Wondering this as well. I know that you applied to several other exchanges, perhaps you could let us know which ones so that we can spread the word? Most cryptocurrencies would want people to know which exchanges they could potentially be getting listed on to build hype and enhance marketing opportunities.

Just want to congratulate the team on handling this issue swiftly and professionally with minimal damage. You handled it better than a lot of huge exchanges.

It's due to the lack of liquidity and volume in their market exchange. I was warning about this before. When/if this gets on larger exchanges and gets more exposure, you will see it really take off, until then watch it continue to trade for fractions of a cent. The dev's need to view their exchange as supplementary rather than any kind of primary exchange source (no one knows about it, after all), there's simply not enough volume on it to really have any effect at the present moment.

It is my understanding that they have already applied to many other exchanges though, we are simply waiting for their applications to be accepted.

Thank you for the quick response. Best of luck, you guys deserve it.

Just want to congratulate the team on their achievement. It hasn't been an easy road, and there's been plenty of frustration from time to time--from me included, but I'm very pleased to see that you guys met your deadline of Q1 2018. You should congratulate yourselves.

I do have a question though. I have not seen any mention of getting this coin listed on any other exchanges. Are there plans of submitting the necessary paperwork to do so? Or do you intend to only use your own exchange for purchases/withdrawals? I'm sure several of us would appreciate a response to this question as it would be important to maintain liquidity as well as to expose the coins and the platform to a wider audience.

Much appreciated and congratulations again.

I had a real, legitimate fear that this would happen. When you take 8 months (and counting) to actually, truly monetize a coin, and likely another 2-3 months to get it on exchanges, coupled with a pretty high supply but outrageous pricing of platform assets (look at the price of Messi in the context of BTC at the original ICO rate), which will either result in an immediate devaluing of XFCCoin at the onset to make the game affordable or force them to reprice assets and screw the people who already bought them for more, in addition to focusing on trying to set up your own platform rather than letting the exchanges do the work for you, then you wind up with this situation.

Could XFC still be very successful? Yes. Competition is not a bad thing, but competition does force you to either do things right or fall behind. The fact that we haven't even heard of an identified exchange yet still continues to be troubling. My fear has always been that the XFC team wants to keep all of the trading volume on their own exchange, but that won't make this a real tradeable asset, merely an arcade token due to lack of market liquidity. It's very similar to a MOBA game getting you to use real currency to buy the ingame currency in order to unlock heroes or some such, but not having their 'game currency' really be worth anything since the only place you can buy/sell it is a low volume exchange. This would have been fine if this was marketed as such from the get-go, but they seem headed in this direction and that renders the market and cryptocurrency aspect of this project somewhat worthless. Yes, yes, I know. They say they will also list it on other exchanges, but why is it taking so long to find some? It clearly is not a priority.

It's a real shame because the XFC team has created a remarkable project and a remarkable game that looks top notch and professional, but the "market" aspect of their project from the pricing of game assets to their strategy of monetization and pricing should be studied as one of the worst examples ever of how to handle an ICO.

Hi, could you please provide a link to these tutorials?

Thanks.

I have to say, that it baffles me that after nearing eight months, they think cryptic answers and empty promises are perfectly acceptable. There is a very simple explanation why people are upset at this point. It's not rocket science.

Eight months of there not being XFCCoin traded on a legitimate exchange, and no, counterparty doesn't count. The solution here is so simple that it, again, baffles me why they simply won't do it. Answer questions, give legitimate timelines, demonstrate you are reaching goals beyond a screenshot, and just get it on exchanges ASAP once the blockchain is ready.

Stop focusing so much on their own exchange and just get it on Bittrex, or Cryptopia, or anything with liquidity. Allow investors an exit should they wish, allow others to purchase it, give the market aspect of it life. I guarantee you that you will give people a reason to be excited again. Get the focus back on the game. Don't hold people's money hostage and then wonder why they are upset, and don't keep harping on about people who just want to dump it on the market vs. people who "are really interested in the game." We are beyond that now. You made more than enough to have covered your original budget goals and then some (especially with the BTC price), certainly more than enough to finish the project.

Again, prioritize getting it on real exchanges. You should be posting your submissions to these exchanges and a timeline on when it will happen. You want people to stop bringing up this insanity every couple weeks? Want to redirect focus back on the game (which is where it should be)? This is how you do it.

