[03-04-2018] Bloomberg - exchanges are charging millions to list coins

[gentlemand]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-03/crypto-exchanges-charge-millions-to-list-tokens-autonomous-says

This is of course a no shit Sherlock type of headline, but what I didn't know is that they're charging ongoing annual fees too. Surely the trading fees would've been enough. And I can't see any scenario where they'd remove a successful coin because they weren't being bribed, but maybe it's possible.

The only alt I'm proper familiar with is NEM which has always refused to pay exchanges to list. They've paid for that in lack of volume on occasion too.

I wonder what the landscape would look like if this wasn't a thing.

[1714780623]

1714780623

[1714780623]

1714780623

[1714780623]

1714780623

[richardsNY]

Exchanges are in a top position when it comes to these legal forms of extortion, but what can you do about it. It's their platform and their rules, so you either abide by these rules or just pack your stuff. Bittrex itself states that it doesn't charge any fees when it comes to listings, but just make it a requirement to offer something useful in terms of the utility of that particular coin. I however don't know how they treat the projects and developers of the listed coins behind the scenes, but that's not our concern, or is it? If the coin produces good enough trading volumes consistently, the exchanges in question wouldn't even dare to put their extortion skills to work. It's time for professional stock exchanges to get involved in this market -- current exchanges are shit and incompetent.

[squatter]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-03/crypto-exchanges-charge-millions-to-list-tokens-autonomous-says

This is of course a no shit Sherlock type of headline, but what I didn't know is that they're charging ongoing annual fees too. Surely the trading fees would've been enough. And I can't see any scenario where they'd remove a successful coin because they weren't being bribed, but maybe it's possible.

Re: ongoing fees -- I had no idea. That's news to me. The politics around exchange listings felt pretty scummy already, but that adds a new angle. It's such an obvious quid quo pro, and major exchange de-listing can really cripple a coin, so it's basically extortion to some degree.

I wonder what the landscape would look like if this wasn't a thing.

The exchanges are still in cash-grab mode. They know that altcoin trading will move predominantly to decentralized platforms.

It's time for professional stock exchanges to get involved in this market -- current exchanges are shit and incompetent.

All in time. I think Circle's acquisition of Poloniex is the first major step in that direction.

[chenbo*)]

I wonder if a decentralized exchange would also be possible. Somewhere, someone may be tinkering with the idea of creating an open exchange where everything is dictated by the market. If we want to be truly independent from the traditional controls around us, an assault on the monopoly of the existing exchanges would be the thing to do.

[nickbelski]

Exchanges are in the most advantageous conditions on this market. They can be compared with retail shops in third world countries, a lot of sale representative offer their goods for trading, and the owner of this shop takes bribes, and you will pay him, only for to be presented on the shelves. I know this, because i contacted with this business. The same with crypto, you want your token to be listed, you want volume - pay, pay, pay.

[hatshepsut93]

I think the big reason for this is the fact that many altcoins and tokens are very shady and the people behind them often engage in market manipulation via pump and dump, so they can afford to pay those fees, since they will still be in profit. This is harmful for honest projects since their developers have much less funds and can't afford listing.

I wonder what the landscape would look like if this wasn't a thing.

Exchanges would try to list coins basing on their popularity, to make sure that they get the most fees. Some coins might be unprofitable to list, because of very low volumes.

[Qartersa]

No wonder they make hefty sums notwithstanding the heavily fluctuating value of Bitcoin. But as they say, what do we do with this? There is absolutely nothing we can do with this because it is through the Exchanges that investors are able to actually realize their monies. We are thus under the spell they magnificently orchestrated so we fall unto them thereby making huge bucks while we earn not even half of how much they do. Well, this is part of business. Now we know where a portion of our monies go. But as I have said, there is nothing much we can do.

[squatter]

I wonder if a decentralized exchange would also be possible. Somewhere, someone may be tinkering with the idea of creating an open exchange where everything is dictated by the market. If we want to be truly independent from the traditional controls around us, an assault on the monopoly of the existing exchanges would be the thing to do.

