Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 112 results by KevinMiles
Re: Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted.
The latest news info - UK wants to be a crypto hub and plan to exploit the crypto potential, what about EU - did they still want to commit a crypto suicide with their overregulations? I guess will soon find out?! UK probably made the right choice leaving the EU.
Re: Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted.
So for the already KYC`d accounts there is no practical difference now and then !?
And what happens when someone sends coins from his own unhosted wallet to his KYC`d exchange account in order to exchange it to fiat? Has to prove that his won wallet is his own, or what?
Brian Armstrong - Coinbase CEO said that "Moreover, any time you receive 1,000 euros or more in crypto from a self-hosted wallet, Coinbase will be required to report you to the authorities. This applies even if there is no indication of suspicious activity."
Brian Armstrong - Coinbase CEO said that "Moreover, any time you receive 1,000 euros or more in crypto from a self-hosted wallet, Coinbase will be required to report you to the authorities. This applies even if there is no indication of suspicious activity."
1. no you dont. you wanting a deposit into the account deposit address is you having those assigned to you. they do not need you to prove every deposit is yours... you wanting/have a deposit put into your account deposit address is you already linking yourself to that deposit.
in short nothing else is needed if your already KYC'd by the exchange
EG
Quote
For transfers of funds or for transfers of crypto-assets where verification is deemed to have taken place,
payment service providers and crypto-asset service providers should not be required to verify information on the payer or the payee accompanying each transfer of funds, or on the originator and the beneficiary accompanying each transfer of crypto-assets, provided that the obligations laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/849 are met.
payment service providers and crypto-asset service providers should not be required to verify information on the payer or the payee accompanying each transfer of funds, or on the originator and the beneficiary accompanying each transfer of crypto-assets, provided that the obligations laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/849 are met.
2. they have to keep logs of all deposits and trades/swaps within their service and if the authorities request it then they have to provide that info to the authorities.
or if the service deems it to reach a certain level of suspicion, then the service decides to report it.
basically if the authorities request the info, give it. or the service only gives info that they find highly suspicious that is worthy of reporting. it does not mean everything gets reported
EG
Quote
As regards transfers of crypto-assets, the crypto-asset service provider of the beneficiary should implement effective procedures to detect whether the information on the originator or the beneficiary is missing or incomplete. These procedures should include, where appropriate, monitoring after or during the transfers, in order to detect whether the required information on the originator or the beneficiary is missing or incomplete. With a view to ensuring the respect of the right to privacy and the protection of
personal data, personal information should not be recorded on the distributed ledger and should not be attached directly to the transfer of crypto-assets itself. It should however be required that the
information is submitted immediately and securely, and made available upon request to appropriate authorities
personal data, personal information should not be recorded on the distributed ledger and should not be attached directly to the transfer of crypto-assets itself. It should however be required that the
information is submitted immediately and securely, and made available upon request to appropriate authorities
this one part alone both tells people that the EU are not requesting that blockchains should make users info public on the blockchain (a silly idea certain people propagandised months ago)
ill also quote this that clarifies they do not want the crypto software/ wallet software to send the info
Quote
2. Transfers from/to un-hosted wallets
Secondly, it should be clarified that this Regulation applies also to transfers from or to crypto-asset wallets based on a software or hardware not hosted by a third party, known as ‘unhosted wallets’, provided that a crypto-asset service provider or another obliged entity is involved. In such circumstances, however, there should be no transmission of information to the unhosted wallet. Information should be obtained by the crypto-asset service provider directly from its customer and should be held and made available to competent authorities.
Secondly, it should be clarified that this Regulation applies also to transfers from or to crypto-asset wallets based on a software or hardware not hosted by a third party, known as ‘unhosted wallets’, provided that a crypto-asset service provider or another obliged entity is involved. In such circumstances, however, there should be no transmission of information to the unhosted wallet. Information should be obtained by the crypto-asset service provider directly from its customer and should be held and made available to competent authorities.
and also states the "made available" in many exerts .. ON REQUEST to the authorities.. so its not a "report everything"
if it ever was a report everything. then every single market exchange every deposit every withdrawal would be reported and basically flood the authorities with nonsense stuff..