Glad you acknowledged my response and concerns. Though, I will say, I'm not sure why you opened your response with basically a statement that you can essentially get away with robbing a bank, followed by a winking emoji. My rules are not commandments, they were "rules for placating investors", which, given the length and duration of this project, not to mention the consistently missed deadlines has rendered it into pages upon pages of disappointment after deadlines are missed. The fact that any and all deadlines have failed to be met, coupled with the evasive, unclear responses to basic questions, such as: "What exchanges will this be listed on?" is bizarre, to say the least. That is a question that could and should be answered easily.

I originally backed this project because I saw it being very viable, which, when combined with the professionalism of the website and the game itself, made it look like a solid project. The fact that you are delineating between "investors who only want to cash out" and "people who want to play the game" is irrelevant, as both have made this project possible. It's not a matter of lumping them into groups, it's a matter of them believing in this project, irrespective of whether or not they intended to play the game long term. Usually getting the coins on an exchange is all that is required to satiate the former group, while the project itself and its polish and vision is enough to satisfy the latter.

So what I am going to suggest is an updated FAQ responding to some of my questions with the progress you have made since the ICO, some of the challenges you are still facing, as well as providing concrete answers to some of the questions that have been posed. You obviously don't have to do this. As you said, "we have no authority over you", but if you believe in this project as you claim you do and want it to be a success, then one part of that is providing answers to the people that did believe in it and made it possible. As someone else suggested, even if this is a scam, most scam coins still list their coins on the marketplace. The fact that there appears to be so much resistance to this idea for fear of you either not being able to control your own in-game market, the price to fiat, or whatever else you have thought has an impact on it by putting it on an exchange, is highly suspect and isn't contributing any confidence to how the project is being handled. In fact, one could argue, this is the main primary reason that there is so much suspicion in the first place.

I think that you think that once your exchange is online, you intend to keep all transactions on it, and aren't that concerned about listing it on major exchanges. You seem to somehow believe that you will still have the volume and the interest by putting it on some obscure exchange that most people, including fans and future players of the game, will somehow find it through your twitter feed, a bitcointalk thread, or your own website. If you want this to be a success, you need market exposure. All cryptocurrencies that have been successful have done this to increase adoption. Putting this up on bittrex isn't too much to ask, and if there is some fee involved, you could easily recoup that fee with the price increase that would be sure to follow (after the obvious dip of early investors getting out because of the duration and burned good will). But I think the misguided illusion is that you think having this on your own exchange will somehow let you control the price, as initially putting it on a larger exchange may push it below that target. Trying to manipulate the price and not letting the market dictate will not lead to a lot of people playing this game. Someone will come along with a similar vision, while learning from your mistakes, and make it tie to much more viable marketplace and allow the market price to float, as it should...and they will "Apple-ize" your idea, i.e. making it better while essentially copying your vision. Maybe you care about this, maybe you don't. Either way, if and when this project does reach the street, word of mouth, on forums such as these, will go a long way in terms of adoption. You may want to think on that in terms of the longevity of your game, but maybe the short play was the vision all along.

Either way, a legitimate FAQ summarizing the answers would, I feel, go a long way if concrete answers are given. Obviously you don't have to do this, but if you claim to care then it would be a small gesture of good will. Failure to do something of this kind is likely to lead to increased suspicion and skepticism as it is beginning to look like you are really hiding something.

Rules for Placating Investors

Rule 1: Do not replace defined deadlines with undefined deadlines. We went from November/December to 'cannot make a promise about a specific date', which could mean December, it could mean April, it could mean never.

Rule 2: Provide concrete answers to questions. "What exchanges will XFCCoin be on?" Dev Answer: "We applied to several major exchanges". This tells us nothing, how about "We applied to Bittrex on October 7, status: application pending, We applied to Cryptopia on October 27, status: application processing". Something concrete, something that tells us a) what exchanges it will be on, and b) the status. Otherwise it seems like you are telling us nothing, which you may well be, you may not be, we don't know, it's impossible to know.

Rule 3: Provide concrete actionable steps related to the in-game economy and how it relates to the current RAPID fluctuations and volatility with Bitcoin. A basic player card currently costs 200 dollars due to Bitcoin's value, which, when compared to more expensive cards currently makes this the most expensive game to play in the entire world. Do you intend to either a) alter amounts in the swap from the previous exchange rate under the ICO when you switch to the new blockchain, so a person who invested 2.66BTC for 250K coins would receive more while keeping player prices the same, or will the player prices go down, or, the best solution, will they fluctuate with the market and not be pinned to a specific retail price?

