Topic: 400BTC to be listed in an EXCHANGE? (Read 169 times)

Become the most successful son, register and earn when you sleepOur website

Actual types of projects follow the multi-level model. Pyramid and I see it still wins the loser. But most of the benefits come before and often fooled. It is a pity for them.

I have read that side of owner and he said that if the altcoin is good it doesn't even have to pay a listing fee.

This is his tweet w/ article - https://twitter.com/cz_binance/status/1029542562086903809

according to the article says clearly that is not true.


Well, check the owner's side of the exchange, they have the right to evaluate any altcoin that wants to be listed on their exchange and if we are talking about valuing, it means that the exchange owners have the power to tell if their altcoin is good or it's not good


I am of the opinion that we need centralized exchanges and very well regulated by the governments, the governments must do periodic inspections in the exchange and all exchange must have license

This is turning into a rich man's game as the prices to enter the ring are becoming affordable only by elite groups. For better or worse though?

Of course, it shouldn't be a "pay to play" model because that's the very corrupt system that crypto set out to eliminate. That's how banks preserve their dominance over society and the people.

But what if it helps to weed out scam ICO's and pyramid schemes? The pump & dumps that center around hype and marketing and then just disappear off the grid once the guys collect enough money. Because shit like that really gives crypto a bad name.

I understand, and I totally agree, so much so, that I can attest that the amounts to which the affected party refers are obviously altered and that it is more a gossip than a news item.

The reflection I really want to reach is empowerment as a tool of censorship, which can be very harmful.

I can even agree that something is paid for listing, what I do not accept or accept, is that a person, a company or a group, decide what suits us all.

My criticism has been, if that selection was at least effective I would accept it, but I know at least two projects that are a Fake or a Scam and are listed, meanwhile, other projects where the sponsors give their face, but do not have the capital to list or do not have listings to some advisers charging 5%, remain on the outside.

Sorry in any case, if I sound a little rough with my opinion, but it is a topic that I live daily with our ICO, for example today I received an email with what an Exchange considers that I must pay to list our project there with exchange to ETH , BTC and USD, and exceeds 4 BTC. there are certainly not 400, but for a project that we are doing with the savings, and it is not a product of previous SCAM, we have to think about it a lot. Above all, when many ICOs are generating distrust in the market which makes the investment in ICOs depend directly on the investment you make, not on the quality you have.

Hi
I know an altcoin listed on Binance since few months ago and knowing the team I can assure you they didn't pay such amount to be listed. They have been listed after waiting 1,5 month approximatively, but no way they would accept to pay over 2.5 million USD.
It's not a big project with a lot of hype so it can't be because the coin is popular or something like that...

This has become a great Gossip, but they still do not solve the underlying problem, see news in the following link:

https://news.bitcoin.com/binance-denies-400-btc-listing-quote-accuser-responds-you-are-a-fking-liar/

Starting from the fact, that may be true or not, that is not the important thing, the important thing is to clarify, that they should NOT be any in particular, those that define what project is good or bad, but I also understand that the responsibility is ours when empowering an Exchange, therefore, I support the theory of empowering decentralized exchanges.

The news can read it in greater detail, in many pages today, but here one of them:

https://www.criptonoticias.com/mercado-valores/fundador-expanse-afirma-binance-pidio-400-btc-listar-criptoactivo/


The issue in question, rather than revealing a secret to voices, is the absorbing of the amount requested, which seems to exceed any expectation.

It is not a secret, and so I have been saying in multiple threads and forums, that the market for cryptocurrencies, and ICOs above all, is taking the opposite way to what was originally planned, the use and abuse of Airdrops and Bountys , as well as the lack of a tangible evaluation model for the creation of products and services, is generating a chaos within the market, which, being already speculative, brings the subject together, so that both can charge whatever they consider, as that they consider, by the service that is.

It is not a secret for anyone, and I say it loudly, that I am an integral part of an ICO, and as such, apparently, it will be more business to write my adventures and misadventures trying to work from the honest side of the subject, that keep trying to grow this ecosystem by massifying and facilitating its use.

In my case, we have seen many times, when someone and not just one, has told us that our project "does not involve a technological innovation" and we have had to explain that the innovation in our case is not technological, it is educational and marketing . obviously many people have ignored and others have given us a second reading beyond the source code and if you know how to program in this or that language. What is coming this story, is that those who criticized us in an opportunity, have listed within their "customers" many XXXXXCOIN, which after getting their support a market cap of about 14 MM USD $ lowered the Market Cap to 1 MM and disappeared from the market, and now with that capital obtained, they can repeat the operation with other names about 3 or 5 times, because now they have to pay the membership fees to many sites.
What most impresses me and calls for reflection, is the comment of the CEO of Binance, asking the developers and ICOs, not to worry about how much they charge, if not if their project is really good to be listed. In the hands of who are we putting our project? someone who believes that he and only he can know if a project is good or bad, someone who believes he has the right to tell us if something suits us or not? It seems a repeated story when many years ago someone decided that Tesla's project was not good enough.

We must have a minute of reflection, and in a previous article I said it, we do not believe more superhumans, we do not empower those who are not prepared for it, we maintain power with the basic idea of the BTC, a community of distributed and anonymous decisions, not where an individual can decide, if a project is good or bad, I and many people consider that my ICO is good, because this man must close the doors to develop.

unfortunately I do not have the mediatic weight, but if it would be just a "run" of BINANCE to teach these "super Human" that can not decide the course of technology, it is, of course, that not all projects are good, but it is MY job to evaluate them, not to tell me which ones are good.