About liqui - you can't seriuosly compare it with polo or kraken
I compare them at the level ... they are both exchanges ... that's it
... nothing more. 
Topic: [ANN] ICONOMI - Fund Management Platform - page 495. (Read 1253951 times)
I compare them at the level ... they are both exchanges ... that's it
... nothing more. 
Don't be greedy, just sell and move on.
Have you ever made money off an ICO? I see you in all these ICO threads and based on your posts and the timing of your posting it seems like you always get impatient and sell low before the coin even has a chance to go up.
The russian translator was pretty much the only active one, and his thread was super active.
Since devs had certain amount of tokens locked for that, he got most of it.
He also did pretty good job, btw
Since devs had certain amount of tokens locked for that, he got most of it.
He also did pretty good job, btw
My intent was not to argue about how good was the Russian translation ... there were voices saying it was a lot of spam ... but never the less ... that is not the point.
When you manage to raise 10 m $ you can pay 3 BTC to list the coin on Rex so that there are no discussions ... they would be able to gain back that amount by trading 0.5% of their own tokens (I mean ... they have trading experts there to take care of the funds and indexes .. right?). If the fee would've been 100 BTC to list the token on Rex ... I would've understand ... it doesn't worth to pay those money ... but with such a low fee ... For me its a red flag, as I cannot come up with a decent explanation about this.
Listing it on polo now, before a single milestone is met will turn it into another pump and dump coin, like many others
Since the. main goal of the project is to connect crypto with fiat investors, such an instability will not be good for the project. From what i see, the team aims for something long, and is not interested in price manipulation conducted on a daily base by whales.
That is if they can actually prevent polo from listing it
i am 100% sure that must be a reason why ICN not on Polo or TRex . ICONOMI tim not stupid people.. so just let them do the job 
there a few very big investors and they not just dump money on first ico they see...
there a few very big investors and they not just dump money on first ico they see...
Personally I rather NOT see ICN on Bittrex before Poloniex.
If ICN goes to Bittrex first, the pump won't be high enough and won't be sustained as on Poloniex.
There's just not much liquidity on Bittrex.
If ICN goes to Bittrex first, the pump won't be high enough and won't be sustained as on Poloniex.
There's just not much liquidity on Bittrex.
About liqui - you can't seriuosly compare it with polo or kraken
I compare them at the level ... they are both exchanges ... that's it
... nothing more. The russian translator was pretty much the only active one, and his thread was super active.
Since devs had certain amount of tokens locked for that, he got most of it.
He also did pretty good job, btw
Since devs had certain amount of tokens locked for that, he got most of it.
He also did pretty good job, btw
My intent was not to argue about how good was the Russian translation ... there were voices saying it was a lot of spam ... but never the less ... that is not the point.
When you manage to raise 10 m $ you can pay 3 BTC to list the coin on Rex so that there are no discussions ... they would be able to gain back that amount by trading 0.5% of their own tokens (I mean ... they have trading experts there to take care of the funds and indexes .. right?). If the fee would've been 100 BTC to list the token on Rex ... I would've understand ... it doesn't worth to pay those money ... but with such a low fee ... For me its a red flag, as I cannot come up with a decent explanation about this.
I am a bit confused. Why the dev's would care about the tokens being traded on POLO or REX? The gathered 10m $ which they can use are still in their possession.
If the price of ICN pups or dumps they would still have 10 m $ to work and do what they have promised to do. The difference would be for the token owners which could gain profits from trading. If the big wales are not interested in trading ... they can just not trade. No harm done. If the value of the ICN goes to the moon everyone is happy, dev's have the same 10m $ + a nice profit from their 15 m ICNs owned. If the value goes to 10 satoshies ... the dev's still have those 10 m $, the big wales do not care as they invested long term, dividends and so on ... and for the rest ... well ... is a free market. I doubt anyone will blame the dev's that they added the token to POLO and because of that the value went to 100 sats. The dev's would be blame if they do not deliver the fund, platform and dividends ... As long as they deliver what is written in the white paper no normal investor would blame the dev's.
So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC ... why is so hard to pay 3 BTC to Bittrex ? I am sure is not about the money. So what is the real problem ? Regarding Polo I am not sure they can really push it there .... really don't know how coins gets added there, but there are so many shitcoins even at less that 5 sat / coin, with less than 1 BTC volume per day in trading. So what am I missing?
