|
Binance Exchange has become the world's largest cryptocurrency trading platform now, after starting operations only in July 2017. And over these three years of operations, we have experienced good things only. Its reputation, liquidity, also seem some hard decisions to delist a few coins as they were not meeting certain criteria, and so on. The launch of BNB also worked as a catalyst for the reputation of Binance and there is no doubt that it will remain the number 1 exchange in the future also. So, no matter it has acquired conmarketcap, it deserves that position.
|
|
|
|
|
As your survey speaks, checking the project's rating on ICO rating website is one of the criteria or point in the checklist to judge the project. However, this is not mandatory to have the information and rating about the project on that rating website. Even though we see that some good rating projects also not doing well or turned out to be a scam, we can not trust that information. Based on our own research, MVP, team contacts, product development, and the concept should be part of our judgment of that project.
|
|
|
|
|
As we see there is no "utility" of exchange token outside its own exchange, they even don't list on other exchanges. As you say, if the exchange gets shut down, there is no value to that token, because its meant for that exchange for fees purposes only.
We should see exchanges as a project in which token is only used within its own ecosystem and not useful outside it.
The hybrid utility we see in BNB token. This is not possible for small exchanges.
|
|
|
|
|
At least we can have IEOs as a trusted method when it is on renowned exchanges. ICOs are managed by the projects itself but its not trustworthy. Maytimes it is observed with few ICOs that they don't update the fund raised value until it is completed.
There was another method applied by a few projects like VELIc is IAO. Initial auction offering. I think as far as fund raising is transparent and with trust, any method should work fine.
|
|
|
|
|
You are correct. Bounties managed by the project team themselves, we have to be extra cautious. One reason I see apart from the change of rules is too much delay in distribution. Having said so, there is no guarantee that we will get paid what was agreed, with bounties managed by bounty managers. " We are only managing Bounty Campaigns and are not responsible for any delay or project success. Please do your own research before joining the bounty." This statement we see in may bounties and represents no guarantee about our payment in many cases.
|
|
|
|
|
Projects with very low potential or even scam projects produce "this coin is dead" or " this is shit coin" statement. Still, there are many good altcoins out there to invest in. These should be among the top 10 or 20 list. The perception has now changed over the last two years now. Looking at Bitcoin's price, everyone wants his/her altcoin should give that much appreciation within a short duration, which is not possible. I think investors need to give some time to develop these coins and to get a better price.
|
|
|
|
|
The most important reason I see is, Bitcoin has now become a universal coin. If we take any projects of altcoins, their usage is limited to their functionality only. For example, if any project is for advertising, their token or coin can not be used beyond advertising or rewards within its ecosystem. On the other side, use cases for Bitcoin are not limited and can be incorporated in any projects anywhere as a payment method irrespective of the industry.
This is the main reason, Bitcoin is still leader in this market and wont be dominated in future as well.
|
|
|
|
|
I see most of the projects fail to raise enough funds for their development. Due to a lack of funds, they probably cancel the project or deviate from their roadmap. Or even due to budget issues, they are not able to list their token or coin on desired exchanges. Also, since such projects are not backed up with enough money for marketing, they prefer marketing via bounty which is very cheap for them.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are right. Scammers are taking advantage of the popularity of gold and silver and creating Ponzi projects with blockchain technology. I think such precious commodities should be kept away from tokenization. There is simple logic that in the first place these commodities are very expensive and again digitizing it costs more. So even if any project is legit, I doubt its existence in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, we experienced the same type of distribution as CARTESI. Still, the third phase is yet to be distributed. I think it will be done around 22 July. This is actually good practice to avoid dump. But I always think that with 1 -2 % of total supply allocation for bounty, even if all that tokens are sold, how it affects the entire price. I mean the price could go down for a certain period but still, most part is hold by investors, private investors and by the team. So, from my point of view, bounty hunters are not solely responsible for price dump
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