they only want the interesting reports that are suspected to be linked to crimes. they dont want to be flooded with everything. and thats the reason why they get service providers to have compliance officers and investigators and such. to weed out the boring from the interesting.
if they just wanted everything. they would not need all these trained employees within the service providers business. they would just ask for direct access to their database
there are other things. like
Quote
as well as effective procedures to detect suspicious transfers based on the source or destination of the crypto-assets involved, in particular any link with criminal activities and darknet marketplaces, or any usage of mixers or tumblers or other anonymising services, in order to allow them to decide whether to
execute, reject or suspend that transfer and to determine the appropriate follow-up action to take
execute, reject or suspend that transfer and to determine the appropriate follow-up action to take
the 'determine the appropriate follow-up action to take' references things like if the service should raise the flag to a potential need to report it to authorities.
in short its not a defacto 'report everything'
in short. they do not blanket ban users for using a mixer or freeze the account or refuse withdrawals or report them automatically/every instance. the service provider has to assess things case by case. and with other EU directives they should only really refuse withdrawals/access if done via a court order to seize funds.
heres another little nugget to clarify certain peoples false assumptions of how MSB's work
if a user refuses to give info. the service provider cannot defacto just seize the funds and make the customer at a loss just for not providing info.
instead the service has to have procedures to not seize.. but instead suspect certain service features or offerings like access to the market order book. and offer a refund mechanism to return funds to the customer to then close their account..
many unregulated(crap services) actually pretend they have the right to keep funds by asking customers for extraneous things which they know the customer will refuse to provide and pretend that triggers their ability to keep funds(steal funds actually)
Quote
Where a crypto-asset service provider or other obliged entity repeatedly fails to provide the required information on the originator or the beneficiary, the crypto-asset service provider of the beneficiary or
other obliged entity shall take steps, which may initially include the issuing of warnings and setting of deadlines, and return the transferred crypto-assets to the originator’s crypto-asset account or wallet
address. The crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity of the beneficiary shall also determine whether to reject any future transfers of crypto-assets from, or restrict or terminate its business
relationship with, that crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity
other obliged entity shall take steps, which may initially include the issuing of warnings and setting of deadlines, and return the transferred crypto-assets to the originator’s crypto-asset account or wallet
address. The crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity of the beneficiary shall also determine whether to reject any future transfers of crypto-assets from, or restrict or terminate its business
relationship with, that crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity
Re: Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted.
And what happens when someone sends coins from his own unhosted wallet to his KYC`d exchange account in order to exchange it to fiat? Has to prove that his won wallet is his own, or what?
Brian Armstrong - Coinbase CEO said that "Moreover, any time you receive 1,000 euros or more in crypto from a self-hosted wallet, Coinbase will be required to report you to the authorities. This applies even if there is no indication of suspicious activity."
Brian Armstrong - Coinbase CEO said that "Moreover, any time you receive 1,000 euros or more in crypto from a self-hosted wallet, Coinbase will be required to report you to the authorities. This applies even if there is no indication of suspicious activity."
1. no you dont. you wanting a deposit into the account deposit address is you having those assigned to you. they do not need you to prove every deposit is yours... you wanting/have a deposit put into your account deposit address is you already linking yourself to that deposit.
in short nothing else is needed if your already KYC'd by the exchange
EG
Quote
For transfers of funds or for transfers of crypto-assets where verification is deemed to have taken place,
payment service providers and crypto-asset service providers should not be required to verify information on the payer or the payee accompanying each transfer of funds, or on the originator and the beneficiary accompanying each transfer of crypto-assets, provided that the obligations laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/849 are met.
payment service providers and crypto-asset service providers should not be required to verify information on the payer or the payee accompanying each transfer of funds, or on the originator and the beneficiary accompanying each transfer of crypto-assets, provided that the obligations laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/849 are met.
2. they have to keep logs of all deposits and trades/swaps within their service and if the authorities request it then they have to provide that info to the authorities.
or if the service deems it to reach a certain level of suspicion, then the service decides to report it.
basically if the authorities request the info, give it. or the service only gives info that they find highly suspicious that is worthy of reporting. it does not mean everything gets reported
EG
Quote
As regards transfers of crypto-assets, the crypto-asset service provider of the beneficiary should implement effective procedures to detect whether the information on the originator or the beneficiary is missing or incomplete. These procedures should include, where appropriate, monitoring after or during the transfers, in order to detect whether the required information on the originator or the beneficiary is missing or incomplete. With a view to ensuring the respect of the right to privacy and the protection of
personal data, personal information should not be recorded on the distributed ledger and should not be attached directly to the transfer of crypto-assets itself. It should however be required that the
information is submitted immediately and securely, and made available upon request to appropriate authorities
personal data, personal information should not be recorded on the distributed ledger and should not be attached directly to the transfer of crypto-assets itself. It should however be required that the
information is submitted immediately and securely, and made available upon request to appropriate authorities
this one part alone both tells people that the EU are not requesting that blockchains should make users info public on the blockchain (a silly idea certain people propagandised months ago)
ill also quote this that clarifies they do not want the crypto software/ wallet software to send the info
Quote
2. Transfers from/to un-hosted wallets
Secondly, it should be clarified that this Regulation applies also to transfers from or to crypto-asset wallets based on a software or hardware not hosted by a third party, known as ‘unhosted wallets’, provided that a crypto-asset service provider or another obliged entity is involved. In such circumstances, however, there should be no transmission of information to the unhosted wallet. Information should be obtained by the crypto-asset service provider directly from its customer and should be held and made available to competent authorities.
Secondly, it should be clarified that this Regulation applies also to transfers from or to crypto-asset wallets based on a software or hardware not hosted by a third party, known as ‘unhosted wallets’, provided that a crypto-asset service provider or another obliged entity is involved. In such circumstances, however, there should be no transmission of information to the unhosted wallet. Information should be obtained by the crypto-asset service provider directly from its customer and should be held and made available to competent authorities.
and also states the "made available" in many exerts .. ON REQUEST to the authorities.. so its not a "report everything"
if it ever was a report everything. then every single market exchange every deposit every withdrawal would be reported and basically flood the authorities with nonsense stuff..
they only want the interesting reports that are suspected to be linked to crimes. they dont want to be flooded with everything. and thats the reason why they get service providers to have compliance officers and investigators and such. to weed out the boring from the interesting.
if they just wanted everything. they would not need all these trained employees within the service providers business. they would just ask for direct access to their database
there are other things. like
Quote
as well as effective procedures to detect suspicious transfers based on the source or destination of the crypto-assets involved, in particular any link with criminal activities and darknet marketplaces, or any usage of mixers or tumblers or other anonymising services, in order to allow them to decide whether to
execute, reject or suspend that transfer and to determine the appropriate follow-up action to take
execute, reject or suspend that transfer and to determine the appropriate follow-up action to take
the 'determine the appropriate follow-up action to take' references things like if the service should raise the flag to a potential need to report it to authorities.
in short its not a defacto 'report everything'
in short. they do not blanket ban users for using a mixer or freeze the account or refuse withdrawals or report them automatically/every instance. the service provider has to assess things case by case. and with other EU directives they should only really refuse withdrawals/access if done via a court order to seize funds.
heres another little nugget to clarify certain peoples false assumptions of how MSB's work
if a user refuses to give info. the service provider cannot defacto just seize the funds and make the customer at a loss just for not providing info.
instead the service has to have procedures to not seize.. but instead suspect certain service features or offerings like access to the market order book. and offer a refund mechanism to return funds to the customer to then close their account..
many unregulated(crap services) actually pretend they have the right to keep funds by asking customers for extraneous things which they know the customer will refuse to provide and pretend that triggers their ability to keep funds(steal funds actually)
Quote
Where a crypto-asset service provider or other obliged entity repeatedly fails to provide the required information on the originator or the beneficiary, the crypto-asset service provider of the beneficiary or
other obliged entity shall take steps, which may initially include the issuing of warnings and setting of deadlines, and return the transferred crypto-assets to the originator’s crypto-asset account or wallet
address. The crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity of the beneficiary shall also determine whether to reject any future transfers of crypto-assets from, or restrict or terminate its business
relationship with, that crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity
other obliged entity shall take steps, which may initially include the issuing of warnings and setting of deadlines, and return the transferred crypto-assets to the originator’s crypto-asset account or wallet
address. The crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity of the beneficiary shall also determine whether to reject any future transfers of crypto-assets from, or restrict or terminate its business
relationship with, that crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity
So for the already KYC`d accounts there is no practical difference now and then !?
Re: Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted.
And what happens when someone sends coins from his own unhosted wallet to his KYC`d exchange account in order to exchange it to fiat? Has to prove that his won wallet is his own, or what?
Brian Armstrong - Coinbase CEO said that "Moreover, any time you receive 1,000 euros or more in crypto from a self-hosted wallet, Coinbase will be required to report you to the authorities. This applies even if there is no indication of suspicious activity."
Brian Armstrong - Coinbase CEO said that "Moreover, any time you receive 1,000 euros or more in crypto from a self-hosted wallet, Coinbase will be required to report you to the authorities. This applies even if there is no indication of suspicious activity."
1. no you dont. you wanting a deposit into the account deposit address is you having those assigned to you. they do not need you to prove every deposit is yours... you wanting/have a deposit put into your account deposit address is you already linking yourself to that deposit.
in short nothing else is needed if your already KYC'd by the exchange
EG
Quote
For transfers of funds or for transfers of crypto-assets where verification is deemed to have taken place,
payment service providers and crypto-asset service providers should not be required to verify information on the payer or the payee accompanying each transfer of funds, or on the originator and the beneficiary accompanying each transfer of crypto-assets, provided that the obligations laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/849 are met.
payment service providers and crypto-asset service providers should not be required to verify information on the payer or the payee accompanying each transfer of funds, or on the originator and the beneficiary accompanying each transfer of crypto-assets, provided that the obligations laid down in Directive (EU) 2015/849 are met.
2. they have to keep logs of all deposits and trades/swaps within their service and if the authorities request it then they have to provide that info to the authorities.
or if the service deems it to reach a certain level of suspicion, then the service decides to report it.
basically if the authorities request the info, give it. or the service only gives info that they find highly suspicious that is worthy of reporting. it does not mean everything gets reported
EG
Quote
As regards transfers of crypto-assets, the crypto-asset service provider of the beneficiary should implement effective procedures to detect whether the information on the originator or the beneficiary is missing or incomplete. These procedures should include, where appropriate, monitoring after or during the transfers, in order to detect whether the required information on the originator or the beneficiary is missing or incomplete. With a view to ensuring the respect of the right to privacy and the protection of
personal data, personal information should not be recorded on the distributed ledger and should not be attached directly to the transfer of crypto-assets itself. It should however be required that the
information is submitted immediately and securely, and made available upon request to appropriate authorities
personal data, personal information should not be recorded on the distributed ledger and should not be attached directly to the transfer of crypto-assets itself. It should however be required that the
information is submitted immediately and securely, and made available upon request to appropriate authorities
this one part alone both tells people that the EU are not requesting that blockchains should make users info public on the blockchain (a silly idea certain people propagandised months ago)
ill also quote this that clarifies they do not want the crypto software/ wallet software to send the info
Quote
2. Transfers from/to un-hosted wallets
Secondly, it should be clarified that this Regulation applies also to transfers from or to crypto-asset wallets based on a software or hardware not hosted by a third party, known as ‘unhosted wallets’, provided that a crypto-asset service provider or another obliged entity is involved. In such circumstances, however, there should be no transmission of information to the unhosted wallet. Information should be obtained by the crypto-asset service provider directly from its customer and should be held and made available to competent authorities.
Secondly, it should be clarified that this Regulation applies also to transfers from or to crypto-asset wallets based on a software or hardware not hosted by a third party, known as ‘unhosted wallets’, provided that a crypto-asset service provider or another obliged entity is involved. In such circumstances, however, there should be no transmission of information to the unhosted wallet. Information should be obtained by the crypto-asset service provider directly from its customer and should be held and made available to competent authorities.
and also states the "made available" in many exerts .. ON REQUEST to the authorities.. so its not a "report everything"
if it ever was a report everything. then every single market exchange every deposit every withdrawal would be reported and basically flood the authorities with nonsense stuff..
they only want the interesting reports that are suspected to be linked to crimes. they dont want to be flooded with everything. and thats the reason why they get service providers to have compliance officers and investigators and such. to weed out the boring from the interesting.
if they just wanted everything. they would not need all these trained employees within the service providers business. they would just ask for direct access to their database
there are other things. like
Quote
as well as effective procedures to detect suspicious transfers based on the source or destination of the crypto-assets involved, in particular any link with criminal activities and darknet marketplaces, or any usage of mixers or tumblers or other anonymising services, in order to allow them to decide whether to
execute, reject or suspend that transfer and to determine the appropriate follow-up action to take
execute, reject or suspend that transfer and to determine the appropriate follow-up action to take
the 'determine the appropriate follow-up action to take' references things like if the service should raise the flag to a potential need to report it to authorities.
in short its not a defacto 'report everything'
in short. they do not blanket ban users for using a mixer or freeze the account or refuse withdrawals or report them automatically/every instance. the service provider has to assess things case by case. and with other EU directives they should only really refuse withdrawals/access if done via a court order to seize funds.
heres another little nugget to clarify certain peoples false assumptions of how MSB's work
if a user refuses to give info. the service provider cannot defacto just seize the funds and make the customer at a loss just for not providing info.
instead the service has to have procedures to not seize.. but instead suspect certain service features or offerings like access to the market order book. and offer a refund mechanism to return funds to the customer to then close their account..
many unregulated(crap services) actually pretend they have the right to keep funds by asking customers for extraneous things which they know the customer will refuse to provide and pretend that triggers their ability to keep funds(steal funds actually)
Quote
Where a crypto-asset service provider or other obliged entity repeatedly fails to provide the required information on the originator or the beneficiary, the crypto-asset service provider of the beneficiary or
other obliged entity shall take steps, which may initially include the issuing of warnings and setting of deadlines, and return the transferred crypto-assets to the originator’s crypto-asset account or wallet
address. The crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity of the beneficiary shall also determine whether to reject any future transfers of crypto-assets from, or restrict or terminate its business
relationship with, that crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity
So for the already KYC`d accounts there is no practical difference now and then !?other obliged entity shall take steps, which may initially include the issuing of warnings and setting of deadlines, and return the transferred crypto-assets to the originator’s crypto-asset account or wallet
address. The crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity of the beneficiary shall also determine whether to reject any future transfers of crypto-assets from, or restrict or terminate its business
relationship with, that crypto-asset service provider or obliged entity
Re: Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted.
What is DRAFT saying about when someone is using multiple exchange addresses for mining, which is common practice. The miner will have to provide the ID copy of the mining pools owners from which addresses the coins are received, or what 
These regulations are total madness!
These regulations are total madness!when you sign up to any exchange you are only allowed 1 account.(usually)
with this account you will need to be KYC'd
with this account they may provide you with 'use-once' deposit addresses and you can send funds from multiple addresses to the address currently reserved as your current deposit address
so if you have lots of coins from lots of mined blocks/sources. it does not matter because when you 'spend them' to deposit(request pool(s) to send them to deposit address) to an exchange the exchange will receive them and deem them as YOUR value
EG
mining pool A bc1qbladeblah \
mining pool B bc1qdeedeebla - miners personal wallet -> exchange deposit address
mining pool C bc1qladeedade /
mining pool A bc1qbladeblah \
mining pool B bc1qdeedeebla --> exchange deposit address
mining pool C bc1qladeedade /
in both cases YOU as the exchange account holder are KYC linked to that account. meaning deposits into that deposit address are deemed as value assigned to you.. as you are the person thats deemed the owner of the funds
..
its the same as if you were arbitraging
exchange A<->exchange B
because you as the exchange account holder, of accounts in both exchange A and B
although the transaction appears to be a straight swap from A to B. they both deem YOU as the instigator/owner/controller of funds because you are the one making the service request for withdrawal /deposit
Thanks for clearing that out. And what happens when someone sends coins from his own unhosted wallet to his KYC`d exchange account? Has to prove that his won wallet is his own, or what?
Re: Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted.
What is DRAFT saying about when someone is using multiple exchange addresses for mining, which is common practice. The miner will have to provide the ID copy of the mining pools owners from which addresses the coins are received, or what These regulations are total madness!
These regulations are total madness!Re: Goodbye, privacy, goodbye, it was nice while it lasted.
If this bill is passed its worse than CBDC itself. They will be poking in people everyday life and will apply control on all aspects of financial activity. Its an ultimate totalitarian financial dictatorship! EU is no different than China now! RIP freedom and democracy!
If you translate this AML crypto bill to a cash payment it would be something like:
In every cash payment the serial numbers of the bills have to be logged together with the ID of the customer.
And: when you get cash out of an ATM the bill's serial numbers are logged to your id.
Crazy.
In every cash payment the serial numbers of the bills have to be logged together with the ID of the customer.
And: when you get cash out of an ATM the bill's serial numbers are logged to your id.
Crazy.
Perfect comparison. Europe is no more innovation driving force. The Block is overburdened and overregulated. Maybe GB decision on leaving EU was a right one.
Re: [SCAM] Crex24 sudden KYC - while Crex24 wishes to stay anonymous
Do not send them anything because your ID might be sold on the black market to scammers and cause you more pain in the long run. I would advise you to not send your KYC to these scammers.
Any genuine exchange would allow you to remove your funds before KYC deadlines were introduced but any scam exchange would hold on to your funds in an attempt to seize them under false pretences.
Any genuine exchange would allow you to remove your funds before KYC deadlines were introduced but any scam exchange would hold on to your funds in an attempt to seize them under false pretences.
Been affected too. It seems that even trading on exchange now requires KYC. Never received an announcement from Crex24 regarding newly implemented KYC. I don’t know how they will handled that kind of sensitive information. +1 from me to the flag you raided!
Thanks for the advice. Wont give them anything!
Re: [SCAM] Crex24 sudden KYC - while Crex24 wishes to stay anonymous
Been affected too. It seems that even trading on exchange now requires KYC. Never received an announcement from Crex24 regarding newly implemented KYC. I don’t know how they will handled that kind of sensitive information. +1 from me to the flag you raided!
Re: [ANN] Grin | PoW Mining | Electronic transactions for all. Community driven.
Cool one! I'we started to mine it. But how/where to mine 31 on windows?
I also want to know but nobody answers. Cant find a proper solution anywhere!?
coin died .
Dev where is the exchange.
.Dev where is the exchange
.What happeded to this coin ?
The Turing new cores are ASICS. Imagine someone write a miner to use Tensor and RTX cores. As a result it will be possible to mine while gaming with the Cuda cores. I bet some sophisticated miner will pop up soon in order to utilize the nvidia new marvel.
We have sent listing requests to dozens of exchanges and over half of them willing to list this coin at listing fee 0.15 to 2BTC according to their listing policies.
Once we get on the final decision of tie-up with our new partner and have ease of funds to re-start project then we will head for dealing with the exchanges willing to list this coin at premium (paid) listing.
Meanwhile we are raising funds for get this coin on few exchanges by selling some of our reserved BMXT coins.
Below are links for screenshots of exchanges corresponded to our request and showed interest in listing of this coin to their exchanges. These are few of them, full list is in dozens.
https://i.imgur.com/LHLoXdR.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/boEH2bB.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/JbrmtUO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/GL9X9En.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/bJBuX9V.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/KVBsUWQ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/BvrzMe8.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/QAg9PsW.jpg
Nicely done !
Re: [ANN] Binarium is the cryptocurrency protected from ASICs and oriented on games
Dear, dev. According to explorer circulating supply for now is 7 million, right? Mining is online for a month, so shouldn't it be around 24*60/2.5*25*34=0.5 million?
One suggestion, rich list in explorer would be welcome.
One suggestion, rich list in explorer would be welcome.
Yep. It will be good to have one.
Re: [ANN][ICO] 🚀 TOKPIE 🚀 P2P Cryptocurrency-Fiat and Swap Exchange. Zero fees
I think This project will be successful one of few ICO's that started with an alpha product available for testing.. shows they are serious.. These project are needed especially since major credit card companies and bankers are blocking ease of exchange....
Banks will fail this battle)
Hope so