Bitcoin Forum

Who doesn't like projects that asked the audience/members about what they are feeling, what and what are missing that they want to it to get fixed, once upon a time few projects does this, they love hearing out from their investors but gone are those days..

Now new project teams always think they are the wisest, and the fact is some team are just claiming the name 'TEAM' for nothing sake, they know nothing about crypto exchanges like we do because we use this exchanges to trade time to trade, imagine warning projects about crap exchanges like p2pb2b but they failed to listen just because Coinmarketcap listed and ranked p2pb2b as top exchange they neglect advice and later they  regret..

Some times teams can know all, there are things that crypto traders and investors are aware of that's still shady to some new project teams, the wise ones are the ones that ask the audience for opinions .

I understand that friend, often the team decides itself where the token will launch. bounty hunters who should know more about exchangers (because bounty hunters almost all exchangers are explored for bounty campaign reasons) must have understood, which exchangers will make the token liquidity increase, and which do not. I think the team should start listening to the bounty hunter when they are going to register the token, so that the token does not happen which ultimately has no value.

If you would noticed eversince IEO started the voices of investors are put through action. No need for team members to listen to them as most investors only concern about the listing and the profits they are ripping off on this new projects.

Its not that they dont listen plus what benefits they can get on suggestion of the hunters? They would not pay the exchange listing so why bother? Most projects just using hunters as a tool for their marketing purposes nothing more. That's a fact in cryptoindustry.

Here is my own little point, If they make you all feel at home providing every thing investors asked for what do you think will happen? you will definitely want to invest more, they are trying to build somekind of tight relationship between investors and team just to make more money, I find these type of teams to be the most dangerous

When the goal has been achieved, in this case the funds have been held, then all regulations and policies must be subject or obey as they wish. Often they change the agreement or do not comply with their initial bid and it is certain that all parties involved will incur losses.

Therefore we must be thorough and wise to invest or trade, because there are many opportunities that they can take advantage of in each of our investment funds.

The only project I can side till date on this OP point is Apollo, they never did any ICO or IEO, the CEO and team spend money on the project themselves and they still ask investors for opinions, this is rare in crypto space

Yes, the concept of the Apollo project rarely happens in crypto space, but that does not mean it is much better than projects that have done ICO, IEO, because we can't get a little profit through the launch of the Apollo project, unless we choose Apollo to trade in exchange.

One thing I try to avoid when expressing my opinion is to assume that I'm certain of what I'm talking about.

How sure are you? Do you have any statistical data to back up those claims?
Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are trying to point out but don't assume that it applies to all just because 10 out of 1000 does it.

This sounds good on paper until you hear the audience starts asking for "when new exchange?" or "when Binance?".

---

From my experience hanging out with different project on their telegram, many teams do listen to their community but we have to accept the fact that not everything we say will be viable for the team. When it comes to listing on exchanges, most of them would choose small/medium with cheaper listing fees and "decent volume". I'm not sure if they even consider the exchange reputation.

I believe that there’re two kinds of project in the market one that analyses what investors want and they take some basic feedback from them, and the other one is like how you have described out here they basically ignore investors feedback and these ones are mostly unsuccessful in the long run.

@minairia3 it’s a wrong mentality if the team decides there’s no need for investors feedback after all they’re only being able to execute their plans because of the investors money, hence I feel that they should at least listen to their investors feedback and implement it wherever possible.

This doesn't clear the fact that once the team Gained the trust of investors they won't end up scamming the investors because its another form of traps for newbies and new crypto investors

I really love also if this kind of scenario will continue to the team behind the project will be aware about the voices of the investors like what are their problems and how the team can help to solve it.

As what I saw also, even in their social channels there are no active supports that are willing to lessen to the problems or opinions of their users,customers and investors. Thinking that they are wise because they were able to successfully launch their project and reach their goal is not a good thinking at all as it will bring them to disaster someday, I am pretty sure of it.

More of the coins listed in p2pb2b is just manipulated coins ( in volume) .
Accepting suggestions from investors is what is really needed if you want your project to be successfull.  they are doing  what they  think is is good to the project but not listning to other and investors. More off them ( Crowd fund)  is just want to raise money thats why they dont wanna  hear any suggestions from others even from investors  . They only do what they think is good for them and they dont look for what will be the consequences to the project they are making  if they failed.

