/biz/ - Business & Finance

Thanks buying more. You just stay poor

>>14474461
Who can you be so sure it will rise in price if the actuall demand for the token will be less than there is now. I don't get this biz...

>>14474428
Are you a literal brainlet?

This is done to adjust to the rising price of 1 VIDT you KEK. Whether you pay 100 VIDT priced at 0.01$ or 1 VIDT priced at 1$, its literally the same. This is not affecting price, burns or demand.

>>14474562
ofcourse it is affecting the burns! they burn 20% of the tokens in the wallet. Fiat-wise youre right, but tokenwise their will be less demand for the token next season unless the amount of validations go like x9.

Burning is a nice extra. It will x10 either way because of utilization even if there would be no burning or buybacks

Given the chance to get an easy x10 and anons still scared baka. Don't forget to fomo in @ 3$

>>14474596
I dont understand this at all. Without the burns or buybacks there wouldn't be ANY reason to hold this token... The buybacks create the incentive to hold this.

>>14474625
your right anon but new customers like amspec just joined the customers (around a week ago). So validations will cost less but they are already multiplied by 5-10 recent weeks, so the burns will more or less be the same.

>>14474691
Not true! Validations stayed almost the same for two months. We can see a shift from manual to API validations though.

>>14474428

Anon validations will cost less vidts but with the new customers their numbers already multiplied by 5-10, so the burns will be more or less the same (will be monthly, so will be 1/4-1/3 of this quarterly burn, IF there will be no more expansion. Which there will, because a new big customer will also be announced in the coming weeks. More hype will ensue.)

Pure hype this is, and not rational thinking. They solved the whale problem quite well, but price wise this could go flat or decline next few months, at least in BTC or ETH.

>>14474737
Yeah, I was meaning from April to may-june. Amspec joined around those times. This is quarterly, so it is March-June. That's why I said 5x.

give me 1 reason to think it shouldn't at least be $100 mcap coin

>>14474754

It's valuation + speculation, like how all markets work. Thinking from present and projected valuation, Mcap would be around 50-70 m$. Above 70m$ would be irrational hype.

Already rank 18 on ETH dapps
last i checked was rank 37, people is becoming aware and VIDT starts seeing more usage

https://www.stateofthedapps.com/rankings

>>14474795
Because if you calculate the company size (which is correlated to the increase in validations) you would find out they are not so big. They received 714000 vidt this month. Divided by 19 (which is the minimum so I am generous here) would be 37578 x €1.24 = €46600 ea month revenue. x12 is €559174 ea year. This company isnt woth over $10mill just yet... It is all hype and fomo.

>>14474900
Shit, this FUD is getting to me

>>14474860
Yeah, that is nice! I think Vidt will be big in the future. But iam worried about this x10 in price. The growth right now doesnt back this, so it must be hype.

I'am bullish long term but short term we could see a sharp red candle soon I guess.

>>14474900
the assumption is that they will keep getting more and more clients and usage though, that's how all crypto projects get their big valuations
for example REQ went down the shitter because it turned out nobody gives a shit about the network, but in this case it has already legitimate users that you can confirm

>>14474900

Since when is crypto based on real valuations. Remember EOS?

Chainlink is a centralized JSON parser

VIDT will x10 EOY at the very least

>>14474916
HIT THAT PANIC SELL BUTTON

>>14474900
I'd bet even this revenue is more than the vast majority of the top 100.

>>14474937
Fuck off you missed the train.

Shit tokens like ripple sitting at billion mcap

Only thing about vidt which is a realistic issue is its massively undervalued

>>14474999
Why is it undervalued, please tell me. Based on facts.

>>14474956
Yeah true, but i think we will get there soon! Bomb is a good example of pure madness in my opinion.

>>14475014
it actually does something unlike 99% of memecoins.

>>14474999
I didnt miss the train I own a lot of VIDT. I also don't mean to fud, I want to inform people about the amount tokens used for validations being reduced, hopefully we won't see a sell of once people find out about this.

>>14475054
It all depends on their skill of their sales people. If they can onboard more customers there won't be anything to worry about.