I cannot believe they would "loose" more than a day to "negotiate" anything related to this topic with the exchanges, is not like they have to technically teach the exchanges how to implement the adding of ICN (its not the first ethereum based token added on these exchanges) ... so that BS with "focusing on the important things" is just that ... BS. So what is the real reason ? Liqui added the token without a problem, why POLO does not do this ? they have a lot of coins low in value and in volume ... so no real reason not to list it by their own wish. Did the dev's made an arrangement with them not to add it yet (of course is a speculation, as they seems to have an NDA with these exchanges, so I do not expect they to come up with an explanation)? We are not all retards, some of us have a brain and like to think and judge ... so if no better explanation can be provided ... I can go with dev's actively asking these exchanges not to list ICN (probably to keep the price down, bellow ICO, so they can buy some more cheap tokens). The problem then is that this is no longer a free market, it would be a manipulated market. As other said ... they woudn't have raised 10 m $ if they would've said actively that they do not intend to list the token on Polo and Rex.
I still believe in this project, I haven't sold any of my tokens, but I am not happy about these games that I do not understand. And I don't think I am stupid and that is the reason why I don't understand.
So, some smarter people around here have some better explanations ?
I don't know if the devs can prevent polo from listing ICN. If the price of ICN pups or dumps they would still have 10 m $ to work and do what they have promised to do. The difference would be for the token owners which could gain profits from trading. If the big wales are not interested in trading ... they can just not trade. No harm done. If the value of the ICN goes to the moon everyone is happy, dev's have the same 10m $ + a nice profit from their 15 m ICNs owned. If the value goes to 10 satoshies ... the dev's still have those 10 m $, the big wales do not care as they invested long term, dividends and so on ... and for the rest ... well ... is a free market. I doubt anyone will blame the dev's that they added the token to POLO and because of that the value went to 100 sats. The dev's would be blame if they do not deliver the fund, platform and dividends ... As long as they deliver what is written in the white paper no normal investor would blame the dev's.
So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC ... why is so hard to pay 3 BTC to Bittrex ? I am sure is not about the money. So what is the real problem ? Regarding Polo I am not sure they can really push it there .... really don't know how coins gets added there, but there are so many shitcoins even at less that 5 sat / coin, with less than 1 BTC volume per day in trading. So what am I missing?
I cannot believe they would "loose" more than a day to "negotiate" anything related to this topic with the exchanges, is not like they have to technically teach the exchanges how to implement the adding of ICN (its not the first ethereum based token added on these exchanges) ... so that BS with "focusing on the important things" is just that ... BS. So what is the real reason ? Liqui added the token without a problem, why POLO does not do this ? they have a lot of coins low in value and in volume ... so no real reason not to list it by their own wish. Did the dev's made an arrangement with them not to add it yet (of course is a speculation, as they seems to have an NDA with these exchanges, so I do not expect they to come up with an explanation)? We are not all retards, some of us have a brain and like to think and judge ... so if no better explanation can be provided ... I can go with dev's actively asking these exchanges not to list ICN (probably to keep the price down, bellow ICO, so they can buy some more cheap tokens). The problem then is that this is no longer a free market, it would be a manipulated market. As other said ... they woudn't have raised 10 m $ if they would've said actively that they do not intend to list the token on Polo and Rex.
I still believe in this project, I haven't sold any of my tokens, but I am not happy about these games that I do not understand. And I don't think I am stupid and that is the reason why I don't understand.
So, some smarter people around here have some better explanations ?
If that's true, the only logical explaination is that polo see some legal or regulatory issue with ICN.
That also doesn't make much sense, because kraken listed it immediately after token distribution, and kraken are not less regulated than polo, and even more selective about what gets listed.
The other option is that polo don't see value in adding ICN - i think we can dismiss that one pretty safely.
So it is either some kind of no-go from devs to polo or something else that we are not aware of.
I really can't see any other option
Glad to see someone else agree on this:
"they woudln't have raised 10 m $ if they would've said actively that they do not intend to list the token on Polo and Rex."
I also agree that "BS with "focusing on the important things" is just that ... BS."
It shouldn't be hard to talk to Polo directly if they have NDA.
I don't know if the devs can prevent polo from listing ICN.
I am sure the dev's cannot prevent an exchange to list the token (see Liqui). But they can have an agreement ... for some reason ... not able to understand which reason ... but ...
About liqui - you can't seriuosly compare it with polo or kraken
lets keep calm and wait till 15th November 
did you find those weak hands on Kraken?
yes , actually did
but it took long time ... sad that i cant get more, run out of btc 
I don't know if the devs can prevent polo from listing ICN.
