I remember them advertising somewhat on this forum, but that's about it. I don't think that interest for their exchange platform has ever really sparked up, which could be one of the reasons why the owners just wanted to exit scam, since their revenue was so low.

This is the ultimate risk that you're putting up with using an exchange that has little to no reputation, and not being regulated.

I wonder what the users will do given the fact that Bitsane is now gone. Will they launch a class action lawsuit? Will that even work, given the fact that they have very little knowledge of where Bitsane is incorporated, if they are regulated, etc.?


Again, this just shows that you can't trust any third party recommendations, as official as they may be. There are a ton of hosted wallets endorsed by the founding team themselves in crypto projects, that aren't the most legit.

I don't necessarily agree with the first part of this bolded statement, but I don't think that the second part is grossly inaccurate.

The fact is that right now, we're still a year from the halving, which would have normally been the starting point of a bull market. But instead, I think that institutional investors as well as longer term holders have already driven prices up because they realize the magnitude of this bull market, and they're seeking to capitalize early on.

I think that breaching the ATH will be inevitable, seeing the fundamental improvements that BTC has undergone, as well as the influx of institutional interest in building services (albeit trading ones) around BTC. I wouldn't jump to an accurate figure, though, because that would depend on the level of FOMO shown by retail investors.

The requirements that they are asking for is already quite draconian. Exchanges providing source of funds seems to be an increasing trend, which nobody should welcome, given the fact that it can be viewed as an intrusion of privacy, and can be used to hold people's coins hostage, essentially.

You could try to negotiate with them, by closing the account and allowing you to remove the funds, but I doubt it'll happen. If they were willing to do that then they would have simply disabled trading, and nothing else.

But yes, some publicity could help but don't count on it, because this could be an obligation that bittrex legally has to perform from a legal standpoint.


Jeez, they've really not upped their support reply game since the majority of their users jumped ship due to their new KYC requirements for legacy account owners.

I think this is it.

The fact that institutional investors are playing a role contributing to this bull market, at least partially, means that whatever they are interested in will likely gain more traction than others.

And since BTC is the most stable, best store of value, and has proven itself over the long run, they're unlikely to be investing in anything other than BTC on a large scale, especially when initial offerings can pose significant regulatory issues.

They most likely would have conducted risk analysis that would show the majority of the rest of the crypto market is quite risky, which we know as well.

This was extremely confusing and hard to understand, even the TL&DR, lol.


This in itself is unfeasible, in my opinion. The extent of investment that this requires is extremely large, and I doubt anyone with that kind of capital, looking to put a fiat currency on the blockchain will look at colored coins as a viable option to digitize their economy.

So, who will be issuing it?

Why would anyone trust that whoever issuing it will back the value of these colored coins, since they are initially pegged to a fiat value, before they "equal the smallest currency denomination"?

Supported the flag.

The tactics that he is using to scam isn't surprising, because for any con artist, they will form new stories as they approach new victims, that's just the way that things work. You should record the new telegram handles that he is using though, so that you can post them on this thread and warn others about it.

Although, to have concrete evidence, I think you need to have traderpolo tell you on bitcointalk what his telegram is, as opposed to on telegram claiming that he's traderpolo on bitcointalk. Because anyone can claim to be someone bitcointalk on another platform.

Either way, it's not safe to deal with this person. I don't see a reason why you should simply give up on the case, at least until the scammer is tagged/the flag becomes active.

I personally think that it's a gradual thing. You simply can't expect a currency that has been historically volatile, and out of the reach of any central intervention, to be completely stable overnight. That's just an absurd proposition to make.

If you look at the general level of volatility, you'll see that it has decreased significantly from the flash crashes that took away more than 50% of BTC's value. If anything, the general trend is up, which may be why in the bull market the value of BTC seems constantly to be going up, and the correcting, because that's just the natural short term cycles.

Granted, this volatility may still not be sufficient. But it is trending in the right direction imo, and it's probably not the most accurate statement to say that it hasn't decreased at all.

If you are uncomfortable with it, then don't do it.

I don't think that Coinbase has ever asked me to do this when adding a new a bank ccount. I think that the normal procedure is supposed to simply be send 2 small transactions or something along the lines of that. There are virtually no financial institutions, even Paypal, that ask you to directly enter the password of your bank details into them.

Perhaps that's been a long time ago, and things have changed since they've integrated into the traditional banking system. But I'm still skeptical and echo others who think that this may be a phishing site you're on.

You should look at a site called cointelegraph, and compare it to cryptozapper.com.

In my opinion there's a clear similarity between the two that simply cannot be missed. It's very likely that they never planned on delivering on your partnership, because they have even shown the willingness to plagiarize others' work, essentially.

It's easy for anyone to launch a news site like this, copy over the template, and all the articles, and look for "partners" to lure in. Nobody has ever heard of this site before, bar the owners themselves, meaning that even if your partnership goes well you'll get no publicity.

Firstly, who will be the enforcer of this "compulsory insurance"? The SEC? Or some other regulatory body? The thing is that, even if you have an enforcer, you can't expect every single initial offering to be registered with them, let alone comply with their rules.

Secondly, why would an initial offering bother to try to raise funds, if they are already able to afford an insurance bill that will probably cost a lot, if they are insuring every single investor that is projected to invest?

And lastly, who will be the insurer? Why would anyone be willing to insure such a risky event, especially when it comes to someone over the internet that you have had no previous knowledge about? Nobody wants to take on the risk, and the verification process will simply be way too hard.

It's simply unfeasible overall.

