Not only that, but remember, Veritaseum was already running on the Bitcoin blockchain/sidechain before this.  It's now being ported to run on the Etherium blockchain.

What happen to this? Its on everybody or just me?

404 Not Found
nginx/1.4.6 (Ubuntu)

when i did try to access the link that shows up.

However, i dont have any knowledge on freewallet since i do make ether wallet on myetherwallet.com..

More FUD about something Reggie has already answered

"Now... it was stated earlier that they can move it to a diiferent chain, if they can great because I think they won't have choice soon. Again, IMHO."



Veritaseum is platform agnostic per CEO Reggie Middleton

End of discussion .... oh in my fn humble opinion lol   

Anything else Activity 2 Newbie?


 

No. I meant "published".

We are in a decentralised, non-equity market. That means we are trading initially worthless tokens on a blockchain, not companies.

Ask yourself, what happens in an equity market when a company issues new shares at will and you purchase those shares. You still have your money because the company's entire asset base is owed back to you. Even if it converts your monetary capital into plant & machinery, those assets will be valued at an aggregate level, reconciled to a unit share value and their cost will always be owed back to you at LEAST at book value. Years later, if there's a discrepancy between the prevailing corporate valuation and what you paid for your share, that will be accounted for in a continuous sequence of annual trading accounts - even if it goes to zero.

Now lets compare that model with issuing tokens on a blockchain.

Centralised vs Decentralised Archetypes

The original (mining) archetype was that tokens would be "released" through a decentralised process whereby the market at least paid for the cost of production of the token. A common definition of "marketcap" evolved which was based on the "circulating supply" (the mined supply to date) and "total supply" (the maximum ever possible to be mined). This would allow investors to reference an aggregate value for the asset - in so far as it is traded as a security - and work back to a corresponding exchange ratio with other assets.

So each of those two types of asset - corporate equity on the one hand and decentralised blockchain assets on the other - had their own respective valuation discipline which allowed markets to engage in a reasonable price discovery process.

The issue I've been raising in my previous, so called "troll" posts, is that we are now seeing a wholesale corruption of both these disciplines where ICO issuers simply cherry pick the capital generation properties from each paradigm while flushing all the key accountability properties down the toilet. Before illustrating why, lets recap the contrasting definitions of "token release" and "token supply" in the respective business models:

Summary of Distinctions

A. In the equity model, you can create 'tokens' (shares) at will, but the capital raised is still owned by the existing shareholders, not by the directors. Companies are therefore justified in calling themselves the 'source' of the equity and can fairly be described as "releasing" new shares in the sense of creating new capital that has immediate value for those investing, since investor capital is simply crossing from one side of a fence to the other and is still owned by the investor even though they’ve parted with their cash

B. In the (classic) blockchain model, the invested capital is not owed back to the investor, but, tokens cannot be created at will. The investment comes from the miner who creates a monetary token at cost which the market then executes a price discovery process over to establish a final traded value

C. In BOTH cases, there is a categorical protocol for establishing an AGGREGATE valuation for the asset which is the only meaningful reference since unit valuations are simply an arbitrary subdivision of this. In the centralised model, it's the number of shares times the traded price per share. In the decentralised model it's the number of blockchain tokens created to date times the market value of the last traded token

Corrupted Hybrid

Now lets observe how all the principle disciplines of accountability from the above protocols have been discarded in order to create a new "corrupt" hybrid:

From A. we've retained the ability to create tokens at will, while we've lost the condition that the invested capital is to be owed back to the investor

From B. we've lost the cost of production of the tokens

From C. we've lost the requirement to report an aggregate valuation appropriate to our business model which therefore leaves the unit exchange rate wide open to 'gaming' (i.e. we're issuing tokens as if they were equity but reporting them as if they were the current 'mined' supply).

So, in summary: in a decentralised context, Reggie is not the "issuer" and should not be presenting himself as such. He is a trader who is at liberty to sell as much or as little of his wallet as he likes. The difference being that if he was an "issuer", buyers would still own the Ether/bitcoin that they paid him for the tokens. His full wallet therefore counts towards marketcap just as much as mine or yours.


’The more the merrier’

Lets turn for a moment to all the hand waving surrounding the idea that it’s actually a good thing that more tokens are sold - the so called “Metcalfe's Law”:


There was no dispute here. It’s almost a universally understood concept that greater adoption garners value - even if it comes out of “Reggie’s wallet”. However “Metcalfe’s law” is no more than a philosophical nuance unless its effect can be measured and quantified at an aggregate level - independently of the type of asset concerned. Contrary to what Reggie asserts in that post, it’s not the “antithesis of what we have here”, otherwise he’d be selling software as a service and not as a tradeable “security”.

The reason this is significant is because there are two ways in which Metcalfe’s law can have an impact and only one of them benefits the small investor holding a fixed quantity of tokens. In particular, if all the new sales come out of a part of the supply that is not currently counting towards marketcap, then the Metcalfe’s law all goes into the hidden supply growth but the market’s valuing the unit rate as if there was none, so you’ve got this timebomb waiting to go off as soon as the real valuation is known. (NOTE: Nothing to do with ‘dilution’, simply establishing an authentic, commonly accepted aggregate valuation).

What’s a ‘Security

Finally, lets consider the idea that’s been posted both by Reggie and by others that VERI somehow “isn’t a security”. All I’d say to that is that it’s the market that decides whether it’s a security or not and basically anything at all that has a resale value and a variable price is a potential candidate.

There are indeed some justifiable cases for arguing that a “blockchain token is not a security”, but only when the market is deprived of making trading gains on it and they’re more properly described here by one of the more respected Ethereum project staff (and none of which apply to the VERI token).

http://i.imgur.com/AmLC2r7.png

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.

and... Reggie... mike drop.