Sometimes team really knows better that they should do with project

In reality team doesn't enter suddenly so they have some investors in projects and long term efforts never died in the future so team and Investors are plan the mutual decision in crypto projects.
nowadays number of project enter in the market but few only occupy the top region so potential and innovation is important for all the new projects then only investors will enter in the new project.
I think before to launch the project some private investors are available in all the projects because they also suggest some changes and needs of the projects, May be after the launching some secret discuss will happen on team and investors so once launched successfully mostly they trying to update the further days.

Indeed true, that was the true state of the most projects today, I think they all do that for a couple of reason, they don't want things more complicated on their side thats why they picked it for their convenience while disregarding the feeling and warning of its investors and community members thats why the results were not good in the end since then crypto projects are fast evolving but not all are destined to be succeed.

With my time with blockchain and crypto currency, it is rare for any project team not to have an idea of what crypto currency means or its exchange.

In your instance above, don't you think it is a situation where there is no team ? and the project are only interested in picking up profits from potential ieo or open trade investors ?

Or another angle, most succesful projects don't have their top team members discussing on telegram, they delegate such role to community moderator, and handle their sphere with short views, reviews on twitter.

NB: Think am and i will like to see more views.

Well I haven't seen such team before, crypto space is full of team who will never listen to people's opinion because they always feel that they are doing exactly the right things

I agree with you. Most new program developers do not understand how a crypto can develop and make them number one in a market such as Bitcoin. the main purpose and target of coin users that they will make is very important, in my opinion this is the beginning of a big goal to become the most valuable coin and become number one like Bitcoin.

I think that the only aspect of the crypto industry mostly responsible for that, is the ICO market and the boom ethereum created for it. Many newbies came in to invest, and along with them many of the project managers knew nothing about the sense of community cryptocurrency projects used to have. ICOs were seeking funding in any way possible, they focused on marketing more than anything else, and secondly, quick profits. They were fast-paced unlicensed securities, of course they weren't going to listen to the community. Now they've set a precedent after this model, sadly.

I have never seen any IEO conducted on P2pb2p that performs very well in the market. Once a project chooses Dobi, P2Pb2p, Latoken and the likes for IEO, I stay clear and still encourage who cares to just put their money where it's safe. Useless exchanges with fake IEO team screwing investors.

I've seen good projects that ends up on p2pb2b exchange but luckily they getaway from the wrath because few weeks later they listed on bitforex, okex, and coineal which brings better volume for the token if not would have been the end for the project, I don't know why new project team are sometimes so stubborn to listen to advice

There are still some that asks questions to investors and the community but the real thing here is that people already share their opinions both on telegram/discord whatever chat they are using but also on bitcointalk as well.

So, what a coin creator all has to do is listen to people and not ask questions anymore. Sure, some of them do not even listen to them but that is a whole another topic. Unfortunately some people realized they could create any coin they want, print all the money in the world all by themselves, give themselves the whole printed coin and then give other people a bit for investing or doing something, that is a much much bigger problem.

Coin creators create 100 million token which is the total supply and give it to themselves and then share 50 million with others and ask them to make them richer both by buying that 50 million and also keep selling the 50 million they have themselves.

When project has nothing seriously to offer and are after money, the agenda is not fair fetched. to join team with a scam exchange to scam investors, sell tokens at a high price, then got listed, open trading for 5 to six months. the next day, they dissappear and the next is the exchange delisting the token. who suffered most in this scams are novices that are yet to understand how the scam deal whats and bounty hunters that spend their time marketing for such project and finally not getting paid.

It's a scam exchange and surely the IEO project there is also scam. I have not seen any successful IEO projects there, all of them ended and prices dropped hundreds of times after being listed. Stay away from P2PB2P exchange as far as possible

Nowadays its rare to see a project team asking their investors for their suggestions or opinions to execute a better outcome. Its really different now, if you dont ask a question to them then you cant get a concrete answer on hows the progress of their project or something related.

Taking opinions from investors are good step, im seeing this kind of team as an indication for the project to succeed because they are willing to hear the opinions of investors that can contribute for the betterment of the project.

Teams today shall present themselves as knowledgeable for people to think they knew it all. This is why it ends the be very embarrassing for them when things began to fail they just scam and run away instead of seeking more help from the community they built.

