MAID listing on exchanges via community created foundation

No. Bitfinex does not for example and it is consistently in the top 5 exchanges by liquidity.

Edit: Reference to Bitfinex statements on listing process and no-fee policy.

A spokesperson for Bitfinex told BI: “We do not charge a fee for projects to be listed on Bitfinex. We are excited to support the development of the digital token ecosystem by providing quality projects, of all sizes, with a platform through which they can build a community of supporters.”

“Through applying these rules we strive to list only the highest quality tokens which we believe have a long future, and which therefore align with the best long-term interests of our customers,” the spokesperson said. “We find that every situation is different and we do not adopt a one-size fits all approach. Moreover, all of our commercial agreements and relationships are confidential.”

4 Likes

I would be very interested in reading some foundation goals and operational guidelines documents, but I support the abstract idea nonetheless.

8 Likes

Another question: Does anyone here know of any reputable company providing a listing service?

One of the reasons I’m making this proposal is because I see this as a process that requires continual maintenance, we can’t just do a one-off raise of capital for a listing and then walk away. I think it’s clear by now that there are always going to be hoops and challenges that emerge that will need to be addressed to maintain a listing and/or add new exchanges as old one’s go bust.

If we can focus on just managing the donations/funds and hire a reputable company to deal with listings it would certainly be far less complicated and likely be more effective per money spent.

We had some of that worked out, but honestly, it’s been a while, so it will need to be opened up for discussion with the board again … and that previous board itself is also a big question mark for the same reason … I would hope to engage them and see how to get the ball rolling asap … but will let this thread play out for 24 hours and then do a poll to gauge general interest before proceeding.

1 Like

I did contact Bitbay today- Its Polish biggest exchange (many years on the market), I will let you know when/if they answer about the possibilities for listing MAID. Not too optimistic they will be open to this idea but lets see.
EDIT: I found the form which can be filled and sent to them in this case - must be done by CEO , @dirvine please take a look into this when you have a minute :

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfU3Yn8ZeaP_6TVwnvTMQEkqT_b84Lg6aFdsI6LgX7J9XfcuA/viewform

4 Likes

Data suggests that an average project spent over $50,000 in listing fees to exchanges on the advisory list this year. This totals over $100 million stolen in 2018 via listing fees, with some exchanges making over $1 million from this alone.

From previous April 2019 Blockchain Transparancy Institute report:

During these months, we have also released over 200 full exchange reports to over 40 crypto projects enquiring about the legitimacy of the various exchanges contacting them for listing. The listing fee costs from just the wash trading exchanges in these reports totaled over 150 BTC. We are glad these reports were able to save some crypto projects from being scammed out of money that could be used for development instead.

Also see edit to my post above.

2 Likes

I’m quite happy if we can get MAID listed on large exchanges without paying fees … but I don’t see paying fees as theft. If a trade between two or more parties can be called theft, then all trade can subjectively be called theft. I don’t want to quibble over the term, but I don’t want people here to be biased by that view of the terminology.

There are costs involved with listing, small or large, I certainly don’t know what they all are. How an exchange chooses to cover those costs is up to them.

Are projects out there getting a raw deal with some exchanges, surely so. This is why I think it’s important that we find a reputable (and experienced!) person or company to facilitate listings - so we can be confident that we aren’t getting a raw deal.

7 Likes

100% in favor.

2 Likes

I think it is extortionate, but I feel the same way about the cost of food and a million other things.
With exchanges as with almost everything in life, you get what you pay for.
Rarely do you get anything worth value for free.

8 Likes

Exactly. The back door method to avoid paying things like listing fees has ended up costing this project way more than what it would have been to pay the listing fees to be on a couple high-volume exchanges.

Precisely! There are many things that I think are way overpriced. However, if there are no better low-cost options (as we’ve seen time and again with this delisting/exchange shutdown issue) then there’s no other option but to pony up and pay the price.

When the ICO was first conducted, money should have been earmarked for marketing expenses including exchange listings. This opportunity was missed once again during the recent funding exercise that was oversubscribed. There’s no use crying over spilt milk. If an independent org is what is needed to get the exchange listing and marketing support this project needs, I’m all for
it.

9 Likes

Nor do I, but a fee for an honest service is not what they are calling theft. They are calling out charging a fee for an exchange service that is mostly just wash trading. In other words stealing the listing fee and providing a fake market which is clearly theft. Many of the large exchanges are in that boat according to their research.

1 Like

Just a friendly reminder that there is a decentralized exchange with real 80m$ and growing on-chain liquidity:

4 Likes

I would be open to supporting this idea, but with a few stipulations.

  1. As US resident, I would need the community to focus on getting on an exchange that is willing to support US customers. Kraken seems like the obvious choice, but it would require some dev’s (or David’s) time to interface with their team. That’s assuming they would even be willing to entertain the idea of listing MAID.
  2. I am not willing to donate from my current wallet of MAID holdings, as I do not want to dilute my current holdings, but I would be willing to send some BTC or ETH to the organization that can then exchange that for MAID on my behalf (as I have no ability to reliably exchange for MAID right now).
7 Likes

@wydileie

I’ll add to this that I would only be interested in an exchange that, if AML/KYC is required, does not involve the privacy intrusive practice of requiring ‘selfies’.

I am only one person (trader) however I was active trading MAID on Poloniex until they stole my property and I never returned. If you look at how MAID trading volume died on Poloniex after they began their theft, and it did not return once their ‘selfie’ nonsense was introduced, I believe I’m not alone.

The fact is that the majority of capital is unwilling to play dangerous games for yet another centralized exchange to exit scam or other.

4 Likes

@latch what exactly is it about the selfie that gets you so upset?

2 Likes

His unfortunate (but purely coincidental) resemblance to a guy on the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list?

Sorry @latch :slight_smile:

6 Likes

:rofl:
But if they have my legal info what does a picture matter.

2 Likes

@Savage

Upset isn’t the word as it’s not an emotional response.

Selfies, along with any biometric, are a security risk. A password can be changed, but your fingerprints cannot. Nor your facial metrics.

@Southside

I know that that’s said in jest however I don’t commit crimes. I’m only stating that because too many people ignorant of security risks are willing to be slaves in exchange for a trinket and enjoy assuming otherwise of the informed and cautious.

6 Likes

You are indeed quite correct

Please remember that everything I say should be filtered through the “flippancy” filter

There are no depths to which I wont sink for a quick laugh.

7 Likes

@Southside

Yes I’ve gleaned that of you. You may be delighted to know I even smirked. :slight_smile: I only elaborated to preempt those who would imply the same but not in jest.

7 Likes