Crypto wasnβt born for banks and gatekeepers. It stood for privacy, decentralization, and freedom from censorship. Although we've strayed far from these principles, respect to those still fighting the good fight π«‘
Dear Crypto Community & Privacy Advocates,
This is an urgent call: My trial begins July 14, and weβre facing a critical shortfall. I need to raise $500K in the next few days and $1.5M within a couple of weeks to sustain our fight - covering escalating legal fees, expert witnesses, and research as the case extends beyond the initial 2-week projection.
My team is working nonstop to defend code as free speech, protect software development , and push back against government overreach that threatens us all.
If you can help, please donate now - every contribution counts in this battle for our freedoms: https://t.co/IYqXdqjieT
This is urgent π¨
https://t.co/mxAYB2FmAo
Thank you. π
@dinosaurteef You could at least do your research if you're gonna FUD :
"Bootstrapped project...Voorhees is the sole investor."
https://t.co/GbEp7uiFFs
βοΈπ₯ Superb writing, ser.
"Venice at 14x sales vs. OpenAI at 34x and Anthropic at 20x the cheapest multiple in AI, and the only profitable one."
That, plus the Head of Strategy stating plainly that the mission is to "buy & burn every last token" that's all I needed to hear.
Personally, I'm all for selling equity over tokens. I'd much rather have Venice (who have not sold a token to date) controlling the liquid tokens than a VC adding to sell pressure and having illiquid equity.
tldr for people who won't read 3,500 words:
β’ venice is profitable, $70m+ arr, token throughput 10x'd in 6 months β and you can watch the revenue on-chain, every sub burns $vvv
β’ the raise didn't sideline the token: dragonfly took 8-year warrants on 5m $vvv alongside equity. nobody takes 8yr exposure to something "structurally junior" or has no value
β’ venice pays no dividend, no equity buyback, won't sell treasury. the only pipe surplus exits through is the burn. stated endgame, on the record: "buy and burn every last token." float: 15m
β’ the treasury holds ~$480m of $vvv β 7.4x the raise. burning is venice investing in its own biggest asset
β’ and while digging i found more details about "minds" β an unannounced agent product / marketplace sitting in their production javascript, localized into six languages β the bridge from selling inference to taxing an economy of agents selling outcomes
i also read 1,900 tweets of fud and answer the three real ones inside. i'm long, not advice.
@lesabrefomo You want your token to have equity and voting rights? Join a DAO. You want your token to have alignment to the tying in profitable business and utility? Buy VVV.
@AlgodTrading I know your FAI bags are heavy, but no need to spit false information on the token you told everyone to ignore over it. Venice has not sold a single token nor has it bootstrapped any of it's business by selling it's token.
@dcfgod Now we're gonna seek projects that only raised via token sales so the VCs can dump on us and we could be exit liquidity? This space is wild π΅βπ«
βοΈπ₯ Superb writing, ser.
"Venice at 14x sales vs. OpenAI at 34x and Anthropic at 20x the cheapest multiple in AI, and the only profitable one."
That, plus the Head of Strategy stating plainly that the mission is to "buy & burn every last token" that's all I needed to hear.
Personally, I'm all for selling equity over tokens. I'd much rather have Venice (who have not sold a token to date) controlling the liquid tokens than a VC adding to sell pressure and having illiquid equity.
@ashwathbk@botblastcap Raising via token sale would have likely been OTC and had no bearing on buy demand or price. It would have eventually just added sell pressure as vests unlock. I would rather the VCs have illiquid equity and Venice (who haven't sold any VVV) be the majority hodler of the token
@DefiIgnas@andyyy Any token sale would have just ended up being sell pressure on the token. I'm all for selling equity of the company that's illiquid. Figure out the token holder equity bridge after.