It is to your advantage, especially now that you have your own blockchain, to have XFCCoin on major exchanges in order to get a solid combination of investors to make XFC worth something, and therefore prizes for the actual game to be worth something, which, in turn, will attract fantasy sports enthusiasts as well as gamblers, as well as to attract new players. People will not learn about this game through your own website alone nor will they learn about it through your own individual exchange, as it will be a needle in a haystack of cryptocurrency exchanges. My fear is that once you have your own exchange, your priorities will shift to be less concerned about getting it listed on popular crypto exchanges, and this is a huge mistake, not only for your investors, but for yourselves. But I wouldn't know, because we aren't told anything concrete. Normal ICOs have their coin on an exchange within ONE MONTH of the end of an ICO, you read that correctly, ONE MONTH.

Rule 4: Provide updates about the status of ongoing initiatives, status of the blockchain, where the wallet is, WITHOUT people having to kick, scream, yell, threaten, or explode in a ball of rage in order to get a response. We have waited a VERY long time (in the crypto world) for this project to come to fruition, and these updates, at this point, are not even a measure of good will, they are required given how long this whole process has been drawn out. People believe in this project, if everything was on track, you wouldn't have to give them a reason to keep believing, but given the endless delays, you owe your investors that, at the very least.

Rule 5: I know this will be a tough nut to swallow, but if you are unable to consistently meet deadlines after a number of failures, you should be offering to repurchase XFC from original investors at the price it was issued. Inability to meet deadlines, inability to provide clear guidance, inability to provide a solid, realistic roadmap and meet objectives on time, reliably, and advertise thus forfeits your ability to continue to make empty promises and action and goodwill should be regained through Rule 5. Would it suck for the project? Absolutely, but there is a pretty clear line between being in a realistic development cycle, especially when compared to other projects, and borderline scam-like behavior, which we are beginning to get to due to violations of Rules 1, 2, 3, and 4. There needs to be consequences, or you will just go on indefinitely telling us a whole lot of nothing.

You can choose to ignore this, you can choose to respond and begin to address these. But after seeing definable deadlines suddenly, inexplicably replaced by "we can't give you a defined date", you can't even give a date range at this point, means you are probably just profiting off of the rise of BTC yourselves, while egging on people that once believed in your project but are now growing sour after an exorbitant wait time with milestones shrouded in mystery until threats are made, and the only thing offered is some vague empty promises and/or a screenshot of something.

Totally agree. 100%

You realize a basic card costs 1000 XFC, that means you are saying it would cost $5000-10000 for a basic card? Unless XFC changes their pricing model, it would never reach those heights.

Is anyone else worried about the pricing of players and stadiums? I am literally shocked this hasn't been discussed given what has happened to BTC.

What I am about to show you will boggle your mind and could have serious ramifications for the in-game economy. I'm not talking about trading on exchanges, I'm talking about the basic economy of the game itself.

I see cards for sale for 50,000 XFC, 150,000 XFC (for the breadwinner), 300,000 XFC for stadiums. Let's break down these numbers. For the sake of simplicity, I will use the ICO price of 0.000012. Let's do some math with the 'updated' bitcoin values (assuming $9,900 as of today):

Messi is worth 1.8 BTC, which is now worth $17,820
A stadium is worth 3.6 BTC, which is now worth $35,640

Even a lower ranked player of 50,000 XFC is now worth 0.6 BTC or $5,940.

Do you see what happens when you artificially fix prices for players and don't let the market set the price? I know what they did, they based the prices back when BTC was paired against XFC in the ICO, but it does not take account of the appreciation of BTC and its relation to the dollar.

So what will have to happen, assuming these parameters remain and are correct, is that the price of XFC when it hits the market will HAVE TO BE lower than the ICO price for the game to be affordable at these current rates. And not just a little lower, but A LOT lower.

This potentially makes this, due to the fixed pricing of in-game assets, one of the worst ICOs ever (outside of flat out scams) to invest in. If you invested 2.66 BTC yielding you 250,000 XFC from the ICO, a value which is now worth $29,700, that doesn't even buy you a stadium. Given that the company will also be selling these assets against the dollar, the price will have to come down and the value will need to below 0.000012 for adoption to be acceptable given current prices as they are.

