@BitcoinPlusBus

I am mentioning this only, because You wrote our current developer is too busy and the team may outsource work to an alternative developer.

Perhaps we should consider hiring Romano from Viacoin, if he would make an exception for XBC (i guess he already rejected to help many teams asking him),
and if he would generously give us the same amount of new tech he already implemented in Viacoin, after he fixes the AUXPOW bug and after activating SW & LN.
He single-handedly brought Viacoin from version 0.10.11 to version 0.13.2.1 in about 2-3 months of time only, and now it's almost ready to signal.

Check this out, what he has already done for Viacoin:
https://viacoin.org/roadmap/roadmap.png

Viacoin price quadrupled since he started working on it a couple months ago and now almost finished it,
and Viacoin price may possibly still double after successful activation.

At first i was sceptical about SegWit, but it really seems to fix a bunch of issues, while at the same time allowing a whole set of new features, including anonymous
transactions over styx, bi-directional payment channels, smart contracts etc.

We could try to hire Romano as temporary advisor or assistant developer to our current dev.
If we would succeed in engaging him, would be nothing short of a freakin miracle, and we shouldn't even think (!) about trying to re-negotiate a better price than what he asks for.
In case Romano would do the job, i'm offering to contribute 30% of his cost (as long as 100% overall cost won't be higher than $20k).
And i would urge others who are invested in XBC to join me with some percentages at least, and maybe we could already raise nearly 50% of the development cost this way,
so the fund would have to pay only the remaining other half.

All which i wrote above is of course provided, the team and community would want to go with SegWit, Lightning Network and all the advanced features it will allow.
If the team is divided or undecided about it, we could have the community vote on it.

Love you all my dear XBC fellows !!

@Egghead
@BitcoinPlusBus
@rushmybitcoin

Sorry guys for bothering again, but there is still something i wanted to ask You about.
I know our dev is working on enabling the wallet's internal messaging by-default.

And while i believe easy functionality is a good thing per se, i'm still a little worried about it's safety & security implications, especially for 24/7 staking nodes.
I admit i'm unable to assess, whether the messaging enabled by-default feature will mean a higher risk exposure to hacks or an increase of potential attack area.
But IF it will even mean just a SLIGHTLY higher risk of accounts (public keys) being spied upon, or having their IP's or onion-IP's sniffed out, for example by
unwanted incoming messages, SPAM or even outspoken threats,
i hope it's not too late already, to propose and appeal to our dev, to at least include a checkbox in the properties, for completely disabling the messaging.
I mean in a way, that when its disabled over the checkbox, that the messaging feature connection cannot be established and is permanently interrupted,
so that when disabled it's basically missing all the needed console commands (like in previous wallet version) which it needs to work.

In case the messaging is disabled, the data packets containing the message information should not even make it through to the other side,
and not that these data packets are coming through, regardless of checkbox setting, and are just not being displayed if disabled. I think you know what i'm trying to say.

I was thinking specifically about the security of accounts holding 50+ coins (but after further price increases, even accounts with less coins might feel concerned or get nervous),
and of course always-on staking nodes, whose operators simply do not need or not even want enabled by-default messaging.
I hope you will forgive me, if you think i wrote something stupid, but please consider, not all wallet users might feel the same about the messaging feature,
and the users will increase a lot over time.

Please also include the following providers on your list of payment-processors for a possible future integration:

https://www.altaccept.com/
https://www.edigicash.co/
https://www.expresscoin.com/
https://gourl.io/

Thanks for your attention and the continued efforts.

Previously i noticed on blockexperts block explorer, the following remainder:
"The block explorer hosting period will expire in 13 days. Please contact support to renew the hosting period."
Do you guys feel it's worth to renew it?

