Topic: How wallets make money? It is worse than you think. - page 3. (Read 676 times)
Bitcore was a successful coin in the past but for a long time the price went deep down and never got recovered from it so we can't consider it as really a good project.Asking donations is okay but demanding money from the team to listed is not really ethical and no good project will ever do that as you said.
I guess at some point, people will know that wallet providers also need some money for upkeep and upgrade, unless some truly dedicated developers and operators fund the project for free out of their own pockets which rarely happens. Generally, what wallet providers are doing is software development on-demand, which IMO is nothing wrong considering that they are the ones providing the coins some platform to work with and a framework to hang on to. However, coin developers should provide a working and usable wallet for their own coin, and third-party apps should come in second and is just an option for consumers to use. If the coin devs cannot create a stable, working wallet software for their own coin, best to leave it and just look for others out there.
Multi-coin wallets like Coinomi really provide ease of access to a number of coins that a user might be holding at the same time. It's natural for them to ask for something to allocate resources for a coin that has relatively low-demand on their platform. I don't see it being unethical, but rather just a business doing their thing.
Multi-coin wallets like Coinomi really provide ease of access to a number of coins that a user might be holding at the same time. It's natural for them to ask for something to allocate resources for a coin that has relatively low-demand on their platform. I don't see it being unethical, but rather just a business doing their thing.
I use very few wallets (about 4 now)
I have tried, in all my life, about 20-30 different wallets.
Wallets are a sensitive software. You are trusting the developer that he made his job, otherwise you will lose your funds just like this guy.
Therefore, it is very important that you use good software, such as Electrum. But when it comes to multicurrency wallets, we don't have so many good options.
I have lost funds already due to bad coding. I was able to talk to the "CEO" of the wallet and he refunded me.. but it was a terrible experience.
So, it is crucial that those service providers make money, so they can pay for that good code we are going to use.
Today, while navigating in the forum i saw this:
Just like exchanges, wallets are charging money to keep the coin "listed".
I didn't know this was happening.
This made me think about a few things:
A project that pays to get listed in exchanges and supported by wallets is worth my money?
Now I am very curious about which coins are paying to be supported to the most used wallets.
I believe that a good project would never pay to get listed in an exchange, or pay to get supported in a wallet. The exchanges/wallet should reach the project, not the other way around.
I know wallets can't live on donations, except a few ones like electrum, bitcoin core, etc. Maybe supporting low quality coins is a way to keep the software good. But is it ethical?
We have tons of dead/scams/ponzi projects out there. Isn't this kind of attitude (pay me and I will keep your coin supported) going to feed this vicious cycle we are in crypto?
Bitcore and Coinomi are two project which I like. I really like coinomi, it is an amazing wallet IMO (for its purposes). It is not a long term storage, but a short term mobile wallet, which supports basically anything.
I have nothing against bitcore as well, as it is a bitcoin fork which never pretended to be the "true bitcoin", and always made it clear it was a different proposal.
I have tried, in all my life, about 20-30 different wallets.
Wallets are a sensitive software. You are trusting the developer that he made his job, otherwise you will lose your funds just like this guy.
Therefore, it is very important that you use good software, such as Electrum. But when it comes to multicurrency wallets, we don't have so many good options.
I have lost funds already due to bad coding. I was able to talk to the "CEO" of the wallet and he refunded me.. but it was a terrible experience.
So, it is crucial that those service providers make money, so they can pay for that good code we are going to use.
Today, while navigating in the forum i saw this:
BITCOREANS ... To keep BitCore BTX in Coinomi,
we need to make a payment of 2 BTC
this payment is requested by Coinomi for the maintenance costs of nodes and platform, of this we have in collection fund 0.5 BTC, we are missing only 1.5 BTC.
we need to make a payment of 2 BTC
this payment is requested by Coinomi for the maintenance costs of nodes and platform, of this we have in collection fund 0.5 BTC, we are missing only 1.5 BTC.
Just like exchanges, wallets are charging money to keep the coin "listed".
I didn't know this was happening.
This made me think about a few things:
A project that pays to get listed in exchanges and supported by wallets is worth my money?
Now I am very curious about which coins are paying to be supported to the most used wallets.
I believe that a good project would never pay to get listed in an exchange, or pay to get supported in a wallet. The exchanges/wallet should reach the project, not the other way around.
I know wallets can't live on donations, except a few ones like electrum, bitcoin core, etc. Maybe supporting low quality coins is a way to keep the software good. But is it ethical?
We have tons of dead/scams/ponzi projects out there. Isn't this kind of attitude (pay me and I will keep your coin supported) going to feed this vicious cycle we are in crypto?
Bitcore and Coinomi are two project which I like. I really like coinomi, it is an amazing wallet IMO (for its purposes). It is not a long term storage, but a short term mobile wallet, which supports basically anything.
I have nothing against bitcore as well, as it is a bitcoin fork which never pretended to be the "true bitcoin", and always made it clear it was a different proposal.
Jump to: