Topic: DNotes 2.0 - Staking, CRISP Interest, DNotes Pay - page 146. (Read 148848 times)

Thanks for your quick response. I'm very sure you have big plans for an exchange of your own in the future and avoiding all of this. When the masses refuse to pay to be listed on those exchanges then it will change, but as long as desperate Developers continue to give them what they want thinking and hoping they will make it back on sales then it will continue. Well, I guess we just sit and wait. So contacting us by Friday doesn't mean listing by Friday. If we get another delay with that notification that would be devastating.

As Alan mentioned most are not responsive, some have only acknowledged our request after more than a month and most are asking for $50,000 to $150,000+ worth of bitcoin or other digital currencies as a fee. It's not going to be easy or quick, it is going to a challenge. We will provide information when we are able to.

We are listed on:
https://www.nlexch.com/markets/notebtc
https://bitebtc.com/trade/note_btc

We are actively working with:
https://blockbid.io/
https://www.cryptopia.co.nz/

Thank you, The Cheezzz. Great comments. I share your frustration and can assure you with certainty that we have been reaching out to every single exchange that trades cryptocurrencies multi times. After doing our due diligence, there are a few (some among the largest) we prefer not to do business with but most have not responsive. Further, it is not uncommon to see an asking price of 5 BTC to 15 BTC to get listed. I have heard about significantly higher amount involving ICO coins. Nonetheless, getting DNotes listed on some major exchanges is among my highest priorities. As promised, Cryptopia will get back to us by this Friday and we will share the information immediately.

There are a lot of questionable conducts in our industry that don't always match up with public statements. All exchanges in our industry are under law enforcement scrutiny for trading security as an unregulated exchange. When the dust settled the pure token coins like Bitcoin, Litecoin, and DNotes are among the minority and limited few. When trust, integrity, mission, and purposeful vision are added to the mix, DNotes is a  rare breed. We are verifiable with massive amount of published information.

DNotes,

Even with all of the education you are bestowing upon us it still comes down to being listed and watching us grow. The only concern I have with Cryptopia is that they knew all that was happening during the delisting was that DNotes was upgrading to DNotes 2.0. When they decided to stop the process for the listing of 2.0 because they needed to look into everyone that is trying to be listed is ridiculous. I understand checking all of there current coins and tokens but stopping DNotes after giving us a start date to me means they didn't look into us to begin with. If they had done what they were supposed to do in the first place and researched our changes we wouldn't have been put on the back burner. We all have read the news and knows what happened with MT Gox, and Korean exchanges, but it has nothing to do with DNotes upgrading and being put back on the market. They already know us!!! So it's hard for all of us on the outside to understand why DNotes 2.0 is not listed on any of the big exchanges and/or what is taking so long to be listed somewhere so we can grow. We know that exchanges are charging outrageous amounts of money to be listed, but to not be on any of the top 30 exchanges is concerning. If we were in a board meeting I would have brought this to everyone's attention and not hide behind a keyboard. Not too long ago we were getting updates on where we stood with other exchanges, can we get more of those and how we can assist with convincing them. I know I have sent messages to different ones and asked for DNotes 2.0 to be put on but probably to deaf ears. This is NO way an attack on anyone just voicing my concerns that I'm sure others are feeling. I am also praying that some good news will come our way in bunches as the bad news normally does in the cryptocurreny world.

Interview with Alan Booth, CEO of Cryptopia (very long read):


Cryptopia CEO Alan Booth on the Cryptocurrency Exchange Realm

What is the coin listing process for you guys? What’s the process for someone who wants to get their coin listed on Cryptopia?

We’re just reviewing that and we’re being very focused on changing the way we list coins and who we list. We’re very conscious to gain trust. We are actually your first port of call for particularly those people who don’t know much about coin, so they have to trust their exchange partner. Therefore, we have to make sure that if we list a coin, it’s a viable trusted, honest coin that’s going to give value.

Not just to us as an exchange but it’s not a scam coin. It’s not something just to raise money, pump and dump thing. We have coin listing teams who are very tough. I have introduced people as the CEO to my coin listing team and I can’t get it through them. I’ve said, but these are great guys and I have a great story and I met them in Vancouver and boy, they’ve convinced me.

My coin listing technical team does all the due diligence. Everything from GitHub, Facebook pages, normal stuff like that. If it doesn’t look like a viable product to us on many levels, then it doesn’t get listed. That’s the end of it.

If [the coin] gets past that, we do further due diligence. We’ll actually interview the company. We’ll ask why do you want to list? Why do you want to list with Cryptopia? What’s your plan for the coin? What do you want us to tell customers because they’re going to be relying on us? So, we’d like to do more than just have a coin called 21 Million sitting on the exchange. How about if we had a link to that with some of the criteria we use to judge whether that was a good opportunity. Whether it was a good coin. We might have a 10-point plan and we might say, hey, this coin passed at 9.7. This coin is in, but it only got in at 2.4. Whereas the negative coins, the coins that have gotten negative plans, negative equity in our mindset, they just don’t get on the exchange.

We have a very large number of coins at the moment. We want to remain in that space, be the leader. That means that clearly, we’re not going to get it right all the time because we make mistakes and actually, so do the some of the honest and reliable coin generators. Their plans might not just happen, so they get the benefit of the doubt for a while.

As long as we see that they’re not doing something deliberately to disrupt the market or just to take money, then we’ll support them until they get their business model right. But we’re very focused on a coin listing to us is actually a business partnership. We’re not just going to throw coins up there.

I think 2018 is the year of reckoning, wherein 2017, pretty much anything got listed anywhere. It didn’t really matter how functional the coin was or whether it was legitimate or not. So, it’s really cool to see the trend in exchanges making a stance against that because if the ax falls, it doesn’t fall on the anonymous coin team that could be in Switzerland and Ethiopia. It’s falling on the CEOs and the exchange teams that are allowing access.

Full article  -  https://coincentral.com/interview-cryptopia-alan-booth/

       

"My coin listing technical team does all the due diligence. Everything from GitHub, Facebook pages, normal stuff like that." I wish people would stop using GitHub and Facebook in the same sentence as due diligence.

"I think 2018 is the year of reckoning, wherein 2017, pretty much anything got listed anywhere." We can all agree with that. It's not just about saying no to new ICO token-security listings or outright scams, it's about cleaning up what was listed in 2017 - that is going to be the toughest job.

There is a lot of money being made by exchanges listing ICOs (very few operating legally), which can make it tough for credible projects that haven't raised $100 million (investor's money) to promote, create volume and the appearance of a large 'community', etc.

In my opinion the number one criteria that should be looked at is reputation, and reputation has to be earned over time.

Suggested reading before buying, listing, believing, etc...

Why Coin Age Matters in Cryptocurrency  -  https://dnotesedu.com/2018/04/why-coin-age-matters-in-cryptocurrency/

To find out more on due diligence as it relates to the cryptocurrency industry:

Cryptocurrency & ICO Screening Guide For Investors - https://dnotesedu.com/2018/02/cryptocurrency-ico-screening-guide-for-investors/

Thanks for the question wiser! I had to delete two words in the article and replace another to clear up some of the meaning.

The first part to say about your question, is that there are a wide range of ICO structures, so i'll just answer for probably the most common (which do sometimes vary depending on the application being built - say exchange or retail businesses etc).

The second part is that most ICO tokens that I've seen are not actually 'profit sharing', but rather 'income sharing' -- I'll explain.

In a profit-sharing scenario, the ICO would need to be generating significant revenue, and be running an operational surplus for ICO tokens to ever receive a 'dividend equivalent' payout. The business that ran the ICO would take their total income for the year, subtract all their expenses, then decide how much they want to reinvest back into their business for improvements, and the leftover is the 'profit'. Dividends to equity owners in traditional businesses are paid based on profit, which is determined after the company decides how much it wants to hold onto (retained earnings) for business upkeep / growth. If the company wants to grow, it just holds onto all the earnings for the year. This is a luxury it wouldn't have when it comes to ICO payments that are generally based on gross income, rather than profit (i'll get to this).

So in a hypothetical example, say my ICO business turned over 10m for the year, had 8m of expenses for the year, and I decided to reinvest 1m of the remaining 2m into the company to improve its services. That would leave 1m in profit. If my ICO token promised a 10% return from all profits, there would be 100 thousand dollars paid out to the ICO token holders, and then the equity owners would get the rest in dividends (as they are lower than ICO tokens in the capital structure).

