Topic: How wallets make money? It is worse than you think. - page 2. (Read 676 times)

Probably I rushed a bit to this conclusion, I'm not dealing with tokens that much and even less with the mechanism behind them, but I still believe that if a token would come with innovative features that would require lots of work it would also be an attractive project and due to demand or at least hype they would have to offer support even without pay. That being said, yeah, it was a shot in the dark, and maybe I'm underestimating the resources needed by a wide margin.


Yeah, it was a pretty good advertisement, we support all shitforks, they used those as an advertisement when it was cheaper to do so, not that they don't have anything to gain from advertising they support bitcoinxxlmegaalfa they are demanding money, one side I understand them, nothing is free, but I can't shake the feeling that looking from the moral point of view its nor really the same. This tactic reminds me somewhat of exchanges that support no name coins because they would be the only ones where bounty hunters can go and exchange their new coins and thus gaining a bit of traffic, volume, coins, enough .....to get hacked! At least with coinomi that's not possible.


Didn't knew that, hmm, makes me even less anxious to try it out.

Coinomi also receive revenue from ads inside the wallet.
I don't know if that is enough...

About open source. I don't know any multicurrency wallet which is open source. This is a problem already mentioned a few times. This could a good opportunity for coinomi.

So you mean that the developer will not care about the earning as a developer?

I guess custodial wallet will most likely depend on the fees earning on the fees and also the fees when you are swapping your bitcoin into altcoins. But if only for donations, I dont know if there is someone willing to donate, even me, I didn't experience donating into developers of wallet because I thought they had already gain profit by collecting the fees.

If so, developers from open-source wallet will I guess amke their own wallet once they are expert on this.

I thought that most wallets make through the fee for each transaction. They will put a small mark up with the transaction fees and that's it. I didn't know that they're asking the same thing just as the exchanges to keep a coin listed and supported.

2 BTC for the example of Bitcore to be maintained. That's quite a lot for a fee and it's not that actually far from the fee that other exchanges are asking, of course except Binance and other the same tier exchanges.

I'm not sure about that. IIRC, there are different set of questions if you choose tokens on ethereum or tokens on other blockchains. Under ethereum, they also ask if you made changes to 'this or that' code. I guess it would require them more work if token devs made more tweaks.

Yeah it was a clever bait-and-switch scheme. Other than that it's not even a good wallet... clunky to use, leaks memory. Get whatever the reference wallet is for your coin and don't bother with these multi-coin traps.

OTOH, if an honest developer wanted to implement a multi-coin wallet they don't really need to run their own nodes. Publish the API spec and have the coin developers provide the backend.

Certainly. Specially in the internet, where we are usually the product.


It is interesting that all bitcoin forks were almsot instantly supported, because everyone was after them.
Then, we there are not more forks, they start asking for money to keep supporting.

The software probably needs an update to continue to be secure. And that costs money...

The whole problem is mostly related to the fact that those coins have no value. Most of those coins are unsustainable, they have no use, no value, nothing. Just a pump and dump project.

Security of third party software is also an important aspect of those projects. Many people jsut go throwing money in those different cryptocurrencies, but there are many things at risk. More than it looks like at first glance. Are wallets giving proper updates to the software? Is it secure to use all those softwares for shitcoins?

Each day i am more convinced that Bitcoin is way safer.

I assume some wallets are hoping to be bought out. There'll come a time where their market lead can't be beaten. Others may extort shitcoin communities like Coinomi are doing here. Others may simply choose to con their users like Mycelium and their token sale what paid for their holiday to Spain and was never heard from again.

It's definitely a curious area.

The first thing I thought when I read about this, how do others manage, especially the ones which support way fewer coins and electrum is probably the best example, they even don't have a donation address listed on the website, or I can't find it which is almost the same.


Uff, this is like telling people to put larger sums there to even get a response. tokens are all the same, they don't need extra work, they should come with the same price for everyone, not negotiate bases on how much they can squeeze out of a project.
But, it's their product, they are free to set up the rules and the developers that are creating coins should also understand that nobody can be forced to deal with their coins for free, definitely not the best way of getting things done but that's how things are.


Probably they would ask for some monthly maintenance fee at most, demanding again sums like that just for running some nodes and a platform would be a bit too greedy and it will not look good for them either, would look more like extortion.

That makes me dislike Coinomi rather intensely. They'll have many users who don't bother to check or update all that often and that leaves them in the lurch.

I get that it costs them money in labour but ransom demands are not cool.

How these things are funded is something people should take more time to ponder. It wouldn't take much for a developer to throw in the towel and be bought out by an asshole. Most people just mindlessly update forever and don't conceive of there being another actual human somewhere in charge of it who's as fallible as they are.

Don't really follow either project. I have used Trust wallet as a multi currency wallet - obviously doesn't support a crazy amount. Sidebar it was to use an erc-20 token our local meetup group created as a training tool for newbies, and downloaded atomic at some point to look it over. They just aren't my cup of tea, I prefer a project specific wallet for all my holdings.