@rushmybitcoin
Man, i love your attitude and how committed you are like "impossible" is not even in your vocabulary LOL
You always drag me up whenever i feel helpless and incapable about myself
Hat off, for all the efforts you undertake each day for the community

Meanwhile i got a couple more responses from people that perhaps can help with BTC38.
I'm still evaluating and need to write back and forth still.
As a minimum goal, i'd want to see us at least on BTC38 voting list

@BitcoinPlusBus
Somebody who contacted me had a suggestion, but maybe better a team member gives it a try, will PM you now.

@rushmybitcoin
Good job with Livecoin so far, i'm sure your effort is much appreciated by the whole community !!
Any news on Yobit?
C-CEX votes being carried over to the next voting round? Were you able to figure out what their "free votes" are and how to obtain them?
How long have we been listed last time on C-CEX before they delisted us?

The Bittrex compliance review link: https://bittrex.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/227902667-What-is-a-compliance-review-
reads like a well-articulated excuse for either over-charge (in case of a pass), or outright stealing (in case of failing).
I quote "You may fail" ... after paying $5,000+ ?? Really? They've gotta be joking...
They better have reviewed their mental health state !!

Just imagine paying $5,000+ and then they say "Well thanks for the money, and by the way, you failed our compliance review. We are SO SORRY, really."
Even the possibility of something like that happening is sickening to the bone. They should be ashamed for treating people in such a way.
It only requires a minimum of decency (which they obviously are lacking) for somebody to realize, that no honest enterprise can do shit like that.

And of course no word about their delisting policy or level of patience with lower volume coins, as if it doesn't even matter to a community paying $5,000+
i'm sure to them it certainly doesn't matter, whenever they decide to delist a coin after having paid $5,000+ and passed their scammy "compliance review".
So even after a successful listing, we would be subject to Bittrex' arbitrariness, which may be similar with most other exchanges too, but at least not all of
them ask for so much money and without any guarantees whatsoever.
For such an amount of money they are asking, they would need to GUARANTEE not only a listing, but also to NOT DELIST for at least 3+ years to come,
and regardless of trading volume. Then we could at least think about negotiating a better price and maybe even paying it.

How much volume would Bittrex even bring us? 20-30% of Polo at best?
They are clearly overestimating their position here. (probably a byproduct of their mental illness)
I would have liked to see us listed on Bittrex again, but not at any cost and not if we need to make fools out of ourselves, for the amusement of these clowns.
Lets forget about them, and not even tweet them anymore, because at some point they will perceive us to be pathetic and desperate.
I'd suggest lets IGNORE them until they approach us and list us for FREE.
And if this day never comes, we will do fine even without them.

I'm 100% sure their "compliance review" is nothing but a money extortion they use for coins which they believe "need Bittrex".
Coins which they already know, don't need Bittrex at all, will get listed for free.
This is all bullcrap, and i know it, because Dash completely failed the Howey Test (reason it was banned by Apple and other Forbes500 companies), and yet got
listed by Bittrex and most likely even for free. There you have it, Dash would never have been listed at Bittrex, if their "compliance review" would even exist.
It's just a racket to extort smaller coins.

In comparison, BTC38 and Coincheck would bring us another 100-200% of Polo volume, not combined, but each one of them.
It will be a hard task to accomplish, and i can't promise anything, but i will keep on trying.

Ok guys, have been working all day on BTC38.

And i failed miserably in establishing contact with them.
Feeling like a beaten dog right now
But i'll keep pushing

The private contact e-mail of the BTC38 CEO is apparently not working any longer.
I'm not sure, but my impression is, that after the BTCTRADE/Jubi acquisition of BTC38 it is even harder to
get a coin listed and to deal with them, than it was previously. But i could be wrong on this.
Maybe we need to directly deal with BTCTRADE concerning a BTC38 listing, as they are the new owners.

Still awaiting a couple responses (hopefully), from people that might be in a position to help us with BTC38.
Only good thing i can report so far: need to wait about 5 weeks for somebody to return back home, then he
shall give me a contact e-mail from an english-speaking chinaman in Missouri, who has dealt with BTC38 in
the past (and is likely still dealing with them), who could eventually help us getting listed there.

