Wow, Aggressive! I guess the truth really does hurt! Now I can see that you do not treat your customers with the professional courtesy that any reputable company should.
Who would want to do business with you and buy into your bait and switch subscriptions if you're going to disrespectfully treat your customers this way? Your attitude here has dictated what will happen to your company next. It doesn't look promising.
"Your customers" => no, just you, because this is becoming trolling from your part. If you read this thread you'll see that they are nice, honest and fair with most of the customers. I don't have anything to gain personally by defending Margin, but I believe in fairness: if a business behaves badly, I always complain (but don't troll like yourself); however, if it has a record of good practices, I'll also stand to defend them. This subject of the business model change has been discussed to the exhaustion now.
What's tricky about trolling is that people feel compelled to reply, but it just serves its purpose. Maybe I also contributed with this reply, but thought it was important given the strong words you're using, and don't plan to continue replying anyway.
That's ok. Everyone is entitled to use their observational skills as they see fit. This however doesn't change that fact that Margin have made a bad call for existing customers.
It's absolutely fine to change a business model to generate more income from future prospective customers but not:
at the detriment of existing paid up customers.
building a customer base on the promise that they can access 7 exchanges for a lifetime and then removing that purchase without any form of compensation that will put the customer in exactly the same position as they were before the bait and switch announcement.
refusing to maintain the current software and instead asking them to pay (even a reduced rate) for subscription for a product they have already purchased as a lifetime product that's been renamed to make it look like a new product.
making a product name redundant but then providing the exact same functionality with a product that just has a new name but is functionally identical to the product that is supposedly made redundant and has already been purchased in a lifetime package.
It's immoral an unethical no matter how you look at it. One can't make something redundant if it still exists in it's same practical capacity with just a different name. That's just daylight robbery.
I'm not trolling here. I'm just presenting the facts and it stands to reason that existing customers should get exactly what they paid for, lifetime access to 7 exchanges through Leonardo which dictates that Leonardo must be maintained to accommodate APIs on exchanges when they change, otherwise how can this be described as Leonardo access to 7 exchanges for life if that access is broken? This is not a troll. This is a serious question that still has not been answered to anyone's satisfaction. Jonathan seems to just stick his middle finger up to anyone who challenges him with a valid complaint about this terminology and his word play. Will you do the same ?
Crypto Play Radio Discord
https://discord.gg/7VPvgrm