Yeah, have to agree on this point. An extra exchange is good for liquidity, and can't hurt the business as far as token economics is concerned. More exchanges means more traders, means more liquidity, and fairer prices. I think even some casinos are also building exchanges or having an internal system for exchange at some small commission. It's just diversification to me.
So why did Dean Nolan not pay from the ICO funds to have it listed in as many exchanges as possible? It was not as if he would have paid for it out of his own pocket because investors were duped in to parting with their crypto in the ICO.
Does his action display that Dean Nolan cares about either Betking or the ICO investors?30 million tokens were to be kept by Dean Nolan and 70 million were supposed to be distributed to ICO investors. He raised $6.5 million+ in the ICO in September 2017 which went upwards towards $18million just a few months later so what stopped Dean Nolan from using some of those funds to get his pathetic Betking tokens on to some of the bigger exchanges?