/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16200904
nigger.
and if you buy - then double nigger.
tripple nigger if you hold chainlink as well, nigger.

>>16201317
this

Token not needed
Acronis
Unverified clients
Fake transactions
Teams tokens unlock next month

Oh why yes ranjeet very good project to invest your rupees. Enjoy your curry

>>16201354

unverified clients and fake txns? ok then whats this..?

https://www.amspecllc.com/verify/

only 1% unlocks, wow big deal, 10x that is burnt in exchange every month ? FUD harder..

>>16201389
Where is the AIRBUS verification?

>>16201440

What airbus verification? go on V-ID website you can see all the clients?

>>16201478
Well, how do you know they aren’t just lying like a lot of other crypto companies?

>>16201478
Where did you go fag

>>16201478
Come back

>>16201542
If multiple clients have been verified (IBM and AmSpec included) by going there relative website, why would I assume airbus is fake?

surely if they got similar tier clients they are able to get airbus as a client, and have no reason to lie - no?

>>16201703
Show IBM vidt verification please

>>16201698
even without airbus, the partnerships which can easily be confirmed easily make the coin worth more than a mere 3m marketcap in m my opnion.

Still, not sure if it is the right time to invest atm which is why I wanted a healthy discussion with someone. I am extremely tempted to though

>>16201724
Please sir show IBM verification

>>16201737
we don't have it..we lied....it's all a sham

>>16201737
sure, here you go:

https://www-01.ibm.com/easytools/runtime/hspx/uat/public/X0027/PortalX/page/pageTemplate?s=29e46daf5c954f42ac03e2fe2ba22d3e&c=29e46daf5c954f42ac03e2fe2ba22d3e

>>16201773
see above.

Woah the fudders are really desperate now.

>>16201737

Where have you gone?

>>16201698

oh well you ran away.

>>16201907
I’m here bitch

>>16200904
>Imagine not googling Satsgang VIDT before investing in this obvious pump and dump scam

If Satsgang is pumping, historically you have a 100% change to see ATL based on every project they back. It will be manipulated and you will be dumped on

>>16201774
>https://www-01.ibm.com/easytools/runtime/hspx/uat/public/X0027/PortalX/page/pageTemplate?s=29e46daf5c954f42ac03e2fe2ba22d3e&c=29e46daf5c954f42ac03e2fe2ba22d3e
Yeah, nah dawg. This is V-ID being a member of a local IBM workshop. Not a partnership.

>>16201907
No response in two minutes. Bagholders scurrying like rats. Chuck E Cheese rats.

This fud is great. They're even spending time making pretty decent Chuckie cheese graphics. They also send time replying to every positive comment. Guess now is the time to buy.

>>16203410
Yes sirs,,, chock e chese graphix are signal of the bulls..... to buy the time is now,,,, tomorrow too late,,,, moon soon, belive in sweet vinshu

>>16203320

Nice dump Satsgang. Where have you gone bagholders?

And who is to say most of the clients are paying clients and not on a free "trial" used to boost the numbers to make VIDT more appealing to investors? Why would a company pay a yearly subscription plan and then only use validate ten files a month? Checkmate bagholders.

>>16200904
What do you not understand about 'verify with eyes'?

chuck e cheese rats lmao

>>16200904
Because it's not XLM or BAT

Verify with my eyes is a meme.

Using blockchain and it's immutable distributed ledger to prove that a document hasn't been altered is a brilliant use of the technology.
Let's not be confused about that. V-ID has a great idea, and paying customers will benefit from this.

But it's not a good "investment" for crypto speculators. Read how the token works, and you'll see there's no real secondary market for the token. The company holds and sells the token to its customers, at whatever price they decide. The market will then respond and the tokens will be worth around that same price. Once the product is in use and people/companies are using V-ID to verify documents, the market will not control the price. It's possible V-ID will set their retail price at or near the market price, but their customers won't want to use a product if the price is variable, so it's more likely that V-ID will just set a convenient price point and use that for their retail price.
The secondary market will follow. Some people will try to drive the price up, but what company is going to buy tokens on the secondary above retail, when they can pay less to buy direct? None. The secondary market will always have some amount of tokens available to purchase at some price below retail - people selling off their bags. But the secondary market price will never go above whatever retail price V-ID sets.

Problem is the company hasn't started selling their product openly so we don't know what that price is going to be. Shady greedy fucks. They built a ridiculous token model that relies on their own retail pricing decisions, but sold the tokens to the market early (in an effort to raise money) to clueless ignorant "crypto investors."

TL;DR: great idea, great use of blockchain, terrible investment because the company will decide the token price at some point in the future, and you have no idea what that price will be.

>>16204947
drns

>>16204970
Show proof that all 32 clients V-ID has are paying customers and the team didn't offer a free trial run to boost their numbers to make VIDT more appealing to investors. Or that they didn't get clients onboard "at cost" with the future expectation that advertising they have Airbus or AmSpec onboard will net them more paying clients. Otherwise, think about it, why would AmSpec allow a no-name third-party (ran out of a shared office) to use their branding for their selfish promotion? Did AmSpec's webhost also brag about providing services to their corporation?

Validating a file on a blockchain costs no more than 1 VIDT (less than 10 cents), but the team is supposedly charging 10-16 VIDT for clients for essentially doing fuckall but providing an interface to interact with a blockchain. That's 10X profit per file. If you had a company, ready to validate 100,000 files a month, would you want to pay $10,000 or $165,000? All you have to do is a five minute research to save over $100,000 a year.

Acronis Notary costs $99 for the whole year and comes with a cloud backup solution, HDD image creation, and all the validations are free. That's right, motherfuckers. It's free. Because 99% of people who buy the cloud backup solution are not using notary services in the first place and they're subsidizing the transactions of those who do need the service. Large companies that do thousands of verifications a month and don't need a backup solution only pay mere cents per validation. Cents.

It's unironically over.

>>16205021
this is so retarded that I'm not even gonna dignify it. I just wanna know why you pretend to be different people with different writing styles. Seek help, bro.

>>16201354
what country are you from, Altseason2k19?

>>16205086
>I just wanna know why you pretend to be different people with different writing styles.
the fuck ya mean bro, cuz maybe we're different ppl i aint changin' no ip to shit on a poo poo coin

And you know damn well that post is correct. V-ID received over one million dollars in ICO, they can afford to do buybacks. They easily could have offered 50% off for AmSpec/Airbus for the first year as well.

>>16205021
>the team is supposedly charging 10-16 VIDT for clients
That fits into what I wrote above, but it's stupid as fuck to try to set the price so much higher than the current market. Greedy fools are going to ruin their company and ruin their chances to market a brilliant idea for blockchain, because real companies don't want to play these games.

>>16205208
Which is why token is not needed. They created the token solely to raise money, like you said. The token exists for the purposes of an ICO, not because it's necessary for the operation of the business. They couldn't think of any other way to raise money, as it had to be a utility token to get listed on exchanges (which it isn't, it's a security, but that's another story).

>>16205208
>>16205291
Which also means that VIDT price doesn't matter to V-ID at this point, unless they want to dump. 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.

>>16205337
>>16205291

token isn't needed
>pumps 10%
price doesn't matter
>pumps another 10%
everything with vidt is fake
>pumps another 10%

>>16205383
>pumps 10%
>pumps 10%
>pumps 10%
>bagholders collectively cannot sell more than $3000 without dumping the price back to 7 cents

>>16205291
The idea doesn't require a token, no. Hashing a .pdf and writing to Ethereum can be done by anybody for just a few cents of gas.
But to create a UI for hashing and uploading, and the verification interface to compare documents to the hash, etc., it does make sense to use a token to make the calls to the blockchain. Also then they can set the actual price and sell the service to their customers. But it's a closed marketplace. They sell the token to their customer, the customer gives the token back when they use the product. Pure utility token.

The bullshit ICO and releasing tokens to the market early is going to be their downfall.

It's almost like they switched gears midway through, or decided to go in a totally different direction from their original idea, but it was too late and now it's fucked beyond salvation.

Again: it was a great idea, ruined by the greed and incompetence of the team.

>>16205455
>But to create a UI for hashing and uploading, and the verification interface to compare documents to the hash, etc., it does make sense to use a token to make the calls to the blockchain. They sell the token to their customer, the customer gives the token back when they use the product. Pure utility token.
Why does it makes sense to sell a token to a customer, if they're just going to give it right back? Why not keep the token in the back-end and not sell it at all? V-ID could printed 10000000000000000000000000000000000000 tokens out of thin air for the ICO, but then of course no one would have bought it.

