Any good reason for Bittrex delisting?


We can trace these coins and flag them through the block explorer.

I hope when bittrex comes to exchange against safecoin, Maidsafe will refuse to deliver them.

These coins were stolen and should be worthless or burnt.

@nicklambert what’s your take on this ?

If we migrate to ERC 20, we could wipe out 20m coins from bittrex easily.


I agree with @SwissPrivateBanker these coins should be null and void as they have effectively been stolen :rage:


then they would probably mix the coin through another exchange … or if they just sold the coin to someone believing in this project …? would it be ‘right’ to not let him exchange his maid to safecoin? …

…i see the motivation but i think there is a chance of 0 that it will work out the way you hope and the right one will get punished…


So if I bid at 60% discount for the whole block, and bittrex agrees to sell to me, no one here has any objection to it ?

What other exchange are you talking about ?
It’s not as if there were 10 exchange listing MAID


of course i would have objections - but if they didn’t tell you that those are the stolen coin and you would pay 95% of current market price … how could i expect you to loose all your money because of that other bad guy …?

a medium sized other exchange would be enough … if they extract the coin in batches you couldn’t tell for sure who is the evil guy …

ps: if they would use the coin to flood the early network with data and try and destabilize it that would be the least expected attack i would have thought of :thinking:

pps: on the other hand … the way the cost is calculated i think is increasing pretty rapidly when the network fills up … so … and just keeping the coin would make a lot more sense …

ppps: … even if they loose 50% of the value through the mixing process that still will be a fortune when safe is live … of course we can try to make it as expensive as possible for them … but i don’t think we can stop them if they really want to pull this off …


I’ve had a quick look through the ToS and it seems that clause 8.3 is relevant

8.3. Support for Tokens
Bittrex retains the right, in its sole discretion, to determine whether to support transfer, storage or trading of any Token using the Services, and may discontinue or terminate any support for any Token at any time for any or no reason. Unless otherwise required by law or law enforcement, Bittrex will make reasonable efforts to notify you of its decision to cease to support of a Token. If Bittrex ceases to support transfer or storage of a particular Token using the Services, Bittrex will use commercially reasonable efforts to notify you at least 14 days prior so as to afford you with an opportunity to transfer the affected Token from your Hosted Wallet to an External Address. If you do not transfer the affected Token out of your Hosted Wallet prior to cessation of support for the Token by Bittrex, the Token may be lost due to your inability to access, transfer or otherwise control the Token. Bittrex will not be liable to you for any losses, liability or expenses related to its decision to cease any support for any Token.

This wording seems less aggressive than the message in the link to their FAQ provided by @JPL above.

Clause 8.8 may also be relevant here:

8.8. Unclaimed Property
If your Bittrex Account has been inactive and you have not responded to reasonable attempts by Bittrex to contact you for a period of several years (as defined by the relevant state statutes), Bittrex may have an obligation to report any Tokens in your Hosted Wallet to the applicable governmental entity as unclaimed property. If this happens, Bittrex will attempt to contact you using the contact information provided by you. If you do not respond, Bittrex may be obligated to turn over any Tokens in your Hosted Wallet to the applicable governmental entity after deducting any fees payable to Bittrex.

If there has been known instances of Bittrex refusing to provide MAID to the owners of their wallets then I would see than as theft and a very serious matter. Is there sufficient evidence of that happening here?


In this reddit thread from end Jan 2018 someone states that their coins are available months after the coin was delisted.

I still have several tokencard coins sitting on Bittrex even though it was delisted about, ehm… 2-4 months ago.

Its possible that they talk tough to encourage users to remove coins and cover their rear end.

It would be incredibly bad press if they keep thousands of users coins from many delisted tokens. It screams class action. Surely not, cant be a move they make… I hope.


From what I’ve read, Bittrex and Poloniex are taking opposite directions after recent comments by the SEC. Bittrex is in the process of delisting any token that it thinks could be considered a security, so that they don’t have to register with the SEC, while Poloniex plans to register with the SEC as an alternative trading system so that they can continue to trade these tokens.


as far as coins not being made available, im going to go on a limb and say that clause covers bittrex in the cases where a delisted coin’s network becomes no longer functioning. im sure bittrex wouldnt deny anyone their property so long as they can verify the ownership and make the outgoing transaction. maybe im naive


Why do you consider maidsafe coin a security vs a “kickstarter”, entry ticket7voucher (to future network)? I was not promised dividends, passive gains, etc. I was offered no stake in any company.

How is a security token different than a utility token?
from> Fortune Magazine
STEIN: These protocol tokens, utility tokens or ICOs refer to tokens that power a decentralized software. For example, if you’re using decentralized file source — think something like DropBox but done in a decentralized fashion — you’d have a storage coin that would power this system & it would be a payment mechanism for the system. Think of it almost like a pre-paid software license. But the key here is that it’s not a security interest. You do not own anything in the company and there is no real world asset that backs it.
MaidSafe is a utility or “future utility token”.
If someone wants to be a pendant, then to access Beta4 you need to show some Omni maid. DONE!



Stein may be correct that the utility token is not a security.

But the OMNI version “Maid Safe Coins” are not utility tokens. OMNI “Maid Safe Coins” represent an investment contract ( a security) a promise to provide a utility token in the future. The sale of these tokens in my opinion would be considered a security offering. And an unlicensed, unregistered one at that.

SafeCoins on the Safe Network, probably not securities as they are full on utility tokens.

The fact that the Maid Safe Foundation is registered as a charity and is not in the US does not matter. They sold coins to US investors and may have Americans involved in their operations or as advisers.
It’s the actions of the entity that matter.
and Local Regulators will likely comply with the SEC.

That being said:
Is the statute of limitations up?
Will the regulators give a free pass?

See this video.
the whole thing is great. but check out 3:08:00 onward in particular for thoughts on
utility tokens vs securities


Maybe not the final utility token. But they are simple place holders or if you wish prepurchase of the utility token. There is no securities built in.

And so is the buying and selling of vintage cars, or collectables, or most things on ebay or gumtree.

Your definition has the local hardware store or any of 1000s of business that supply gift cards as securities sellers.

Thank you for that quote, it makes it very clear.


I absolutely agree to this. Where utility tokens are concerned, tokenization is much more like gift cards on steroids than securities. In all honesty though, I think the time has come to stop trying to force fit frameworks that don’t apply. It’s not so much that the game has changed, but rather we now play an entirely new game. Crypto is a new, multi-faceted asset class, and therefore, deserves its own bespoke rules.