Seems like a complete waste to me. So basically I'd choose to have someone else buy into an IEO or group of IEOs for me? I mean, why can't people do that for themselves directly and bypass the middleman? If it's a scam, they'd get burnt either way, just doubly so by using the investment model proposed.

What could work, but is outside of the realm of random posters here, are investment vehicles into crypto related industries that otherwise would be difficult to buy into directly. Think a Crypto ETF -- but instead of coins, it'd be investments into exchanges, blockchain companies, hardware companies and so on. For all I know such a thing already exists... but I am thinking more of companies that have gone private and is difficult to buy into unless super rich.

Somehow I doubt that day is when Bean's one last real exchange is going out of business. That prophecy may need revising.

Places like btcpop still work, but that's not exactly a real exchange there... sort of a weird loan/bond crypto site that just happens to list some coins (with like no volume). Just mentioned it in case anyone wanted to trade their beans and didn't know where else to look.

BTCPop also handles bean, albeit in small volume amounts.

So I guess Bean will be delisted from a coinmarket rating then? I mean, it kind of needs to be
on a real exchange to be rated, I assume?

I've been out of Bean for a while, just weird to see how poorly it's doing and how the devs' decision on not putting the coin on other exchanges has backfired spectacularly.

It's kind of like janitor coin... meaning bags isn't exactly worth a whole lot of money. And in the swap you may get like $2 worth of coin (maybe).

Yeah, that's why I stated it's probably not worthwhile with coins with no volume and pretty much no hope of doing much. Sort of like the coins on weird little exchanges with a daily volume of $3 ... or on a dex somewhere that hasn't had a sale in months. I don't see a point in bothering with those.

If someone wants to swap a shitcoin on yobit for another shitcoin, that's a different matter. Still not sure if it's worthwhile, but at least there is a chance of profit there.  I guess one could gradually move up the shit ladder that way, eventually end up with something not completely worthless.

Only reason to trade shitcoins (and I mean those really really bad coins, those with no volume and no prospects at all) is to swap them for slightly less shitty coins ... in the hope eventually you'll end up with something not completely horrible. I wouldn't bother swapping pure junk for more pure junk.

I'm not so sure we have to wait for BTC to hit its ATH before alts increase. Sure, maybe that's how things play out. But if we look back at 2017, alts had a pretty nice summer before btc went on its crazy run. These things tend to move in cycles ... while BTC is resting, alts may come out to play a bit before the halvening. All depends on where whales want to go.

I expect a ton of folks sold their alts at a terrible loss, and as crypto things tend to go, that means altseason is just around the corner. I'm waiting for what I sold to skyrocket, while my holdings stagnate -- and the crypto gods can laugh in glee.

But the fact that so many junkcoins were delisted probably will be one major reason why I don't think the next altseason will result in a zillion coins all increasing in value, even complete junk. Besides investors being somewhat smarter now, there simply won't be exchanges offering certain coins anymore. And dinky little exchanges usually can't handle the sort of volume we saw in 17.

But if altcoin season does come, I wonder if it'll come top down, or reverse... meaning ETH leads the way, then it trickles down to smaller cap coins. Or mid-smaller cap first? It's been so long I forget how altcoin seasons tend to begin. Or maybe some new alts will spur the charge.

But is it a contradiction? It all depends on how you view crypto.

Do you expect BTC to be used as a currency or store of value? If the former, sure, spend it. But you may end up paying the equivalent to 50K for that TV set a year or two for now. And that's why most don't use it as a currency. But as a store of value, sure, it works. It may not deserve the hype or valuation as a store of value as it does, but that is a purpose... it's not like most go to their local store and pay for items using gold or diamonds.

As for other cryptos, one way for them to gain value is serving a purpose other than as a daily currency. BAT token for instance, or coins that work with businesses to create internal blockchains, or reward programs. Or that whole smart contract thing, which is still trying to find a purpose outside of crypto kitties...

Crypto can still work as a currency, but I think it'll only catch on either in 3rd world countries where hyperinflation has destroyed their own fiat currency or if a stablecoin catches on. Most folks don't want to buy something using a currency that can double or triple in value a week later.

That article is like saying water is wet. Umm... yeah, everyone kind of knew that most shitcoins aren't actively updating their code or adding new features. And yobit is one of the worst exchanges out there, or at let's say it's where you go to find shitcoins.

I don't mean this post to disparage the information you provided. Just saying that anyone involved with crypto should have well been aware of this ages ago.

In my opinion, BTC maximalists are just hawking their viewpoints because either they have a weird notion of how the marketplace works or are just looking for a short term gain. To them, BTC is all that is needed, and every other coin is a 'shitcoin'.

Which is a totally weird way to look at it. I agree, BTC probably wouldn't survive without altcoins, at least not as we know it currently. Where would volume come from? Where would crypto innovation? Or real world use (which admittedly even alts haven't done much of yet, but they tend to serve different functions than BTC)? Or hype?

BTC is compared to digital gold, and that probably will be its eventual function. But has anyone here looked at gold as an actual investment?  It doesn't tend to do the crazy parabolic hike thing, nor is there much hype outside of survivalists and late night infomercials over gold. So it's not exactly a world changing thing if btc becomes 'digital gold'. Yes, it serves a purpose, but it's not something folks will get overly hyped about.

And as a currency BTC is kind  of like using the worst debit card ever devised by man. Tons of alts would make better currencies than BTC.

So to those who feel BTCs should be king and that's it, alts not needed, I think either they are deluded or are looking for a short term spike and exit strategy.

