/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>17611290
>Team hits "delete" on their back-end to placate bagholders
BULLISH EXTREMELY GOOD PROJECT FUNDAMENTALS ARE SOLID

>>16664077
Shameful. Trying to fleece anons out of their few hundred bucks they received as Christmas gifts.

WARNING! Bagholders hoping to pump their bags for the 12-28 announcement, but do not be fooled. The announcements will be "coming soon" nothingburger. The project is overpriced and worthless. Customers cannot validate files in bulk, there is no software, and the team has to come to your place of business to validate or you have to upload all your sensitive files to the server of a small Dutch startup ran out of a shared office, next to a Subway sandwich shop. Pic related. To be a reseller of V-ID, you need to pay for tokens upfront, bought on exchanges, and hope to move it by roping in customers. Meaning the more tokens you need, the more you have to pay. Does that sound reasonable? Having to pay a company to sell their product? The tokens are worthless on their own. MLM pyramid scheme scam. WARNING!

>>16286614
Price action only matters if you sell or have the option of selling more than a few hundred dollars worth.

VIDT is a scam. Token not needed. They created VIDT for the sole purpose of raising money. Service idea came first and then VIDT got shoehorned into it. They needed a utility coin for an ICO, as otherwise it would have been a useless security token and have no chance of being listed on exchanges or being legal. They knew no one would want to invest in a "1 VIDT = 1 Validation" scheme because that would make it a stable coin and have no speculative value. Which also means that VIDT price doesn't matter to V-ID at this point, they already got their million dollars. Unless they want to dump. All buybacks are scams to raise the price, so you give them your lunch money and create liquidity to dump into when the time comes.

>>16194769
I'm sure it did. Just like it stopped working when it dumped from 50 cents to 40 then went back up to 45.

When the coin pumps a few percent, it's literally just bagholders buying more. Or Satsgang bots.

Speaking of the future you chose and another shitcoin from earlier this year, OWN now rebranded for the third time this year in order to wash away all the /biz/ FUD that shows up in Google search when you look up the company by the old name. VIDT rembrandt when?

>>15889355
>The only reasons bagholders are holding onto their tokens is because they're unable to sell it. They accumulated too much up to this point without doing their research and there aren't enough buyers. They were hoping the five days of announcements will have them double or triple their money. Now they're balls deep with no way out. Sad tale when someone cannot admit to being wrong and instead double-down by buying more and more.

You cannot validate real-world items on the blockchain. No artworks, no photographs, and no photographs of real world items. You can only validate binary and lossless documents, such as PDFs, Powerpoint projects, executables, and audio files. The Rembrandt etching on the blockchain was a marketing ploy to boost the credibility of the project. Good one at that. Fooled me as well. In the end you would still need a third-party examiner painstakingly verifying every single inch of the artwork and play "spot the difference" between a real Rembrandt and a fraudulent one to see whether you have pulled a switcheroo, rendering V-ID's validation process pointless. The artwork is going to be validated by an art examiner, not a blockchain solution. V-ID is as useful as a certificate of authenticity. Both can be forged enough to fool a notary.

Taking photos of a rental car and then uploading to V-ID is also pointless, because your car rental service would first need to recognize V-ID's services as legitimate before you have signed the contract. Said contract would also need to mention V-ID. You cannot escape a charge/fine by pulling up your phone to show that some no-name website says the photo hasn't been altered.

You can validate a scanned document and save it as a PDF and then validate against that same exact scanned PDF, but you could not validate against the original document. Medical and government documents are often printed out, scribbled on, then scanned back in. But even if nothing was scribbled on, a duplicate scan would not match. You would need to verify with eyes.

>>15773246
>>15773268
I'll let you guess which section of the CHX chart is being played out today.

>>15747118
>>15747497
These.

Look at the bottom of the OWN graph. I will let VIDT bagholders chew on what will happen to their coin after these series of news are revealed. But here's a hint: When CHX pumped the last time, it was only because the rumor was bought for the reveal of all upcoming STOs (one being worth at least one billion dollars), platform launch, and new exchange announcements.

If you can buy VIDT, you better sell soon after the reveal. You've been warned.

>>15693395
>>15693491
>Why would someone that dislikes this project so much not want us to lose money, if his position is that we won't make money with this project? Is there really a person out there that is so selfless that they'd spend every waking minute monitoring this board for posts about this project, just to fill it with intelligence suggesting that, should we invest, we will inevitably lose money?
>What does this person gain by preventing us from losing money, if that's their position?
Anyone who has been around and remembers CHX threads from February to May will remember an "autist fudder" that would post copypasta and argue relentlessly with bagholders and "spin all the good news into bad". That was me. Don't worry, you're not original. Bagholders treated my posts the same even back then. I was told I was accumulating, that I had a selfish ulterior motive, that I'm paid to fud. When all in all, I enjoy exposing bullshit scams (this thread is a scam, not V-ID, full with lies and exaggerations) and arguing about businesses.

Feel free to report my posts as spam, to silence the information, even though I often change up the wording.

>>15605536

>>15503703
>You ask me to refute it like there aren't 40 different problems with that pasta and there's a simple place to start.
I know, you would have to do some real mental gymnastics to spin any of the facts around in my post. In fact, if you were able to, you could be a PR shitcoin guru sought by everyone in the crypto space.

>Yes it does, which is why you will be gone soon. T1 EOM. It appears validator 0x406 is a large new client. Sept will be a good month I suspect.
I suspect not. This is CHX 2.0 bagholder delusion. You were warned.