>>16205510
>Why does it makes sense to sell a token to a customer, if they're just going to give it right back? Why not keep the token in the back-end and not sell it at all?
Somehow they have to transact with the blockchain to verify and compare the hashed document.
In order to log that a comparison/verification was made, using a symbol or token makes sense. It's just easy and cheap to keep track of. If I'm a company and I buy 1000 verifications from V-ID, with the understanding that I'll use them over time, nobody has to try to keep track and count how many times I've used the service. I buy them up front and the token ensures I don't use more than I've paid for. And the public block chain not only holds the original document (hash), but also has the log (because of the token) of every time someone verified the document.

I guess this is where you and I differ.
The token is necessary and genius, but it only works as a closed-loop. It's literally a utility token that drives how the whole thing works. But the price should be stable, or no customers will ever want to buy it.

But the price has nothing to do with the secondary market and crypto speculators who are currently trading it. V-ID is going to sell the token for what one verification should cost, two cents or whatever, and the secondary market will bust.

Problem is they didn't think through how an ICO fucks their whole plan. "Investors" want the tokens to be worth more, but their customers want the tokens to cost less and remain stable. They can't satisfy both conflicting needs.

>>16206081
>Somehow they have to transact with the blockchain to verify and compare the hashed document.
>In order to log that a comparison/verification was made, using a symbol or token makes sense. It's just easy and cheap to keep track of. If I'm a company and I buy 1000 verifications from V-ID, with the understanding that I'll use them over time, nobody has to try to keep track and count how many times I've used the service. I buy them up front and the token ensures I don't use more than I've paid for. And the public block chain not only holds the original document (hash), but also has the log (because of the token) of every time someone verified the document.
Alternatively, since clients have actual accounts where they pay their bills, you could have a variable in a database keeping track of the number of validation credits left per account. And each used credit, in a history log, being tied to a hash.

>>16206123
If you're already using an immutable decentralized public ledger to house a provably genuine document, why would you centralize the "proof" that someone checked that the document was genuine?
You already have a solution tailor-made for this kind of immutability and transparency, customers who would want the service aren't going to want the proof to be locked in your private centralized system.
The whole point is that it's provable and immutable. If you house those transactions internally you lose some of the benefit of the system.

Plus the cost. You're already using Ethereum to store the hash, why would you build and maintain your own database for the customer interactions when you have a public decentralized database that you're already using for every verification? Adding a token to track the verification costs virtually nothing additional, why would you build and maintain a separate centralized database to do that?

>>16200904
Im bout to put in another .2 btc

>>16206385

wait till i get my .2btc worth of VIDT on the exchange so i can dump on you.

>>16206236
All these arguments fall apart when a billion dollar top of the line cyber security company, Acronis and their Notary solution manages to do it without a third-party token for mere cents per file. While V-ID is charging clients over $1.50 per file and needs a token and a variable price structure for "reasons". Reasons being it's a scam to get free money, not because the token was needed.

If the token is needed, it's because of shitty programming, logic, and planning. Which one is it?

>>16206236
I get your point and you brought up some good arguments, so I won't discredit you, but it's obvious that if every other file validation company can do it without a token, V-ID is doing something incorrectly.

>>16207255
Using a token-based solution, and implementing it intelligently, should provide both a cost savings (allowing the verifications for cheaper) and transparency due to the public ledger.

If I was going to start a blockchain document verification business I'd do it with a token. But not how these chucklefucks did it ... I agree their ICO and token implementation is only there as a shameless attempt to make money off speculative investors.

At some point I think they lost their way, they're no longer trying to build a successful document verification service; they're now only trying to build a successful ERC-20 token.

>>16207393
>At some point I think they lost their way, they're no longer trying to build a successful document verification service; they're now only trying to build a successful ERC-20 token.
This is probably true, considering that they went from promoting Rebrandt paintings being validated to HOWDOO UDOO, paid reports, organized shill spam sweepstakes and contests, giveaways. Signs of them prepping for a dump.

>>16207449
Thanks Anon, talk to you next time.
I've spent enough of my Sunday discussing the merits of a junk token I have no real interest in ever buying.

Have a good one, cheers.

>>16207487
Good talk. Take care, see you in the next thread.