Something else to consider regarding BTC38:
Our Mammix2 who is also the dev of BoostCoin (BOST), which is already listed on BTC38, could be able to help.
He sure already dealt with BTC38 and maintains some relationship with them, as he needed their approval for
fixing BoostCoin blockchain.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=601965.0

Would be glad if someone of the team could ask him about a BTC38 listing, really need some reinforcement, as
i'm biting on granite

@Egghead
(Sorry i've read your posting only after my last posting.)

That's great if You guys have the opportunity to ask him about it.
But please make sure, he doesn't assume that we expect Polo to deal with Coincheck for free.
Let him know we are eager (!) to pay for it, IF there is a way for Polo.

@rushmybitcoin

Well if Livecoin's reported volume figures are legit, i believe Livecoin is a good exchange.
However, on Livecoin's "About us" and "Contact us" site, i was unable to find their contact address and where their headquarters are physically located.
Do you know in which country Livecoin is based?

What do You think about Liqui?
They have less reported volume than Livecoin, but also only half as much coins listed on their exchange.

I believe XBC price performance & volume would gain the most, by succeeding in getting it listed on HIGH VOLUME exchanges with a VERY LIMITED coin selection.
It is my conviction that BTC38 (only about 30-35 markets) and Coincheck (only 12 markets so far), would bring us the most volume.
(provided that after a listing, the order book's sell side doesn't remain empty of course)
Therefore i'm offering to donate at least the listing cost of one of these two exchanges (Coincheck or BTC38).
But Coincheck may likely only be achievable, if Poloniex deals with them on our behalf, and we pay Poloniex for making it happen.
And only the team can ask or negotiate with Poloniex about the feasibility of a Coincheck listing, the cost, and the conditions regarding Coincheck liquidity and delisting threat.
(so we at least know what we get in return, before we pay for it, and won't blow money for nothing)

As for BTC38:
For example, Zcoin's (XZC) BTC38-volume is daily 4-5 times higher than its Bittrex volume.
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/zcoin/#markets
The Dash volume at BTC38 is almost 70% of the Bittrex volume, but still a healthy $500k daily volume.
If we could get only 20% (!) of the volume of these coins on BTC38, it would already top and surpass our current Poloniex volume !!

Personally i like BTC38 the most from all potential new exchanges, and i would LOVE to see XBC listed there trading against the Yuan. (of course provided the team is not against it)
And i would go to great lengths to make a BTC38 listing a reality, including to pay entirely for it (if Coincheck won't be feasible anyway).
I would also be willing to put up XBC sell orders on BTC38, using a portion of my retirement savings,
and do this on a daily basis (!) over an extended timeframe, until there would be enough other XBC sell orders in their book.

I will contact the boss of BTC38 over his private e-mail and ask him some hypothetical questions about a listing, the costs, delisting threat etc.
Thereafter, if you guys from the team agree with a BTC38 listing, and give the go-ahead, i will pay for it, and put up the sell orders there.

Asia will make XBC grow to the next stage, and these would be the BEST two asian exchanges so far.
(South Korean exchanges like Bithumb, Korbit or Coinone are still too small and in their infancy)

I'm quite sure, the chance to get Coincheck to list XBC is even smaller than 1% (judging from the market-caps of their 12 listed coins),
UNLESS we demand assistance from Poloniex and pay Poloniex for dealing with Coincheck and making this happen, by Poloniex asking this
favour from Coincheck or just forcing them.
(however this is based on the assumption Coincheck is really just Poloniex' japanese broker and intermediary)

My offer is still valid, that i will donate the cost of this "service fee" that Poloniex would ask for a Coincheck listing, as long as it's a reasonable amount.
Only condition i would have, is that Coincheck will get access to Poloniex XBC liquidity (or a portion thereof) and Coincheck putting up their own XBC sell orders in their order book.
And that Coincheck will assure Poloniex NOT to subsequently delist XBC within preferably the next 36 months (or 18 months minimum), despite of a possible low volume.