P2Pb2b exchange were already caught to have fake team member profile but continues to operate though. Its gotta to be seize since its a scam waiting to happen.

I believe you would LOVE Blocknet in this regard. Not only do they listen to their investors, (communicate pretty nicely on Discord and other socials), but the vast majority of their project is voted in by investors through "super blocks". Enough "yes" versus "no", and the proposal is funded. That's the beauty of a well established masternode coin.

Do some research, and I'm sure you'd love what you find. Creators of the first DEX on the market, working on a decentralized oracle network and much much more.  :)

yes im familiar with that  . i remember i see many projects on thier telegram channel ask if what exchange their coin will be listed . they follow based on the poll  . thats the reason why most of them succeeded because they end up on good exchanges but now , i rarely see them doing some kind of polls . they are only deciding for them selves and end up listed on crappy exchanges that arent even popular or have a good trading volume  .i think this is the reason why most of them are going down . on any business , its normal that owners listen to thier costumers feedback because that is the only way for thier succees  .

I once witnessed similar thing from some projects too, most especially when it comes to exchanging listing.
They might decide to ask them to vote. Even if they do not have the fund at that moment, they will try every means possible to get it done, perhaps after they might have done their review.
Also, they never can tell, there are some investors who have meaningful contributions. Some of them might be well connected and could lead the project team on the right path and the easiest way to achieve some things.

This is actually a very difficult question. Of course, this is not good to hear, but not all members of the community adequately assess the situation. I came here from the Russian local section, there are very few adequate people who really understand how exchange trading, banks and the economy as a whole work. I feel Spanish shame when I read posts from there. Therefore, I believe that it is better to let the teams order expert advice from lawyers / economists and publish it in the public domain.

Well I'm not against your opinion as it's more beneficial when everyone is been carried along especially when the projects is at its early stage and need all the contribution that can bring about success to the project. Although from a personal experience, I think the reason teams aren't interested in the opinion of the community is because, most patronizers aren't interested in the progress of the project on a long-term but only concerned how to make quick bucks.

Asking for opinions from customers who're only interested in their selfish gains is deadly to the progress of a project as their suggestion will only involves the price movement of the project and not the development of the project on a general note.

You are incredibly right. I support your every word, I think there is nothing to add here.

Yes this is true sometimes the team know better but not every time. I could remember Davcoin, this project raise more than $20 million in their ICO, I can't really remember the actual amount and they went on to list on IDAX, exchange were all they do there was to wash trade, no liquidity and not surprise how the exchange scam people of their funds. All what some of these developers cared about is to list on exchange and some don't want to pay the listing fee on big exchange that would help the price and give it exposure

That's quite true, before the team do ask their community their opinions on several things, not that they are clueless but to understand or hear from the community so as to serve them better. And back in the days, although there were still scam projects, but the few that listened to their community members felt the positive impact. Also, what you said about P2PB2B is true, any project which lists on that exchange have a bad motive, because I can't understand why everyone will be against an exchange and a team which have little or no experience about exchanges will still go ahead then later will look for an excuse to cover up their mistakes. I also, understand most times the community members can try to impose their ideas, but yet it pays to hear from them so as to make good decisions.

Many developers are not doing proper research about crypto exchanges that's why they become a victim of scam exchanges like idax and vindax, even if they can't find clue I expect them to ask from old crypto members like from this project

Lol many new projects developers always think they are smarter, honestly speaking there are some hidden parts in crypto space that only investors will be well aware of, developers aren't the types that seek for knowledge, they claim to be the real knowledge of which they are always wrong

Not seeking an opinion from the community members is one of the reasons why many projects will lead to destruction. Apart from opinion about the listing, contribution from the community about features and functions they want in a project really help. The problem with dev team is that they always feel they have adequate knowledge about anything about crypto and blockchain which is not through because the technology is very evolving. I have once warned a dev team not to list a coin on Latoken and p2p2b but they refused citing reasons because CMC indicates they have a high daily volume. Today the project is in shambles 

You are right but the problem is that bigger or established exchanges do not list new coins or tokens easily so new projects have to find some place to list their tokens and as p2pb2b and other exchanges are new themselve and they want to grow their community and volume that is why they welcome new projects to list their coins and as a result attract new members.