>>14475098
Yeah, but isn't that a high risk to take on a token that is up %1000 in a month? I might be complete wrong here, but I just wanted to let you guys know why I'm careful with Vidt upcoming weeks.

>>14474428
This. I support both VIDT and Link but I ownly own Link because the economics make way more sense. They're are only 17 trillion Link in circulation and once their gone, there gone; no more decentralized oracles ever. There's also is a halfening process every year in which the supply of chain link gets cut by .05 percent causing a deflationary stimulus gap. So fill up while you can.

>>14474900

You keep on omitting projected valuation, which is so central especially to crypto market caps. Only from may to june, the transactions multiplied by 2. It keeps on being featured on the mainstream media. It started marketing for just around a month. With the worst estimate, it is monthly 2x expansion.

Valuation does not wait for reality. IF the expansion does not ensue, THEN the price dumps. Market buys expectation, sells frustration. Again: It sells NOT if the present state does not correspond, BUT if the projected estimate falls short the reality. It will dump if it fails to expand like projected. Until then or until 50-70m$ Mcap (which is the general valuation for these types of companies) it is just a rational (albeit risky) investment. Risk is about the company falling short of hype, not hype itself. And for now company gives enough reason that it will go on catching up with the hype. This is why the present fomo.

>>14475159
Good post

>>14475180
>Until then or until 50-70m$ Mcap (which is the general valuation for these types of companies) it is just a rational (albeit risky) investment.
Based on what? Based on the fact that other projects (like factom) are valued in this scale?

>>14474737
You need to divide by average fee per file. Youll see that the number of files is increasing, which is the measure we should be looking at

>>14475621

No, it's based on an average valuation of a successful validation company mid-scale. Non-crypto.

>>14474428
It has to go down because the price will go up

>>14474900
Thats not how you value a business. Annual revenues x PE ratio. And PE in crypto or fintech is very high

>>14474428
Look - I'm just waiting and accumulating to turn my VIDT into company shares because V-ID has a bright future ahead of it.
EVEN if the token wasn't needed at all (which it is), the price would rise simply because of the opportunity to grab some cheap stocks that will be worth a fortune in a couple of years.

You bring a valid concern but it doesn't change that this is a low supply coin with a token burn.

If you assume the company will be successful, then the token burn is significant regardless of the amount.

why would you want to pay in VIDT when you can just pay fiat

just put everything on the blockchain without needing a dumbass token

>>14477171
>this guy doesnt know

>>14474428
>unironically thinking fundamentals matter in this market

>>14477171
companies pay for a bundle on vidt in fiat instead of having to worry about blockchain fees

>>14477211
so make it a subscription instead of a VIDT that could cost 0.00004 BTC or $0.43 and changes everytime
you DONT need a token

>>14477231
>still looking at fundamentals

>>14474691
Validations are price fixed in fiat.

>>14474625
You are a reatrd. You don't get crypto. This is a bubble. VIDT is seriously undervalued. Summerchild stay poor buy boomer stocks. DYOR. VIDT token will be converted to VIDT shares. Company shares within 2020.

There you go it's company shares. Token is 1000% more solid than any other project and it still has such a small cap.

>>14478094
No, VIDT is a private enterprise. There are actuall shares already. You will get a security token when you trade your VIDT for VIDS.

I talked to Pim on telegram. He said that the validation transfers are pegged to fiat IN REAL TIME via an API. Token transfers are up 10-20% from last month, yet the token price is 10x higher. Meaning, they are generating almost 10x the revenue they were a month ago.

Regardless, Reddit is fully on board now. My bags are packed

>>14478231

Yes, the 'shares' are owned by private equity most likely.

it would be better if it stayed low for a long time so the tokens from vidt would burn faster, if it pumps high barely any tokens will be getting burned (only 10% out of spent ones are)

>>14478231
are you really that retarded.
>what is reading comprehension?
>also
>ignoring the fact that this alone destroys your FUD

>>14479611
> if it pumps high barely any tokens will be getting burned (only 10% out of spent ones are)
If it pumps high, we won't need to have as much burned. Insurance policy 400 IQ

Are we still hovering at 150k sats? You guys should’ve got in earlier