Exchange outreach


For direct updates on progress and how you can help: see the following post Exchange outreach

If you want to read the rationale on why this thread has been created-- rant below

Exchange Outreach

It has come to my attention that over the course of the past several years, we, collectively as a community of this leaderless, decentralized organization have not done much in the way of exchange outreach. And that’s a bit of an understatement.

I have scoured through CMC and the various other aggregators and I see one thing in common. Vast, vast majority of coins have presence on 10, 15, 20,30 exchanges. Often with multiple pairings. Literally almost Every.Single.One, at least in the first couple of pages (check for yourself)

In contrast the past 3 years Counterparty has not been added to a single new exchange. And has never got more than a single pairing. Why? Honestly, I think nobody even properly took the time to research and contact new exchanges!!

Counterparty started off on the two major,most popular exchanges at the time (Bittrex and Poloniex, in a great position- then- xcp became a top 5 even competing against much more well funded competitors.

times slowly changed and more and more exchanges came, they took the crown away from poloniex and bittrex, the pay-to-list thing took off for a bit but I literally don’t believe we as a community ever really actually got in any serious dialog with any of the new exchanges that were becoming popular-- we got complacent the existing ones always stick around and remain popular, even though their volume has decreased 90% and the markets have expanded massively - Counterparty was one of the few (only?) projects NOT added to Bittrex’s highly popular Korean offshoot upbit which was a huge let-down, means it pretty much entirely missed out on exposure from an entire country that had a burgeoning interest in crypto-

meanwhile other projects were dedicating significant time and effort to reaching out to exchanges- and that shows. Sure, many were ICO’s that paid to play, some got listed just out of defaultness like litecoin and xrp, but others put in a lot more effort and it certainly didn’t hurt.

These exchanges are onramps and offramps. Discoverability points. Sometimes for huge segments of the market (e.g Korea, Thailand, Russia, China) Vast majority of volume centers around Asia.

Exchanges aren’t just for speculators, daytraders and other such groups they’re showcases- shopwindows- someone tha discovers a coin on an exchange can become community members, supporters, Holders, builders, evangelists, partners. Liquidity is a good thing. Liquidity provides a stable, secure foundation.

It gives people confidence the project is not going anywhere. That even if they cannot rely on the price of any particular coin staying the same, they can rely on there being places to exchange. If one is down, no problem. This is what decentralization is all about. No single failure point. Turns out we had only a couple of centralized points after 5 years that has been a sticking point that has stifled counterpartys growth massively (yes, I’m aware there is literally an inbuilt decentralized exchange- but I’m sure you get the point)

And with counterparty that’s especially important because as counterparty is not just a fork of btc that you hold and pretend it’ll one day be used to buy starbucks with, it’s a framework to be built upon and interacted with, XCP other than being an anti-spam fee for registrations, and potentially finding further use e.g as gas in a VM- it’s is the base liquidity token that projects can interface with, Apps. Games. Collectibles and so on.

These frameworks are a much better position if the underlying base token is widely exchangeable. Doesn’t matter what the price even is, just that it’s widely exchangeable. People will self-determine the value after that. Nobody would be interested denominated things in ETH if it was illiquid. Nobody ‘serious’ paid serious attention to BTC when it was highly illiquid, it wasn’t ready for entire swathes of use-cases, or groups of people to even pay it any mind, back in gox days.

In general, nobody wants to hold anything that’s illiquid lest they end up ‘holding a bag’. But you take that same thing and ‘just add liquidity’ without otherwise changing the properties and suddenly it is in a much better position for growth. Much better position for people to actually determine it’s value. Liquidity begets liquidity and vice versa. With decent liquidity or at least avenues for it, community grows, instead of shrinks. Morale is positive instead of negative. This is good not just for the platform itself but anything built on top of it.