I am sure the dev's cannot prevent an exchange to list the token (see Liqui). But they can have an agreement ... for some reason ... not able to understand which reason ... but ...
From some time I'm interested in ICN and still wondering should I make an investment.
I have a question.. Is this for real?
- "So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC "
I saw a comment like this above from other users too? Is this true and what he translated for 50BTC!?!??
The russian translator was pretty much the only active one, and his thread was super active.I have a question.. Is this for real?
- "So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC "
I saw a comment like this above from other users too? Is this true and what he translated for 50BTC!?!??
Since devs had certain amount of tokens locked for that, he got most of it.
He also did pretty good job, btw
Some here say "go to Kraken and sell ... you have the opportunity".
No ... that is not an opportunity ... why should I have the "freedom" / "choice" to sell bellow the ICO price?
Why is such a bad thing to wish to buy low and sell high ? For a token that claims to bring a lot of value to the owners is strange that so many are kind of blaming people which wish to make a profit from trading.
But in order to trade you need some volume ... and its clear that on Kraken there is no real volume, its not a real market for this token.
So yes ... I what to be able to sell at 2-3x the ICO price, part of my tokens, re-buy at 1-1.5x ICO price and so on. Nothing wrong in this. I am assuming some risks by trading ... which are my risks (I might sell at 2-3x ICO price and never be able to re-buy at lower price ... but that is the risk I am willing to take, no need for the dev's to protect me or others).
Again I am saying ... if they would've been transparent from the beginning about the exact exchanges they will add the ICN token ... I am sure they wouldn't have raised this amount of money !
No ... that is not an opportunity ... why should I have the "freedom" / "choice" to sell bellow the ICO price?
Why is such a bad thing to wish to buy low and sell high ? For a token that claims to bring a lot of value to the owners is strange that so many are kind of blaming people which wish to make a profit from trading.
But in order to trade you need some volume ... and its clear that on Kraken there is no real volume, its not a real market for this token.
So yes ... I what to be able to sell at 2-3x the ICO price, part of my tokens, re-buy at 1-1.5x ICO price and so on. Nothing wrong in this. I am assuming some risks by trading ... which are my risks (I might sell at 2-3x ICO price and never be able to re-buy at lower price ... but that is the risk I am willing to take, no need for the dev's to protect me or others).
Again I am saying ... if they would've been transparent from the beginning about the exact exchanges they will add the ICN token ... I am sure they wouldn't have raised this amount of money !
I am a bit confused. Why the dev's would care about the tokens being traded on POLO or REX? The gathered 10m $ which they can use are still in their possession.
If the price of ICN pups or dumps they would still have 10 m $ to work and do what they have promised to do. The difference would be for the token owners which could gain profits from trading. If the big wales are not interested in trading ... they can just not trade. No harm done. If the value of the ICN goes to the moon everyone is happy, dev's have the same 10m $ + a nice profit from their 15 m ICNs owned. If the value goes to 10 satoshies ... the dev's still have those 10 m $, the big wales do not care as they invested long term, dividends and so on ... and for the rest ... well ... is a free market. I doubt anyone will blame the dev's that they added the token to POLO and because of that the value went to 100 sats. The dev's would be blame if they do not deliver the fund, platform and dividends ... As long as they deliver what is written in the white paper no normal investor would blame the dev's.
So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC ... why is so hard to pay 3 BTC to Bittrex ? I am sure is not about the money. So what is the real problem ? Regarding Polo I am not sure they can really push it there .... really don't know how coins gets added there, but there are so many shitcoins even at less that 5 sat / coin, with less than 1 BTC volume per day in trading. So what am I missing?
I cannot believe they would "loose" more than a day to "negotiate" anything related to this topic with the exchanges, is not like they have to technically teach the exchanges how to implement the adding of ICN (its not the first ethereum based token added on these exchanges) ... so that BS with "focusing on the important things" is just that ... BS. So what is the real reason ? Liqui added the token without a problem, why POLO does not do this ? they have a lot of coins low in value and in volume ... so no real reason not to list it by their own wish. Did the dev's made an arrangement with them not to add it yet (of course is a speculation, as they seems to have an NDA with these exchanges, so I do not expect they to come up with an explanation)? We are not all retards, some of us have a brain and like to think and judge ... so if no better explanation can be provided ... I can go with dev's actively asking these exchanges not to list ICN (probably to keep the price down, bellow ICO, so they can buy some more cheap tokens). The problem then is that this is no longer a free market, it would be a manipulated market. As other said ... they woudn't have raised 10 m $ if they would've said actively that they do not intend to list the token on Polo and Rex.
