[ANN] Lykke - Trade Bitcoin, Ethereum, FX and Digital Assets

[playingpoodles]

Coinmarket cap gets to decide what to include in a coin's marketcap. It chooses coins in free float. Whether this is right has been argued at length all over Reddit and Bitcointalk. I have my own view, but that's not important, what's important is coinmarketcap's view, and I think they're entitled to it. Ie. they're not breaking any law or regulation by doing it their way.

I don't see why everyone is so keen to see LKK's full value list on coinmarketcap. XRP people used to demand the same thing (coinmarketcap didn't oblige). Also don't see why people want the full value of LKK including the super-majority not in free float in the owners wallets published. A lot of people have bought into LKK thinking it's a "bargain" at the $50-something million mark. If they saw it was close to $400 million, it wouldn't look like such a bargain.

[mtnsaa]

Coinmarket cap gets to decide what to include in a coin's marketcap. It chooses coins in free float. Whether this is right has been argued at length all over Reddit and Bitcointalk. I have my own view, but that's not important, what's important is coinmarketcap's view, and I think they're entitled to it. Ie. they're not breaking any law or regulation by doing it their way.

I don't see why everyone is so keen to see LKK's full value list on coinmarketcap. XRP people used to demand the same thing (coinmarketcap didn't oblige). Also don't see why people want the full value of LKK including the super-majority not in free float in the owners wallets published. A lot of people have bought into LKK thinking it's a "bargain" at the $50-something million mark. If they saw it was close to $400 million, it wouldn't look like such a bargain.

I agree it's a non-issue for me but there are some who think it's unfair for certain projects. However one can see the CMC side too, they really can't have a proper standard for so many different projects, it's impossible. They can however improve and make it easier to sort them, maybe even group certain similar projects by mining method, ERC20 tokens, shares, funds, whatever so the user can have better information available when researching one. In some cases you can do that already but I find it quiet complicated.

At the end of the day most newcomers and even experienced people like us just look at the main site and top 100. I don't think there's a completely fair or easy rule to "fix" that.

[tempus]

Coinmarket cap gets to decide what to include in a coin's marketcap. It chooses coins in free float. Whether this is right has been argued at length all over Reddit and Bitcointalk. I have my own view, but that's not important, what's important is coinmarketcap's view, and I think they're entitled to it. Ie. they're not breaking any law or regulation by doing it their way.

I don't see why everyone is so keen to see LKK's full value list on coinmarketcap. XRP people used to demand the same thing (coinmarketcap didn't oblige). Also don't see why people want the full value of LKK including the super-majority not in free float in the owners wallets published. A lot of people have bought into LKK thinking it's a "bargain" at the $50-something million mark. If they saw it was close to $400 million, it wouldn't look like such a bargain.

This is what I've written about the CMC-topic on reddit today:



"There is a difference between a project like Lykke and Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum or nearly countless others: Cryptocurrencies are in a mining or staking process what means: There is an already existing supply and a max supply (like the famous 21 million Bitcoins). In Lykke (but also several other projects) there is already existing supply that is theoretically on the market, because technically it is not locked up, but because it is in the hands of founders, team-members, board-members, seed-Investors, practically it is not on the market. That makes things more complex for a site like CMC of course, especially if they try to find the one rule that fits for all (to differ between circulating and total supply).

And like in some other projects that have different economical designs than Cryptocurrencies, that can lead to some controversy. Some are critical because the total valuation of Lykke is higher than how it is calculated on CMC with circulating supply, some are critical because the majority of supply is not in public hands, but I'm very sure that some also would be critical if that would be the case, because that would seem as if company and founders simply want to sell LKK fast to make money.

To make a long story short: Important is...

• to understand that LKK represents Company-ownership and is not a typical Cryptocurrency
• to do some research and to be informed, not to make important decisions based only on single informations from external websites
  

   


https://www.reddit.com/r/lykke/comments/6nsac1/why_all_this_chaos_on_circulatingtotal_supply/

[tempus]

Nice video about Sergey:

People of Crypto - Sergey Ivliev
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF0zZ5c18L8

[doctor-s]

I'd have less of an issue with CMCs methodology if they made it plain on their website. Calling it "market cap" is misleading. It should plainly state on the front page it's "free float market cap"

I have an issue with it because so many people ask and get confused.

[mtnsaa]

Lykke in Swisscom's FinTech Startup Radar for transparency, professionalism and innovation
Each quarter, Swisscom teams up with e-foresight to publish a radar with selected start-ups that are of relevance to the FinTech sector. The criteria that the start-ups need to meet are as follows:
 
· Transparent business case
· Meets a clear customer requirement
· Investors and/or management have a proven track record
· Professional partners and current customers
· Innovation and market potential

https://www.swisscom.ch/en/business/enterprise/downloads/banking/fintech-startup-radar.html

[tempus]

Lykke Cofounder Receives Grant to Study Impact of Intraday Interest Rates

Lykke cofounder and Chief Science Officer Anton Golub, together with Professor Ser-Huang Poon of Alliance Manchester Business School and Rachel Lidan Grossmass, a postdoctoral researcher at University of Dusseldorf, have won a FinTech seedcorn grant for their project entitled Managing Currency Crises in the Blockchain Era: New Tools for Central Banks.

The purpose of this study is to explore the disruptions caused by blockchain technology in financial markets, specifically the introduction of intraday interest rates.

(...)

https://www.lykke.com/company/news/lykke_cofounder_receives_grant

[playingpoodles]

I suppose if there were some actually relevant news, like Lykke had received ANY license to trade other than a "Vanuatu brokerage license" the LKK price would react. But while I believe Lykke's US rep went so far as to anticipate imminent US regulation in the months ahead during the online AGM (from his laptop at the airport), I view this as unsubstantiated, unprofessional and misleading. He doesn't know IF AND WHEN US regulators will give him approval. What if they do not? What is Lykke's business case then?

This is how a lot of regulators I know work: You apply for a license. They examine your application, and if they're favourable or unfavourable they'll give preliminary written feedback, which of course is market sensitive information and will be immediately released by the company in question. Then later the regulator usually - not always - follows up with a final determination granting or not granting, as the case may be.

Lykke has "got people on it". How we get from that to publically stating likely timeframes within periods of months I don't know - or rather I do: that's what the person promising speedy regulatory approval hopes for. What you hope for isn't likely, and shouldn't be presented to investors as such. I think Lykke's hopes of licensing is an example of this. But let's look at another example, the Winklevoss brothers ETF application. It was rejected. Then a whole lot of "news" outlets in the crypto space started reporting the "news" that the SEC will "review" its decision. This isn't "news", it's a statutory obligation the SEC must offer to ALL applicants whose applications are not frivolous.

I do not like Coindesk, Cointelegraph or whatever manipulating the true nature the situation (eg. the SEC rejection of Winklevoss' ETF) to paint a picture not really aligned to reality. I like even less Lykke which claims to want to be a major financial exchange doing it. To me it's just like manipulation at every level - on the LKK price which users can't control, and then on the roadmap.

[tempus]

I suppose if there were some actually relevant news, like Lykke had received ANY license to trade other than a "Vanuatu brokerage license" the LKK price would react. But while I believe Lykke's US rep went so far as to anticipate imminent US regulation in the months ahead during the online AGM (from his laptop at the airport), I view this as unsubstantiated, unprofessional and misleading. He doesn't know IF AND WHEN US regulators will give him approval. What if they do not? What is Lykke's business case then?

This is how a lot of regulators I know work: You apply for a license. They examine your application, and if they're favourable or unfavourable they'll give preliminary written feedback, which of course is market sensitive information and will be immediately released by the company in question. Then later the regulator usually - not always - follows up with a final determination granting or not granting, as the case may be.

Lykke has "got people on it". How we get from that to publically stating likely timeframes within periods of months I don't know - or rather I do: that's what the person promising speedy regulatory approval hopes for. What you hope for isn't likely, and shouldn't be presented to investors as such. I think Lykke's hopes of licensing is an example of this. But let's look at another example, the Winklevoss brothers ETF application. It was rejected. Then a whole lot of "news" outlets in the crypto space started reporting the "news" that the SEC will "review" its decision. This isn't "news", it's a statutory obligation the SEC must offer to ALL applicants whose applications are not frivolous.

I do not like Coindesk, Cointelegraph or whatever manipulating the true nature the situation (eg. the SEC rejection of Winklevoss' ETF) to paint a picture not really aligned to reality. I like even less Lykke which claims to want to be a major financial exchange doing it. To me it's just like manipulation at every level - on the LKK price which users can't control, and then on the roadmap.

What you post here, is (again) misleading. Michael Klena has explained the process that is about several steps and levels, different regulators with different rules in different locations. And of course, the process is not fully under Lykke control and time frames are hard to predict. He expects limited approvals in certain states by end of the fall. He doesn't say that Lykke will have it all in the next months.

So if you want to give the impression Lykke would have promised SEC-approval any time soon to say that would be misleading and a manipulative attempt - nobody said that.

Please check again what Michael Klena said during the meeting:

https://youtu.be/ELG8HpRCHu8?t=13m45s


This is his comment in a blog-post about regulations:


Michael Klena, Director of Lykke U.S.

The United States has a fragmented regulatory environment, in that different products are overseen by different regulators. Each regulator, in turn, has different levels of approval, depending on regulatory history and segregated capital.

Lykke’s approach is like climbing a ladder. We will get approval for the lowest levels first. Then we can progress to higher and higher rungs. This takes time, but it’s the best way to achieve our goals.

Applications have already been submitted to the SEC, the U.S. Treasury, and the IRS, with the CFTC and OCC to follow shortly. We expect our first approvals for a very limited set of products by the fall. Each quarter, we expect to add more and more products as approvals come in. By the end of 2018, we should be able to trade everything that Lykke offers.
https://www.lykke.com/city/blog/lykke_heat_from_the_global_street


Also in the blog-article he says that he expects approvals for "a very limited set of products" first.


So what has Lykke done wrong here? Shouldn't they talk about the process at all?

[tempus]

Very interesting interview with Demetrios Zamboglou (CEO of Lykke Cyprus and Chief Business Development Officer of Lykke AG) about the importance of Cyprus, regulations and Lykke in general:



Lykke: Cyprus Can Become a Blockchain Transaction Hub

The crypto-secure trading company, Lykke Cyprus, is now entering the final stages of the approval process, that will ultimately establish Lykke as a fully regulated entity, authorised by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission. “Cyprus has always been part of our strategic agenda and an important element of our global expansion plan”, says Demetrios Zamboglou, CEO of Lykke Cyprus and Chief Business Development Officer of Lykke AG. The main reasons why the Board of Directors was attracted to Cyprus were its location, rules and regulation, its established and efficient financial services sector and the availability of qualified personnel on the island.

(...)

http://www.goldnews.com.cy/en/professional-services/lykke--cyprus-can-become-a-blockchain-transaction-hub

[tempus]

Lykke Annual Coinholder Meeting: Uncovered questions



https://www.lykke.com/city/blog/lykke_annual_coinholder_meeting_uncovered_questions


(Link to the video can be found in the Blog-Post)

[mtnsaa]

I suppose if there were some actually relevant news, like Lykke had received ANY license to trade other than a "Vanuatu brokerage license" the LKK price would react. But while I believe Lykke's US rep went so far as to anticipate imminent US regulation in the months ahead during the online AGM (from his laptop at the airport), I view this as unsubstantiated, unprofessional and misleading. He doesn't know IF AND WHEN US regulators will give him approval. What if they do not? What is Lykke's business case then?

This is how a lot of regulators I know work: You apply for a license. They examine your application, and if they're favourable or unfavourable they'll give preliminary written feedback, which of course is market sensitive information and will be immediately released by the company in question. Then later the regulator usually - not always - follows up with a final determination granting or not granting, as the case may be.

Lykke has "got people on it". How we get from that to publically stating likely timeframes within periods of months I don't know - or rather I do: that's what the person promising speedy regulatory approval hopes for. What you hope for isn't likely, and shouldn't be presented to investors as such. I think Lykke's hopes of licensing is an example of this. But let's look at another example, the Winklevoss brothers ETF application. It was rejected. Then a whole lot of "news" outlets in the crypto space started reporting the "news" that the SEC will "review" its decision. This isn't "news", it's a statutory obligation the SEC must offer to ALL applicants whose applications are not frivolous.

I do not like Coindesk, Cointelegraph or whatever manipulating the true nature the situation (eg. the SEC rejection of Winklevoss' ETF) to paint a picture not really aligned to reality. I like even less Lykke which claims to want to be a major financial exchange doing it. To me it's just like manipulation at every level - on the LKK price which users can't control, and then on the roadmap.

I don't agree with you but I've seen and perceived the same myself, a sense of expecting too much out of Lykke (at least now). Lykke has many advantages but also disadvantages compared to established companies we already named in past posts. As a brand, their service, app and site is very professional (even more so than its competition) so I think for many users they are "let down" when they find that this is a new industry and mistakes, delays, technical issues will happen. We can't overlook that and expect perfection every single time. But Tempus already asked you from where did you get these false expectations other than yourself? So again you are speculating and stating facts or shouting "manipulation" when you have no clear proofs or evidence that a team member promised something that it's deceitful or unachievable. Personally this is my main beef with you, I appreciate that you are willing to be the voice of dissent as it's very much needed sometimes but not by relying on these tactics which borderline FUD.

I've said many times how companies like Coinbase, Xapo, Kraken, Poloniex and many others are flooded with support tickets and issues. These are 100% centralized services making a killing in profits in most cases. Lykke is still building its infrastructure and onboarding new users slowly, learning what it takes to become one of the giants. It also aims to provide more benefits than these other companies in terms of security, convenience, fiat ramps and direct ownership.

That's not an easy thing to do by any means, that's the bottomline here but Lykke is the only one I know that it's actively working on doing all that and getting more traction month by month.

[Bannedseller]

Lykke Annual Coinholder Meeting: Uncovered questions



https://www.lykke.com/city/blog/lykke_annual_coinholder_meeting_uncovered_questions


(Link to the video can be found in the Blog-Post)

Great update

[RustyShackleford1950]

I like:

When will Lykke implement limit orders?
Sergey Ivliev: Limit orders require pending execution, even if the client’s mobile is offline. This assumes that the client would send collateral to Lykke. Now that we have offchain settlement, it is possible to implement the sending of collateral with limit orders without any confirmation delays. We will implement limit orders by the end of September.

Other assets on Lykke

Do you have a timeline for adding XEM? Do you plan to support other mosaics for NEM as well? XEM is basically also just a mosaic on the NEM blockchain.
Sergey Ivliev: Major crypto assets will be added by the end of the year.

[DRguez]

Hello,

Since Lykke as create their own block-chain explorer page, I have a lot of differences on balances between Lykke app and block-chain explorer.

I have few questions in regards.

Anyone know how the balance is manage ?

What is the real reference if you loose your App?

Anyone know why Ether coins don't appear on Lykke Blockchain?

[tempus]

Hello,

Since Lykke as create their own block-chain explorer page, I have a lot of differences on balances between Lykke app and block-chain explorer.

I have few questions in regards.

Anyone know how the balance is manage ?

What is the real reference if you loose your App?

Anyone know why Ether coins don't appear on Lykke Blockchain?

Hi DRguez!

The discrepancy between App and Blockchain-Explorer is because Lykke implemented Offchain-Settlement. In very short words:

The trading-wallet is a multi-signature wallet (customer holds one Private Key, Lykke holds the other one) and you can imagine Offchain-settlement this way: Lykke deposits Coins in the multi-sig-wallets of customers. And let's say you want to buy, the balance is just updated. That speed things up and is cheaper than settling all trades on-chain. Your App shows your balance but the Block Explorer shows balances of both parties until now. In future the Explorer will be improved to differ between both parties.

You can find more infos about it here: https://www.lykke.com/city/blog/lykke_offchain_settlement (especially questions 7,8,9)


If you should lose your App, let's say because you lose your phone or it's damaged, you should have stored the 12 words seed safe.


Ether is not displayed on the Block-Explorer because the Lykke-Explorer only shows Bitcoin and colored Coins (Colored Coins are technically fractions of a Bitcoin, so they also run on the Bitcoin-Blockchain). Colored Coins are LKK for example but also all Fiat-Currencies on Lykke are represented as colored Coins.

[DRguez]

Hello Tempus,

Many thanks for explanation. Everything is clear.

Thanks

[sardasa]

I have updated my wallet today and now I am on version 8.8.3.
Since then I am unable to withdraw bitcoin and getting Runtime error, code: 15 message everytime I am trying to withdraw bitcoin.

Can this please be fixed on urgent basis and new version of app released asap?

[RustyShackleford1950]

I have updated my wallet today and now I am on version 8.8.3.
Since then I am unable to withdraw bitcoin and getting Runtime error, code: 15 message everytime I am trying to withdraw bitcoin.

Can this please be fixed on urgent basis and new version of app released asap?

Try to log out, log in.

If not, try log out, uninstall, reinstall, and log back in.

See if it processes bitcoin withdrawal after the above

[tempus]

I have updated my wallet today and now I am on version 8.8.3.
Since then I am unable to withdraw bitcoin and getting Runtime error, code: 15 message everytime I am trying to withdraw bitcoin.

Can this please be fixed on urgent basis and new version of app released asap?

Unfortunately several users report this issue. Hope it will be solved soon - they're working on it.