Topic: Which will be best non-KYC exchanger after Ku-coin? (Read 886 times)

In trading, demand and volatility are important. It absolutely does not matter what you are trading, a clone, a coin without utility, etc. What does it matter, for example, to a day trader or a swing trader whether this or that coin has utility or not? That is why I agree that bitcoin is more suitable for investment and the buy & hold strategy, and altcoins for trading.


This is a market, what kind of moral principles can there be at all? You either come into business to earn money, or you pretend that you have a lot of moral principles and are left without earnings. But then I suggest that you give up everything altogether, from fiat money, from banking services, because these are also a kind of fraudulent schemes where some are deceived, and others earn money on it.

Investments and trading are built in such a way that the majority will still be deceived and lose. It doesn't matter if it's bitcoin or altcoins. There is deceit and manipulation everywhere.

In general, you should not try to evaluate (or compare) the utilitarian properties of altcoins. There are none, with rare exceptions. If you consider altcoins as a product, then I consider altcoins only as a speculative tool (that is why they are created). Bitcoin is good as a means of payment or as a tool for long-term investment. Altcoins have slightly different timings and goals.

By the way, returning to the problem of loss of funds among altcoin investors. One common mistake is that many altcoin investors try to apply the same metrics to altcoins as they do to bitcoin. They try to apply a hold strategy to them or evaluate the utility of these very altcoins.

This is a mistake, all altcoins are centralized, that is, they have a central figure in the face of a development team, a large venture capital fund or an influencer who promotes these coins on the market. The whole point of the altcoin industry is to force the crowd to buy some kind of shitcoin, while seasoning it with some kind of another legend about utility, breakthrough technology, solving some global problems and other nonsense. People believe in all this and that's why we see on this forum all sorts of nonsense in style: advise some altcoin as a long-term investment for a period of 5-7 years, or advise some good decentralized altcoin, an alternative to bitcoin. What nonsense to apply such parameters to altcoins. Altcoins are good for a short period of time, 6-24 months, then they need to be sold. Who did not sell, he was left with a bunch of candy wrappers, which depreciate sharply.

Bitcoin is good as a product, as an investment long-term asset, while altcoins are a pump & dump scheme. You can’t use investment timings in altcoins that apply to bitcoin, otherwise it will lead to loss of profit

By the way, by the same principle, one can say that it is impossible to guarantee or advise investing in bitcoin, based only on its past achievements and its growth. The fact that he has been growing all 14 years of his life DOES NOT GUARANTEE that he will continue to grow. Right? However, many still recommend it as a purchase based only on its past success. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can be sure that nothing critical will happen to bitcoin today or tomorrow or in a year, which will lead to its collapse.

All investments of small players are based only on their own faith and beliefs. Therefore, I see no reason at all to try to oppose bitcoin and altcoins. These are all risky assets, just with varying degrees of this risk. Someone thinks that bitcoin is the best asset in terms of profitability, someone thinks that altcoins are the best solution. Both have their own truth and their own delusions.

That's right, just like the price chart can also be subjective. Show the Bitcoin price chart to 100 different traders and they will see 100 different events there. There are no direct 100% patterns on the market that will work, otherwise then everyone would become rich. The quality of filtering comes over the years and with accumulated statistics, whoever has more statistics has better filters.


This is the same argument as yours: they can also scam. If several projects failed in the market, this does not mean that now all other projects are at risk. I shift the success of past coins to the possible success of future coins with a similar development of events. You are busy shifting past failures to the possible failures of other coins. Like, if some coins have scammed, then these coins can.

In fact, we are doing the same thing. You see only negative aspects in altcoins, but I see another good opportunity for earning in altcoins.

If the user has studied the market well and has his own filter at his disposal to filter out bad projects from good ones, then I consider it wrong to completely abandon altcoins. With the proper level of knowledge, you can earn money there, and even with minimal investment. An example of such projects as Arbitrum and Arkham shows this perfectly.


I already talked about this in another topic and drew a diagram of the typical behavior of an altcoin:


The mistake most investors make is that they buy an asset more often in the first zone than in the second, and the first zone is exclusively for selling, not for buying.

In bitcoin, too, there have been moments when you wake up and find that you have lost 50% of the value of your portfolio for 1 one. I once woke up like this in the morning, it was in March 2020. All my bitcoins are worth 50% less than they were the previous day.

Why, when we talk about situations where people annually lose billions of dollars on bitcoin, we always give an explanation that this is not a problem of bitcoin itself, this is a problem of those people who mismanage it?

But for some reason, this situation does not work with altcoins. If people lose money on altcoins, then this is the fault of the altcoins themselves, and not people who do not know how to properly manage them.

Although it is obvious that in both cases, bitcoin and altcoin have their own characteristics, and if a person cannot see these features, this does not mean that the asset is doing badly. Nobody ever guarantees a permanent profit in bitcoin or altcoins. For some reason, people themselves decide that they can earn even more with the help of certain assets, only the market itself sneezed at all their expectations. The market lives according to its own laws, which most investors do not want to reckon with.

