Jump to content

Will exchanges be the whales of Songbird?


Seoulite
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since some exchanges have already said they are not supporting the Songbird drop, we can assume they will  now pocket the windfall and be massive actors in the Songbird network. 

Do you guys see any downsides to this? Obviously it sucks for people who are not getting their tokens, that goes without saying. But in terms of the network, considering it is just a testnet of sorts, I don’t think it will make much difference.

Also I’m wondering if there will be any blowback from customers not receiving tokens. @brianwalden is on nexo, but I’m guess he self-custodied his claim. You are also on the Reddit. What’s your sense of the community reaction?

I think people will be ‘half-pissed’ because they are still getting their original flare. They might not even be aware of songbird or if they are unaware that it has a real token. Maybe that’s the gamble the exchanges are taking.

It just occurred to me that there will likely be a 1 billion claim limit on songbird just like flare, no? That might leave a whole lot of tokens unclaimed…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell yes, I self custodied. I'm in NY, I can't rely on any exchanges being in business here for more than a New York minute (God I hate downstate, ok not really, it's nice to visit every once in a while).

I would think that exchanges who don't support the airdrop will just do nothing with it. But I don't know. It's one thing to not support the airdrop, it's another to keep it for yourself. I would hope that customers would revolt if their exchange uses the airdrop to profit for themselves. But I dunno, my guess is that most people don't know and don't care.

My assumption is that most of the SGB will go unused, leading to a low circulating supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brianwalden said:

I would think that exchanges who don't support the airdrop will just do nothing with it. But I don't know. It's one thing to not support the airdrop, it's another to keep it for yourself. I would hope that customers would revolt if their exchange uses the airdrop to profit for themselves. But I dunno, my guess is that most people don't know and don't care.

They could be leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table by doing nothing. They may well be banking on the lack of awareness / confusion of the public to avoid dealing with, then maybe six months or a year down the line start selling their holdings. I don't know too. But it's a very large chunk of xrp that we are talking about. 

Having said that, Bitrue will support it. I wonder if other relatively large ones who were planning to list FLR anyway will also be on board. 

Reduced circulating supply is good for us. It's already only 15 billion too so if it is sustained and has the kind of success that Kusama has had then we could be very lucky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a fair whack of XRP on nexo for the Flare airdrop. 

Personally think its pretty shocking if they dont support it and will leave Nexo if they dont - it cant be that hard to distribute if they agreed to the 1st airdrop?

If a lot of other exchanges dont support it either there is going to be a lot of unhappy people in the community. 

There are a lot of unhappy people on the telegram group, its aimed at @FlareNetworks who dont seem bothered if the exchanges dont distribute this airdrop. People dont like to feel something is unfair and its created mistrust and animosity already. 

Dont think Flare have handled this well at all. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Yorkies said:

There are a lot of unhappy people on the telegram group, its aimed at @FlareNetworks who dont seem bothered if the exchanges dont distribute this airdrop. People dont like to feel something is unfair and its created mistrust and animosity already. 

I think it's a little unfair to blame Flare since this is likely a new development and the snapshot has already happened, so they have no leverage over exchanges. They can't threaten to exclude them from the Flare airdrop if they don't support Songbird, for example. I'm not sure what people are expecting them to do.

5 hours ago, Yorkies said:

Dont think Flare have handled this well at all. 

Story of this launch so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seoulite said:

…and the snapshot has already happened, so they have no leverage over exchanges.

…. 
 I'm not sure what people are expecting them to do.

I’m not sure that is correct.  I assume the smart contract doing the distribution has a blacklist of addresses that won’t receive FLR. (Ripple and certain exchanges, founders etc)

So for the songbird clone they could presumably just have a patch to add any additional exchange that they know is NOT going to distribute SGB.

So I don’t think it’s beyond their control at all.  I could be wrong.  But I don’t see how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BillyOckham said:

I’m not sure that is correct.  I assume the smart contract doing the distribution has a blacklist of addresses that won’t receive FLR. (Ripple and certain exchanges, founders etc)

So for the songbird clone they could presumably just have a patch to add any additional exchange that they know is NOT going to distribute SGB.

So I don’t think it’s beyond their control at all.  I could be wrong.  But I don’t see how.

Seems like a very drastic step though doesn’t it? And sends a very bad message about governance. We’ll be hearing until the end of time how “Flare can freeze your account”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Seoulite said:

Seems like a very drastic step though doesn’t it? And sends a very bad message about governance. We’ll be hearing until the end of time how “Flare can freeze your account”

I don’t think it’s that drastic.  They simply would not be distributing to exchanges that are not participating.  They could even hold those tokens aside in case the exchange changes it’s mind.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me not to give tokens to an exchange that doesn’t want to participate.

But my post was mainly just a response to your belief that they couldn’t do anything.  I think it extremely likely that they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BillyOckham said:

I don’t think it’s that drastic.  They simply would not be distributing to exchanges that are not participating.  They could even hold those tokens aside in case the exchange changes it’s mind.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me not to give tokens to an exchange that doesn’t want to participate.

The problem is we are not just talking about exchanges. Forget about exchanges for a moment. The principle is: Flare can unilaterally decide to withhold tokens from the controllers of related private keys because they don't like how they acted. Yes they excluded Jed and Ripple and put a cap on the original airdrop; given that that happened before anything was launched or snapshotted, and that there are very reasonable arguments for those precautions, I just don't think it's the same. 

"You are under no obligation to do what we say but we will punish you for not doing what we want just because we can."

Yeah, not a good look. It doesn't matter that Flare won't have the power to do that after the launch. It will be the main thing that people remember about Flare. 

Those of us who have been around for a while imbibed the paranoia of the OGs around exchanges and got 'not your keys, not your crypto' tattooed on our foreheads. In the intervening years this paranoia has barely touched the new entrants but remains strong in the OGs. This is how I knew @brianwalden most likely self-custodied despite being a fan of Nexo. 

A lot of new entrants are getting a rude awakening to the reality of exchanges. I don't blame them, I don't think it's right, but not your keys not your crypto is just as correct as it was when Satoshi first descended from Mt. Gox with the genesis block stone tablet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Seoulite said:

The problem is we are not just talking about exchanges. Forget about exchanges for a moment. The principle is: Flare can unilaterally decide to withhold tokens from the controllers of related private keys because they don't like how they acted. Yes they excluded Jed and Ripple and put a cap on the original airdrop; given that that happened before anything was launched or snapshotted, and that there are very reasonable arguments for those precautions, I just don't think it's the same. 

"You are under no obligation to do what we say but we will punish you for not doing what we want just because we can."

Yeah, not a good look. It doesn't matter that Flare won't have the power to do that after the launch. It will be the main thing that people remember about Flare. 

Those of us who have been around for a while imbibed the paranoia of the OGs around exchanges and got 'not your keys, not your crypto' tattooed on our foreheads. In the intervening years this paranoia has barely touched the new entrants but remains strong in the OGs. This is how I knew @brianwalden most likely self-custodied despite being a fan of Nexo. 

A lot of new entrants are getting a rude awakening to the reality of exchanges. I don't blame them, I don't think it's right, but not your keys not your crypto is just as correct as it was when Satoshi first descended from Mt. Gox with the genesis block stone tablet. 


Let me start by saying that I think you are extremely helpful and smart and I enjoy and value your posts.  But I think you’ve gone a little overboard here.

This is not some meta maxi matter about decentralisation and self determination.   Its simply a matter of saying to the exchanges “If you’d like to participate just let us know and we will distribute to you.”  If they don’t want to subscribe they don’t get a token.  Perfectly normal and reasonable.

Now I know you are saying “forget about the exchanges, this is bigger than that”….  but I don’t think so.  When I spoke up it was in the context of exchanges only.  


When I was a dev we would all sometimes get embroiled in heated discussions about architectural nuances that essentially amounted to an argument about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

I generally tried to bring it back to reality… what is the real world effect,  and what percentage of instances does this ‘meta’ matter affect.


I think here it’s really simple…. if they want to make it fair to their Flare user base, and coincidentally avoid creating overweight whales on Songbird, then make it “opt in” for exchanges.  Leaving it laissez-faire is going to be a less desirable result (if some biggish exchanges don’t distribute to their users).


Initially you said Flare couldn’t do anything about it, I believe I’ve shown that incorrect, and now you seem to think it’s some large moral or religious argument.  I think it’s much clearer and simpler than that.

I agree with you about the lack of concern and trust placed in Exchanges since yeah…. not your keys, not your crypto.  Having said that, I comfortably have a small investment/trade bag on an exchange all the time.  :)  
 

As to the principle of unilaterally deciding who gets some…. well yeah,  that’s what the founders do.  They can give it to everyone who can prove ownership of a VW Beetle in the last five years if they like.  That’s their privilege and responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post. I appreciate a lively discussion and good faith disagreement, no bad feelings here at all :) 

That said, I think you're wrong haha

14 minutes ago, BillyOckham said:

This is not some meta maxi matter about decentralisation and self determination.

The problem is that meta maxi arguments filter down to the general population and do have an effect on how a project is seen, particularly in the beginning. Furthermore, would it be smart for Flare to alienate some of the largest exchanges before the launch?

16 minutes ago, BillyOckham said:

 Leaving it laissez-faire is going to be a less desirable result

Less desirable for users, perhaps, but better for Flare Limited and the project overall? Maybe. 

18 minutes ago, BillyOckham said:

Initially you said Flare couldn’t do anything about it, I believe I’ve shown that incorrect, and now you seem to think it’s some large moral or religious argument.

Yes I agree they can do something. I amend my statement to 'they shouldn't do anything.' 

Moral and religious arguments matter. I know most people don't give a crap about the decentralisation, much freedom, destroy fiat currency aspect of crypto, but they do care about who controls their money. If they are under the impression that Flare can just decide if you get tokens even though you control the private keys then are people going to be so willing to sink significant amounts of cash into a project like that? We both know that that won't be possible once the network launches but I'm talking about first impressions. 

21 minutes ago, BillyOckham said:

As to the principle of unilaterally deciding who gets some…. well yeah,  that’s what the founders do.  They can give it to everyone who can prove ownership of a VW Beetle in the last five years if they like.  That’s their privilege and responsibility.

At the beginning of this whole process I would've said yes, but look at the whole thing around governance votes, etc. Everyday we get closer to 'you control the network' in spirit and in practicality. 

This is how it will sound: "we are airdropping a new token but we are not giving it to some people because we don't like what they are planning to do with it". Now, that is what they did with Jed and Ripple execs, but we are now years down the line and we've had Hugo talking nonstop about decentralisation and DeFi and governance and its your network and blah blah blah. 

Think about it like this: what if they turned around right now and said 'we've decided to exclude all the people who claimed the full 1 billion spark limit, because we want this project to be for the less wealthier people and we don't want whales on the network.' Imagine how that would go down? Sure, there wouldn't be loads of sympathy for the rich people, but it would still be a case of 'Flare controls your tokens and makes arbitrary decisions about them'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Seoulite said:

Thanks for the post. I appreciate a lively discussion and good faith disagreement, no bad feelings here at all :) 

That said, I think you're wrong haha

Hehe.  I often am.  But not this time.   :) 

 

20 minutes ago, Seoulite said:

Furthermore, would it be smart for Flare to alienate some of the largest exchanges before the launch?

They won’t be alienating any if they do this as ‘exchange opt-in’.  Even the most entitled crypto maxi will have seen many such things as normal practice.  If they want to sweeten it further they can hold those tokens in reserve for burning if not opted in by six weeks or months.

 

22 minutes ago, Seoulite said:

Less desirable for users, perhaps, but better for Flare Limited and the project overall? Maybe. 

Flare have already shot themselves in the foot a couple of times as you alluded to above, do they really need upset exchange users ?

 

24 minutes ago, Seoulite said:

If they are under the impression that Flare can just decide if you get tokens even though you control the private keys then are people going to be so willing to sink significant amounts of cash into a project like that?

See this is the bit that I think you’ve gone overboard on.  You, (as in the exchange,) don’t control the private keys UNTIL there is a network.  And this is that angels on a pin thing….   I can own and control a post office box but can’t really complain if no one sends any money to it.

 

Can you really point to the problem in exchanges being told:

“If you notify us that you will opt in and be participating in the canary network then we will send you tokens.”

 

It takes some serious metaphysical twisting to turn that into a injustice or a violation of some holy blockchain principle.

 

34 minutes ago, Seoulite said:

Think about it like this: what if they turned around right now and said 'we've decided to exclude all the people who claimed the full 1 billion spark limit, because we want this project to be for the less wealthier people and we don't want whales on the network.' Imagine how that would go down? Sure, there wouldn't be loads of sympathy for the rich people, but it would still be a case of 'Flare controls your tokens and makes arbitrary decisions about them'. 

That is a bit of a red herring since that’s not the proposal, but even so, it wouldn’t prove “Flare controls your token”.  It would simply prove that Flare controls the initial distribution which is the reality.

Your concern about FUD is valid but entirely unavoidable…. they will fud you if they want and and can distort anything they chose.  Walking in fear of that and perpetrating an unjust exchange whale situation because you feared FUD is a bad choice in my opinion.

Thanks for this discussion…. I’m supposed to be painting a door but I’ve enjoyed this more.   :) 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take is that, with all the well-deserved kudos and praise, this is a half-baked "solution" offered by Flare. Hugo Philion says on Discord he reckons that exchanges will see the value of the product and adopt/airdrop. Not so sure about this approach.

So far only Bitrue gave the green light, others show the cold shoulder amazingly quickly, within a day or so. And if exchanges are not aboard then forget about the value-building of the token. It will be a speculative toy fueling hopium.

Flare should have coordinated this move in the background to prepare for uptake. Now it even seems that the Flare airdrop is burdensome for exchanges, they don't want to go through the same experience again.

Of course the Kusama parallels are tempting. Not sure how exactly that canary network was planned and incepted. Flare would be advised to offer exchanges and holders an $SGB airdrop option different from the Flare airdrop. Again, all that matters is whether exchanges are aboard and the token can be traded and has liquidity. All this should not jeopardize Flare in any way, on the contrary Spark will be widely available from onset. SGB will be a niche something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, panmores said:

So far only Bitrue gave the green light, others show the cold shoulder amazingly quickly, within a day or so. And if exchanges are not aboard then forget about the value-building of the token. It will be a speculative toy fueling hopium.

Yes and no. While I agree in the short term, I think the move away from exchanges has begun, with DEXs popping up all over the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.