The plain and simple reason counterparty dipped so extremely is not because of something drastic like a hack, not because of weak fundamentals, not because of anything else primarily but lack of liquidity. Some holders felt uneasy. They were spooked with a short deadline to hold or dump and they didn’t have confidence there would be another liquidity source in future. They were stood at the end of a cliff and told on a megaphone “we’re taking the cushions away next week”. Some who don’t make fundamental long-term decisions about why they got in just got scared given such an ultimatum and jumped. The same thing happened with BTC and gox. (except in this case, nothings missing) The recent dump was artificially brought on and exaggerated greatly

The same would happen to any other coin, does not matter how good it is, how interesting it is. Ethereum or $insert_top_coin would be close to zero too now if it was delisted everywhere overnight and only available on tux exchange (no offence to tux)

Reading the following link: was a sobering moment for me.
Please read it too.

This is a detailed log of ravencoins community outreach to exchanges in the past year. In the past year the ravencoin community, quite admirably, has gone from being listed on ZERO exchanges with a zero market cap and just an OTC sheet (where counterparty is now more or less) to being listed on over 40 exchanges with a one billion fully diluted market cap, proving that the idea of a token system (without all the complexity and cruft of a ‘world’ computer) is viable. Proving there is interest in the idea.

This is an Idea counterparty came up with

Half of the exchanges RVN got listed on were achieved during the time period when raven did not actually even have any kind of assets. It was literally just a bitcoin fork with a changed PoW. The binance listing alone which happened in october jumpstarted their volume from $180K a day before the ann across 5 exchanges including bittrex and upbit (XCP was $450k on same day between bittrex and poloniex which generally got less vol than upbits KRW pairing ) to $175M ,the listing meant a dozen articles describing what RVN is and what it’s used for went out overnight,the number of participants in their telegram two fold. No difference in the code but a sudden HUGE difference in exposure.

We already know the problem is not that this project sucks, it’s not that there’s no point, that there’s no use case, no market. Quite the opposite. The issue is that so many don’t even know it exists. it launched in the shadows in 2014 when tokens weren’t a thing, when the space with a lot smaller. It’s on no exchanges. Almost nobody knows about it to even be able to interact with it. that’s the MAIN reason it’s where it’s at now. Simple.

Counterparty has an edge

Vitalik Buterin: “I was involved in the colored coins project for a few months before I moved to my position that MSC/XCP-style systems are strictly superior to CC in basically every possible way (and moved to Ethereum full-time, but I will say that Ethereum is not superior to CC in every possible way because it is not directly based on Bitcoin so doesn’t have as nice interoperability properties… my personal opinion is that XCP-style meta-consensus systems are the next generation from here, at least as far as Bitcoin-based protocols are concerned”

Sergio Demain Lerner (Rootstock creator and Bitcoin contributor): “Keeping the counterparty source code small and independent of the network client is a great design decision, from the point of view of security. Because of this Counterparty client is the smallest, readable and yet completely usable “alt-coin” I’ve ever seen.”

Peter Todd (Prominent BTC contributor ) on a technical level using a token [like counterparty] rather than a two-way-peg [sidechains] has the advantage of security: who owns what tokens is defined by the Bitcoin blockchain, and changing that record requires you to 51% attack Bitcoin as a whole

^^ Remember what these folks said RE:counterparty?. Counterparty really does offer some unique benefits. Built for tokens and immutable (unlike RVN which will implement tags/restrictions invalidating that premise) Strong security, Native interoperability with bitcoin, inbuilt DEX- existing asset ecosystem. Time-tested. Long term development, No sky high inflation or concerns with miner abandonment once that sky-high inflation tails off, no turing complete vectors, no complex code audits on issuances, Perhaps one of the easiest asset creation systems around (especially new wallets like freeport) These features never got a chance to shine.

Since 2014 when counterparty was lauched in the shadows before the token revolution really even was on anyones lips the cryptospace has grown and evolved drastically. Counterparty never kept up with exchange pace, completely missed out on a BUNCH of exposure and resultingly suffered. Now is the time to realize this and work collectively to correct with the same energy a new project would do.

