Without explanation for this glaring inconsistency, you shouldn't be surprised that people would conclude something dishonest/disingenuous went down here.
This explanation, as a response to your posts specifically, was given on Jan 5th
Thanks for the effort. I also found the emails - yes indeed I asked for listing of FIMK and inquired about helping HEAT (whose name remained secret in mid June, so it was not identified) in the ICO as escrow, for later listing on Bittrex. In a followup to their canned reply I offered the 3 BTC quoted somewhere on their site, with communication stopping there on their side.
Yes you did. And the inconsistency existed then, as it does now.
Bittrex have no record of any inquiry other than FIMK, which would be consistent with you saying that HEAT was not mentioned. So why say this?..... "Prior to HEAT ICO I've talked to Bittrex personally about listing HEAT"