I still believe in this project, I haven't sold any of my tokens, but I am not happy about these games that I do not understand. And I don't think I am stupid and that is the reason why I don't understand.
So, some smarter people around here have some better explanations ?
I don't know if the devs can prevent polo from listing ICN. If the price of ICN pups or dumps they would still have 10 m $ to work and do what they have promised to do. The difference would be for the token owners which could gain profits from trading. If the big wales are not interested in trading ... they can just not trade. No harm done. If the value of the ICN goes to the moon everyone is happy, dev's have the same 10m $ + a nice profit from their 15 m ICNs owned. If the value goes to 10 satoshies ... the dev's still have those 10 m $, the big wales do not care as they invested long term, dividends and so on ... and for the rest ... well ... is a free market. I doubt anyone will blame the dev's that they added the token to POLO and because of that the value went to 100 sats. The dev's would be blame if they do not deliver the fund, platform and dividends ... As long as they deliver what is written in the white paper no normal investor would blame the dev's.
So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC ... why is so hard to pay 3 BTC to Bittrex ? I am sure is not about the money. So what is the real problem ? Regarding Polo I am not sure they can really push it there .... really don't know how coins gets added there, but there are so many shitcoins even at less that 5 sat / coin, with less than 1 BTC volume per day in trading. So what am I missing?
I cannot believe they would "loose" more than a day to "negotiate" anything related to this topic with the exchanges, is not like they have to technically teach the exchanges how to implement the adding of ICN (its not the first ethereum based token added on these exchanges) ... so that BS with "focusing on the important things" is just that ... BS. So what is the real reason ? Liqui added the token without a problem, why POLO does not do this ? they have a lot of coins low in value and in volume ... so no real reason not to list it by their own wish. Did the dev's made an arrangement with them not to add it yet (of course is a speculation, as they seems to have an NDA with these exchanges, so I do not expect they to come up with an explanation)? We are not all retards, some of us have a brain and like to think and judge ... so if no better explanation can be provided ... I can go with dev's actively asking these exchanges not to list ICN (probably to keep the price down, bellow ICO, so they can buy some more cheap tokens). The problem then is that this is no longer a free market, it would be a manipulated market. As other said ... they woudn't have raised 10 m $ if they would've said actively that they do not intend to list the token on Polo and Rex.
I still believe in this project, I haven't sold any of my tokens, but I am not happy about these games that I do not understand. And I don't think I am stupid and that is the reason why I don't understand.
So, some smarter people around here have some better explanations ?
If that's true, the only logical explaination is that polo see some legal or regulatory issue with ICN.
That also doesn't make much sense, because kraken listed it immediately after token distribution, and kraken are not less regulated than polo, and even more selective about what gets listed.
The other option is that polo don't see value in adding ICN - i think we can dismiss that one pretty safely.
So it is either some kind of no-go from devs to polo or something else that we are not aware of.
I really can't see any other option
dont know if is anyone seen it,but almost everyday someone buys around 30k-35k ICN on Kraken (roughly at same time)
From some time I'm interested in ICN and still wondering should I make an investment.
I have a question.. Is this for real?
- "So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC "
I saw a comment like this above from other users too? Is this true and what he translated for 50BTC!?!??
I have a question.. Is this for real?
- "So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC "
I saw a comment like this above from other users too? Is this true and what he translated for 50BTC!?!??
Cheapest ICN seems on Liqui but I can't even log on 
Thx for dumpers. I Double my tokens yesterday!
I am a bit confused. Why the dev's would care about the tokens being traded on POLO or REX? The gathered 10m $ which they can use are still in their possession.
If the price of ICN pups or dumps they would still have 10 m $ to work and do what they have promised to do. The difference would be for the token owners which could gain profits from trading. If the big wales are not interested in trading ... they can just not trade. No harm done. If the value of the ICN goes to the moon everyone is happy, dev's have the same 10m $ + a nice profit from their 15 m ICNs owned. If the value goes to 10 satoshies ... the dev's still have those 10 m $, the big wales do not care as they invested long term, dividends and so on ... and for the rest ... well ... is a free market. I doubt anyone will blame the dev's that they added the token to POLO and because of that the value went to 100 sats. The dev's would be blame if they do not deliver the fund, platform and dividends ... As long as they deliver what is written in the white paper no normal investor would blame the dev's.