Decentralized exchanges are definitely possible for BTC, altcoins and tokens. It can be done with open-source contracts, and there's lots of work being done on platforms like the Blocknet to make the process smooth. You can trade Ethereum tokens decentralized with no custodial risk using a Ledger wallet and Rader Relay. The problem is that everything is still in a nascent stage. The platforms are young and underdeveloped and there isn't much order book depth right now.

When it comes to fiat trading, though, things don't look as rosy. I'm very skeptical of stablecoins -- they generally just transfer custodial risk outside of the exchange you're trading on. So your funds are still at risk.

[bbc.reporter]

This is bad news for us, because it might also signify that regulators would now start going after altcoin exchanges. Some of them, especially the smaller ones, might decide to close to avoid paying any penalties I reckon.

[gentlemand]

This is bad news for us, because it might also mean that regulators would now start going after altcoin exchanges. Some of them, especially the smaller ones, might decide to close to avoid paying any penalties I reckon.

Keep the doom up. Nice work.

This is probably the tip of the outrageousness exchanges have gotten up to if they were subjected to proper scrutiny. There'll be so much of it it's possible regulators will just write it off and make sure they don't do it in future apart from the particularly egregious examples.

[Kakmakr]

"Costs for a crypto listing range from $1 million “for a reasonably regarded token, to $3 million for an opportunity to get quick liquidity,”  That is not a lot of money for people like Roger Ver and his Billion dollar partners.

We can now also see why Ethereum and BCash is listed with the big exchanges, because they have money bags funding these listings. It is also clear why Crypto currency exchanges are popping up like mushrooms everywhere. ^hmmmmm^

"Money makes Money"

[Betwrong]

Costs for a crypto listing range from $1 million “for a reasonably regarded token, to $3 million for an opportunity to get quick liquidity”

This information is very interesting, only if it is true. I would like to see some words of confirmation that those numbers are correct from someone who have actually listed a coin on an exchange because while researching the subject I've come across the information which contradicts the above statement.

Poloniex does not require or accept payment for listing, so you don’t have to budget for that to get your coin on the exchange.

Or, for example, this on what it would cost you to promote your coin on Bittrex:

Bittrex offers an interesting opportunity: token teams looking for additional marketing opportunities can have their coin “spotlighted,” or prominently featured on the site. The cost is 3 bitcoins.

Source: https://www.coinist.io/how-to-get-your-digital-token-listed-on-an-exchange/

Of course this information may be outdated so it would be interesting to read the replies from people with knowledge of the matter.

[Rami Haddadin]

I think they are charging too much fees , some of them are charging up to $1 million and this doesn't make sense for projects that are raising 3 to 5 millions.  

[Palmerson]

Why you are interested in how much the exchange earns. They provide you with a platform to trade. They are at risk. How many were cases when hackers break into exchanges. This is their direct loss. Don't you think about that? I remind you of the fate of MT.GOX for example. Someone, too, thought that they many earn. Everyone should count their money and not think about other people's pockets.

[Carlton Banks]

I wonder if a decentralized exchange would also be possible. Somewhere, someone may be tinkering with the idea of creating an open exchange where everything is dictated by the market. If we want to be truly independent from the traditional controls around us, an assault on the monopoly of the existing exchanges would be the thing to do.

Bisq exists, decentralised cryptocurrency exchange running for ~ 2 years.

But there isn't any kind of equal access way to list new cryptocurrencies there. Bisq's developers control which new coins can be traded, as code needs to be added to the software to accommodate new coins.

Maybe it would be a good idea if that development model was changed; some kind of basic interface could be coded for the developers of new coins to add their new token themselves (instead of this ICO model that attracts so much attention, where it should really be derided). I guess the Bisq developers would have to agree, although I can understand the quality control argument behind their current approach (although there's no reason why discretion couldn't simply be exercised on the basis of each individual pull request for a new coin, this would free up more of the developers time for other stuff).

[FrueGreads]

Bisq exists, decentralised cryptocurrency exchange running for ~ 2 years.

But there isn't any kind of equal access way to list new cryptocurrencies there. Bisq's developers control which new coins can be traded, as code needs to be added to the software to accommodate new coins.

