Isa
5.2K posts
From "Proof of View" to "Proof of Betrayal." 💔 $VRA We stayed for the roadmap. We stayed for the 15% staking. We stayed because we believed in a world without ad fraud. But @verasitytech just pulled the mask off: ❌ Increasing Max Supply to 200B (When they promised deflation). ❌ No governance for holders (The "community" is just exit liquidity). ❌ Canceled migrations and "strategic" pivots that only benefit the team. How can you sell a product that detects fake views when your own project's transparency is a ghost? 👻 The fight against fraud was just a marketing hook.
@verasitytech told us they were going to launch a 2 token system with a separation of the #VRA token and a new POV token would be created on the #Tron blockchain. That was 2 years ago.. To date we have had no meaningful updates as to the progress of this 2 token system and over this past year we have seen the circulating supply of the $VRA token jump from 9.7 Billion to 93 Billion tokens and we have also seen the doubling of the total supply from around 100 Billion to now 200 Billion. We are also seeing the token reach it's lowest value since it's actual launch ! I think that the vast majority of holders just want out of this project now but the reality is that it's difficult to see just who will be willing to buy back into this project based on the teams utter and totally flagrant abandonment of it's own token and community.
$VRA I've let that topic cool down over the last week, as there wasn't much to say, but after looking again and again at all the metrics and what happened, it's hard to wrap your head around what they're truly doing with this project. What we see on-chain is basically the team minting billions and billions of new $VRA and sending them in batches of 600M to exchanges such as Gate. They then withdraw $USDT only from those exchanges, which gets deposited into their hot wallet. They gather millions of it, and from time to time, they send big batches—like 2.5M $USDT or 5M $USDT—always in $USDT to the B2C2 group. B2C2 is a leading crypto-native liquidity provider across market conditions for institutions globally. So, in simple form: Mint tokens Send to exchange Withdraw millions of $USDT Send to B2C2 wallet Now, the team confirmed the CS is not 9.3B—it's like 93B, so 10x higher. They didn't split the token and give 1:10 to holders; we can only assume it's for their own pockets at this point. Add to this a complete silence from them, so it doesn't help. If someone has another theory, I'm very open to seeing other points of view, but I'll drop a few on-chain screenshots of what's I've noticed. @verasitytech
THREAD on $VRA clear look at Verasity’s messaging vs reality. No drama. Just the facts. 1/ There’s been a lot of noise around VRA lately, but one thing is obvious: the project’s public messaging from 2022–23 does not match its current legal positioning. This isn’t FUD. It’s a straight comparison of their own statements. 2/ In 2022–23, VRA was repeatedly described as: •the ecosystem token •used to fund ad campaigns •integrated into VeraViews, VeraWallet, VeraPay •a token with utility across the platform That is a clear economic and functional narrative around VRA. 3/ The same period included detailed supply communication: •Total supply = maximum supply •All tokens minted and accounted for •Circulating supply clearly listed •Market-maker liquidity explained •Team/ops allocations publicly outlined This positioned VRA as a token with structured tokenomics. 4/ They also promoted: •a buyback and burn mechanism using revenue •reduction of tradable supply •supply transparency •long-term economic alignment with the ecosystem This is not how you describe a “worthless utility token”. This is how you frame a token with economic expectations. 5/ Fast-forward to the current legal wording and tone, and the message is completely different: •VRA is not an investment •Tokens may have no value •The team has no obligation to update information •Purchasers have no rights of any kind •No promises regarding supply, utility, or value This is a full legal shield the opposite of the previous tone. 6/ So we have two versions of the same token: Version 1 (2022–23): A token with utility, defined tokenomics, circulating supply, revenue burns, ecosystem integration. Version 2 (Legal): A token with no promised value, no investment characteristics, no obligations from the team, and no rights to holders. Both are official. Both came from the same project. 7/ For anyone who bought between 2021–23, you didn’t buy under today’s legal phrasing. You bought under years of structured tokenomics, circulating supply data, revenue-burn plans, utility statements, and ecosystem integration. That’s why so many long-term holders feel blindsided. And honestly, it’s understandable. 8/ This thread isn’t calling anything a scam. It’s highlighting a clear communication split: The way the token was promoted vs the way it’s now legally described. If Web3 wants trust, clarity matters more than anything especially around supply, utility, and long-term obligations. 9/ Investors don’t react to disclaimers. They react to actions, transparency, and consistency. And until Verasity addresses these contradictions directly, these questions aren’t going anywhere. #VRA #Verasity #Crypto #Altcoins #Tokenomics #Web3
If you ask @verasitytech when the POV tokens will separate -No timeline Q2 burn? No update Tokenomics? No clarity Ask how much Veraviews is earning-It’s private. The #VRA team seems to do nothing, yet they still expect trust from the community. Now, 99% of people are against $VRA
🧵 THREAD | $VRA Tokenomics The Truth Nobody Wants to Say 1️⃣ Q3’s over. We’re in Q4 now and $VRA still hasn’t delivered the final tokenomics update we’ve all been waiting for. Let’s talk facts, not hype. 👇 2️⃣ ✅ What’s real: •The 10 billion warchest tokens were burned. Gone. •Regular quarterly burns (like the ~86.6 M VRA one) have happened before. •The team did a community consultation that confirmed the obvious the current model was bloated and unclear. 3️⃣ ⚙️ What they promised: •Migrate the 90 B “PoV marker tokens” off the same contract. •Build a new dual-token system (VRA + POV) where each has a clear role. •Keep VRA deflationary through real revenue-based burns. Sounds solid but here’s the catch… 👇 4️⃣ ❌ What’s missing: •No clear timeline or technical release for the migration. •No confirmed new contract. •No clarity on how future burns are structured or how often they’ll happen. •No Q4 roadmap update from the team explaining what’s next. We’re in the dark again. 5️⃣ 🔥 The PoV problem: Those 90 B PoV tokens are still sitting on the same contract as $VRA. That means the supply metrics everyone sees on CMC or Coingecko look inflated and confuse investors. Until that separation happens, tokenomics transparency is a joke. 6️⃣ 🧨 Burns aren’t guaranteed. They happen “when profitable.” So if VeraViews doesn’t produce profits… no burn. It’s deflation if business is booming, not by design. 7️⃣ ⚠️ Team tokens: Some founder/team pools have already unlocked. So don’t buy into “everything’s locked” talk it’s partial unlocks under their own vesting rules. 8️⃣ 📉 Community frustration: People aren’t mad for no reason. We just want results. Less “pending approval” more execution. 9️⃣ 💡 Bottom line: The idea behind Verasity is still one of the strongest in ad-tech and blockchain. But until this tokenomics overhaul is delivered and PoV separation is live, investors will stay skeptical and rightly so. 10️⃣ ⏳ It’s Q4, team. You’ve had time, support, and community patience. Now we need clarity, delivery, and proof of progress. Talk is cheap show us the real tokenomics. #VRA #Verasity #Crypto #Altcoins