So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC ... why is so hard to pay 3 BTC to Bittrex ? I am sure is not about the money. So what is the real problem ? Regarding Polo I am not sure they can really push it there .... really don't know how coins gets added there, but there are so many shitcoins even at less that 5 sat / coin, with less than 1 BTC volume per day in trading. So what am I missing?
I cannot believe they would "loose" more than a day to "negotiate" anything related to this topic with the exchanges, is not like they have to technically teach the exchanges how to implement the adding of ICN (its not the first ethereum based token added on these exchanges) ... so that BS with "focusing on the important things" is just that ... BS. So what is the real reason ? Liqui added the token without a problem, why POLO does not do this ? they have a lot of coins low in value and in volume ... so no real reason not to list it by their own wish. Did the dev's made an arrangement with them not to add it yet (of course is a speculation, as they seems to have an NDA with these exchanges, so I do not expect they to come up with an explanation)? We are not all retards, some of us have a brain and like to think and judge ... so if no better explanation can be provided ... I can go with dev's actively asking these exchanges not to list ICN (probably to keep the price down, bellow ICO, so they can buy some more cheap tokens). The problem then is that this is no longer a free market, it would be a manipulated market. As other said ... they woudn't have raised 10 m $ if they would've said actively that they do not intend to list the token on Polo and Rex.
I still believe in this project, I haven't sold any of my tokens, but I am not happy about these games that I do not understand. And I don't think I am stupid and that is the reason why I don't understand.
So, some smarter people around here have some better explanations ?
If the price of ICN pups or dumps they would still have 10 m $ to work and do what they have promised to do. The difference would be for the token owners which could gain profits from trading. If the big wales are not interested in trading ... they can just not trade. No harm done. If the value of the ICN goes to the moon everyone is happy, dev's have the same 10m $ + a nice profit from their 15 m ICNs owned. If the value goes to 10 satoshies ... the dev's still have those 10 m $, the big wales do not care as they invested long term, dividends and so on ... and for the rest ... well ... is a free market. I doubt anyone will blame the dev's that they added the token to POLO and because of that the value went to 100 sats. The dev's would be blame if they do not deliver the fund, platform and dividends ... As long as they deliver what is written in the white paper no normal investor would blame the dev's.
So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC ... why is so hard to pay 3 BTC to Bittrex ? I am sure is not about the money. So what is the real problem ? Regarding Polo I am not sure they can really push it there .... really don't know how coins gets added there, but there are so many shitcoins even at less that 5 sat / coin, with less than 1 BTC volume per day in trading. So what am I missing?
I cannot believe they would "loose" more than a day to "negotiate" anything related to this topic with the exchanges, is not like they have to technically teach the exchanges how to implement the adding of ICN (its not the first ethereum based token added on these exchanges) ... so that BS with "focusing on the important things" is just that ... BS. So what is the real reason ? Liqui added the token without a problem, why POLO does not do this ? they have a lot of coins low in value and in volume ... so no real reason not to list it by their own wish. Did the dev's made an arrangement with them not to add it yet (of course is a speculation, as they seems to have an NDA with these exchanges, so I do not expect they to come up with an explanation)? We are not all retards, some of us have a brain and like to think and judge ... so if no better explanation can be provided ... I can go with dev's actively asking these exchanges not to list ICN (probably to keep the price down, bellow ICO, so they can buy some more cheap tokens). The problem then is that this is no longer a free market, it would be a manipulated market. As other said ... they woudn't have raised 10 m $ if they would've said actively that they do not intend to list the token on Polo and Rex.
I still believe in this project, I haven't sold any of my tokens, but I am not happy about these games that I do not understand. And I don't think I am stupid and that is the reason why I don't understand.
So, some smarter people around here have some better explanations ?
you can ask and get answers directly from the tim 15th November - 7 am PST / 10am EST / 3pm UTC-GMT / 4pm CET.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICONOMI/comments/5c0stl/announcement_of_periodic_ama/
going to be a lot of questions....
I am a bit confused. Why the dev's would care about the tokens being traded on POLO or REX? The gathered 10m $ which they can use are still in their possession.
