before the impact will lose out (they bought less than they can now).
If such impaired purchases continue to happen, there will be loss of confidence.
Loss of confidence will be another expectation factor.
And the cycle repeats.
Doing a comprehensive FAQ is not a super ultra challenging thing to do. Any Tom, Dick, and Hairy can do one. Even a Dorky person can do one. But that doesn't mean it is not important, or not significant.
Having a FAQ in place will not cause the price to explode sky high, but at least it will reduce the price volatility by helping people to get more informed and restore confidence.
Reggie likes to compare with companies like Microsoft, Facebook, etc, but I believe all these companies have a form/type of FAQ in their websites. So how come Veritaseum doesn't have one? This is where Microsoft, Facebook, etc are used to justify oneself being right, but not when oneself being wrong.
You know what, a Rolls Royce doesn't need leather seats to run well, but it being a luxury car, having leather seats makes it the premier product it strives to become. You will look at Rolls Royce cars differently if they don't have leather seats, but instead have PVC ones. And Rolls Royce may probably have to adjust the price tag a little bit lower. And if they have PVC for seats, plastics for dashboard, Made-in-China stereo system, etc, you can bet Rolls Royce will have to lower their price tag even lower. The CEO can argue why the car doesn't need all these "fanciful" stuff to be exquisite, but I am very confident even Reggie will not buy the CEO's story if he plans to buy a Rolls Royce.
Please note that the JSE and others are not buying to make capital gains. They are buying to redeem the tokens back to Veritaseum. Also we are working on short videos that will explain concepts that many find difficult to understand. If you could come up with a list of questions for the FAQ to start with, I could do that aswell.
Why would a transfer of VERI from "Reggie's wallet" to JSE's wallet change the supply numbers or supply dynamics?
I wasn't alluding to market supply, I was talking about blockchain supply and how much of it counts towards "commonly reported" marketcap.
They are 2 distinct metrics.
Having JSE buy equity of Veritaseum makes no sense, no company operates like that.
"Institutional investors" (such as large hedgefunds) are generally prohibited from investing in unregulated markets such as Bitcoin. But if you can create a paper company, then create a token (on the Ethereum blockchain) and find a way to have that company "own" a portion of the blockchain value then you've basically packaged the blockchain asset into an "equity wrapper" which could in fact be digestible by "institutional investors".
That equity packaged token can be far more attractive to investors like Bank for Jamaica for multiple reasons:
[1] By investing in the equity of a company which owns 98% of the blockchain value, they still have huge exposure to the token trading price
[2] They bypass laws that don't let them operate in unregulated markets
[3] They potentially gain exposure to all of the intellectual property associated with the token technology (which token holders do not)
[4] The equity "buffer" passes exposure to downside risk from the equity holder to the "naked" token holders since equity holders retain a holding in their original investment capital which token holders do not
There are also advantages for "Reggie's Company"
[1] He can capitalise it from the ICO markets without loosing any equity (which he would do in VC markets)
[2] He needs to find liquidity for 98 million tokens than he could not find in the ICO market
[3] The tiny traded volume delivers him a price with which to negotiate with potential "institutional investors", but not without risk. So to mitigate that risk for the institutional investor he gives them access through the 'wrapper' which means that their investment is insured to some extent even if the token price crashes
[4] In that way he can further capitalise his company (but this time by compromising equity) from the institutional markets. However the huge abundance of tokens in his possession means he has nothing to loose and has passed the entire project risk to the token investor primarily and the institutional investor secondarily
The reason for the low initial offering was to mitigate the risk for small investors at the ICO stage. He had to do this to get some investment in at all costs otherwise there would have been no quotable market price for the tokens as an asset.
Those with most to loose therefore are "naked" token investors who invest now. They will carry the risk on behalf of:
Initial investors
"Reggies company"
Institutional Investors (who invest in the token asset through the "Reggie & Co" Equity wrapper)
Of course I am making assumptions here because we don't really know what the genuine business plan is behind this ICO. But either way, anyone investing in the "2%" market now will be checkmated into holding all the risk by the three groups above as far as I can see.
I appears that you believe our venture is with the Bank of Jamacia, but it is with the Jamacian Stock Exchange. Also our venture with the JSE is not so they can speculate or invest in VERI. They are purchasing VERI to use it for it's utility value, in this case, the development of the digital asset exchange. Therefore it will not affect the market cap reported by coinmarketcap.
