How wallets make money? It is worse than you think.

[bitmover]

I use very few wallets (about 4 now)

I have tried, in all my life, about 20-30 different wallets.

Wallets are a sensitive software. You are trusting the developer that he made his job, otherwise you will lose your funds just like this  guy.

Therefore, it is very important that you use good software, such as Electrum. But when it comes to multicurrency wallets, we don't have so many good options.
I have lost funds already due to bad coding. I was able to talk to the "CEO" of the wallet and he refunded me.. but it was a terrible experience.

So, it is crucial that those service providers make money, so they can pay for that good code we are going to use.

Today, while navigating in the forum i saw this:

BITCOREANS ... To keep BitCore BTX in Coinomi,
we need to make a payment of 2 BTC
this payment is requested by Coinomi for the maintenance costs of nodes and platform, of this we have in collection fund 0.5 BTC, we are missing only 1.5 BTC.

Just like exchanges, wallets are charging money to keep the coin "listed".
I didn't know this was happening.

This made me think about a few things:

A project that pays to get listed in exchanges and supported by wallets is worth my money?
Now I am very curious about which coins are paying to be supported to the most used wallets.
I believe that a good project would never pay to get listed in an exchange, or pay to get supported in a wallet. The exchanges/wallet should reach the project, not the other way around.

I know wallets can't live on donations, except a few ones like electrum, bitcoin core, etc. Maybe supporting low quality coins is a way to keep the software good. But is it ethical?
We have tons of dead/scams/ponzi projects out there. Isn't this kind of attitude (pay me and I will keep your coin supported) going to feed this vicious cycle we are in crypto?


Bitcore and Coinomi are two project which I like. I really like coinomi, it is an amazing wallet IMO (for its purposes). It is not a long term storage, but a short term mobile wallet, which supports basically anything.
I have nothing against bitcore as well, as it is a bitcoin fork which never pretended to be the "true bitcoin", and always made it clear it was a different proposal.

[dothebeats]

I guess at some point, people will know that wallet providers also need some money for upkeep and upgrade, unless some truly dedicated developers and operators fund the project for free out of their own pockets which rarely happens. Generally, what wallet providers are doing is software development on-demand, which IMO is nothing wrong considering that they are the ones providing the coins some platform to work with and a framework to hang on to. However, coin developers should provide a working and usable wallet for their own coin, and third-party apps should come in second and is just an option for consumers to use. If the coin devs cannot create a stable, working wallet software for their own coin, best to leave it and just look for others out there.

Multi-coin wallets like Coinomi really provide ease of access to a number of coins that a user might be holding at the same time. It's natural for them to ask for something to allocate resources for a coin that has relatively low-demand on their platform. I don't see it being unethical, but rather just a business doing their thing.

[jrrsparkles]

Bitcore was a successful coin in the past but for a long time the price went deep down and never got recovered from it so we can't consider it as really a good project.Asking donations is okay but demanding money from the team to listed is not really ethical and no good project will ever do that as you said.

[Bttzed03]

I've been using Coinomi for quite a long time now and it actually crossed my mind how they are able to maintain all the coins they support before. I thought they're living off donations just like other wallets.

In the case of Bitcore, did Coinomi listed them for free at first and only asked for maintenance fees later?

This might be an unpopular opinion but I don't like what's happening here. Coinomi probably know there's a good number of BTX deposits/withdrawals in their wallet and they're trying to leverage that (just my assumption). I also agree what @dothebeats that dev team should have their own working wallet. They won't need to raise funds anymore and pay another wallet.

[BitMaxz]

In the case of Bitcore, did Coinomi listed them for free at first and only asked for maintenance fees later?

For token that not listed on Coinomi, you can add it manually without payment but for coins, it seems it needs payment before the coin listed on their wallet.

Look at this https://www.coinomi.com/en/listing/request/
It's confidential and no pricing after trying to request to add a coin. Coinomi might be ask for a payment or donation before they add the asset to their wallet.

Look at this found on their form request
"Please answer all the questions so our engineers can estimate the effort needed to integrate your coin into Coinomi"

So the engineer is responsible for coin listing and pricing and might be also for maintenance fees?

[Bttzed03]

Thanks for the coin listing request link @BitMaxz

I also tried to submit using random information and yes there is an integration fee. Since it's stated that low fees won't get a feedback, I guess coin devs must put a higher bid to be prioritized 

Integration fee *

What is the fee you would pay (in BTC) to have your coin integrated into Coinomi? Please note that submissions with too low fees will not receive a response.

^ Please note that integration fees come before asking if it's a coin or a token.

About the pricing, I guess it's the engineers. They will estimate based on the coin details and descriptions provided by devs.

