Tron Logo
Trade on HitBTC

In this new trust-based world, one exchange just lost everyone's confidence

In this new trust-based world, one exchange just lost everyone's confidence

CoinEx pulled a bait-and-switch on thousands of registered accounts directly harming the trust built in the communities of Truegame and other participating projects.

In mid-July, the CoinEx exchange promoted a contest for blockchain projects to compete against each other for the opportunity winning projects be listed on their exchange, free of normal listing fees. The Truegame project, along with other ICOs, was invited to participate in voting competition which included rallying the communities to register and vote on the CoinEx website. The initial voting rules presumed that the participating projects would collect a minimum of 500 votes from their respective communities in order to be selected for consideration for this opportunity. This process included registering on CoinEx.

The team of the Truegame project , as well as several dozen of other projects, loudly announced this event to its dedicated community and started active participation, spreading the news through all available marketing channels. Truegame always approaches such events with full responsibility and participates in them with great enthusiasm, involving its community into the process, and building trust along the way as we all work towards a common goal.

Truegame’s amazing community heard the call, and responded in full — much to the pride of our the team. Truegame quickly collected the required number of votes (500+) and readied it’s base for the next step in the contest.

As soon as the 500 vote milestone was achieved, the Truegame’s team informed the exchange of the accomplishment via email and Telegram. For this, we drafted a clear and complete official submission letter to the exchange, including the advantages of the Truegame project and showcasing the roadmap to partnership with CoinEx. Surprisingly, Truegame did not receive any response from the exchange regarding the timeframe for next steps, or for completion of the official application. This should have been the first sign of unprofessional practices — and it was quickly followed up with what can only be seen as a bait-and-switch.

Within one day of hitting the 500 vote milestone, CoinEx altered the voting rules and conditions without any prior notice or explanation, while silencing any community requests for clarification in its official chat. The paltry justification to their preemptive and misleading actions received from CoinEx was that they had control “to do what they want at their own discretion“ regarding the contest and submission parameters.

The abruptly amended rules signaled an unprompted doubling of required votes (from 500 to 1000) and every voting participant had to buy the exchange’s tokens (CET) for the equivalent of $100 to be able to vote- ie: a Pay to Play scheme was revealed.

This action directly undermines the crypto communities of all projects who competed in the contest, and flies directly in the face of the new economies and industries of trust that we’re all striving to create. Such actions bring into question the exchange’s stated intentions around listing the projects in normal business conditions, as well as during special events that are designed to funnel loyal communities into user sign-ups to support their projects.

The final act in this scheme came when, after a month of waiting, CoinEx did not approve any project for listing — further damaging the reputation of all project participants.

Thus, we assume that by involving naive projects and their communities into the voting, CoinEx only pursues the selfish goal of increasing the size of its own community and attracting token holders into their platform, excludes the idea of ​​fair voting, and increased their own account revenue from new users wishing to support their favorite projects.

As of the writing of this piece, a significant number of projects (more than 15) have received the required number of votes via the original contest rules more than a month ago, but there are still no dynamics on them:

CoinEx for pro forma identified 5 top projects in the “To be listed” section, and no project participating in the voting was successful in being listed:

Projects in the “Listed” tab are either projects with different listing conditions (commercial listing), or those who participated in the voting and received other special conditions.

The community of Truegame and other projects was extremely outraged by this change in conditions, as everyone was eagerly awaiting an opportunity to be listed on the exchange. The deceitful actions represented by the abrupt altering of the contest rules, the complete lack of transparency, and the total lack of justification and communication has damaged every community that it has touched. For a project like Truegame, the interest and opinion of the community is extremely important, especially when it comes to the overall participation in the event and the joint tracking of the results. The Truegame’s team, in an attempt to get justice and listing consideration, have written many appeals to CoinEx to only silence in return.

The official CoinEx response has come in the form of a sheepish template email to all inquiries, shallowly demeaning Truegame the opportunity to submit a listing request and undergo an “assessment” process — with no reference to the fraudulent actions of the “contest”. The team at Truegame submitted the application with full responsibility and attention, ensured accuracy and compliance on all aspects and forms, and provided clarity when reflecting the structure, diligence, and work our community knows us for. Obviously, we wasted our time again as the CoinEx exchange did not delve into the project’s specifics and the application itself, constantly postponed the review time, and, finally, refused to list the project without an explanation.

To sum up, the Truegame’s team spared no expense or detail to conscientiously fulfill the voting conditions on the contest, on all subsequent communication with members of the exchange, and on official listing documentation, and was met with indifferent and unprofessional representatives at every turn.

In every respect, the participation in this vote by Truegame’s community has directly soured relations between our project and our users, negatively affecting Truegame’s reputation and it also tied up valuable resources due to the extreme lack of professionalism of the contest host.

We are sure that the readers of this article will make their own conclusion about the ‘honesty’ of the CoinEx exchange and will think whether it is worth to trust their own funds to them. Truegame was not the only project whose community was hoodwinked into a cheap revenue generating scheme, so corroboration to our story is not hard to find.

In the end, there are many exchanges on the market today, and it is worth choosing the ones with solid reputation instead of those that do not respect the community and its partners. We’ve learned a painful lesson in expecting all parties, who should be working together to build new economies and industries based on Trust, to act accordingly in this period of rapid growth and community development.

10 Sep 2018 TruegameCoinEx Exchange
The views and opinions expressed in blogs are those of the authors and are not the official policy or position of ICObench. Any content provided by our bloggers or experts is of their opinion and they are fully responsible for it. ICObench is not legally responsible for the blog's content.

This user’s post This user all posts

15 Nov 2018 Dmitry Danilov 1 0 625
Sharding is a game changer in the blockchain technology
Lately there’s been a lot of talk of sharding technology in crypto circles. Striving to make an advanced blockchain-based project, Truegame’s team decided to...

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

Learn more Got it