Therefore, if someone does not want to accept the rules of the game before joining this game, then in case of failures, he should blame himself first of all, and not something else (industry, some kind of cryptocurrency, regulators, etc.).

Most altcoin investors blame altcoins for their failures. Although, if you look into their cases in detail, it becomes obvious why they lost money:

-someone bought at the very top when it was necessary to sell.
-someone listened to some influencer who advertised altcoin
-someone set unrealistic profit targets, the market gave him the opportunity to get 1000%, but the investor decided that soon this asset could give 10,000%
-someone did not study the market at all, but simply made a request on Google, which coins are best to invest in.

It is precisely for such idiotic cases of investing that these widespread statements about the danger of altcoins, about the fact that they are all a bunch of garbage and other things, are then formed. There are a lot of negative reviews about altcoins in the crypto space, mainly because most investors are ordinary market tourists with zero portfolio building experience and any understanding of risks and diversification.

Just a few examples of major failures? Not enough for an industry with hundreds of large-cap altcoins. It's like arguing that walking near skyscrapers is extremely dangerous, because there have been several cases of a heavy object falling on someone's head from a height. From this follows the conclusion that now all skyscrapers are dangerous if you are in close proximity to them?

I also want to note that many altcoins lose 99% of their value, there are hundreds and thousands of such examples. I agree with this and will not argue, but how many examples do we know of large well-known altcoins that lost their value in an instant? There are few such cases. Well, what comes to mind first? FTT, LUNA, BTT, PinCoin, Gemcoin. All? Are these all the big examples of rapidly collapsing coins in the last 10 years? Weak. And if you calculate how many coins grew very quickly? Yes, there are dozens and hundreds of times more. I'm talking specifically about large projects, and not about any garbage that is traded in some unknown garbage dumps and has a capitalization of $5,000. I'm talking about projects that have at least $100,000,000 capitalization.


Well, let's start with the fact that FTT never dropped to zero, it fell to 80 cents, which is still profitable for early investors, since anyone could buy this token on IEO for 20 cents, now this token is trading within 1 5$, that is, with a confident profit. By the way, FTT attracted many large funds, whose entry price was around $0.05. LUNA bankrupted all groups of investors in general, because hyper inflation set in there, FTT brought a loss only to retail investors who bought the token at market prices.

Sometimes altcoins do unrealistic things and reverse all misconceptions about them. For example, you can see how the altcoin TWT (a project with a billion capitalization) behaved against its background, even Bitcoin in 2022 was an unfortunate shitcoin on which many lost their money, while TWT brought profit to its investors for almost the entire last year.

In general, what I want to say with this is that altcoins do not consist of only negative points. The altcoin world is not limited to FTT, LUNA, BTT, PinCoin, Gemcoin. Sometimes altcoins show real miracles of investing - for this they are appreciated. For the fact that they can not only rapidly fall, but also rapidly grow. Bitcoin is a more conservative investment, you won’t earn big money there anymore. Altcoins are a more risky activity, and where there is risk, there is big money. If you don’t want to take risks, don’t go into altcoins. If you don’t want to take risks, don’t go into altcoins.

As a person who has already experienced two market cycles (crypto winter and general hype), from 2017 to 2022, I can say that as soon as the general hype sets in on the market, bitcoin becomes a weak asset in terms of obtaining a return on ownership. It grows slowly, no bonuses are given for its possession, but altcoins can give simply unrealistic returns in a short period of time, and you can still receive all sorts of bonuses if you hold some altcoins or interact with blockchains. But when crypto winter comes, I prefer to have more bitcoin and stablecoins in my portfolio, but fewer altcoins. Altcoins during such periods are one big garbage that is rapidly losing its value.

Based on this, it is impossible to say unequivocally what is better for an investor in everything, bitcoin or altcoins. They solve different problems and are good on different timeframes and in different market periods.

This is absurd, people should read always the terms and conditions of any crypto services. This naive excuse of people will lose funds because they can’t do the KYC is really dumb when we are talking about centralized exchange that accepts fiat deposits.

I will understand this part if the exchange is DEX since people only trade with crypto without fiat involvement but CEX is different because it has license which means they are obligated to follow the law. KYC is not a strategy to hold user funds but rather a compliance to the law for the business sake.

Kyc is mandatory in all centralised exchange. There is no cex that don't require kyc. If there is no kyc how will they be able to trust you in P2P the reason for centralised exchange is to link 2 or more people together in P2P so each one of them can sell his coin to receive cash. Why the other send cash to receive coin so there must be a third party who will help them achieve it and that is the reason they need your kyc to know you more better to avoid fraud. Even if any vex don't accept kyc today may E in the future they wiil.

The initial plan of any exchange is to make profit and a situation whereby the number of people and the coin they have earned is too much for the exchange they won't have any other choice than to come up with the KYC because they know that everyone can not pass the KYC this strategy help them to minimize their rate of loss. That's why most exchange won't talk about KYC till they start experiencing what  is been mentioned above.