The future, and how it can be brighter

There’s some reassurance here. Why? out of those 41 exchanges that RVN has so far been listed on, not a single one of them was a paid listing At least 8 exchanges voluntarily listed RVN (mostly after Binance led the way) but the rest came as a direct result of the community members requesting a listing/filling a form

XCP and RVN share the same decentralized, cypherpunk, open-source ethos that projects like DCR and grin have wrt listings. An ethos that used to be the norm but temporarily got sidelined by dubious ICO’s that will no doubt slowly mostly fade away along with those entities that survived solely of extorting ICO’s for listings. The markets are wiser, more mature. A focus on quality, innovative non ICO projects is an ethos which is coming back into fashion.

Counterparty is essentially at ground-zero, day one right now. The wiki is a blueprint of how another project grew from day one from nothing to something major- How a project left obscurity into the limelight. this is evidence-- at least on the exchange front that we as a community can help grow XCP too.

What next
I will be beginning work on adapting this wiki page to counterparty specific outreach efforts. In the interim, I will be posting a temporary basic version as a forum thread here- and encourage anybody to post with feedback, (e.g specific exchanges not already included on the list that might be worth reaching out to.)


A Trello board for checking progress and contributing to the exchange listing efforts is hosted above. If you wish to contribute to efforts or check progress, please use the above link.

I will take continual brief excerpts of progress and keep it updated in this thread also.

Outreach- June- work in progress
Rather than starting out by hitting up coinbase (let’s pace ourselves)
I have contacted several challenger exchanges that prioritize listing of coins with real use-case, fair launch (no ICO) and aren’t afraid of listing coins that are slightly harder to integrate or that aren’t already top 15. Admirable ethos and I felt these were a good fit to get in touch with, have a respectable mentality, seem ethical, competent and would take the listing request into serious consideration. I think quality over quantity is a more sensible strategy so will prioritize these two for now and continue identifying viable candidates and beginning discussions at a later date continually.

Current status (will be updated)

  • June 8th- Reached out and received an initial response from exchange #1 – they are currently evaluating the project
  • June 8th- Received an initial response from exchange #2 that counterparty is up for consideration- it has also secondary received a secondary vouch by a contributor endorsing it as a viable candidate for potential listing.
  • June 15th- Exchange #3 self listed counterparty on it’s platform

Current exchange status (will be updated)

  • Zaif (only for Japanese clientele)
  • Tux exchange
  • DEX
  • SatoEX – new addition June 15th

------------------New listing overviews----------

Update 1# June 15th, 2019
XCP received a new listing on SatoEX.

SatowalletEx is a centralized cryptocurrency exchange located in UAE. It was established in 2017, currently reports a 24-hour trading volume of Ƀ979.73 from 90 coins. Coingecko reports normalized volume is $310,000 and SimilarWeb monthly visits of 8,343

The three listed pairs are as follows:


Very good post, and the Ravencoin wiki is quite illuminating. Let’s definitely follow that example.

I just noted on the foundation thread, that I noticed Bittrex is paying really high fees on their sends. For instance, 6 hours ago, an address had 9 XCP sent to it, and the BTC miner fee paid was 0.001. So, Bittrex paid $8 in BTC and retained $0.10 in XCP with their 0.2 XCP withdrawal fee. Exchanges need to collect a BTC fee rather than an XCP fee when withdrawing, otherwise they are guaranteed to lose money. This might be a reason for delisting.

1 Like

@ Jess, This is exactly it and you’re right the metalayer model (2 daemons) is more complex than hosting just one daemon, most specifically the fee model (this is what another tier 2 exchange owner had told me long time ago- his personal stance if there is this was more flexible he would list, just from his individual view of the project)

example of his gripe: someone with zero btc balance deposits small amount 2 XCP, then attempts to withdraw later without trading,(no fees collected) exchange either has to 1) pay that BTC withdrawal fee on behalf of the client and just charge xcp to the client to cover
2) require customer to deposit btc, if they haven’t already got in their account to cover the withdrawal fee- either case the fee is taken from a seperate wallet and they have to keep that topped up separately, can’t take directly from the customers standard btc hot wallet.

