Talk:Ven (currency)

Clean Up
I cleaned up the external references so that they were no longer bare URLs. Also, one of the references, to the American Carbon Registry, was broken, and had an incorrect title, that didn't make sense. It used the phrase "retiring contracts", instead of what was actually happening, which was the introduction of Ven for transactions, NOT the discontinuation of use. There was a broken link to a news story in FinExtra which I fixed too.

Removed unverified content about listing by Thomson Reuters
However, I am concerned by the fact that I cannot find any reference to Ven digital currency actually being listed by Thomson Reuters Indices. As the article cited, this arrangement was "set to be announced" at the Sibos conference "Future of Money" session on Sept 2011. Yet I could find no reference at the conference website to this actually occurring, see [http://www.sibos.com/conferencedata/pages/session_details.page?sessionID=session_2455aa96-7a25-4fa3-89eb-f24f8fc0ee16 Innotribe focus session: Future of Money – is there still a role for banks? Thursday 22 September 2011]. Nor could I find any reference to Thomson Reuters making any such announcement either. Yet there are numerous financial web pages which are now quoting this situation as fact, despite it being unverified. I am not implying nor stating explicitly that these financial websites necessarily obtained their information from this entry on Wikipedia! Nor do I claim that Thomson Reuters does not in fact list Ven digital currency as described! But I could not verify the information myself, and am qualified to make such inquiries based on my education and work experience. After some hesitation, I removed the section saying that the arrangement had been completed. If a contract has been signed, and an announcement made by Thomson Reuters, this should be entered and updated by anyone who reads this, please!--FeralOink (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

HI - the Thomson Reuters announcement was jointly made by Thomson Reuters and Hub Culture in September 2011 at SIBOS. Finextra and others reported on this via documented links, here are a couple of them, and it has been independently verified, including from the official magazine at SIBOS, Informilo:

http://www.informilo.com/20120123/future-money-488 http://www.kernelmag.com/yiannopoulos/484/the-online-currency-wars-are-coming/ http://www.compasscayman.com/cfr/2012/01/11/The-Rise-of-Private-Money/

Hopefully these references help. Finally, gold, wine, diamonds and other commodities are actively available and traded on the platform, which can be viewed at http://www.hubculture.com/store — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaskaad (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Gold and wine trading removed
I am deleting the references to Ven currency trading in gold or wine that were added. The link to Forbes magazine does not contain ANY words to that effect whatsoever. The Forbes article consists of a few sentences accompanied by a video on YouTube that took place in the crowded lobby of a hotel in Tucson. The owner of the company, Stan Stalnaker, was interviewed by Forbes magazine. I did not hear anything about gold or wine trading. Regardless, an indistinctly recorded video is not credible, nor does it meet criteria for verifiable sources.

Quotations from verified sources were altered
ALSO Edits were made to direct quotes from publications, altering them, which I reverted. I STILL have seen no indication anywhere that Thomsen Reuters is actually listing Ven as stated previously. This is very serious, because it pertains to financial transactions and credibility. If someone were to believe these erroneous entries on Wikipedia for this article, they could be misled in making financial decisions.

N.B. There is nothing that the owner of HubCulture, Mr. Stan Stalnaker, said or was quoted as saying that was misleading or dishonest! The content and edits to this Wikipedia article are misleading. Mr. Stalnaker's comments are not! --FeralOink (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is Ven in WikiProject Numismatics? Ven is an electronic currency
Ven currency is now designated for inclusion in the WikiProject for Numismatics. But Ven is a digital currency! It is categorized as such on Wikipedia. Actually it isn't, but should be categorized as an electronic currency. What is the rationale for this decision? --FeralOink (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I updated the page to include the electronic currency category, as an additional edit on 28 Feb 2012.


 * Removed the WikProject Numismatics Project tag from this article. If anyone wishes to discuss further, please leave a message for me on my talk page. Per my earlier comment, Ven is not a physical currency, but an electronic one, thus not appropriate for a numismatics project by virtue of the definition of numismatics. --FeralOink (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Serial Commas for Clarity
In the prefatory section of the article, the first sentence originally read:

Ven is a global digital currency used by members of a social network service, Hub Culture, to buy, share and trade knowledge, goods and services.

This, to me, appears to be most naturally read as:

Ven is a global digital currency used by members of a social network service, Hub Culture, to:
 * buy
 * share and trade knowledge
 * goods and services

I've edited it to read:

Ven is a global digital currency used by members of a social network service, Hub Culture, to buy, share, and trade knowledge, goods, and services.

This appears to read most naturally as:

Ven is a global digital currency used by members of a social network service, Hub Culture, to:
 * buy:
 * knowledge
 * goods
 * services
 * share:
 * knowledge
 * goods
 * services
 * trade:
 * knowledge
 * goods
 * services

I'm pretty sure that was the intended meaning of the passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apotheon (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed sources, accuracy problems
I removed a few statements and citations because the statements simply weren't supported by the references. I'm not sure why they are so disjointed, but sometimes this happens when someone is trying to add a source for an existing sentence, and it doesn't really fit. If that's what happened, try working the other way around, writing the Wikipedia article based on the available sources. I'm including the WSJ sources here in case other information may be of use in the article.

Agyle (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed unverified claims
I'm removing claims about LMAX transaction volume from the first paragraph as they are not supported by the linked article.

108.21.236.13 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)