But the way that many ICOs I've seen are set up, is the token is used as a voucher to pay the fees to use the ICO's network, where a certain percentage is paid back to token holders -- which functionally makes them a drain on total income. The funds are automatically forwarded to the token holders, so they are potentially never recorded on the ICO's income statement, but the final resting places of all funds involved in the transaction remain the same. Me giving you $20, and then you giving 10 of it to someone else is exactly the same as me giving you $20, and your software automatically giving that $10 to that other person.

So with Tim's ICO of 10m turnover with a 10% return of network fee to token holders, there would be 1 million dollars paid out to token holders, rather than just 100k in the above 'profit' model. One of the 'payment processing' coins out there has a functional draw from its network equivalent to ~25% of what would be considered its 'net income' from fees. That would be a draw of 2.5m out of the 10m turnover in Tim's ICO, which would suddenly see Tim's ICO making a loss: remember that regardless of the way you play trick accounting, a 10m turnover, less 2.5m ICO dividend, less 8m expenses = 0.5m loss, is exactly the same as a 7.5m turnover, less 8m expenses = 0.5m loss (not accounting for ICO income in turnover, nor as a dividend drain).

There are four main ways that I can see this potentially hurt an ICO business:

Firstly, the drain from income occurs regardless of whether the ICO company is making an operational surplus -- meaning it could make it stay in the red longer, and at worst accelearate losses that force it to go broke if it can't turn profitable by the time the ICO money runs out.

Secondly, The above scenario could scare investors away from putting their money into the ICO business (or save one) that had such an automatic drain on its turnover, because:

Thirdly, sustainable operational surpluses are required to reinvest surplus capital back into the business that allow it to grow (and equity investors care about growth). Investors only tolerate perpetual losses for so long. Once a business runs out of money,  and nobody wants to invest, it dies.

Fourthly, and last, the fee structure places the startup at a competitive disadvantage to other projects that don't have, say, a 25% income drain sent to token holders. A hypothetically otherwise 'identical' competitor (No ICO) could eliminate some of this margin to attract new customers, yet still remain profitable and grow.

i.e. Baseline (using everything recorded accounting, and assuming expenses are fixed):

Tim's ICO  = 12.5m turnover, less 3.75m ICo dividend (25% of network fee), less 8m expenses = 0.75m operating profit to reinvest.
Competitor = 12.5m turnover, less 8m expenses = 4.5m operating profit to reinvest and grow.

And if engaged in a price battle:

Tim's ICO = 10m turnover, less 2.5m ICO dividend (25% of network fee), less 8m expenses = 0.5m loss, disgruntled equity investors.
Competitor = 10m turnover, less 8m expenses = 2m operating profit to reinvest for growth.


As you can see, an equally competent competitor without income-based ICO will easily win a price war. While the ICO model will see greatly reduced growth in the business even as turnover rises. The ICO token in this model anyway, becomes a parasite on the economy that constrains its growth. And the only way to draw more investment in to remedy the situation is to attract more investors -- but again, why would they want to bail out a business where they get reduced growth, and where ICO token holders still get paid even when the busienss is making a loss? That investment could be the difference between many ICO businesses surviving or failing. And as each ICO business dies, so too does its token.

Note: there are lots of different ways ICO's can look, and not all ICOs are prone to all the downsides in ever case. Models are illustrative only.  




      

Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Orders Banks to End Crypto-Related Activities

https://dcebrief.com/reserve-bank-of-zimbabwe-orders-banks-to-end-crypto-related-activities/

I suggest applying to nanex, up and coming exchange that seems to be doing everything right in my opinion.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nanex/comments/8bn0k4/how_does_an_asset_get_listed_on_nanex/

Happy Mothers Day, ladies!

Ignore conventional wisdom, because money doesn't really make the world go 'round.

You do.

Take a bow; you've earned it.

Happy Mothers Day!!!

I hope all the amazing mothers out there have a great day and stop by CryptoMoms to say hi.

Thanks for the article, Tim. It brings up a question. Here's a quote from the article:

If it does have intrinsic value (read: profit share), real equity investors in the ICO-born company will watch on as the ICO token proves a permanent drag on the company’s long-term prospects – which, given the general spending on intangible business activities, aren’t good to begin with. The token goes to zero.

Could you explain further how that works? The only reason I would or have ever bought into ICOs is because of the promise of recurring and permanent profit sharing. You say that actually delivering on this promise drags down the company and I can see how having to allocate 10% to token holders and such would represent an opportunity cost for the company. But how is that different from dividend paying stocks?