This isn’t a problem if 1 xcp is a stable price- (e.g 50 USD) and it costs a fixed 0.01 ($0.50) xcp to withdraw and btc fee is stable (at $0.05 for example) – the exchange can simply debit xcp reliably- and cover the fees with room to spare- and without much worry- but things gets more problematic if xcp goes down whilst btc fee goes way up suddenly - e.g when 0.01 xcp is instead $0.01 and btc transaction fee quickly jumps from median $0.05 to $2 (like during the mempool spam attacks recently) -

sure other coins value goes up and down and the withdrawal fee’s have to be adjusted too. (for example BTC itself) this ideal fee can be calculated and should be adjusted automatically in many cases, so the exchange isn’t ever at a loss- but a seperate wallet doesn’t have to be maintained to ‘cover’ these fees-- it’s just a little bit more work for them and not everyone wants to put in extra work

Some less technically savvy exchanges ultimately decided they don’t even want to maintain multiple daemons (e.g ltc, xrp etc) and instead only list ERC tokens. Less work.

The same issue exists with Omni, it’s just there is practically no choice for exchanges to not list Omni if they don’t have fiat pairs and want the benefits of TUSD exposure (they absolutely do).

If transactions were natively able to be debited with XCP (such as mentioned in MPMA CIP) exchanges would be able to look upon it much more favorably. Or if BTC fees didn’t suddenly spike, or if XCP didn’t dip situation would also be nicer.

There are a number of suggestions that could make the process much smoother and more attractive for liquidity gatekeepers- for instance bridging or pegging the XCP token to another type of construct (e.g BEP-2, ERC20) as a number of others projects are sensibly increasingly doing and will continue to do so, even projects with their own chains- this approach is something that increases interoperability with other standards and also increases liquidity avenues – e.g opens up to third-party DEX’s (which is exactly what a base-level token should be, liquid- not hard to obtain/acquire or not walled away- if it’s hard to obtain, discovery and usage is artificially stunted. It’s kept ‘secret’) - You even see wrapped BTC on ethereum for example, this exposes BTC to ethereum users. It makes sense.

I’m not intimately familiar with the drivechain/sidechain proposal but my understanding is that assets on this sidechain (e.g xcp) could be broadcast without the limitations of (currently) expensive BTC sends. If so, that would be super helpful and very beneficial, and probably the most optimal path forward in general (even though fees on btc-mainchain will come down eventually) this would be desirable not just to end-users or projects building on counterparty but to liquidity gatekeepers like exchanges, essentially would be a net-win for all. So that’s definately a really cool proposal.


Outstanding post @monkey ! :clap:

Have you made a wikipage like Raven to start working? It would also be interesting to have a telegram or slack channel to talk about that and coordinate our actions :slight_smile:

1 Like

Indeed. Keeping Counterparty on mainnet is pretty much dead. Fees will be to high.
There a sidechain project working on for XCP though:


On Bittrex FoldingCoin FLDC is still listed for international customers. FLDC is a counterparty token. So counterparty is still on bittrex but not for the XCP token.


Is Folding coin going to use Hazama to save on fees?
Could even get Bittrex to use Hazama as well for Folding coin.


Isn’t Hazama to be used for every counterparty token?


Well it can be used but from what I read it isn’t mandatory so up to dev to adopt it and bring more use to it ie switch services to the sidechain.


Not meaning to hijack the thread… i think trello works a LOT better for this kind of thing.

Just created a trello for this, anyone’s invited to join and start adding tasks.

EDIT: Join by clicking this link

1 Like

Thank @chiguireitor for starting that trello board, I’m not familiar with the workflow but I’ve heard good things about it being a great tool for collaborative brainstorming so I’ll get up to speed with it and get it populated. @Anyone, feel free to contribute! will pin trello board to the first post and focus on using that, but also will keep this main thread updated with key snippets for those checking in here.