Does anyone know how to convert Ultracoin to Veri?
I am converting the old tokens that were on coinprism. Not UTC.Can someone point me to the bounty program post? I have searched this forum and can't seem to find it.
Maybe it should also be on the VERI website and in the OP?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fqs9h0eCZzMN_H97xhodeIBdQWOY2MjHy6Drl9uJH_0/edit?usp=sharingMaybe it should also be on the VERI website and in the OP?
Here is the Veritaseum Bounty Program.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fqs9h0eCZzMN_H97xhodeIBdQWOY2MjHy6Drl9uJH_0/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fqs9h0eCZzMN_H97xhodeIBdQWOY2MjHy6Drl9uJH_0/edit?usp=sharing
Ok. Comical interlude over.
I apologise for winding you up @paulmaritz. I should not have done that as it isn't my intention to use these posts to make people feel uncomfortable.
But lets take stock as to who is the real troll here.
I have been contributing considered opinion, often accompanied by some reasonable argument and the odd bit of anecdotal illustration and calculation. I've done so in good faith because having traded these markets for 4 years you observe certain things that are blatantly obvious market movers. I've also been careful not to use the "s" word, nor have I dismissed this token's fundamentals, which I believe to be sound, and nor have I "ad hominem'd" anybody as far as I'm aware.
What have you contributed of illuminating value ? You posted that coinmarketcom quote which was useful - I hadn't seen that. Apart form that, a large amount of handwaving and pictures of trolls.
So maybe a truce would be fruitful plus a more constructive appraisal of the matter at hand.
The issue as I see it is that when you have a single holder with a large amount of asset to sell in an illiquid market you need some kind of market leader to act as a price discovery mechanism so you can go and negotiate with 'large buyers' and make so called 'institutional sales'. (Which are not actually institutional at all since there are no institutions regulating them, they're just sales).
That was the role of the ICO and subsequent market rise on tiny volume.
What will happen now is that OTC (over the counter) sales will be made at significantly discounted token-to-coin exchange rates and large volumes which come from outside the published coin supply but which effectively qualify as 'circulating supply' since the tokens have now been distributed. This is great for large investors but for small investors there is considerably more risk from 2 sources:
1. a step change in published supply invoking a large and abrupt correction to the downside in token exchange rate to compensate for marketcap growth
2. an arbitrage driven correction between OTC and Exchange markets
I'm not necessarily saying that this will happen, I'm just pointing out that this risk is carried disproportionally by the small investor because:
they do not gain from the liquidity increase (as the ICO issuer does)
they do not gain from the OTC discount (as the 'institutional buyer' does)
Sure, it may all work out and as has been pointed out, some other assets do this to a limited extent. But the ratio of published to unpublished supply in this case is absolutely monumental (which is why I suggested the policy of marketcap reporting is being 'gamed') and its something that no investor has control over. Their interests do depend on things staying that way as far as I can see.
Because Litecoin is a mined coin. The 84,000,000 don't currently exist whereas the 100,000,000 VERI do, are currently in a wallet and ready to be sold at the holder's whim. There's no "2 Million liquid supply" and "98 million illiquid supply". There's just a 100 Million token wallet with a single holder.
I apologise for winding you up @paulmaritz. I should not have done that as it isn't my intention to use these posts to make people feel uncomfortable.
But lets take stock as to who is the real troll here.
I have been contributing considered opinion, often accompanied by some reasonable argument and the odd bit of anecdotal illustration and calculation. I've done so in good faith because having traded these markets for 4 years you observe certain things that are blatantly obvious market movers. I've also been careful not to use the "s" word, nor have I dismissed this token's fundamentals, which I believe to be sound, and nor have I "ad hominem'd" anybody as far as I'm aware.
What have you contributed of illuminating value ? You posted that coinmarketcom quote which was useful - I hadn't seen that. Apart form that, a large amount of handwaving and pictures of trolls.
So maybe a truce would be fruitful plus a more constructive appraisal of the matter at hand.
