So, do you usually have a picture of a mostly naked white man at the end of your other articles on tokens and asset? If not, what prompted you to post this picture. Your bias is thick. Let's address your assertions. You start the article off with character attacks and unfounded asertions.
You state that our website is 95% fluff, yet there are literally 100s of pages of analysis and dozens of hours of video, and the legacy site has close to a thousand pages of content and relevant material. I don't see where it is lacking in content.

You say there is very little information of the stock exchange idea on the website (although I don't know what idea you are referring to). Yet, there are over a hundred blog posts on it over three different properties. In addition, the value trading app was up and running in the wild for nearly three years for all to use. Fake news, no?

You comment on what the website looks like. Does anyone of consequence truly care? Are we in the website business? You never mentioned anything that counts, even once. Did you comment on existing or historical revenues? How about margins? Any IP protections? Patents filed? Proprietary tech? What clients do we have? Strategic partnerships or relationships? What assets do we posses? No, instead, you'd rather discuss what the website looks like.
I feel that speaks for itself.

You don't seem to understand the value trading platform at all since you are consistently referencing stocks, but if you don't understand the plaform, how can you pass judgement on it?

You mention that I was on CNBC twice. Fact is was more like a dozen times, which is irrelevant. What is relevant is that I've proven my mettle with most appearances. I've won the CNBC Stock Draft Investment Challenge every time they had it - by a large and increasingly large margin.

I have also called over 86 moves publicly, including some of the biggst in modern history.

Your technical valuation is meaningless. Our volume of 2.5M daily on a (what you refer to as) rinky dink exchange exceeds the volume of other tokens on larger more liquid exhanges. That's bullish. In addition, it doesn't matter what the trade volume is when the fundamentals reign supreme. We make money and land large clients. You compare website design, but not value generating capability, yet you declare your name-calling missve a forensic analysis?
Further, you state the the Gnosis report was cut and paste from the website when in actuality it was a 26 page report that introduced an advanced and utilitarian valuation model - not the rudimentary "marketcap" that you refer to.

I took the time to respond to your character assination, musculur naked black man with a tiger appendixed "forensic analysis" because I want those who may be unfortunate enough to fall for your attacks as analysis to learn to ask real questions, and not rely on people's opinions of website aesthetics when juding a business or ongoing concern.

BTW, Veritaseum is currently the number 2 asset in the industry in market cap, the best performing token in the history of the industry, and probably trails only Ripple in revenue generation and only launced last month.

Veritaseum singed an MOU to enter into a joint venture and revenue sharing for what will be the best capitalized digital asset exchange in the world, slated to go live in September. This was introduced, with blessings to the Jamaican Central bank the Financial Services Authority (regulator). I even posted pictures of the meetings. Again, I welcome your scam challenge.

We're in negotiations to do the same with one of the top ten global exchanges.

Later this week, I will likely announce a HNW deal with a medical practice that demonstrates utility.

We're the most real token out there, website and all!