[alegotardo]

I don't see a problem of pay a fee to be supported on a wallet, every new coin/token integration has a high cost to implement and keep updated.
Of course... This "fee" isn't the only factor in deciding whether such a coin/token will be listed or not.
It's necessary to thoroughly evaluate the project before, even because the listing of a Scam could greatly affect the reputation of a wallet.

But this information could be more transparent to users.

[shield132]

I think first of all certain software developers must deserve to be the leaders and gain our attention in a positive way. For a while, they should offer their software without any charge to gain attention and customers. After that, for further development, they can ask for subscription service. Most softwares come with trials, such thing can be applied to cryptocurrency wallet softwares. Pay for your license and get their service. This will help them to collect funds, get profit, hire good developers and grow company with it's product(s). Idk why no one does that, they could also charge from transaction fees but idk how is that possible for crypto wallets since users are able to use them offline too.

[bitmover]

In the case of Bitcore, did Coinomi listed them for free at first and only asked for maintenance fees later?

For token that not listed on Coinomi, you can add it manually without payment but for coins, it seems it needs payment before the coin listed on their wallet.

I believe it was initially listed for free, just like all bitcoin forks. It is very handy for a wallet to get a quickly bitcoin fork support. This is how people get to know many wallets.

Idk why no one does that, they could also charge from transaction fees but idk how is that possible for crypto wallets since users are able to use them offline too.

Because everyone would just move to another wallet, unless it can do something more than just receiving and sending coins.

[GreatArkansas]

(.....)
Wallets are a sensitive software. You are trusting the developer that he made his job, otherwise you will lose your funds just like this  guy.
(....)

Some software are open-sourced which is a software's source codes are published and everyone can contribute or modify by their own or add some features within software.
So, some of the famous Bitcoin or cryptocurrency wallets are open-sourced and this is also one of wallets I want to use and I advising for some people to use since for sure, since the code is public and if the developer may tried to put some feature or part that will the user's fund on wallet may be in danger, some people may find it.
But does not mean all open-sourced software or wallet are totally safe.

(.....)
A project that pays to get listed in exchanges and supported by wallets is worth my money?
Now I am very curious about which coins are paying to be supported to the most used wallets.
I believe that a good project would never pay to get listed in an exchange, or pay to get supported in a wallet. The exchanges/wallet should reach the project, not the other way around.
(....)

This is my first time to hear that some wallets are also collecting a money for some cryptocurrency founders/owners to get listed their coin in such cryptocurrency wallet. I only thought it is happening only in some exchanges.
It's kinda fishy, I also don't think Coinomi is doing this kind of way to get some cryptocurrency will be listed on their wallet.
I also already tried to use Coinomi before when I am starting to learn cryptocurrencies.

[Pffrt]

I think there's no other option for them to earn money, do they? I can't think any alternative ways of making money. What about electrum, I think they have no ways of earning, right? I don't know how much donation they get though.
This makes me to think that, what about some shitcoins being listed in some popular gambling sites? Are they paid too? Or are they have been implemented due to user demand? I doubt though.

[sheenshane]

I think there's no other option for them to earn money, do they? I can't think any alternative ways of making money. What about electrum, I think they have no ways of earning, right? I don't know how much donation they get though.
This makes me to think that, what about some shitcoins being listed in some popular gambling sites? Are they paid too? Or are they have been implemented due to user demand? I doubt though.

AFAIK, they only earned from donations not directly on the wallet fees of course.

Open-source wallet devs aren't seeking for money, yes, that is, believe me, or not they are enjoying what they have done. Since it is open-source, nobody forcing them to get paid, and that what they like. It seems like, the benefits of being an open-source developer are experienced what they got especially working software that a lot of good developers. That's why professional developers would like to work their own way not just for economical compensation.

For the non open-source wallet, basically, they just run their service for generating profit through the transaction fees.

[Steamtyme]

Don't really follow either project. I have used Trust wallet as a multi currency wallet - obviously doesn't support a crazy amount. Sidebar it was to use an erc-20 token our local meetup group created as a training tool for newbies, and downloaded atomic at some point to look it over. They just aren't my cup of tea, I prefer a project specific wallet for all my holdings.

My thoughts are this is a bit of a greasy move. It shows that their business doesn't have a clear plan to cover operational costs, and could be problematic in the future. Does this 2BTC amount cover the cost of keeping the coin supported indefinitely?? If not how long before they come looking again.

I could also completely understand them delivering this as an ultimatum where they state clearly how long this buys support for, and/or saying raise the funds or expect to be unsupported as of this date.

Forgive the ignorance as I see in the ANN for BTX there are several wallet options out there. So I would likely just move on, but I'm not sure how many of them are in a similar situation to coinomi. I would be much more open to a wallet project such as this coming with a one-time fee or something similar, upon first deposit. Nothing crazy something like 25/50 cents to ensure they don't essentially have to extort funds out of users in the future.

