There have evidently been some unethical practices by some of these exchanges over the years, like padding volumes to make it look like they do more trade than they actually do.
Note that DooMAD is an anti-Bitcoin troll account, padding out his credibility here with 1 post in 1000 that isn't perpetrating a divide & conquer strategy against Bitcoiners, which is what DooMAD normally does with it's posts.
Note that Carlton is a protectionist zealot with no respect for free market principles. The only development is centralised development. Independent thought (and particularly independent coding) is the work of heretics and all forum participants must be protectionist zealots engaging in an echo-chamber circle-jerk with Carlton, or else he will label them enemies of Bitcoin. Anything else is a hostile takeover attempt in a system where hostile takeovers can't happen. Despite the fact that the only changes permitted are those permitted by consensus, a proposed hard fork is still a hostile takeover attempt, even if that turns out to be what the majority of users want. Carlton doesn't understand consensus and thinks it means the status quo has to be preserved forever and running different code is an attack on the network. Despite being open source software where the licence permits modification, it turns out this is actually frowned upon in the Church of Carlton. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is apparently a paid shill (still waiting for my payout, it seems). Anyone who used to agree with him but then had a change of heart is apparently a
double agent. Carlton will live out the rest of his days in paranoia, jumping at shadows and seeing heretics wherever he goes. It would be sad if it wasn't so hilarious.
I can promise you I am an ardent fan of and believer in Bitcoin. I'm genuinely sorry that you seem to believe it's so delicate that it won't withstand someone questioning the direction of development because they have legitimate concerns regarding the permissionless and open nature of the system being potentially compromised by certain proposals if they aren't implemented correctly. In case it hasn't sunk in yet, I believe SegWit and Lightning do have a role to play, but the average user shouldn't be left with no practical alternative but to be forced to use payment channels. I'm also sorry if this perfectly reasonable standpoint is heresy in your zealot eyes.
Now if you're quite finished derailing this thread, perhaps you'd like to take this discussion to a more relevant one.