But i will leave it to the team, to decide whether they want to ask Poloniex for such assistance, or not.
To achieve a Coincheck listing i can see no other feasible way IMO

@rushmybitcoin
@BitcoinPlusBus

Guys, the banner ad looks fantastic, it's really awesome !!
With so many impressions this is gonna be HUGE, i reckon it's gonna hit like a bomb

Would be good to know, if the C-CEX votes will at least be carried over to the next voting round or rather being reseted.
And what are "free votes" and how to vote for free or how to obtain them? No explanation on their site...
Is this voting procedure the exclusive way to get a coin listed on C-CEX or just the "cheap way" ?
C-CEX is writing 3 sentences under "Rules" and expecting everyone to fully comprehend how this voting shit works?

This voting-for-listing is sort of impersonal and distant.
I believe it's always better to establish a personal relationship with an exchange based on trust and honesty, if possible.
And if they are unable to conduct a civilized conversation or exchange of thoughts, or don't have the time or willingness to do so,
it's usually a very bad sign and maybe even a hint we are dealing with complete crooks.
And sadly, i got the impression with many exchanges it's not even possible to establish such a relationship.

What i don't like about C-CEX is that they are constantly listing a whole lot of shitcoins and constantly delisting just as many.
Does anyone here know about the delisting policy of C-CEX and how it works, or what level of volume must be reached to remain listed?

Paying for something is one thing, IF we know what we really get in return, what amount of patience they have with lower volume coins,
how they decide about delistings and how fast a delisting can take place.
But judging from the amount of coins they list and delist, i'd guess they won't have much patience if they don't earn enough commissions and soon.
Without knowing their delisting policy and personally sorting things out with them, we could easily blow money for nothing,
if we get delisted within 4-10 weeks after a listing.

I'll take your word for it

@rushmybitcoin

Yobit is not a bad exchange at all, it surely is a good move.
Hopefully Yobit's order book will soon fill up with orders and without too wide of a bid-ask spread(slippage).
Well done, and thanks to the whole team for making this happen !!

You mentioned "press release platforms" in your last posting.
Maybe also consider giving a look to www.ereleases.com !
I believe they have a pretty good reputation if judging from past customer experiences, and are offering a
first-time customer discount, if i recall right.

@BitcoinPlusBus
@rushmybitcoin
@Egghead

Sorry for bothering again, but i forgot to mention in my last posting:
Provided a listing on Coincheck is in the interest of the team, i would offer to pay it either entirely or a portion thereof,
depending upon the amount of the cost that Polo would ask, for them dealing with Coincheck and get XBC listed there.

My only condition would be, that if Polo could make it happen for a specific cost, that it would mean that Coincheck would
have access to Polo's XBC liquidity (or at least of a portion), and that Coincheck (!) would put up at least the XBC sell orders
at various price levels. (and not just relying upon Coincheck's customers to put up the sell orders)
Because paying for having it listed with an empty order book wouldn't be much helpful, as we already know.

I'd estimate, it could mean a doubling, if not a tripling, of daily trading volume, because the japanese investors and traders
have a very different mentality and might simply be more open-minded, less risk-averse and generally less discriminatory in
their attitude.
Also the selection of coins there is much more limited, that would probably mean a higher percentage of the exchange's
turnover flowing into XBC.

@BitcoinPlusBus

Thank you for your reply, much appreciated.
However, i am not sure if it even makes much sense to directly approach japanese Coincheck exchange.
Given the fact that all the other 12 coins listed on Coincheck have 50-200 times higher market-caps and much more trading volume.
I anticipate, if contacting Coincheck directly, they might react indifferent and without much interest in listing XBC.

The way i would go about it, if we want see XBC listed on there, is to demand assistance from Poloniex in having it listed at Coincheck,
in an assumptive phrasing implying we KNOW Polo is in a position to make it happen, either by ordering Coincheck to do so, or by exerting
some coercion and pressuring them, or just by Polo asking from Coincheck this favour, and leave it to Polo to deal with Coincheck.
And Polo could just give us a price quote, for dealing with Coincheck and make it happen.
Because if Coincheck is really just Polo's japanese broker, it will probably be the only way to get XBC listed there, but that's just my opinion.
It could make all the difference, whether just a team member is asking Coincheck, or if Poloniex itself is asking Coincheck for this favour.

@Egghead
@BitcoinPlusBus

Is anybody else over here a little worried about the apparent shrinking of buy support on Polo's market depth view?
Of course i'm aware this is not the first time happening and was similar in the past on several occasions also.

Something else which i think is a bit scary is the tough competition between the different altcoins.
If i recall right, in february of this year, the #100 ranking on coinmarketcap just required about $1.1m market-cap,
while currently the #100 ranking on coinmarketcap requires already a market-cap of $8.8m !!
If this remarkable pace of growth is a lasting trend, then without exaggeration, by year-end it may require a market-cap
of $100m just for the #100 ranking on coinmarketcap, which i think is a frightening perspective, to say the least.
But this might be exactly what we are up against, and sadly it may be a race against time itself.
And nothing short of some multi-facetted, ingenious maneuvering may keep us mid-term even within #200 rankings.
I sure don't have the answers myself, on how to outgrow the tough competition, so please forgive me, i'm just writing
down some thoughts, without intention to spread any negativity whatsoever.
But what XBC may need, in order to keep and defend its global ranking, is a constant and more regular influx of fresh capital.

@rushmybitcoin
May i ask you, when you made contact with BTC38, were you able to quantify a specific amount of bribe money, they
would ask for an instant and permanent listing of XBC (without the possibility of a delisting) ??
BTC38 is probably the best chinese altcoin exchange and with the highest volumes and biggest selection of altcoins in China,
and one of the two asian exchanges which would help XBC the most.
If we could get listed on BTC38, i could help to put up some XBC liquidity there, by using a portion of my retirement savings
to buy XBC tokens from Polo and send them to BTC38 (on a daily basis), while using the CNY sale proceedings to buy BTC
there and send them back to Poloniex in order to buy more XBC to transfer there.
It could be a little annoying, but i would do it, if it helps.
And maybe we could negotiate with BTC38 to set the commissions to zero, just for the account that constantly brings in the
XBC tokens and needs to recycle the sale proceedings for keeping doing so.

The other asian exchange which i'm sure would bring in literally insane amounts of volume, is japanese #1 exchange COINCHECK,
considered to be the "japanese Poloniex" there.

https://coincheck.com/exchange/

Japan is surpassing China in cryptocurrency trading volume and fast becoming the asian crypto stronghold #1.
There is an article, suggesting that there may be a hidden link or a covert relationship between U.S.-based Poloniex and
japanese COINCHECK exchange, or that Poloniex may even secretly own or partially own COINCHECK, or have some other
vested interests in this japanese #1 exchange.

You may find it interesting to read:

https://medium.com/@coin_and_peace/additional-evidence-for-the-japanese-led-cryptocurrency-bubble-2c13ab2a4d49

If there is something true about these rumours, and there really is an already established relationship between Poloniex and
COINCHECK, it could mean, that there could be a relatively easy way, to give the japanese audience FULL ACCESS to the
Poloniex liquidity of XBC tokens. And this could make all the difference for BitcoinPlus, if we succeed in getting it listed over there.
And Poloniex may be in a position to even "force" COINCHECK to list us, despite we are much smaller than most other listed coins
on COINCHECK.
Depending on the depth of their relationship or ownership relations, there could really be an easy way to give to the japanese
access to Poloniex liquidity, almost directly, yet them using simply the localized, Japan-based "Polo" to buy it.

@BitcoinPlusBus
@rushmybitcoin
@Egghead

@mastertrader777

I'm sure many in the BitcoinPlus community would love to see XBC added to Bittrex.
And if only for the reason, Bittrex is America's 2nd biggest exchange (in terms of volume per market),
Bittrex is also one of the more secure, reliable, trusted and well-funded marketplaces out there, with lots of traders.
While i believe Poloniex should of course remain our main and principal exchange, but as BitcoinPlus is growing bigger
in size and scope, it shouldn't rely almost exclusively on Poloniex alone and remain completely dependent upon Poloniex.
The recent scaling issues of Poloniex and the continued DDoS attacks have demonstrated, how vulnerable a single
exchange could become at a given point in time, and therefore reducing at least some of BitcoinPlus' dependency
from Poloniex, by trying to list it at Bittrex also, should be a good thing over time.

I agree with BitcoinPlusBus that simply just paying 3 BTC to Bittrex for a listing (if it were possible), may not be sufficient
in the case of BitcoinPlus, for us to get the result we look for: a healthy trading volume on Bittrex without too much of a
risk of getting delisted from Bittrex again. (otherwise we would have just blown 3 BTC for basically nothing, as he said)
If we would just pay 3 BTC to Bittrex, and Bittrex lists XBC (without holding themselves any liquidity for putting up their
own bids & offers), it may result in an almost empty order book, or only very few tokens up for sale, if all orders placed
would solely rely on Bittrex' customers to put up. We would potentially witness a "dead market", even after having paid
3 BTC for getting listed, with the constant risk of being delisted again, if the market doesn't earn Bittrex enough commissions.

It may require some more organizing and proper, extensive talks with Bittrex, to make sure a listing on Bittrex will most likely
be a success. I am not sure how Bittrex' market-making software works or can be configured, but its quite possible that it
supports different "mode" settings, like "customer bids & offers only" (where Bittrex owns no liquidity and making no BTC bids either),
and in contrast another "mode" in which Bittrex holds some or even a vast liquidity and putting up its own bids & offers too,
with the possibility of even generating some (maybe adjustable?) wash trade volume (if need be), to make the market not
seem "dead" to other traders.

We need a clearer picture, about the different options available from Bittrex and how they could best assist us, or even help
us make sure (!!), that a listing on Bittrex turns into a success, and the trading volume can have an organic, natural growth over time.

A couple of question to workout with Bittrex, would be:


1) Does it really cost 3 BTC in every case, even if we were already listed in the past? (and the needed due diligence already done then)
As we are still a small coin with limited funding and limited financial capabilities.

2) Is our impression right, that Bittrex is putting up their own bids & offers also, and not just customer bids & offers,
and is this true for all, most or only some markets?

3) Does Bittrex want or need, prefer, or even require a certain amount of liquidity (certain minimum/maximum percentage of the circulating supply)
of a coin to be listed, for its own market-making?
Or does Bittrex also list coins without holding itself any of the liquidity, relying exclusively on bids & offers put up by their customers?

4) Is it possible, and in which cases, to obtain some wash trade volume from their market-making system,
rather than such a new market seeming dead or immovable and without much action for most of the time?

5) In which ways does Bittrex usually obtain the needed liquidity?
Does Bittrex simply buy it from other exchanges, and are they even willing to spend the needed BTC to this end?
Does Bittrex prefer lending contracts / long-term re-payment deals with developers/teams, who provide them with the liquidity?
Does Bittrex have any objections in bartering some liquidity with another exchange? (for coins other than BTC)

6) How does Bittrex decide about delistings, is it just a question of a certain threshold of commissions earned,
and how can a future delisting be prevented or affordably circumvented, or at least its risk considerably reduced?


It can be hard or even impossible for us to make a Bittrex listing a reality, let alone a success (!), without us knowing the answers to these tough questions.
But knowing them should help us, because some things we might be able to influence or at least facilitate, while some other facts might just
show us, what we are still missing, or which goals or requirements we need to meet and which obstacles to overcome for making a listing a success,
so then we can work more precisely and determined to achieve it.