Also, first update

Update 1# June 15th, 2019
XCP received a new listing on SatoEX.

SatowalletEx is a centralized cryptocurrency exchange located in UAE. It was established in 2017, currently reports a 24-hour trading volume of Ƀ979.73 from 90 coins. Coingecko reports normalized volume is $310,000 and SimilarWeb monthly visits of 8,343

The three listed pairs are as follows:


Awaiting developments in outreach for two other exchanges contacted. Much more work to be done in this space in the coming months!

1 Like

Hi all,

XCP trading on Zaif is taking off. I wonder if something is going on behind the scenes?

BTW the price at Tux exchange is MUCH lower. I guess there aren’t enough people with accounts at both exchanges to perform arbitrage and bring the prices in line with one another.

It appears that Zaif is not accepting new account applications.

Fisco, which acquired Zaif, has a separate exchange that was originally based on the Zaif exchange software, so they are probably thinking that they need to combine the two exchanges into a single exchange. I assume that the new combined exchange will continue to list XCP, as it was lucky enough to be included in the list of cryptocurrencies approved by the Ministry of Finance (thanks to the hard work by Tech Bureau and Takao Asayama).

Fisco does not seem to have an English trading interface. Hopefully when they combine the two exchanges they will offer an English interface for international investors/traders.

To continue for XCP to have multiple listings would be healthy for reliable price discovery, and hopefully arbitrage opportunities.

The XCP community needs to get XCP listed on other major exchanges.




I noticed FISCO listed here first and later that they pioneered some of the first bitcoin bonds and crypto fund

Fisco token is even listed on the blockchain, using counterparty

assume that the new combined exchange will continue to list XCP, as it was lucky enough to be included in the list of cryptocurrencies approved by the Ministry of Finance (thanks to the hard work by Tech Bureau and Takao Asayama).

Yes, the approval is great news. I see in Japan there is good level of organic usage of CounterParty as a platform and an ecosystem. E.G Avacus. The AVA-SAKE popup bar is so cool!
I think a HAZAMA launch and interoperability with bitcoin/bitcoin based standards means there is plenty of potential ahead-- I think bitcoin tokenization is huge in future with plenty of bigger entities looking into it-- IMO counterparty can be one of the best base-level platforms for issuance and trade, but it’s definitely important to get more visibility with other exchanges, which is why I’m focused on doing so with this thread and will endeavor to do over the coming months.


Hi Monkey, thanks for the informative reply.

I wasn’t aware that the Fisco token was based on counterparty!

I just checked and the Caika coin, which is listed on the Fisco exchange, is also a counterparty based token.

Caica is a publicly listed company.

NCXC is a similar token (based on counterparty, listed at Fisco, and issued by a publicly listed company).

1 Like

Yes, seems FISCO distributes to shareholders and has a page on their IR portal & corporate site for using the token to obtain reports, CAICA distributes those tokens to shareholders

it’s not equity, just a virtual token- but a perfect use for blockchain tech. Super fascinating, this kind of thing is pioneering!


Hi @monkey Did you contact Upbit for listing request? I think liquidity threre is pretty good


Another long rant, tl;dr at the bottom

current climate is quite interesting, Binance has given 90 days notice for US-based traders to leave the binance platform voluntarily. (for reference, chinese volume on binance accounts for 1.3% of traffic, US accounts for 40%+) some are speculating that several things will happen.

