I would like to point out that I did not personally review the code, as many people seem to think. The person who did has very high standards and was not thrilled with what he saw, and he was overzealous in his criticisms. When I made this post, I firmly believed that the maximum supply was inflated. My intention with going public before contacting the devs was to make sure they did not have a chance to cover up the mistake or take advantage of the issue.
It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.
This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.
It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.
This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.
Busoni - This is great that you are going to speak with the Developer and that you have issued the above statement.
You really should put a link on the front page of the Polo website directly to your comment (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7319548) so that anyone clicking on the link can see directly to that post about the coin.
I, like most of the people with half a brain trading Crypto, appriciate your / Polo's efforts to ensure security and transparency within the AltCoin world.
With regards to most of the people bitching and moaning on the forums here, they can mostly be ignored, I had quite a bit of BTC invested in SUPER and I still do, the price has bounced back to where it was previously so really don't think its going to be much of an issue in terms of price, only the people who panic sold or panic bought will be affected, and those are people looking for a quick buck anyway.
The ONLY thing to take away from this whole fiasco is that perhaps you should have been less-zaelous when posting the REASONS why - A simple "We are not listing SUPER as we are unhappy with some of the code and need to speak with the DEVS" would have sufficed, would have save a lot of people time / money and most of all would have looked far better for POLO overall.
Keep up the good work with the exchange, you know I'm a supporter as are many others, just less "jumping the gun" in the future I think
Dave/Tuto
i agree, its all these punk ass pumpers that are trying to cover their asses, busoni and polo are top notch, dont fall for all these douchebags trying to make polo look bad wanna be pumpers, with 20 accounts on here and on the trollboxes, lol
Sad that you could manage to learn writing before reading.
