51% attack: Do you not see the purpose of the 52% master nodes allocation in China? It is obviously a way to keep the total control of the unproven POA model. I would even consider the 11% in HK and Singapore ‘in house’ as well. My assumption is a small group affiliated to Vechain foundation is able to afford the cost of 63% master nodes. I would do the same if I run the show, because of POA. A bigger concern is with 51% control , Vechain foundation is a potential censor or worse, data manipulator. With inevitable trade disputes (and espionage) between nations, the motive list is endless.
ETH fork: If you have sit through the vechain AMA video, you would know Vechain is a ETH fork and the only programming language is solidify.
Use cases: The AMA video above also confirms the use cases Vechain tries to sell have not been changed, meaning they are stuck with the unsolvable extrinsic asset authentication problem.
BITESE: BITESE is a company responsible for 3 blockchain startups. The founder DJ Qian listed Qtum, Vechain and fusion under his own name in the fusion website. All of three project went public (ICOs) in 2017, because the BITESE domain registration did not exist until 2017. Anyone can tell the fundamental differences among these three projects? Dan Larimer phenomenon is not unique.
Business security and honesty are enhanced by subtraction than addition. Adding layers (ETH fork based on unproven POA) on top of unproven business use cases lead to no adoption. Nobody considered the business processes were the cause of 2008 crisis. BTC was born to fix the real cause.
I don’t see any other purpose of Vechain token( or that of Fusion and Qtum) other than enriching the company itself. It is more reasonable for Vechain to sell RFID/ETH based enterprise solutions. Or even more realistic, just RFID based solutions. Oh, these business already existed.
I still hope you all get out with profit. POW based BTC is the only revolutionary use case so far, maybe even for the next decade.