The issue as I see it is that when you have a single holder with a large amount of asset to sell in an illiquid market you need some kind of market leader to act as a price discovery mechanism so you can go and negotiate with 'large buyers' and make so called 'institutional sales'. (Which are not actually institutional at all since there are no institutions regulating them, they're just sales).
That was the role of the ICO and subsequent market rise on tiny volume.
What will happen now is that OTC (over the counter) sales will be made at significantly discounted token-to-coin exchange rates and large volumes which come from outside the published coin supply but which effectively qualify as 'circulating supply' since the tokens have now been distributed. This is great for large investors but for small investors there is considerably more risk from 2 sources:
1. a step change in published supply invoking a large and abrupt correction to the downside in token exchange rate to compensate for marketcap growth
2. an arbitrage driven correction between OTC and Exchange markets
I'm not necessarily saying that this will happen, I'm just pointing out that this risk is carried disproportionally by the small investor because:
they do not gain from the liquidity increase (as the ICO issuer does)
they do not gain from the OTC discount (as the 'institutional buyer' does)
Sure, it may all work out and as has been pointed out, some other assets do this to a limited extent. But the ratio of published to unpublished supply in this case is absolutely monumental (which is why I suggested the policy of marketcap reporting is being 'gamed') and its something that no investor has control over. Their interests do depend on things staying that way as far as I can see.
Litecoin has 84,000,000 million coins but they are currently only at 51,000,000 million...why are you not calling LTC a scam or XRP, or BTC or any others for that matter?
Because Litecoin is a mined coin. The 84,000,000 don't currently exist whereas the 100,000,000 VERI do, are currently in a wallet and ready to be sold at the holder's whim. There's no "2 Million liquid supply" and "98 million illiquid supply". There's just a 100 Million token wallet with a single holder.
I won't call you a troll. You actually do raise some points worth considering. The problem is that you are disseminating opinion as fact, and it is incorrect and simply wrong. For instance, you said "What will happen now is that OTC (over the counter) sales will be made at significantly discounted token-to-coin exchange rates".
That's simply incorrect. Ask anyone who has purchased in bulk, they will tell you that thus far we have sold at a "premium" to the so-called "token-to-coin exchange rates", not a discount. You see, the problem is that you do not understand the business model of Veritaseum. It is a software solutions and financial engineering platform, and not a make believe faux security. You reasoning keeps defaulting to the latter, despite my and others having corrected you several times.
You also stated "I've done so in good faith because having traded these markets for 4 years you observe certain things that are blatantly obvious market movers."
It is apparent that you have not traded in anything similar to Veritaseum with a economic platform business model or you would realize that the more the merrier (you know, Metcalfe's Law, and all...). Again, you are consistently looking at the economics as a inflationary item count or some sort of dilutive effect similar to traded equities. That is almost the antithesis of what we have here. Basically you don't get it, but you are obvisouly an intelligent guy, so it is apparent that you can get it. This leads to troll comments from others in the forum, because it seems as if you don't want to get it.
The biggest visible distribution from "reggie's wallet" of tokens thus far would be the proposed Jamaican Stock Exchange deal. That caused VERI price to more than double, So here, we have a real world example of what you declaring, yet the real world effect is the opposite of what you are asserting. There are many more deals in the pipeline, most are as large, and many are larger than the JSE deal. I would expect a pop with each deal as the network effect grows stronger, but you will be left in a lurch as you look at things from a value dilutive perspective. It's accretive, if anything.
You also stated "But the ratio of published to unpublished supply in this case is absolutely monumental ". That comment is nonsensical. The entire issuance is published, it's called the blockchain - the point of this entire exercise. Isn't that how you came to find out about the amount? Everyone else in the world can do the same thing.
and... Reggie... mike drop.
I think by using the word "published", this guy confused his point. I think he means "released". What he's trying to say is that he's afraid of the largest wallet holder, that being Reggie, dumping coins into the $VERI market. This phenomenon has been a MAJOR pet peeve amongst $XRP investors and buyers, to the point where the Ripple CEO had to release a pledge to not dilute the $XRP market.... http://www.coindesk.com/ripple-pledges-lock-14-billion-xrp-cryptocurrency/ this is real concern!!