I don't quite get why KYC is required for most bounties, since bounties typically don't hold any value to start with. So it's equivalent to giving someone digital monopoly money worth exactly $0. So how does that relate to money laundering exactly? Why would anyone care if you are giving away something worthless and there is no fund transfer, so nothing could possibly be laundered?

And of course most bounties tend to range from $0 to like $50 ... we aren't talking about Walter White level of money transfers here...

I wonder if a lot of campaigns request KYC simply because they are running presales or ICOs, or whatever, and expect bounty people to buy into their coin? Then KYC would be required, but I expect 99%+ of bounty people are after free coin and are not looking to invest.

Could be a correction, could be whales going to alts to feed, who knows. BTC dominance is a teensy bit lower too. I find it amusing and odd when anyone here acts like they know exactly what will happen in relation to crypto. If they were that smart, they'd be zillionaires and wouldn't likely be posting here anymore.

I probably don't need to remind you that the last insane alt season occurred while btc was collapsing as well. Not that I expect that to occur again, as I don't, but altcoins tend to do their thing when BTC isn't in full-on bull mode ... so long as BTC can stabilize at some number, then alts could of course recover.

Not necessarily. Then again, it depends a bit if you mean a recovery in fiat or more of a recovery against btc.

Remember the last big altcoin season occurred when btc hit a high then started collapsing. We here are just assuming BTC will hit 20K or higher again, but it may be a while (or never) for that to happen. Perhaps 13K was BTC's current bullrun high and the next couple of months will be a slow decline? If so, whales will need to look somewhere else to make money. That's where BTC dominance could decrease as whales start feeding in altcoin waters.

So nobody knows what way it'll go. It could be a 2-3 month altcoin season starting soon... or we wait until after the BTC halvening.

I think there are various ways to look at it. Those expecting alts to take off in fiat probably will be disappointed, at least short term anyway. With btc also down, alts would need to work extra hard to recoup any losses in fiat.

However against btc it's a little bit of a different story. Some feel alts have already hit their lows against btc ... many have been crushed to smithereens already. Of course junk coins can always go lower and lower, but for decent coins they tend to hold at a certain level. And yeah, right now against btc, most alts are holding their own or having slight gains. So give it some time, very possible alts do a little run (against btc) during the next month or two ... not a crazy alt season, but at this point any improvement at all is at least something.

Or indirectly Bakkt was responsible... the whale may have used the lackluster Bakkt response as a sign to dump his coins. Or the whale is just playing normal whale games, chomping up cheaper coins after his dump, who knows.

Generally speaking, big or little events, whether good or bad (exchange hacks, regulations, libra, Bakkt, etf news, developer sneezing) seem more like excuses for whales to do their whale thing, pump or dump, vs organic growth or decline from any actual event.

The fact that btc isn't exactly stable or destined to always go in a straight line upwards tends to get overlooked in these sorts of threads. So when btc is doing great, we see a ton of 'altcoins are doomed, hold and you get rekt' threads. But it's not like btc is some sort of magic coin immune to ever going down. And based on history, this is all cyclical, sometimes btc does well, sometimes alts do.

I don't think we'll see another 10x crazy alt season again for every coin, but that doesn't rule out some alts going up 10x -- especially since many were crushed like 2x or more since this summer. Regardless, it is certainly possible that in the future we'll look back at current alt prices and think 'Only if I bought them when they were so cheap'. I know I do that for ETH and coins 3-4 years ago.

But have you willingly given complete strangers all of your personal information, including a copy of your license or passport, plus utility bill, for $10? I'm not talking about ICOs or exchanges, or where there is a chance of making decent money. I mean bounties that usually pay barely anything. If yes, you are taking a greater risk than most. If no, that means you wouldn't even do your own campaign for free coins ... and that kind of answers your question why it's not exactly taking off.

If you have done cheapo bounties, then I'd recommend you re-evaluate your criteria there and consider the risk involved.

Forget if a project looks like it's worth it ... a zillion scams out there, and plenty have looked like decent projects. There is no way in the world I'd trust complete strangers here like that, no matter how fancy their website looked.

I hope you can at least understand where I am coming from. And why many feel a similar way. It's just too risky for most people. Now if doing the ICO thing, at least then some may take that risk. But nowadays most would prefer going for an IEO ... ICOs, unless from some well known company, probably isn't such a good idea. And you are asking for tips on a bounty campaign, not ICO, so KYC for an ICO is one thing (which I still dislike)... but KYC for a bounty seems ridiculous to a lot of people.

Anyway, I'll mention one other thing that bounty folks tend to like -- a real plan to get the coin on exchanges. So if the team can get the coin on an exchange while the campaign is ongoing, even if it's a smaller (yet not completely dinky) exchange, it's a plus.

I think you have a mistaken notion that folks just dislike KYC because it takes them extra time or is a pain to do. And I guess to some, it is sort of a pain.

But really, it's simply the issue of giving complete strangers all of your personal information + license or passport. And in your campaign, they even go as far as requiring a utility bill. My bank didn't even ask for that much information from me.

It's just too big a risk for most people.

Answer this honestly, if you were asked to provide all of that info from random strangers, all for a grand total of like $10-$50 in bounties, would you willingly do it?  And also figure about half the time the bounty would be completely worthless. I can't fathom why anyone would bother. It's not like the old days anymore when a bounty could be worth 1-2 btc.

The sad thing is, right now we can also say holding BTC can get your Rekt as well. It's not like BTC is somehow immune to the marketplace.