How @verasitytech could have solved the migration issue and added value to its $VRA token without destroying its price and community:
- 10B $VRA tradeable but deflationary via burn
- Infinite supply of $POV via mint, non-tradeable
- Ratio: 1$ = 10,000 $POV tokens
Example: Starting from hypothetical base:
- $VRA = $0.01, CS=TS=10B, MC=$100M.
1) A company wants to spend $100,000 on an ad campaign.
2) The company buys 10M VRA via exchange or VeraWallet.
3) Hits a "Convert" button: Their 10M VRA gets burned, but per the ratio, they get 1B $POV tokens minted instantly.
4) Client uses their 1B $POV to store blockchain info for the campaign.
5) At campaign end, analyzes results and burns those 1B $POV.
Final result: CS=TS=9.99B, $VRA ≈ $0.01001, MC=$100M. Initial $POV CS = Final $POV CS
$VRA CS and TS decrease in a deflationary economy and value rises with less in circulation. This way, no need for staking to reward holders - simply holding while clients use the tech would boost $VRA value.
No buybacks or quarterly burns needed, as each campaign consumes $VRA from CS.
What would happen if $VRA = $1 and a low CS=TS?
Nothing, that's what decimals are for, and with the ratio of $1 = 10,000 mintable $POV, there would always be $POV tokens available for the campaign. (Bitcoin deflationary economy)
With an allocation of 2.5 billion $VRA for the team, they would have earned more than by dumping the token on the community.
Would a $POV airdrop have been necessary?
No, since it's not tradable, and the community would have been happy to see the price of $VRA rise.
Now imagine if, in addition to campaign purchases, investors had bought $VRA speculatively and it hadn't been available for campaign use.
The price of $VRA would have risen even further, rewarding both the team and the holders.
Final conclusion: a complete and utter failure on the part of the @verasitytech team. If I came up with this in 15 minutes before falling asleep, why do they have so many staff members?
3 options:
1) They're useless.
2) Built to commit fraud.
3) $VRA has always been tradable.
P.S.: Ask your favorite AI if what I'm saying makes sense, you'll be surprised.
I understand the propensity to focus on a companies origination or the location of its HQ, as many like to do with Verasity.
However, the truth is that for a business home is more than where you hang your hat... its also where you do business.
Verasity technology is not Costa Rica or UK tech, its global technology. Versaity is focused on the development of global products/services.
As a company that holds valuable U.S. patents, Verasity has positioned themselves to do business in the USA and like everyone else who conducts blockchain business in the USA... they will not be able to afford to ignore Gratis Vendor requirements, no one will.
With this list I am not trying to state Verasity is gaining some type of special inclusivity, but rather just pointing out the inductive reasoning that is faced by everyone positioning to do blockchain business in the USA.
When you say this is BS, I can only assume you mean this is business... and you are absolutely correct in that regard.