I'm a $VERI holder, so I believe in this project. I've been following Reggie since his BBB days, and if you don't know what the initial's BBB represent then you haven't been following Reggie Middleton for long. Amongst many things, there is one thing I have learned the most from his publishings, and that is to NOT be sheepish. Always look under the hood, and be cautious when the crowd is chanting buy, buy, buy!! So I like to sometimes play devils advocate even for projects I support. This keeps me balanced and objective. So here's my devils advocate position I hope some of you can address...
I'm not concerned with the dilution issue the other poster has raised, as I believe Reggie knows better than anyone else what the imbalance of supply to demand can do to a market, for better and for worse. Example: He released a note on the collapse of oil (despite OPEC's promise to cut) that is so astonishingly accurate today, that it's f'king creepy!!.... but here's the kicker, he released this note over a year ago.. https://blog.veritaseum.com/current-analysis/1-blog/180-as-experts-speculators-await-higher-oil-prices-i-anticipate-a-new-energy-paradigm-monetize-your-outlook-through-veritaseum. So Reggie Middleton knows imbalance when he sees imbalance and I'm sure he won't go there.
My concern is his decision to run his coin under the Ethererum chain. The ERC20, where every ICO, and their mothers uncles brothers ICO is popping up!
I believe that this may be causing price problems for $eth, to put it mildly, and will invariably affect it going forward as more and more ICO's hit. Here's a good discussion thread on the issue.. https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6ih5wc/icos_and_their_effect_of_eth_prices/
That being said, what happens to the price of $VERI, when the price of $ETH collapses back to... let's say... $50USD?.... I know what you're thinking... "WHAT?!! WHO!!?? WHERE??!!!...NO WAY IT GOES BACK TO $50!!!..."
Well, it can happen, and most likely will. So has anyone looked to see if there is any correlation in the movement of $VERI to $ETH?... There's a world of difference between .55 veri/eth cost, when $ETH is at $245USD, then there is when $ETH goes to $50.
By being an ERC20 coin $VERI is in a muddy pool right now. When $ETH blows, I don't think there's an ERC20 coin that will be immune. This is my concern!
He should have established his coin on a BTC Sidechain.
Your thoughts and comments are welcomed.
If the price of ETH decreases and demand for VERI remains the same the VERI/ETH price will simply increase. For example, in countries with high inflation rates their food doesn't become cheaper, the price of the food in that particular unit of account simply increases. Also VERI can be moved to other blockchains if the ethereum blockchain is no longer the best option.
OTC purchases are bought at a premium, currently 10% not a discount.
A premium of 10% over market price ? i.e. you're saying OTC sales are made at 0.75 x 1.1 ETH = 0.82 ETH/ $219 per VERI token ?
Ok. Comical interlude over.
I apologise for winding you up @paulmaritz. I should not have done that as it isn't my intention to use these posts to make people feel uncomfortable.
But lets take stock as to who is the real troll here.
I have been contributing considered opinion, often accompanied by some reasonable argument and the odd bit of anecdotal illustration and calculation. I've done so in good faith because having traded these markets for 4 years you observe certain things that are blatantly obvious market movers. I've also been careful not to use the "s" word, nor have I dismissed this token's fundamentals, which I believe to be sound, and nor have I "ad hominem'd" anybody as far as I'm aware.
What have you contributed of illuminating value ? You posted that coinmarketcom quote which was useful - I hadn't seen that. Apart form that, a large amount of handwaving and pictures of trolls.
So maybe a truce would be fruitful plus a more constructive appraisal of the matter at hand.
The issue as I see it is that when you have a single holder with a large amount of asset to sell in an illiquid market you need some kind of market leader to act as a price discovery mechanism so you can go and negotiate with 'large buyers' and make so called 'institutional sales'. (Which are not actually institutional at all since there are no institutions regulating them, they're just sales).
That was the role of the ICO and subsequent market rise on tiny volume.
What will happen now is that OTC (over the counter) sales will be made at significantly discounted token-to-coin exchange rates and large volumes which come from outside the published coin supply but which effectively qualify as 'circulating supply' since the tokens have now been distributed. This is great for large investors but for small investors there is considerably more risk from 2 sources:
1. a step change in published supply invoking a large and abrupt correction to the downside in token exchange rate to compensate for marketcap growth
2. an arbitrage driven correction between OTC and Exchange markets
I'm not necessarily saying that this will happen, I'm just pointing out that this risk is carried disproportionally by the small investor because:
they do not gain from the liquidity increase (as the ICO issuer does)
they do not gain from the OTC discount (as the 'institutional buyer' does)
Sure, it may all work out and as has been pointed out, some other assets do this to a limited extent. But the ratio of published to unpublished supply in this case is absolutely monumental (which is why I suggested the policy of marketcap reporting is being 'gamed') and its something that no investor has control over. Their interests do depend on things staying that way as far as I can see.