This post is almost prophetic, given the fact that it was posted yesterday, and we've corrected down to the early $11,000s.

Of course, this was something that was a matter of time. But I don't think that anyone was expecting a 20% correction overnight, essentially. The run up to nearly $14k did turn out to be sort of a bull trap, but an expected one, given the fact that there were so many panic buyers that were irrationally making decisions.


I think that the OP is talking more so about a short term adjustment, as opposed to a longer term sink down to another bear market.

But you do raise an interesting point about the halving. I think that what is interesting about this bull market is that it has gained so much steam in a short period of time, despite the halving still being a year away. It could be a result of institutional investors, as others suggest, but I think that there may be more to it than that.

I don't think that anyone denies the fact that payments will go digital. In fact, there has been countries (e.g. China) that have already essentially switched exclusively over the digital payments, and cash is essentially made obsolete.

That's not the question here. I think that the question is in what form will the adoption of digital payments be in, whether it will be decentralized, centralized, or issued by various financial institutions themselves, like Wechat and Alipay's duopoly.

Furthermore, my personal stance on any sort of cryptocurrency that is pegged to a fiat currency is that it's intrinsically nothing different from a bank deposit, except with way more risk as it's unregulated.

It's nothing out of the ordinary. It's simply a correction, that was bound to come sooner or later.

I'm not sure why you'd expect anything else, even, given the fact that the growth we've seen over the past week was simply unsustainable. The rallies that we saw up to $13k+ was mostly a result of FOMO buying due to the hype of BTC going through the $10k resistance, which has psychological significance to investors, and perhaps some short squeezes as well.

These short term cycles are quite common in any asset class, not just BTC. I don't think that buying at that level was necessary a bad trade per se, given that you have the patience and belief in BTC in the long term. It seems like the $10k support has been tested and it held up nicely, which is a bullish sign.

Isn't this already possible, and already integrated?

You've got people that are using BTC as exactly that - a tool to transfer money internationally with. You've also got bitcoin debit cards, which essentially allows anyone to pay for the majority of goods and services available that can be paid with a VISA/mastercard.

I don't think that's the primary concern here at all. The primary concern should be about the actual merchant adoption of BTC, without the use of payment processors that take their BTC and convert them into fiat as soon as they receive them. Only when that happens will BTC be truly stable, imo.

Who knows. Maybe this will happen in the long term future, but I don't really think that this is something that is likely to happen even in the next decade. The influence of the US dollar is still very widespread, especially in foreign countries.

Also, even if Euros do overtake the US dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency, I doubt that it'll lessen the demand for USD by THAT much. Thus, it'll likely have less impact on BTC/USD prices as you expect, imho.

If we are talking about the long term, though, all fiats are trending in the same direction as their intrinsic value given the fact that they can be printed infinitely, theoretically. BTC's relative value to them should climb in the long run, as long as adoption levels climb as well, or even stay the same.

Will bitcoin single handedly save the Venezuelan economy?

Absolutely not, and I don't know why anyone would expect that given that BTC does not solve their underlying economic issues - an economy overdependent on the price of oil, and an unstable political atmosphere.

But what BTC can do, if more people in Venezuela do choose to adopt it is offer a means for them to transact with foreign entities cheaply, access to the international labor markets, as well as a long term store of value. That way, they are able to outsource their skills without needing to pay a hefty cut to the payment processors in the form of transaction fees and exchange rate spreads, nor do they need access to a bank account to start reaping the benefits of BTC.

That is my understanding as well, and that's what's stated on their announcement since the beginning. They've shown no intentions to make amends.

I personally think that they should at least take some responsibility over this ordeal. They were stupid enough to let the CLAM/BTC pair to be traded on margin despite knowing full well that the liquidity of clams were extremely low, as I've stated before. They even acknowledged this themselves. If you acknowledge that, then why aren't you taking responsibility?


Where did you get this info? If this is true, then it's unprofessional by Polo. Users will get emotional at times, especially when their money's at stake.

I'm not sure about the connection that you're making between S&P500 rising with BTC rising. This is a correlation that a lot of people like to cite, but I still haven't seen solid evidence for in terms of them moving in accordance to one another.

Some people attribute this to the potential Fed rate cuts, but I don't think that's the case either.

With BTC it's purely a cyclical thing, where the market has consolidated long enough within the bear market for bullish sentiment to be reinjected, and weak hands and panic dumpers to be washed out. I think that the political instability especially in Asia have at least contributed to the bull runs of both gold and BTC, because people are looking for a safe haven to park their assets.

In regards to the stock market though, I still think that there are companies that are extremely overvalued that will correct soon. This could just be short term noise.

I highly doubt that this is going to be any form of positive regulation. My sentiments carry forward to their new legislation apparently on initial offerings as well.

Russia has a lot of mixed opinions when it comes to bitcoin regulation, but I think that they've always trended towards trying to restrict people from accessing it because of the potential capital flight that it brings to the economy.

Furthermore, don't be surprised if these new legislations somehow supported the launch of their own cryptocurrency issued most likely by the central bank or whatnot, and prosecutes and penalizes actual bitcoin users.

So, is he currently allowing you access to his Yobit account, or is he not co-operating to make that happen?

A little bit of common sense would have told you the transfer of YOVI via Yobicodes were never going to be possible. The fact that the market is completely rigged as a ROM means that they would obviously bar any off-market transactions that may actually reflect the market value for these illiquid scam tokens.

If he's still allowing you access to his Yobit account, then there shouldn't be any issues and I don't think that you should be entitled to a refund of .05 BTC. If he's not, then it's a different story. Again, please clarify.