This is true they now think they know all and ends up making mistakes. And this is why most people will support a project to an extent and then stop and it will look like they don't like the project anymore whereas it is due to bad decisions the team makes. How can a project aiming to grow list on an exchange known for low volume, low user base and so on. I have seen many people support a project but once IEO is announced and it is on Latoken or P2PB2B, they will all take their leave because the team won't listen to them and seek for a better exchange and its of no use investing in something that won't benefit you in any way. There are good exchanges to launch IEO on, mustn't be top exchanges.

First of all not all projects that start the ico are with knowledgeable and equipped personal with ideas. There are some projects who come with up a poor idea and try to make a quick buck out of it with ico. On the other hand there are people who are knowledgeable on the specific segment but have little idea about crypto industry and exchanges

What matters to them is Money. not what the community said. they are only interested in how much they made and the worth of their product should in case of any suitable investor interested in buying the project. Most projects these days never update their roadmap to suit the current trends in cryptocurrency. some are quiet aware of the damages most of these exchanges cause yet they go ahead and list on them.

In this era, we can't complain too much about project teams when they don't listen to us because listening to opinions from investors can only improve at some point, project groups cannot adjust completely, project teams sometimes want to be listed on good and reputable exchanges but this time is too difficult. Good exchanges can only list a few eligible projects, projects listed below are forced to list on bad exchanges to maintain hope for the future, listening to the investors' wishes is possible but completing it is a challenging process

Well, upon engaging into any sort of project, building communication and good relationship between the project team and the investors is in need to make things work the right way because this will build better understanding on how things should be going and to avoid such confusion into any of the party. Well, based on my experience way back 2017, project managers as well as the team behind it seems to be really active and approachable into the different platforms to answer inquiries as well as accept suggestions from the participants to be able to make things work out and be favorable for the both. It is indeed that nowadays the existing projects are not like those projects before and I really do not know why because supposedly the relationship between the two parties should remain in tacked and keep the bonding to be able to make the project successful and will benefit both two parties in the end.

I don't think it will be a good idea to listen to the suggestions from common people/end-users but they must listen to the complaints of such group of people and for developments and enhancement they must have specialized team so that they could find good progress with their project. I mean to say community members are for finding bugs and missing things whereas you must have separate team for your all other things.

At the same time every project must interact with end-users or their dedicated community so that they could have all type of feedback and they must work on that so that they could have continuous progress which is more important for sustaining market value.

Hey OP, I understand your pain man, and I also feel the same. Lots of projects these days don’t ask of their investors opinion, they just prefer to do how it pleases them, forgetting that their investors are the main reason their project is still active, because if those investors should lose interest and stop making use and investing in their project, they are going to fail for sure.

So, the most important thing they should do is to be asking of opinions from their investors, so they wouldn’t end up offering services that wouldn’t interest their users. But despite that, most of them don’t care these days and it’s really not good.

They stopped asking and started making unnecessary mistakes which always leads to the downfall of the platform, in this case when they list on bad exchanges. This is true because, a good exchange will help a project as well as a bad exchange will also kill a project. To prove this, I haven't seen a project that did IEO on P2PB2B or even list on P2PB2B that is still standing till now, they always ends up with low volume thus lack of interest from investors and of course the downfall of the project. Project team should endeavour to ask questions because most of their investors and members are traders and therefore knows more about most exchanges.

I agree with you mate. I saw some projects whom take this kinda unprofessional step and regret later. Sometimes still i saw couple of good projects are going to listed their coin in P2PB2B or Coinsbit. I wish project team beware before they listed those kinda scam exchange. Here is a good scam details about them which given by JollyGood (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192497.0).

Interesting thing is if you told them about they are going to listed their coin in scam exchange they'll just say they have no idea about it. Sometimes i thought those project is a scam also other wise why they support scam exchange. A good quality project always listen (at least respect) to their community/investors. After all their audience is the main source for their project.

I am also surprised how Coinmarketcap can register several exchanges that are indeed indicated to be a scam in their top list, even though we all know that many developers and investors make Coinmarketcap as a reference before they make Ieo and investments, but it seems that now Coinmarketcap provides an assessment of an exchange without strict consideration, and it is time for developers to select more exchanges before make ieo, so that they are not disappointed in the end.