Because Litecoin is a mined coin. The 84,000,000 don't currently exist whereas the 100,000,000 VERI do, are currently in a wallet and ready to be sold at the holder's whim. There's no "2 Million liquid supply" and "98 million illiquid supply". There's just a 100 Million token wallet with a single holder.
I apologise for winding you up @paulmaritz. I should not have done that as it isn't my intention to use these posts to make people feel uncomfortable.
But lets take stock as to who is the real troll here.
I have been contributing considered opinion, often accompanied by some reasonable argument and the odd bit of anecdotal illustration and calculation. I've done so in good faith because having traded these markets for 4 years you observe certain things that are blatantly obvious market movers. I've also been careful not to use the "s" word, nor have I dismissed this token's fundamentals, which I believe to be sound, and nor have I "ad hominem'd" anybody as far as I'm aware.
What have you contributed of illuminating value ? You posted that coinmarketcom quote which was useful - I hadn't seen that. Apart form that, a large amount of handwaving and pictures of trolls.
So maybe a truce would be fruitful plus a more constructive appraisal of the matter at hand.
The issue as I see it is that when you have a single holder with a large amount of asset to sell in an illiquid market you need some kind of market leader to act as a price discovery mechanism so you can go and negotiate with 'large buyers' and make so called 'institutional sales'. (Which are not actually institutional at all since there are no institutions regulating them, they're just sales).
That was the role of the ICO and subsequent market rise on tiny volume.
What will happen now is that OTC (over the counter) sales will be made at significantly discounted token-to-coin exchange rates and large volumes which come from outside the published coin supply but which effectively qualify as 'circulating supply' since the tokens have now been distributed. This is great for large investors but for small investors there is considerably more risk from 2 sources:
1. a step change in published supply invoking a large and abrupt correction to the downside in token exchange rate to compensate for marketcap growth
2. an arbitrage driven correction between OTC and Exchange markets
I'm not necessarily saying that this will happen, I'm just pointing out that this risk is carried disproportionally by the small investor because:
they do not gain from the liquidity increase (as the ICO issuer does)
they do not gain from the OTC discount (as the 'institutional buyer' does)
Sure, it may all work out and as has been pointed out, some other assets do this to a limited extent. But the ratio of published to unpublished supply in this case is absolutely monumental (which is why I suggested the policy of marketcap reporting is being 'gamed') and its something that no investor has control over. Their interests do depend on things staying that way as far as I can see.
Litecoin has 84,000,000 million coins but they are currently only at 51,000,000 million...why are you not calling LTC a scam or XRP, or BTC or any others for that matter?
Because Litecoin is a mined coin. The 84,000,000 don't currently exist whereas the 100,000,000 VERI do, are currently in a wallet and ready to be sold at the holder's whim. There's no "2 Million liquid supply" and "98 million illiquid supply". There's just a 100 Million token wallet with a single holder.
OTC purchases are bought at a premium, currently 10% not a discount.
Still new to the crypto space and first post on here. Found out about VERI's initial token offering just before deadline. Not an expert in this area at all but the case looked strong and I'd seen Reggie in the media and trust the man. Stubborn as a mule me I'm holding long term no doubt about that. One question if I may...can I join / how do I join this "slack"?!
Thanks. Good luck to Reggie and the team - and to everyone who is bringing positivity to this forum
Email me at masiah@veritaseum.com for slack Thanks. Good luck to Reggie and the team - and to everyone who is bringing positivity to this forum
Note: I'm not compiling about anything. Just want to know the reason of disqualification?
Ok then. Drop it. I'm quite bored with this Bounty topic. The bounty period is over.
Those who qualified were more than generously compensated. Since the bounty is closed this is no longer on topic.
As a VERI token holder I am not interested in any further Bounty programs being offered. Veritaseum should buy ads on social media for sure.