[gentlemand]

That makes me dislike Coinomi rather intensely. They'll have many users who don't bother to check or update all that often and that leaves them in the lurch.

I get that it costs them money in labour but ransom demands are not cool.

How these things are funded is something people should take more time to ponder. It wouldn't take much for a developer to throw in the towel and be bought out by an asshole. Most people just mindlessly update forever and don't conceive of there being another actual human somewhere in charge of it who's as fallible as they are.

[stompix]

What about electrum, I think they have no ways of earning, right? I don't know how much donation they get though.

The first thing I thought when I read about this, how do others manage, especially the ones which support way fewer coins and electrum is probably the best example, they even don't have a donation address listed on the website, or I can't find it which is almost the same.

Integration fee *

What is the fee you would pay (in BTC) to have your coin integrated into Coinomi? Please note that submissions with too low fees will not receive a response.

^ Please note that integration fees come before asking if it's a coin or a token.

Uff, this is like telling people to put larger sums there to even get a response. tokens are all the same, they don't need extra work, they should come with the same price for everyone, not negotiate bases on how much they can squeeze out of a project.
But, it's their product, they are free to set up the rules and the developers that are creating coins should also understand that nobody can be forced to deal with their coins for free, definitely not the best way of getting things done but that's how things are.

My thoughts are this is a bit of a greasy move. It shows that their business doesn't have a clear plan to cover operational costs, and could be problematic in the future. Does this 2BTC amount cover the cost of keeping the coin supported indefinitely?? If not how long before they come looking again.

Probably they would ask for some monthly maintenance fee at most, demanding again sums like that just for running some nodes and a platform would be a bit too greedy and it will not look good for them either, would look more like extortion.

[gentlemand]

The first thing I thought when I read about this, how do others manage, especially the ones which support way fewer coins and electrum is probably the best example, they even don't have a donation address listed on the website, or I can't find it which is almost the same.

I assume some wallets are hoping to be bought out. There'll come a time where their market lead can't be beaten. Others may extort shitcoin communities like Coinomi are doing here. Others may simply choose to con their users like Mycelium and their token sale what paid for their holiday to Spain and was never heard from again.

It's definitely a curious area.

[bitmover]

How these things are funded is something people should take more time to ponder.

Certainly. Specially in the internet, where we are usually the product.

My thoughts are this is a bit of a greasy move. It shows that their business doesn't have a clear plan to cover operational costs, and could be problematic in the future. Does this 2BTC amount cover the cost of keeping the coin supported indefinitely?? If not how long before they come looking again.

Probably they would ask for some monthly maintenance fee at most, demanding again sums like that just for running some nodes and a platform would be a bit too greedy and it will not look good for them either, would look more like extortion.

It is interesting that all bitcoin forks were almsot instantly supported, because everyone was after them.
Then, we there are not more forks, they start asking for money to keep supporting.

The software probably needs an update to continue to be secure. And that costs money...

The whole problem is mostly related to the fact that those coins have no value. Most of those coins are unsustainable, they have no use, no value, nothing. Just a pump and dump project.

Security of third party software is also an important aspect of those projects. Many people jsut go throwing money in those different cryptocurrencies, but there are many things at risk. More than it looks like at first glance. Are wallets giving proper updates to the software? Is it secure to use all those softwares for shitcoins?

Each day i am more convinced that Bitcoin is way safer.

[suchmoon]

I believe it was initially listed for free, just like all bitcoin forks. It is very handy for a wallet to get a quickly bitcoin fork support. This is how people get to know many wallets.

Yeah it was a clever bait-and-switch scheme. Other than that it's not even a good wallet... clunky to use, leaks memory. Get whatever the reference wallet is for your coin and don't bother with these multi-coin traps.

OTOH, if an honest developer wanted to implement a multi-coin wallet they don't really need to run their own nodes. Publish the API spec and have the coin developers provide the backend.

[Bttzed03]

~
tokens are all the same, they don't need extra work, they should come with the same price for everyone,

I'm not sure about that. IIRC, there are different set of questions if you choose tokens on ethereum or tokens on other blockchains. Under ethereum, they also ask if you made changes to 'this or that' code. I guess it would require them more work if token devs made more tweaks.

[sunsilk]

I thought that most wallets make through the fee for each transaction. They will put a small mark up with the transaction fees and that's it. I didn't know that they're asking the same thing just as the exchanges to keep a coin listed and supported.

2 BTC for the example of Bitcore to be maintained. That's quite a lot for a fee and it's not that actually far from the fee that other exchanges are asking, of course except Binance and other the same tier exchanges.