Notes

$bnx 要改名 $four 了,不会又是借改名偷偷增发代币吧? 币安更新bnx改名可以,请直接把bnx改名前和改名后后的代币数据公布出来。 别又偷偷增发代币把我们散户蒙在鼓里
$bnx
-0.64%
$four
+1.09%
$front
-6.75%
$SLF
-6.4%
$alpha
-1.31%
$TVk $sxp
+5.94%
$start $matic
+2.78%
Why don’t users like to play with VC-controlled tokens anymore? I was shocked when I saw the data shared by @Panews. Project teams and Binance exchanges are colluding to rename and increase token issuance, which is completely an insult to the name of cryptocurrency. They are trampling on fairness and transparency to the extreme. Some VC-backed tokens have been listed on Binance for several years, and the project team has already sold off almost all of their tokens, leaving them with very few tokens in hand. However, the project still looks good in all aspects of maintenance. On the surface, it seems to be doing fine. The token is also circulating on first-tier exchanges like Binance. But the project team has no tokens left, which worries a bunch of institutional investors and the project team. Finally, they came up with a solution: partnering with Binance to announce a name change for the project. In fact, it’s just a re-issuance of new tokens to exchange 1:1 with the old tokens held by users. If things stopped here, it wouldn’t be so bad—it’s just a name change and token swap, a simple new-for-old replacement. But little did users know, the secret lies in the issuance of the new tokens. The total supply of the new tokens increases by 2 to 4 times. A portion of the new tokens is distributed to retail investors, while the vast majority goes into the hands of institutions. The tokens are then dumped on Binance, creating a situation where they make profits out of thin air. Binance also cooperates by changing the name and updating the data. Examples: $front, the original supply was 90 million tokens. After renaming to $SLF, the total supply increased to 360 million tokens, a fourfold increase. A portion of the new $SLF tokens was distributed to retail investors to exchange for $front, but the remaining billions of tokens stayed in the hands of the project team. During the last bull market, they cut down retail investors, and in this bull market, they increased the supply under the guise of token issuance. $alpha was renamed LTLY, with the total supply increased from 1 billion to 3 billion tokens. $TVK was renamed $vanry, with the total supply increased from 1.2 billion to 2.4 billion tokens. $sxp saw its supply increase from 300 million to 610 million tokens. $start was renamed $strax, with its original supply of 1.3 billion tokens increased to 1.96 billion. Who is that extra 660 million tokens for? $matic, originally a first-tier project with 10 billion circulating tokens, was renamed to pol. After the change, its total supply increased by 2% annually. This is more reasonable, with only a small increase in the supply. now $BNX wants to steal $FOUR community's effort by changing their name and then dump to it's user. They are a VC coin, nothing related to meme, but now $FOUR has the best narrative: decentralization community fighting with evil VC rename tokens. In the blockchain and cryptocurrency world, project teams can arbitrarily increase the total supply of tokens, diluting the value of tokens held by users. Binance has allowed such actions. Is this how Binance protects its users? @binance @binancezh @cz_binance @heyibinance Project teams arbitrarily increase the token supply, and Binance has failed to protect its users from this. Of course, HeYi will say: If Binance doesn’t support the increased supply, other exchanges will. If you think it’s unreasonable, you don’t have to buy the token or you can short it. But back when Binance was first starting out by CZ, it promised to protect users’ rights. I don’t think Binance has fulfilled that promise. Data source: @PANewsCN
$front
-6.75%
$SLF
-6.4%
$alpha
-1.31%
$TVK $vanry
-2.29%
$sxp
+5.94%
$start $strax
+1.45%
$matic
+2.78%
$BNX
-0.64%
$FOUR
+1.09%
做市值的钱都省了,洗盘百分之90本来收筹码都很便宜了,现在好了直接改名增发,已经完全背离了区块链的初衷,甚至传统金融增发都不敢这么明目张胆。
$front
-6.75%
$SLF
-6.4%
$alpha
-1.31%
$TVk $sxp
+5.94%
$start $matic
+2.78%
我希望我发推后,能引起加密圈各方的重视,希望各个交易所建立这样的机制:对与申请更改项目资料的代币严格审核,类似增发代币这样重要关键数据信息公开提醒用户注意。 有小伙伴说,币圈绝大部分交易所都没有对于借改名增发代币的项目方作出提醒和警示。 为啥只发推说币安没有提醒。 他们说的也是事实: 目前币圈交易所几乎对与项目方增发代币申请在交易所展示页面更改代币信息资料时候,都没有对用户作出提醒和明示。币安之是众多交易所之一。 发推里面提及币安配合项目方改代币资料的时候,没有提示用户代币总量增发了。 这事从第一性原理来看,很简单的逻辑: 第1.我发不发推文把这事揭示出来。和交易所以及项目方增发没有因果关系 第2.币安有没有提醒自己的用户项目方增发了代币。和我发不发推文没有因果关系(我倒是希望我发推后,各个交易所建立这样的机制,对与申请更改项目资料的代币严格审核,重要关键点公开提醒用户注意) 第3.其他交易所有没有提醒,是不是也是这么做的。币安是独立运营的主题,运营策略不受其他交易所控制。 这1. 2. 3.事直接根本没有直接因果逻辑关系。 就像放过推导:我不发推文,币安也还是这样做的,vc币也还是在增发。 不是我发不发推文,项目方就不增发,币安改资料的时候就会提醒大家。 我希望我发推后,能引起加密圈的重视,各个交易所建立这样的机制,对与申请更改项目资料的代币严格审核,代币增发这样重要关键信息点公开提醒用户注意。
$front
-6.75%
$SLF
-6.4%
$alpha
-1.31%
$TVk $sxp
+5.94%
$start $matic
+2.78%
有人我在fud币安 我只是说出了看到的事实
$front
-6.75%
$SLF
-6.4%
$alpha
-1.31%
$TVk $sxp
+5.94%
$start $matic
+2.78%
😠VC币机构币真的很气人,太无下限了,这些恶行vc币还不如个土狗,人家土狗都知道放弃权限。 现在为什么用户不喜欢玩机构或者vc控盘的币,看到@PANewsCN的数据我惊呆了。项目方和币安交易所勾兑改名增发代币简直是在侮辱加密货币的名字,把公平公开按在地上极致摩擦。很多大锁上面的币真的不如纯土狗🐶Meme币。 有些vc币上了币安几年了,项目方已经把币卖的差不多了,手里已经没有什么币了。 但是项目的各个方面维护的还不错,表面看起来还不错。 而且项目也在币安这样的一流大所流通着。 但是项目方手里却没有币。这可急坏了一堆投资机构和项目方。 终于,他们想了个办法, 联合币安交易所,对外宣称要改个项目名字。 其实就是重新发个新币给用户手里的老币1:1的兑换。 如果事情到这一步都还好,不就是换名字换币嘛,新老置换一下即可 。 殊不知秘密就藏在新币的发行量上面。 新币总量直接2倍-4倍增加, 拿出一部分兑换给散户,剩下的绝大部分全是机构持有。直接提到币安砸盘卖币,空手套白狼。 而币安也配合改名字,该数据。 举例: $front ,原版老币供应9000万枚,改名为 $SLF 之后, 总量变为3.6亿枚,总量直接翻4倍。拿一部分 $slf 出来给散户兑换。 $front,剩下几个亿的币都在项目方手里。活脱脱的上波牛市割了一波韭菜,这波牛市手里没有币币直接变相增发了,接下来继续卖币砸盘,这样还能涨? $alpha 名字改为LTLY,总量10亿枚增发为30亿枚 $TVk 改为 $vanry,总量12亿增发为24亿 $sxp 总量从3亿枚增发为6.1亿枚 $start 改为strax,原本1.3亿枚增发为19.6亿枚,有零有整,这0.6亿是给谁留的? $matic 作为一流团队原本流通100亿改为pol之后,改为100亿+2%年增发率,还算良心吧,增发不多。 作为区块链加密世界,项目方随意更改代币总量,稀释用户手里代币价值,这些币安交易所都同意了 。 这样的事情币安居然同了。 币安就是这样保护自己的用户? @binance @binancezh @cz_binance @heyibinance 项目方随意增发代币,币安没有做到为自己用户守住最后底线 。 当然一姐会说: 1.我币安不更新增发代币,其他交易所也会更新。 2.如果你觉得不妥当,你可以不买,也可以做空呀。 呵呵, 当初币安开始发展的时候的时候, 承诺保护用户权益。我觉得币安没有兑现。 数据来源于@PANewsCN
$front
-6.75%
$SLF
-6.4%
$alpha
-1.31%
$TVk $sxp
+5.94%
$start $matic
+2.78%
项目方的财富密码都被你揭露了
$front
-6.75%
$SLF
-6.4%
$alpha
-1.31%
$TVk $sxp
+5.94%
$start $matic
+2.78%
为什么现在用户不喜欢玩vc控盘的币,看到@Panews的数据我惊呆了。项目方和币安交易所勾兑改名增发代币简直是在侮辱加密货币的名字。把公平公开按在地上极致摩擦。 有些vc币上了币安几年了,项目方已经把币卖的差不多了,手里已经没有什么币了。 但是项目的各个方面维护的还不错,表面看起来还不错。 而且项目也在币安这样的一流大所流通着。 但是项目方手里却没有币。这可急坏了一堆投资机构和项目方。 终于,他们想了个办法, 联合币安交易所,对外宣称要改个项目名字。 其实就是重新发个新币给用户手里的老币1:1的兑换。 如果事情到这一步都还好,不就是换名字换币嘛,新老置换一下即可 。 殊不知秘密就藏在新币的发行量上面。 新币总量直接2倍-4倍增加, 拿出一部分兑换给散户,剩下的绝大部分全是机构持有。直接提到币安砸盘卖币,空手套白狼。 而币安也配合改名字,该数据。 举例: $front ,原版老币供应9000万枚,改名为 $SLF 之后, 总量变为3.6亿枚,总量直接翻4倍。拿一部分 $slf 出来给散户兑换 $front,剩下几个亿的币都在项目方手里。活脱脱的上波牛市割了一波韭菜,这波牛市手里没有币币直接变相增发了呗。 $alpha 名字改为LTLY,总量10亿枚增发为30亿枚 $TVk 改为 $vanry,总量12亿增发为24亿 $sxp 总量从3亿枚增发为6.1亿枚 $start 改为strax,原本1.3亿枚增发为19.6亿枚,有零有整,这0.6亿是给谁留的? $matic 作为一流团队原本流通100亿改为pol之后,改为100亿+2%年增发率,还算良心吧,增发不多。 作为区块链加密世界,项目方随意更改代币总量,稀释用户手里代币价值,这些币安交易所都同意了 。 这样的事情币安居然同了。 币安就是这样保护自己的用户? @binance @binancezh @cz_binance @heyibinance 项目方随意增发代币,币安没有做到为自己用户守住最后底线 。 当然一姐会说: 1.我币安不更新增发代币,其他交易所也会更新。 2.如果你觉得不妥当,你可以不买,也可以做空。 呵呵, 当初币安开始发展的时候的时候, 承诺保护用户权益。我觉得币安没有兑现。 数据来源于@PANewsCN
$front
-6.75%
$SLF
-6.4%
$alpha
-1.31%
$TVk $sxp
+5.94%
$start $matic
+2.78%
Sign in to Coinnx