We are talking about ITC, Information Coin, correct? Just want to make sure we have the correct symbols/coins there.

Maybe it's because I have an eensy amount of ITC in my account that I can still deposit? In my wallet, I have a mighty:  [ITC] Information Coin 0.00000001

If you really want that 50K, I can sell it for you if you want, assuming they even let it get deposited. I can swap it for doge or something else if you prefer, so long as it's easy to move in tiny quantities without a fee eating it all up. Send me a PM if you can't get it to work and want to try it.

MP used to list it, but not sure who else might. You can check the dinky exchanges, c-cex, swisscex, atomic trade and see if any of those still sell it.

I thought they were delisting tomorrow, not today.

Just checked my wallets and see I can still generate a new address for ITC. What issues are you having with depositing it?

You are also talking about like 50-75K for your entire lot there, so it's not exactly a giant loss even if you can't deposit.

Poloniex does until tomorrow, but you aren't going to like the price.

Can't disagree with any of that. I just mentioned some of the dinkier exchanges in the rare situation that the coin had problems getting on the larger exchanges or the devs wanted extra exchanges for arbitrage volume.

I don't mind Cryptsy so much, although it is sort of like a lumbering dinosaur as far as their site goes. They have volume, like you say, regardless of what people think of them. If they can get Cryptsy + one or both of Polo/Bittrex, they should get plenty of volume.

On a personal level I do like Polo a lot, just that it's sort of a middle level exchange as far as volume goes. Best to add one of the others with it, if they can.

Definitely not a good choice then...

I expect a number of the small guys to eventually close, as when you look at volume, it's simply not there. Some of the dinky exchanges have basically no volume at all -- guess they can be useful for really small coins that can't get on other exchanges though.

The standard ones seem to be : bittrex, poloniex, cryptsy and mintpal. At the lower end side of things there is c-cex, swisscex, austin global, etc. I wouldn't bother with most of the smaller exchanges to start with, though.

Poloniex would be a good choice to go after. Bittrex and Cryptsy would be good choices too.

Retweeted.

I'll also suggest going after some smaller exchanges too. C-Cex is sort of how Bittrex used to be when it first started out. There is also SwissCex, Atomic-Trade, Austin Global, AllCoin, AllCrypt, and places like that. Some of those may not take much more than an email from the dev. Also worth contacting Poloniex and at the very least get put on their voting list.

Agreed.

I first assumed the dev purposely drove down the price of the coin with the failed Tor announcement. Then all he would have to do is release the fancy wallet stuff, or come back and say he somehow figured out how to get Tor working, or planned to do that fork/swap to Tor ... and probably it'd result in an instant double to triple coin value.

No idea if the 51% takeover stuff is on the level or not, but it is strangely bizarre to have a takeover because a dev failed at releasing a feature one week, then required more than a week to release a different feature. It's not like he vanished for months. I've seen coins where a dev posts maybe once every 2 weeks (and said and did nothing at all), and even there people were hesitant to bring up the fork/takeover talk until several months passed.

Yeah, xbc/xlc will be the top two coins next to btc and ltc. At least you have reasonable expectations. It's not like XLC was just thrown off of Bittrex. Nor that XBC has gone through several dev teams, have no funds to pay their coder and is wallowing below ipo prices. It's nice to see people like you with a good head on their shoulders not spreading fake hype around.

Seriously, rebrand the coin, put some of the ipo funds towards new features, and pay off a small exchange or two to get listed. I say this not as an investor (I sold off ages ago), just general advice.

That overlooks the fact that after the official launch, the coin should hit other exchanges too. A lot of people don't normally use bter... I expect some don't even know of the coin at all, because it's on bter only right now.

XBC is sort of dead, and selling below IPO prices. I honestly see no logical reason for Poloniex to take XLC now.  And yeah, there was some sort of problem with them in the past ... namely the original dev for XBC, and dev for XLC, walked away from the coin with all ICO funds and more or less left behind a broken wallet for others to try to deal with -- Busoni wasn't exactly pleased with this, I assume.

I also see no reason for XLC to use the branding anymore... it should have changed ages ago.

I'd suggest going after the smaller exchanges, and maybe 1-2 of them might pick it up. It may require a 'bounty' or two, however.

Crypti may be worth looking at (presale on Bter right now). And Ora is probably undervalued, as TaunSew just mentioned.

Of course there are things like MaidSafe and Ethereum, and that ICO running for Syscoin, but they may not exactly be moneymakers.

I sort of have a similar view as the OP regarding niche coins. The only real way for them to gain appreciable value is if btc skyrockets, and the leading niche coins get dragged along for the ride. I think the key will be for any such coins to at least survive long enough to see btc rise. And of course, that may just be wishful thinking... btc may never go crazy, or even if it does, there is no guarantee other coins will follow.