My thoughts are this is a bit of a greasy move. It shows that their business doesn't have a clear plan to cover operational costs, and could be problematic in the future. Does this 2BTC amount cover the cost of keeping the coin supported indefinitely?? If not how long before they come looking again.

I could also completely understand them delivering this as an ultimatum where they state clearly how long this buys support for, and/or saying raise the funds or expect to be unsupported as of this date.

Forgive the ignorance as I see in the ANN for BTX there are several wallet options out there. So I would likely just move on, but I'm not sure how many of them are in a similar situation to coinomi. I would be much more open to a wallet project such as this coming with a one-time fee or something similar, upon first deposit. Nothing crazy something like 25/50 cents to ensure they don't essentially have to extort funds out of users in the future.

AFAIK, they only earned from donations not directly on the wallet fees of course.

Open-source wallet devs aren't seeking for money, yes, that is, believe me, or not they are enjoying what they have done. Since it is open-source, nobody forcing them to get paid, and that what they like. It seems like, the benefits of being an open-source developer are experienced what they got especially working software that a lot of good developers. That's why professional developers would like to work their own way not just for economical compensation.

For the non open-source wallet, basically, they just run their service for generating profit through the transaction fees.

I think there's no other option for them to earn money, do they? I can't think any alternative ways of making money. What about electrum, I think they have no ways of earning, right? I don't know how much donation they get though.
This makes me to think that, what about some shitcoins being listed in some popular gambling sites? Are they paid too? Or are they have been implemented due to user demand? I doubt though.

Some software are open-sourced which is a software's source codes are published and everyone can contribute or modify by their own or add some features within software.
So, some of the famous Bitcoin or cryptocurrency wallets are open-sourced and this is also one of wallets I want to use and I advising for some people to use since for sure, since the code is public and if the developer may tried to put some feature or part that will the user's fund on wallet may be in danger, some people may find it.
But does not mean all open-sourced software or wallet are totally safe.

This is my first time to hear that some wallets are also collecting a money for some cryptocurrency founders/owners to get listed their coin in such cryptocurrency wallet. I only thought it is happening only in some exchanges.
It's kinda fishy, I also don't think Coinomi is doing this kind of way to get some cryptocurrency will be listed on their wallet.
I also already tried to use Coinomi before when I am starting to learn cryptocurrencies.

I believe it was initially listed for free, just like all bitcoin forks. It is very handy for a wallet to get a quickly bitcoin fork support. This is how people get to know many wallets.


Because everyone would just move to another wallet, unless it can do something more than just receiving and sending coins.

I think first of all certain software developers must deserve to be the leaders and gain our attention in a positive way. For a while, they should offer their software without any charge to gain attention and customers. After that, for further development, they can ask for subscription service. Most softwares come with trials, such thing can be applied to cryptocurrency wallet softwares. Pay for your license and get their service. This will help them to collect funds, get profit, hire good developers and grow company with it's product(s). Idk why no one does that, they could also charge from transaction fees but idk how is that possible for crypto wallets since users are able to use them offline too.

I don't see a problem of pay a fee to be supported on a wallet, every new coin/token integration has a high cost to implement and keep updated.
Of course... This "fee" isn't the only factor in deciding whether such a coin/token will be listed or not.
It's necessary to thoroughly evaluate the project before, even because the listing of a Scam could greatly affect the reputation of a wallet.

But this information could be more transparent to users.

Thanks for the coin listing request link @BitMaxz

I also tried to submit using random information and yes there is an integration fee. Since it's stated that low fees won't get a feedback, I guess coin devs must put a higher bid to be prioritized 

^ Please note that integration fees come before asking if it's a coin or a token.

About the pricing, I guess it's the engineers. They will estimate based on the coin details and descriptions provided by devs.

For token that not listed on Coinomi, you can add it manually without payment but for coins, it seems it needs payment before the coin listed on their wallet.

Look at this https://www.coinomi.com/en/listing/request/
It's confidential and no pricing after trying to request to add a coin. Coinomi might be ask for a payment or donation before they add the asset to their wallet.

Look at this found on their form request
"Please answer all the questions so our engineers can estimate the effort needed to integrate your coin into Coinomi"

So the engineer is responsible for coin listing and pricing and might be also for maintenance fees?

I've been using Coinomi for quite a long time now and it actually crossed my mind how they are able to maintain all the coins they support before. I thought they're living off donations just like other wallets.

In the case of Bitcore, did Coinomi listed them for free at first and only asked for maintenance fees later?

This might be an unpopular opinion but I don't like what's happening here. Coinomi probably know there's a good number of BTX deposits/withdrawals in their wallet and they're trying to leverage that (just my assumption). I also agree what @dothebeats that dev team should have their own working wallet. They won't need to raise funds anymore and pay another wallet.