Calm response: I'm not pretending I'm having moral principles. I'm not a hypocrite of that kind. I'm actually living by some morals, lots of which I wouldn't compromise for a short-term profit. While I hadn't considered cryptocurrencies from this perspective before, observing the altcoin industry and recognizing that I don't truly value what I own, getting involved into that market for profit only would be a moral compromise.

I mean, completely irrelevant? I cannot control how fiat currency works, nor do I have the expertise to; I'm living in a world where it works as is, and I'm forced to use it. However, I'm definitely not forced to attempt to profit from purposeless, financial schemes.

I don't want to hold or trade something that has no utility. It's just a principle I live by, where I only want to possess items that truly demonstrate their value and usefulness. This can be extremely challenging sometimes, especially when it comes to things beyond cryptocurrencies. Verifying whether a habit or a product is as useful as I imagine it to be is an ongoing process. It challenges my values and reminds me to prioritize what truly matters every day.

Why would I want to be involved in this fraudulent scheme? Acknowledging it serves no real purpose and is just a scam with fancy-sounding words, making money out of it means being part of the deception too. I believe screwing my morals in such a way is probably one of the last things I would do when I'm in need of money.

I'm not feeling certain if you really want to know. Every day when I wake up, a thought lingers in my subconscious - a dreadful scenario that could render my wealth worthless. I would never advise anyone to invest in bitcoin unless they are prepared to throw that money in the trash can. For some, it might seem like an unreasonable risk since they lack access to insider information (which is, again, what sets the rules).

However, I can't disregard all the utility it offers, with people using and needing electronic cash. I can't overlook the astonishing facts about anonymous (or pseudonymous) transactions, decentralized money minting, collective transaction processing, Proof-of-Work, etc. It would be unforgivable not to trust my instincts on this one and witness its rise as I had anticipated. Regretting not taking action outweighs the regret of acting.

When it comes to altcoins, I don't see the same potential.

It does mean that they all have the potential to fail if they share similar properties. For instance, when two dog coins have already failed, it would be foolish to believe that the thousands of other worthless tokens won't experience a similar drop in value. We are all aware that these tokens are not taken seriously; they are simply fabricated, zero-sum financial schemes. Another illustration is the Proof-of-Staked copycat tokens, whose creators aim to generate hype.

I can't, because I don't see good opportunity for earning from gambling either.

They don't ask to much documents since kucoin just need a back to back picture of your id (1 government issued id) and a selfie then you could proceed to Kyc process. There's nothing to get worried about it since there's nothing we can do since most of reputable exchange are now requiring this Kyc requirements to their users. Just make sure you submit a clear image of your ID and you will never get a problem on the whole process.

That's the problem I'm trying to point out. The user can't just study the market well, because they can't reach everything. There's private data that is inaccessible, and owned by the few big folks who do the manipulation. Unless you don't think that info is very important for the user (and neglecting it would make the study "well") then they can never be confident they've studied properly.

By the way, I'm assuming the user can perfectly filter public information, which is also not true. "Filtering" is subjective, because different users will prioritize different parameters that affect the price.

This argument holds as much water as the S2F, or the one which says we will have bull markets every 4 years. There's no evidence other than "look in the chart, it will probably repeat".

What kind of documents are they requiring precisely? Do they require a selfie with some documents or weird messages like many platforms are asking for? I hate those KYC processes, you're kindly giving to them highly private and confidential documents but they are never satisfied with them the first time, they almost always ask you to submit your documents and pictures several times again because for unknown reasons it's never ok for them. 

Maybe its best for people to erase out their worries on reputable platforms since for sure they will not ruin their reputation just for like that and besides Kucoin is really a great exchange next to binance. So they should not worry about submitting some documents since as you said it will make their account more safe and the platform is just complying with those things required to make their platform legal.

Just comply with the requirements pal. You just need to submit necessary papers and ID's for you to be able to trade again and if you contact them on their customer service they usually give you considerations for your unique case. Kucoin is a great exchange because newly launched coins are often tradeable in it. The platform backing it with KYC will just strengthen its security so there is nothing bad about it but only up.

Due to the presence of a genuine technology serving a meaningful purpose and having real-world applications, there exists a clear distinction from the vast majority of altcoins, which often lack purpose and function primarily as financial schemes.

These altcoins offer barely noticeable technical differentiation from Bitcoin and Ethereum and unjustifiably favor their creators with an unfair financial advantage. The failure of altcoins such as LUNA or FTT is not primarily due to technological shortcomings, but rather stems from sudden development setbacks and the subsequent withdrawal of invested funds which hasn't happened in Bitcoin. A brand new such project, whose developers completely ignore the mountainous work done in Bitcoin, entails the unnecessary risks mentioned.

I never argued that. People who invest in altcoins and lose money aren't for sympathy. They should know very well where they're entering. Anything but avoid entering; that's what I'm arguing in the first place.

You make it sound as if it's something objectively obvious. Nobody but the whales define that ceiling with few exceptions. Not regular retail traders. (No, feeling without reasoning you're in the ceiling doesn't hold water)