If the price of ICN pups or dumps they would still have 10 m $ to work and do what they have promised to do. The difference would be for the token owners which could gain profits from trading. If the big wales are not interested in trading ... they can just not trade. No harm done. If the value of the ICN goes to the moon everyone is happy, dev's have the same 10m $ + a nice profit from their 15 m ICNs owned. If the value goes to 10 satoshies ... the dev's still have those 10 m $, the big wales do not care as they invested long term, dividends and so on ... and for the rest ... well ... is a free market. I doubt anyone will blame the dev's that they added the token to POLO and because of that the value went to 100 sats. The dev's would be blame if they do not deliver the fund, platform and dividends ... As long as they deliver what is written in the white paper no normal investor would blame the dev's.
So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC ... why is so hard to pay 3 BTC to Bittrex ? I am sure is not about the money. So what is the real problem ? Regarding Polo I am not sure they can really push it there .... really don't know how coins gets added there, but there are so many shitcoins even at less that 5 sat / coin, with less than 1 BTC volume per day in trading. So what am I missing?
I cannot believe they would "loose" more than a day to "negotiate" anything related to this topic with the exchanges, is not like they have to technically teach the exchanges how to implement the adding of ICN (its not the first ethereum based token added on these exchanges) ... so that BS with "focusing on the important things" is just that ... BS. So what is the real reason ? Liqui added the token without a problem, why POLO does not do this ? they have a lot of coins low in value and in volume ... so no real reason not to list it by their own wish. Did the dev's made an arrangement with them not to add it yet (of course is a speculation, as they seems to have an NDA with these exchanges, so I do not expect they to come up with an explanation)? We are not all retards, some of us have a brain and like to think and judge ... so if no better explanation can be provided ... I can go with dev's actively asking these exchanges not to list ICN (probably to keep the price down, bellow ICO, so they can buy some more cheap tokens). The problem then is that this is no longer a free market, it would be a manipulated market. As other said ... they woudn't have raised 10 m $ if they would've said actively that they do not intend to list the token on Polo and Rex.
I still believe in this project, I haven't sold any of my tokens, but I am not happy about these games that I do not understand. And I don't think I am stupid and that is the reason why I don't understand.
So, some smarter people around here have some better explanations ?
If the price of ICN pups or dumps they would still have 10 m $ to work and do what they have promised to do. The difference would be for the token owners which could gain profits from trading. If the big wales are not interested in trading ... they can just not trade. No harm done. If the value of the ICN goes to the moon everyone is happy, dev's have the same 10m $ + a nice profit from their 15 m ICNs owned. If the value goes to 10 satoshies ... the dev's still have those 10 m $, the big wales do not care as they invested long term, dividends and so on ... and for the rest ... well ... is a free market. I doubt anyone will blame the dev's that they added the token to POLO and because of that the value went to 100 sats. The dev's would be blame if they do not deliver the fund, platform and dividends ... As long as they deliver what is written in the white paper no normal investor would blame the dev's.
So for god sake ... if they afforded to pay some Russian translation 50 BTC ... why is so hard to pay 3 BTC to Bittrex ? I am sure is not about the money. So what is the real problem ? Regarding Polo I am not sure they can really push it there .... really don't know how coins gets added there, but there are so many shitcoins even at less that 5 sat / coin, with less than 1 BTC volume per day in trading. So what am I missing?
I cannot believe they would "loose" more than a day to "negotiate" anything related to this topic with the exchanges, is not like they have to technically teach the exchanges how to implement the adding of ICN (its not the first ethereum based token added on these exchanges) ... so that BS with "focusing on the important things" is just that ... BS. So what is the real reason ? Liqui added the token without a problem, why POLO does not do this ? they have a lot of coins low in value and in volume ... so no real reason not to list it by their own wish. Did the dev's made an arrangement with them not to add it yet (of course is a speculation, as they seems to have an NDA with these exchanges, so I do not expect they to come up with an explanation)? We are not all retards, some of us have a brain and like to think and judge ... so if no better explanation can be provided ... I can go with dev's actively asking these exchanges not to list ICN (probably to keep the price down, bellow ICO, so they can buy some more cheap tokens). The problem then is that this is no longer a free market, it would be a manipulated market. As other said ... they woudn't have raised 10 m $ if they would've said actively that they do not intend to list the token on Polo and Rex.
I still believe in this project, I haven't sold any of my tokens, but I am not happy about these games that I do not understand. And I don't think I am stupid and that is the reason why I don't understand.
So, some smarter people around here have some better explanations ?
Jump to: