How does one decide whether to inject any money or further money into any exchange?
Let's say you have a trial account with a newly setup exchange (or what looks like an exchange) sometime ago, an exchange which doesn't seem to be progressing over the years. Then you try to suggest improvements on its forum, which is mostly plagued by what appears to be "members" but who are in fact making harassing remarks and put downs against those who make suggestions.
Instead of giving reasons of why the suggestions are not accepted, the "members" on the forum make subjective harassing remarks like "if you don't like it you can all leave!" and other abusive bombardments. Yet those bombastic posters remain to make harassing remarks.
Then you begin to realize, why are they so protective about allowing posters to comment on other exchanges and pointing out what's wrong with that supposed exchange, instead of only praising and boot-licking that supposed "exchange".
If one cannot point out the faults of the supposed exchange, like telling why the customers are leaving, including suffering harassing remarks made by supposed "members" which leads to the volume and liquidity falling.
If an exchange cannot accept criticism from the public it should not put a forum on its site inviting posters then use harassing tactics to chase posters away.
The US for example does not allow too much monopoly, can an exchange survive using practices thinking there is no room for other exchanges to exist?
After realizing there is something very wrong with that supposed exchange would you want to put money in or continue to put money in?
Let's say a venture capitalist or institutional investor deciding on whether to initiate a takeover bid on the supposed exchange, say, it sends a scout to find out if that supposed exchange is worth taking a bet on. Then the scout gets hostile insults on the supposed exchange's forum, would the venture capitalist or institutional investor want to take on a bet with that supposed exchange?
Let's say you have a trial account with a newly setup exchange (or what looks like an exchange) sometime ago, an exchange which doesn't seem to be progressing over the years. Then you try to suggest improvements on its forum, which is mostly plagued by what appears to be "members" but who are in fact making harassing remarks and put downs against those who make suggestions.
Instead of giving reasons of why the suggestions are not accepted, the "members" on the forum make subjective harassing remarks like "if you don't like it you can all leave!" and other abusive bombardments. Yet those bombastic posters remain to make harassing remarks.
Then you begin to realize, why are they so protective about allowing posters to comment on other exchanges and pointing out what's wrong with that supposed exchange, instead of only praising and boot-licking that supposed "exchange".
If one cannot point out the faults of the supposed exchange, like telling why the customers are leaving, including suffering harassing remarks made by supposed "members" which leads to the volume and liquidity falling.
If an exchange cannot accept criticism from the public it should not put a forum on its site inviting posters then use harassing tactics to chase posters away.
The US for example does not allow too much monopoly, can an exchange survive using practices thinking there is no room for other exchanges to exist?
After realizing there is something very wrong with that supposed exchange would you want to put money in or continue to put money in?
Let's say a venture capitalist or institutional investor deciding on whether to initiate a takeover bid on the supposed exchange, say, it sends a scout to find out if that supposed exchange is worth taking a bet on. Then the scout gets hostile insults on the supposed exchange's forum, would the venture capitalist or institutional investor want to take on a bet with that supposed exchange?
Last edited:
