Topic: Shit Exchanges, an end to good projects. (Read 5381 times)

I think pressures from the investors at times is part of the forces that make developers to list on shit exchange.  Some investors don't care at all, they just want to dump what they have bought especially if the bonus is huge let say 40%.  When developers try to make community understand at times on the need to exercise patience in order to get good exchanges, people will think they are running away.  So, investors and hunters sometimes contribute to that.

I agree I don't the good and developing project would rather be listed in a shit exchanges where almost moat of the big traders don't even bother trading there rather than being listed in like of binance, okex or any other known and reputable exchanges. If the team developers are confident enough that the project will be successful then they should be listed in a high profile exchanges to attract more possible investors.

I've seen good projects with great use cases that ends up in a coffin because they listed on bad exchanges, this is nothing new today, developers who aren't very good at doing research always makes this mistakes even when you warned them, some of them don't even know that some exchanges have fake volumes

Thats just the way it is. No matter how promising and exciting a project is, the team must never make the mistakes of listing on a terrible exchange platforms because it ruins it all totally.

Thats why as an investor, we must always look beyond the exciting purchase bonuses, but look beyond that and into what the team actually wants for the project either Profit or growth

The exchange where a project lists is very integral to the success of the project or its failure.
It amazes me why projects even bother to list their tokens or coins on shit exchanges that have no volume and traffic.
Sometimes its like they just want their projects to fail.
I have seen too many good projects get destroyed because of this strategy. It is not sustainable

I think if what they develop can run optimally, then it is impossible for the project to just die. I see many projects there is no clarity of their goals. In fact, their website is only as where ICO was launched until now it has never changed. This means they don't see the fate of their project anymore. Just waiting for the dead domain.

What on earth has an exchange listing got to do with a good project ending?

I do not understand the relation here and It is always the fault of a team that causes that project to end. Exchanges are meant for trading and projects are listed to help investors earn from trading. A project's performance solely depends on the team's development efforts and strategy to sell or market it.

An investor looks into the product performance and not in its exchange performance for a project to get funding after listing.

If the project is good and the developer really wants to develop the project he has and wants to make the investors and the people who participate in it not feel disappointed they will certainly not be listed in the shit exchanges which of course it will greatly affect the projects they bring where there will be many people or investors who assume that developers only want to obtain their own benefits and use the money obtained for themselves personally and do not have the desire to develop their projects.

I still don't understand how the choice of exchange is going to matter. If a project is good, and the development timelines are being honored, then the prices will be stable irrespective of the exchange. And if the project is really promising, I don't think that too many users will think about selling the tokens as well. The issues occur when the promoters dump their tokens and ignore the timelines. At this point, the users will rush to dump those tokens they hold. But by that time, the prices would have crashed already.

MB8 was largest project and early stage listed in good exchange for shutdown exchange now this coin listed shit exchange WhiteBit. Many good projects still listed in shit exchanges, Currently a lot of good projects ico's going on shit exchanges. Yet you say good projects never choose shit exchanges?    

Shitty exchanges ruined whole of the project. Who's don’t agree with me that's your personal opinion.         

It is the fault of any good project that decides to settle for crapy and shit exchange just to cut a cost, if you know your project is worthy then don't allow cheap exchange to ruin it, do whatever it takes to list on a decent exchange for starters, but some project only just want short term thing, so they don't have a problem settling for less.

in many cases it is true that many good projects are listed on a low exchange, do not have high trading volumes and there are not many traders there. I think if a project developer registers on a large exchange like Binance, chances are that their coins will be widely used by traders or investors.

do you know that some project dev lias with some exchange so as to benefit mutually, even if you are the kind of person that join and follow projects on the telegram you must have come across some so-called exchange platform representative that will alway message project dev in order to get their coin listed freely on the platform just because they want real traders and traffic on their website. I understand the act of not being patient also contributes to the reason why dev get their token listed on a bad exchange but also they are to blame most because if they understand the dangers involved in getting a solid project listed on a shit exchange, they will not try it. Many of them always rush to get listed on Latoken that has been regarded as been tagged the den of scam and dead token 

I think it depends on the project team and the developer, even we don't think that a good project ends with a bad exchange and vice versa. because every developer has his own way of promoting his project and bad exchange is not the main reason for ending a good project, there might be other reasons that we don't know about apart from the developer himself.

Yes, the project that registers their tokens on a low exchange is actually not a problem, it's just that at a low exchange the volume of coins or tokens is very slow to increase, so the team must always care about their tokens to always live trading and not easily die in exchange.

Of course it can be denied, most projects are either scams or just weak attempts to create something good, and the statistics are on my side when it comes to prove this, most projects fail because they are bad, it is not complicated, at the end it does not matter the exchange they selected those coins are going to disappear anyway no matter what they do, a good coin will survive being listed in a bad exchange and it will eventually be listed in a good one if their developers keep working on it.

First there are no good projects to start with the good project developers are no longer interested in cryptocurrencies since the bitcoin and alts particularly ethereum price dropped enormously last 2018, which is why no good developers and team that invested in smart contracts are no longer interested. Now, IEO has become something bad developers have seen this opportunity to create a shitcoin in return for dumping it.

I think there is no point in us berating projects that release coins at the low exchange (you say shit exchange). I often see many projects whose aspirations register in large exchanges, eventually fleeing because of their inability to achieve their goals.

I am wondering about the Shit exchange that you said.  A good project and a good exchange are two different issues.  Currently the market is very seriously manipulated exchange rates.  Even the volume of transactions they can fake, I think the value of the project can be fake.  I have observed the exchanges in 2018-2019 and I have commented the following: most of the trading volume is fake and the value of the tokens is pushed up and discounted abnormally with a difference of billions.  big price.  Projects that hold an IEO or after an ICO are listed on exchanges are severely discounted, with only a handful of tokens holding value.
Projects successfully hosted by an ICO or IEO (meaning completing a Softcap) are severely discounting.  This is the general status of all projects.  There are many reasons for the discount.  The majority of them follow market trends, in part because of projects that cheat their customers.  Look at the projects that have hosted IEO.  I can't believe hpj has organized projects to raise just $ 1 million back.  This is ridiculous because they will not be able to take the project with that small amount of money because after subtracting the cost of organizing IEO and listing on the trading platform the remaining amount is very small.

There are many living proofs out there regarding a project that have finished which run optimally and already published to the masses but still failed. The main problem is the fact that they are lacking the users. They failed to market their product and as a result no one recognize their coin and even getting into popular exchange is really hard. A project could only success if the team could gather the attention of the masses.