Maybe it would be a good idea if that development model was changed; some kind of basic interface could be coded for the developers of new coins to add their new token themselves (instead of this ICO model that attracts so much attention, where it should really be derided). I guess the Bisq developers would have to agree, although I can understand the quality control argument behind their current approach (although there's no reason why discretion couldn't simply be exercised on the basis of each individual pull request for a new coin, this would free up more of the developers time for other stuff).

I heard about bisq before, but I didn't knew they existed for 2 years already. I also heard they are (or are at least planning to), the only DEX that allows trading with fiat and not just "stable coins" like tether, that are not really a solution in my opinion, specially with all the trust issues around them.

I don't know how their model for listing new coins works, but I'm guessing they are not charging the millions that centralized exchanges are. I guess that as any other economy model, the charges for listing coins will decrease as competition increases. Since it seems to be incredibly hard to get a license to run an exchange right now, I'm assuming that DEX will play a huge role when it comes to compete with normal exchanges.

[squatter]

This is bad news for us, because it might also signify that regulators would now start going after altcoin exchanges. Some of them, especially the smaller ones, might decide to close to avoid paying any penalties I reckon.

Not to do with listing fees specifically, but I suspect altcoin exchanges have been on regulators' radar for a while already. The SEC seemed quick and happy to whitelist Poloniex's acquisition because the deal included much stricter compliance standards and licensing, etc. I believe we're moving into an era of whitelisted exchanges -- in contrast with exchanges that are prone to regulatory enforcement. The recent warning Binance received from the Japanese FSA is the mildest we should expect. The other extreme would include actions like the BTC-e shutdown last year.

Bisq exists, decentralised cryptocurrency exchange running for ~ 2 years.

But there isn't any kind of equal access way to list new cryptocurrencies there. Bisq's developers control which new coins can be traded, as code needs to be added to the software to accommodate new coins.

Maybe it would be a good idea if that development model was changed; some kind of basic interface could be coded for the developers of new coins to add their new token themselves (instead of this ICO model that attracts so much attention, where it should really be derided). I guess the Bisq developers would have to agree, although I can understand the quality control argument behind their current approach (although there's no reason why discretion couldn't simply be exercised on the basis of each individual pull request for a new coin, this would free up more of the developers time for other stuff).

That's the fundamental problem with most decentralized platforms right now. Listing is a matter of centralized development and market launch. The exception is ERC20 token exchanges like Radar Relay and Etherdelta, where you can trade any ERC20 token without official action. This works with standardized interoperable protocols (like ETH/ERC20/ERC721), but naturally doesn't extend to just any altcoin.

[bbc.reporter]

This is bad news for us, because it might also mean that regulators would now start going after altcoin exchanges. Some of them, especially the smaller ones, might decide to close to avoid paying any penalties I reckon.

Keep the doom up. Nice work.

This is probably the tip of the outrageousness exchanges have gotten up to if they were subjected to proper scrutiny. There'll be so much of it it's possible regulators will just write it off and make sure they don't do it in future apart from the particularly egregious examples.

The doom is not my fault. I didn't make it and I didn't cause any of it.

Also yes, there is also so much of it. But you are wrong in assuming that all they will get is a slap in the wrist in my opinion. Some of them will be forced to shut operations.

[entrepmind23]

No wonder there are so many coins that are only listed in decentralized exchanges and in some small centralized ones because the price is too high to be listed in a major exchange. If ever they weren't able to reach the softcap or hardcap then it would be hard for them to even be listed in a decent exchange. It would be up to the developers then if they want to push through their project so that it would be more valuable and be listed in a bigger exchange to have more volume.

It made me realize that service is one of the ways to make a higher income with this technology of ours. Businesses do not make their own content or own an properties but through their service, they are making millions. In this case, exchanges make millions or even billions without having a coin, social media earn by the content of its users and even if uber or grab do not have a car, they earn millions as well.

[Grossmann Jr.]

There is something similar towards coinmarketcap, they say that the website sometimes "kill" tockens and give fake info about them