We could also think about setting up a donation address for funding the 3 BTC if there is really no way around it, and i would donate a little.
But before spending it, we should make sure what we really get in return, or even be pretty confident about the listing becoming a success,
so we won't be disappointed afterwards.

Guys, do you believe the XBC trade volume reported by Crypto Dao exchange @coinmarketcap is real ??
I got the impression, well, i mean the suspicion, that the volume reported by Crypto Dao is largely fake.

A couple weeks ago the volume figure that Crypto Dao reported for XBC was about as high as the Poloniex
volume, and at times even higher than the Poloniex volume, and for some days i recall it was even listed
#1 volume exchange for XBC, lol

Looks like they are fishing for new customers using exaggerated volume figures.
Their website still needs a lot of improvement, but i guess we all gotta start somewhere...

@BitcoinPlusBus
@bitcoinplusorg
@rushmybitcoin
@Egghead


Even if Bittrex isn't stating what their real reasons are, for not listing XBC, it is probably all about their necessity of getting liquidity, in order to enlist XBC.
I'm not 100% positive (but pretty sure), that Bittrex (just like Poloniex) has its own market-making, putting up both, bids & offers (not just from its customers!) and likely even generating some wash trade volume.
If they enlist XBC without either acquiring the minimum amount of liquidity they deem necessary, or alternatively are able to obtain the liquidity under a lending contract/ long-term repayment deal,
Bittrex just knows, that relying exclusively upon customer bids & offers, it would just result in another orphaned XBC market without any real volume at all,
something that doesn't help them (in making money off commissions), nor helps XBC much.
Bittrex probably knows, because of the relatively high staking rewards of XBC, they have little to no chance, to obtain the needed liquidity under such a lending deal.
Also, Bittrex may just have no inclination or little willingness, in themselves acquiring the amount of liquidity they deem necessary, from Poloniex.
Because it would mean, that Bittrex would have to put up a whole stack of money, which they may simply be unwilling to do.

With rising price of XBC, it will not get any easier to somehow "provide" premium exchanges with the XBC liquidity they need for market-making and for putting up their own bids & offers.
And frankly, in order to get it listed on Bittrex or any other premium exchange with its own market-making, it will eventually come with some kind of (heavy) price-tag for us as a community.
What i'm trying to say is, if we want to succeed in listing XBC on Bittrex, we need to make it for them as easy, cheap, convenient and comfortable as possible, then they won't refuse to list it.

I'm not sure, how many coins Bittrex would deem necessary to hold as liquidity, in order to list XBC, but i guess it's something between 2,500 to 4,000 coins at least, which of course cost a lot.
Now, what we could do to accomplish this goal, is to first find out how much liquidity Bittrex would need or want to have, for listing XBC (without demanding any payment), just so we know and
we could try to work out a solution, once we know it.
One possible solution could be, that we establish a liquidity pot (for Bittrex listing), which then after reaching its funding goal would be handed over to Bittrex under such a lending contract, but
where all "donators" could count upon a long-term repayment from Bittrex (through their earned XBC commissions). Not an ideal solution, and of course it would require some organizing and oversight.

I can only see one other, easier and more convenient solution to this problem, but it would require the cooperation between Poloniex and Bittrex, namely the bartering of coins between Poloniex
and Bittrex (or at least for 50-70% of the amount of liquidity needed by them), then we could find an easier fix for providing the remainder liquidity.
We would need to know a coin listed on Bittrex (but not listed on Poloniex so far), but which Poloniex intends to enlist soon.
So instead Poloniex needing to suck up liquidity on Bittrex, Poloniex could just barter a portion of their XBC coins for these other coins they would need from Bittrex.
Right now, there could even be such an opportunity for us, but we would need to act soon and check with both exchanges, whether they would have any other objections.
(unfortunately, Poloniex may not want to lose any XBC liquidity or lose any market-share in XBC trading volume to Bittrex, and we would need to deal with it somehow)