Speaking of Jamaica, what are some real life theoretical examples of ways that Jamaica would use VERI? Jamaica has a local currecncy I believe but they also use a lot of USD. Clearly Jamaica could adopt a crypto-currency and abandon the USD and Jamaican dollar, but VERI doesn't appear to be the ideal vehicle for that. What other applications would or could Jamaica use VERI for if Reggie is successful? All speculation of course.
We are on out way back from Jamacia now and I can say, Jamacia went very well. Stay tuned to twitter.Hi
Masiah,
Hope you are doing
great. I'm waiting for hearing
back from you. Almost week ago I was send you an
up-dated twitter audit report via e-mail, later by pm here as well.
But seems like you forget about my participation in Veritaseum crowdfund
bounty campaign.
Actually I'm not in hurry. But a
feedback from you was expected and would
highly appreciated.
Thanks
[/quote]
You did not earn any points for the twitter bounty
Reggie is not going to act in an irresponsible manner
No. But he can't prevent the market from acting in an "irresponsible manner".
Lets think about this for a moment. That effective supply puts Veritasium's "real" marketcap at around 3.7 Million BTC. (Ripple is 4.1 Million). i.e. nearly a quarter of bitcoin's entire coin supply. So it would be the third or fourth largest asset in ranking on coinmarketcap.com.
Not saying that's necessarily unreasonable in terms of future potential (i.e. speculative) but for such a large valuation to have some genuine basis it must make the monetary cryptos massively undervalued (since they are going to form much of the lower capitalisation tiers of the coming synthetic 'vehicles' that will be traded on the VERI platform) - which in turn makes the current VERI/Ether or BTC price massively overvalued does it not ?
What should happen now is that VERI moves up a few notches in marketcap ranking - but with the full coin supply reported. So lets say it went to where Bitshares is (an equivalent type of asset but a mature platform so being kind to Veritasium by letting it get that far in only 30 days after launch instead of taking 3 years and needing to actually deliver some functioning software that's hosting trades like Bitshares has done).
That would put the VERI marketcap at around quarter of a million BTC. Coin exchange rate with Ether would therefore be around 0.02. i.e. 50 Veri per Ether.
Current price: 0.32.
16 times overvalued ?
How you wish to value tokens is up to you but you say that Veritaseum needs to actually deliver some functioning software which makes it seem that you are unaware of the software that we have put out. We have a working peer-2-peer client that allow for users to mimic exposure to thousands of tickers and was hosting trades. It was taken down from public use because we did not want to get a letter from any regulators. We have also created an alpha version of our VeADIR which is functioning but still in the making.
There is a slack email me at masiah@veritaseum.com to be added. As to exchanges I believe that the recent uptake of bitcoin in the media has brought the exchanges more traffic than they can ahndle at the moment, so adding another token will do more harm than good. I do not know this but I know one exchange just replied to our month old email, a few days ago. Also VERI cannot be mined.
i hold quite abit of veri , i also sold a quitebit of veri. Veriruns and relies on ethereum. I love Veri but ethereumhas many security risks and cannot handle a bunch of crypto icos. Its highly unlikely ethereum is ready for what veri says its gonna do. ethereum network is not ready for prime time
If the the ethereum network does become unsafe Veritaseum can be ported to other blockchains.
I said to Masiah that the bounty sheet should be made public for transparency sake, I was given 7.2 veri token for twitter bounty and I believe something is quite wrong with the calculation because 50,000 tokens was allocated to bounty campaigns out of which 20% of it go to twitter that is 10,000 token. So it is not possible for me to have 7 tokens out of 10,000 tokens because I was in the campaign for more than 4 weeks.
If the spreadsheet is not made public I will need to report to the moderator on the forum to see to this.
What I don't understand here is why Masiah decided to hide all the bounty stakes informtion. Please for transparency sake make the bounty sheet public for all to see
If the spreadsheet is not made public I will need to report to the moderator on the forum to see to this.
What I don't understand here is why Masiah decided to hide all the bounty stakes informtion. Please for transparency sake make the bounty sheet public for all to see
We said up to 50,000 VERI will be allocated to the bounty program. At $100 per VERI, we choose not to allocate the full 50,000 among 78 participants with some repeats.