I assumed everyone realized what is on the Bter exchange now isn't the actual real coin. It's just a token.

The coin won't be released until next week. For some strange reason they felt a need to do a pre-sale because some of the folks here had dreams of insane ROIs immediately, while others wanted to buy in at assumed lower prices before it is released officially. Each group probably had opposite expectations.

It's probably not that huge a deal. But I can understand if someone bought the coin, figured they owned it... logged in days later to see early trading started and they had no actual coin, how they could be annoyed. The key problem was how the IPO was set up. Typically IPOs don't allow purchases once they go over the cap to begin with.

I also am not so fond of IPOs breaking their own rules, as it sets up fodder for trolls to use later on. But I do agree with you that overall the end result for most people as far as getting coins or not probably would have been the same. It just looks sort of bad, and people could use the argument that although the team was under no obligation to those over the cap, perhaps they should have been after they changed the rules for early trading.

Better communication may have helped, but again, your main mistake was expecting the poll to really mean anything. You should have paid more attention to what people were saying in that actual thread, and I don't mean the one sentence replies asking repeatedly when the coin would go on sale ... like they were sitting at a vegas table. The reasons why people said this was a bad idea was all that mattered. There were ways around it, go over the cap, use your own coins to cover over the cap people, and so on ... but really if you wanted to break the rules to allow early trading, you should have also figured out a solution for all of those people hurt by that decision too.

Anyway, as you say, consider it a learning experience.

The poll was meaningless, so not sure why it's even brought up at all. For  any IPO coin that sells out, if offered a poll, will invariably have lots of people voting for an early sale. Just the way it is ... and most voting don't own the coin, missed out on the IPO and are hoping for a cheap price before the the regular sale even starts. Of course there are those who gambled their rent money on an IPO and want to dump as soon as possible, so they too may vote for an early sale. Either way, the poll's results were pretty much a given before a single person voted.

The early sale was done, so we will just have to live with it. Breaking the rules of the IPO may not look so great, and for precisely the reason that BEECoinFan mentioned. Those over the cap and with a chance of still getting IPO coins then had no chance whatsoever.

If the team still wanted to do an early presale, they should have used some of their own crypti and sold them to all over-the-cap people, so everyone would have been happy.

Noticed that you posted, and removed, that you were simply trolling.

Not that it matters if you were trolling or serious. It shows that the original dev was simply in on it to gobble up cheap coins, or an idiot for believing it. Either way, it's a problem.

Good play, and assumption dev is in on it, as he made a post sounding like the 51% was confirmed.

Basically dev tanks the price of his own coin, scoops up tons of cheap coins, then a 'new team' takes over, forks, or whatever (even without an actual fork)... recovery and so on. It's probably an easier way to go profit-wise than actually just being honest and adding stuff to a coin normally.

Basically anyone trading in this coin now is sort of playing with a dead coin walking... no dev involved with this coin will ever have the investor's trust again.

That's one of the key problems with something like this. That, and something else someone brought up earlier. If it becomes the standard and displayed on exchanges, then it basically turns into :'pay us, or your coin will fail'. And not only that, but 'pay us and trust us with your information'.

I'm sort of mixed about programs like this. As on one hand, as an investor, I can see it helping somewhat. It won't protect against most of the scams run here, and I expect a lot of devs who run proper scams to simply use fake ID. But if trying to be objective, and if I pretended I was an honest dev, I have to ask myself would I be willing to use this program and provide my ID to some random company?

The answer is probably no, as CoinsSource hasn't been around long enough to be 100% trustworthy with such sensitive info. And even if I think they are, I'd have to worry that all of its employees are 100% trustworthy, forever, and you will never have any data breeches/hacks... again, forever, nor none of its employees would go full-blown evil and try to blackmail me. There are simply too many crazy people in this forum to feel safe.

A dev could be honest, yet run into problems. Perhaps his coin tanks due to bad decisions, or competition, or coding problems. Yet he did everything honestly. He'd have to worry some nut out there who lost money won't come after him. People make bad decisions and tend to yell 'scam', as its human nature to look for a culprit besides their own bad judgement. Here they not only yell scam, but go into mob, pitchfork mode. It wouldn't be worth the hassle or risk if I was a dev to even bother with.

A code review + simple BTT account verification may work better, as a lot of the scammier coins have hidden premines or shady code, and catching this early would be of benefit to people.

I thought the same thing and touched upon those points in the other thread for this. Only the postcard + driver license verification are the ones that really matter. Basically if a coin doesn't get 6/7 or higher, the trust rating probably would be worthless to them. The mobile requirement is also pretty useless and that could be gotten around really easily.

But I can't see any dev signing up for this and paying to get a 3/7 rating or something like that anyway. It's like advertising -- 'We stink, don't trust us' and devs paying for the privilege to advertise that fact.