Bittrex holds about 21.5 million Trustcoins (TRST).
And Poloniex may intend to list Trustcoin (TRST) soon or within a couple of weeks, after having resolved their scaling and network issues. (it's still not listed now)
The Poloniex wallet of Trustcoin seems still pretty much empty, but it already exists, you can verify over here:

Bittrex Trustcoin wallet: https://etherscan.io/token/Trustcoin?a=0xfbb1b73c4f0bda4f67dca266ce6ef42f520fbb98
Poloniex Trustcoin wallet: https://etherscan.io/token/Trustcoin?a=0x32be343b94f860124dc4fee278fdcbd38c102d88

I'm not sure, but it *could* be a viable opportunity for us, to get XBC listed on Bittrex, if the team would propose to both exchanges the bartering of some amount of liquidity between their XBC and TRST coins.
But as i said, it would of course require the cooperation of Poloniex and Bittrex, without any of them having further objections to why one party may refuse to such a barter.
Of course, they would need to negotiate an exchange rate between the two currencies, for the amount of liquidity they would trade among them.
And possibly Poloniex may only want to relinquish to a smaller amount of liquidity, and not the entire liquidity demanded or needed by Bittrex for a listing of XBC, but this way, we could at least raise
a portion of the liquidity needed by Bittrex this way, and find a complementary solution for the remainder liquidity thereafter, which then is easier for us to solve.

I think we all agree (and also Poloniex needs to acknowledge), that as XBC is growing and maturing, Poloniex shouldn't remain the single and only pillar upon which XBC relies.
Getting XBC listed on 2 additional premium exchanges (3 in total incl. Poloniex), would be a sound mid-term goal to achieve, but unfortunately it's an uphill battle about liquidity of course.
And a further raising price, will not make it any easier in future, even if the supply is slowly growing, but price may just grow even faster, thus complicating the providing of liquidity.

XBC is one of the best coins out there and we already have the best team, but the competition is tough, and getting tougher, and there are still a couple of hurdles to take.

Sadly Polo daily volume is now shrinking by the day, just like the support (buyers) side.

I noticed two other chinese exchanges bringing in healthy daily volume constantly in Yuan fiat markets,
at least for Vertcoin (VTC), namely 19800 exchange and Jubi exchange, check it out here:

http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/vertcoin/#markets

If we could succeed in getting XBC listed on all three chinese exchanges, BTC38, 19800 and Jubi,
i am pretty sure and confident, the daily inflow of fresh chinese capital would propel XBC price to $250
within a couple of months only.
(provided there are enough chinese traders constantly transfering liquidity from Polo to these exchanges,
or else we would need our own mechanism of transfering the required liquidity demanded in these Yuan fiat markets)
Of course, its another discussion, whether we even want a considerable amount of XBC tokens in chinese hands.

But we must also accept reality, unfortunately on western exchanges there is still little interest and little demand
for XBC coins, and sadly it may not change for the better.
Most likely we will see only an increase in interest and demand on western exchanges, IF we manage to get a
market-cap ranking within the TOP35 currencies at least, corresponding to about $20m market-cap (as of now),
because only then we would get a lot more attention and many more eyes even noticing the existence of BitcoinPlus.
XBC is facing a tough competition from highfly newcomers like Stratis, PIVX and Viacoin.
Unfortunately it's also a struggle against time, in getting to the upper rankings of market-cap, because in about
6 months, it will most likely require already $40m market-cap, and 6 months later even $60m market-cap in order
to get ranked within the TOP35.

No amount of listings on other western or even russian exchanges may result in the daily trading volume required
for XBC to finally become a self-runner. I admit Bittrex could help a little, provided (!) it would not piss off Polo.
Bittrex usually has something between 10-30% of Polo daily volume for most markets listed on both exchanges.
But most other western or russian exchanges will do little to nothing for the grow of XBC, just by the act of listing it.