People are remarking that what if XFC were to hit $1, what if it were to hit $0.25...if XFC were to hit $1 then that means a basic player is now $1000, it's literally impossible. If it hits a quarter, that's $250. Even if it's $1 for 1000 XFC, that means you just lost a massive amount of cash. Let's say 1000 XFC is 3 dollars, somewhat reasonable for the price of a card, that now renders an original investment of 2.66 BTC or 250,000 (with the % discount) to $750 dollars. So, a loss from $29,700 to $750.

Solutions:

1. Change the prices, significantly or you will be dooming your in-game economy before it even begins. If hypothetically the fiat to XFC is cheaper, people will just buy XFC with fiat then sell it for 0.00014 or .00016, assuming they can get that, and it will, again, tank the economy of this game and the project.

2. The remaining hundreds of millions in XFC locked up in a storage locker needs to be destroyed. Another option is when you choose to move to the new blockchain, you re-exchange the previous total to a new total, so 250,000 becomes a lot more or a lot less depending on what you do with the supply because as prices are now, you all, as well as myself, just lost a massive amount of capital by backing this ICO given the prices of in-game assets and the likelihood that the price will tank to make these assets affordable.

This isn't rocket science here, this is basic economics. I have waited and waited and waited, as have all of you, but now that I've just realized this given the wake of the massive BTC appreciation pump, this makes me feel a thousand times worse.

Question about us existing holders under the older counterparty platform, how do you intend to allow us to exchange the old blockchain currency for xfc under the new? Some clarification on this would be very helpful.

Hi Octa. Thank you for the clarification. This is exactly what I was looking for. Also appreciate the timely response. Best of luck in implementing the roadmap moving forward.

I hope you're right about that. I just found it a bit odd that they didn't mention that, it would have been a single sentence, "Looking into listing on x, y, and z once the new blockchain is up and the wallet is released". I mean something, anything that wasn't open to interpretation but that explicitly stated the intention. That would have been reassuring, not only to myself, but I would imagine many others.

Long time lurker here and a holder of a considerable amount of these.

Their most recent statement left me, befuddled to say the least. Let me explain.

First of all, almost all ICOs as one of the first orders of business other than create a wallet try to get their coin listed on an exchange. Common sense tells us that this is so that market forces can decide a price for said coin.

By XFC not explicitly addressing the exchange issue and instead mentioning they are creating "their own exchange service", this tells me they are more concerned with creating a one way money funnel. Currently, you can buy XFC for fiat, on their own exchange, you will also be able to do the same. This allows them to control the fiat exchange price. By not allowing it to be listed on a crypto exchange, they aren't allowing their coin to be subjected to normal market forces, and the only justification for such an approach is to try and fix the price for their token to fiat. If you can think of another reason they would do this, I'm all ears.

If their original intention was to turn this into an arcade token or gift card style form of currency for their game, and to only allow the exchange of this currency into a one way money funnel (to them, and them only with no way of getting it out) then they merely exploited the crypto community on two accounts: one, they took advantage of the current enthusiasm in the cryptosphere to raise a lot of money in their ICO, anonymously, mind you, and second by doing an ICO, they did so knowing that a notable unregulated investment mechanism will have no legal recourse should things go awry.

As I said, if their original intention was for this to just be a game where you buy in with fiat, have your game tokens and play the game with no incentive for cashing out, where your tokens won would simply just allow you to continue to participate in tournaments or own more cards, then this should have been stated from the beginning.

I can assure you that I'm not trying to spread FUD here, I'm merely a concerned investor that by not explicitly stating in their roadmap, any intention or PRIORITIZATION of allowing this token to be subjected to either market forces or to be listed on an exchange that actually has volume, then this is deeply concerning/borderline scam-like behavior.

While I am happy they are working out their technical issues due to the limitations of their original blockchain, to not come out and say that they are dedicated to creating the MARKET aspect of their platform, a key feature on their website, then I am afraid we are all being taken for a ride. By only allowing money IN and not OUT, they are not only allowing themselves to control the price for more favorable XFC to fiat transactions, but they are leaving crypto investors holding a very heavy bag with no way of moving it.

I, and I would imagine others, welcome from the developers a specific response to the issue of how they are intending to handle subjecting this token to actual legitimate market forces (i.e. listing this on a legitimate third party exchange) beyond their own proprietary exchange which will likely have extremely low volume. The fact that this was not mentioned on their lengthy roadmap/feature list is extremely troubling, and it probably should be for any of you that wants to see this as an actual marketplace-styled fantasy game beyond an online soccer version of Magic: The Gathering.