Please educate me

Another excellent article, Tim. I believe that the "thinning out" process in our industry has started. This happens to all major technology industries where the cost entry barriers are low, enabling an abundant number of "me too" at the early stages. It happened in the personal computer era, the dotcom era. This cryptocurrency blockchain era will not be an exception. Thanks for sharing your deep knowledge.

Can ICOs Escape Economic Reality?

https://dcebrief.com/op-ed-can-icos-escape-economic-reality/

Dear Dyna, that was really inconvenient thing for Cryptopia to do. I think that's exactly why it is important to get on at least few exchanges, so Dnotes would not be dependent on the whim of just the one But yes I know...it is easier said that done...

Hi, Member Hero. Thanks for some great comments and questions:


Q. Thank you for the speedy reply. So if a successful candidate will exchange equity for acceleration capital and consultation services, does this mean DNotes consultation services will be provided over the duration of the businesses lifetime? Or will equity be sold off as DNotes so chooses?

A. All of DNotes Global’s business units must be viable sustainable entities - their service or product line must have significant growth and profit potential. This same philosophy applies to our selection of any investment candidates we decided to fund. Additionally, we must also have a high level of confidence that the top management and leadership share our general business philosophy and best in class mindset. Our goal is not to generate billable hours for our consulting business but to help the company develop internal capabilities especially in the areas of management and leadership. We train others to multiply ourselves – in terms of business philosophies, unified culture based on the key pillars of business success. We want them to grow with us, not dependent on us for ever.
 
DNotes Global will always reserve its rights to liquidate its ownership or equity position subject to restrictions of any agreements. But we are not interested in short-term investment.

Our goals go beyond generating a high rate of return for our shareholders. We believe that this is one of the best pathways in assisting DNotes to gain mass adoption. We believe that the right candidate will not only have our long-term commitment to ensure optimum business success but also benefit from our family network of partnerships and technologies. In short, we will liquidate if we must, but we are in it for the long term.

Q. From what I have seen, DNotes has a good business model. What terrifies me the most about cryptocurrency is inadvertently being caught up with criminal activity, and being found guilty by association. Until such risks are mitigated, conservative investors will not be participating in cryptocurrency. If DNotes can pull off what is being claimed, it will remove entry barriers for major investment firms who are chomping at the bit to place their bets. At that point I would consider adding cryptocurrency to my investment portfolio.

A:  The shady side of our industry is concerning.

We believe that for any coin to gain mass adoption, it must have a group of highly committed supporters with sufficient invested self-interest to protect and promote the best interest of the coin. In the case of DNotes, we took it one step further and created DNotes Global, Inc. to create intrinsic value and shareholder value. Our cross-ownership further enhanced the “self-interest” and quite frankly inspired support and followings beyond our industry.

DNotes business model is quite complex and extensive. We are religiously committed to best in class mindset in all things that matter, including building a trusted brand, being purposely inclusive, doing the right thing, the right way, at the right time, stay in compliance with existing laws, and much more.

DNotes has certainly differentiated itself as a unique breed among others in our increasing crowded space. We are very transparent and relentlessly committed to our vision of mass adoption of DNotes. We have developed an enormous amount of researchable materials for serious investors to do their due diligent with convenience and ease.

Q: Can you give me an idea of which stock exchanges DNotes Global might be listed on?

A: Shortly upon successful completion of DNotes Global Reg. A+ Mini-IPO Tier 2 we plan to have our shares listed on OCTQX. The process is very straightforward.

Q: Some analysts are calling for corrections/reversals in these respective markets. would it make sense for DNotes to avoid exposure to these markets until they stabilize and return to their average trendline?

A:  Sounds reasonable but that may not be a good idea.

From my prospective, our industry is at a period of extremely risk. It is in a period of thinning out and will be harder for irrelevant coins to survive. The temporary delay at Cryptopia to list DNotes 2.0 could turn out to be advantageous as a short-term event. However, since DNotes is significantly undervalued with a clearly differentiated trusted brand I believe that this is the appropriate time to stand tall and claim our rightful place.  

Q: Sorry for taking up so much time of your time with all these questions and thank you in advance for the reply.

You are most welcome. Feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn, send me a private message, or make a post here, if I can be of further assistance.