  • One; US traders will be (and are already) looking to migrate to a more friendly exchange (exactly like what happened with Poloniex, Bittrex who were once kings in the space and proceeding exchanges before them that were once dominant- these means in 90 days and more importantly after there will be shakeup and competition for this market)

  • Two, there will be an increasing interest in DEX’s or platforms that facilitate decentralized exchange since they provide an ultimate liquidity backup (and most of these are ETH centric, there isn’t many that work with BTC that don’t require centralized peg)

  • Three, scammy coins which launched based on an ICO/SAFT whatever structure and directly received capital with pre-ico, ico round 2 three etc and didn’t cross their T’s are slowly, but surely facing a regulatory ice-out. (some are safe of course, you see some on poloniex, coinbase etc) this leaves fair community coins a better chance to shine (as it was 2015 and earlier before ETH kicked off the ICO storm)

These three things position counterparty nicely

My view is Binance knew it’s current model was unsustainable, tried to structure itself to avoid restriction and had a good run but ultimately was faced with the prospect of disabling every “problematic” coin offering (at least to US markets) (of which it could be argued, there are many) AND restricting everyone currently using the platform by increasing the compliance as necessitated by US regulation. This would of wrecked many of the alts and been a PR disaster for the platform.

Or they had an option B… launch a DEX pre-emptively and try to transition much as possible to that- then slowly phase out US users from the traditional centralized binance portal- but, knowing full well DEX is not enough at this stage (e.g, on cosmos btc can’t be used without a peg) also launch a US-specific portal (binance us) to service the US market-- (so if you’re following so far regular binance becomes like bittrex international, and binance US becomes like regular bittrex/ huobi USA etc)

binance US will presumably be more highly regulated and only offer access to a restricted set of ‘whitelisted’ coins to US traders- possibly the sanest strategy they could of come up with.

Meanwhile over at Bittrex a similar approach; Bittrex international was formed a while back along with upbit and others.

bittrex have quietly issued yesterday deadlines where over 70 coins will be disabled within the next several weeks. They will remain available to intl but prohibited from trading on the main site.

note- there’s a difference between a platform delisting an altcoin (like with what happened to counterparty) and geofencing clients from markets or markets from clients like what has been announced above, as has been explained e.g in circles (poloniex owners) blogs with poloniex geofencing

Delisting could be for a variety of reasons but for simplicity’s sake we’ll assume one of the following which are all very understandable and have nothing to do with regulations.

  • Non functioning software/wallet
  • Abandoned (e.g CLAMS)
  • Low volume/High maintenance cost (e.g according to their email, poloniex delisted syscoin days before the other coins in the most recent purge because the syscoin v4 hard-fork, scheduled on the day of delist was considered too expensive in terms of engineering time relative to the payoff)

As for reasons an exchange geofences aka disables or blocks a coin to specific markets- such blocks almost certainly have been spurred on by regulatory pressure-- in other words someone has looked through the coins launch and evaluated for example; that there was a sketchy presale ICO or something otherwise dubious, in other words said coin is essentially a security.

Picking a random couple of coins out of Bittrex soon-to-be geofenced list

MET- "Metronome is the world’s first cross-blockchain cryptocurrency, making decentralization possible and delivering institutional-class endurance. " << wat?

No point to go through the whole list as there’s almost universally one thing in common. pretty much every US disabled coin is an ETH ICO, often with pre-ico and founder allocation tokens and other such undesirable elements. Of course an ICO let’s the team member or insider invest in their own platform, and not only keep the funds (e.g ethereum) they send to their ICO risk-free but double-dip and keep the newly minted allocation of tokens (e.g EOS) they receive.

Some ICO’s are incredibly egregious with private allocations of up to 95% of the supply that is hidden from circulating view. There’s been some real dirtiness over the years and many of these ICO’s have spectacularly failed to live up to the initial hype of the whitepaper, advisory team claims and so on.

In general it seems like markets are slowly thinning out, slowly icing out those unscrupulous tokens which raised often absurd amounts of capital in dubious manners before even launching-- some of which haven’t developed anywhere near the features that were initially advertised and are still operating just as a holding token and leaving the legitimate projects as more attractive prospects once again

Counterparty, in contrast to mastercoin, ethereum, ripple or any of these ICO’s-/pre-mined allocated coins took a high road and set a standard of fairness and transparency with the proof-of-burn. It launched on-top of the bitcoin blockchain because a) it didn’t need to re-invent the wheel launching yet another siloed blockchain b) and the whole purpose was to extend bitcoin for features that didn’t and still don’t exist but are desirable-- but still there was a requirement for anti-spam/escrowable utility tokens. Counterpartys launch was carefully designed in a transparent, equitable and fair manner with no BS- mindful of an impending regulatory crackdown long before it happened-, no enrichment of devs, no ability to double dip. No nonsense roadmaps. A working product was delivered on day one. Nobody, not even the founders got any btc or eth.

My point here is that there are thousands of sketchy ICO tokens and platforms that have snuck their way into prominent positions-- if we’re going to continue seeing this kind of crackdown on ICO tokens/platforms at least to US market participants, logic could dictate that US based/US targeting platforms (e.g Binances new US exchange, launching soon) will NOT be listing an array of ICO tokens like they have done in the past nor will they carry over the majority of tokens they already have listed.

So what will they list? They will possibly list the “too-big-too-fail” or sufficiently decentralized securities, e.g XRP/EOS, the fair-coins with incumbence E.G BTC, LTC but as for the rest of the altcoins…either it’s like Binance jersey/singapore/huobi global-- etc e.g a ghost town for altcoins or there’s still interest in listing a wider variety of coins, which is what binance is known for-- once you lose the possibility of ICO launches suddenly there leaves a lot less choice of fair launch platforms with a purpose and with a pulse.

TLDR: unlike many, CounterParty had a noble launch and has been the definition of community, grass-roots project since 2014. The years following was the ICO time where huge amounts of money were sloshed around to buy press releases, listings and so on. A lot of these ICO’s have had crazy high burn-rates, layoffs and treasuries are near empty.

There’s been a regulatory clampdown. Hammers still coming down slowly on ICO’s. Recently it’s cracking down hard. The best way now for entities to acquire stake in a project is not in a random ICO but in the open market, and then to help create value themselves. - actively. The best way for incentivization/ funding is likely a mix of donations, sponsors and or grants from a community pool, which could be taken from an agreed upon subsidy.

I think finally, the time may be coming where legitimate community platforms like counterparty have a chance to get more attention again.


US-based or US user targeting exchanges are cutting off ICO- presale etc coins.
If a coin want’s traction in the US market from now, it probably doesn’t hurt for it to be a coin that’s launched fairly-
Quite possibly fairly-launched projects (there aren’t all that many) like counterparty, in stark contrast to the last year or two now have better prospects of capturing attention/getting listed going forward compared to ICO coins since the pool of acceptable (fairly launched, community coin) candidates is much smaller.

(and also, completely aside from fairness, bitcoin-based tokenization is massively interesting, far too many coins are simply attempts at becoming another currency and realistically will never gain traction, esp with stablecoins on the horizon.

Protocols with real utility and purpose are where real value lies, Bitcoin tokenization has been under-appreciated but there’s lots of renewed inter sectional interest on it now- big entities are commiting funding, seeking out devs, exploring ideas, there’s possibility for huge amount of interoperability. ETH has it’s own set of problems and in ways, attentions moving away from it for varying reasons (e.g the realization turing-completeness is overkill for many applications)

Bitcoin based extensions a hugely untapped and unknown market. RSK got a ton of hype but kind of faded to the background. Liquid got crazy amounts of funding but doesn’t really compete on same verticals. Altcoin io just got acquired by bnktothefuture.

Counterparty is a pure project, very similar to the spirit of bitcoin itself, bitcoin is not going anywhere and only getting stronger. Counterparty pioneered the dex on top of bitcoin and is one of the few viable, battle tested protocols for that and/ownership of assets on btc chain. We have a community of enthusiasts here.

All this already with next to zero exposure and potential innovations like lightning or sidechains are just mindblowingly exciting to think about) - just a few personal opinions and thoughts about the future and why I think recent developments are positive for counterparty.

1 Like

This is a very good point.
I think a big reason why people are hesitant to go back or promote XCP is the confusion on what the token XCP does and how does Counterparty plan to scale offchain.