exchange
GCP Exclusive Reporting
idax
IDAX had become, or at least appeared to be, one of the hot spots for projects to conduct an Initial Exchange Offering - similar to an ICO, but in theory IEOs provide additional assurances to investors by having the tokens sold by an established exchange, and with that comes knowing the token will be listed as well.
Behind the scenes for weeks now, IEO's that used the exchange had been reaching out to each other to compare their experiences, all were finding one thing in common - what they got did not match what they were told to expect.
Then, one of the more recent companies to attempt to IEO through IDAX decided to take the public route much faster, publishing a post on their blog that reads in part:
"As many of you know, Crypto Market Ads (CMA) project had IEO on IDAX.pro exchange recently. First time it was canceled by IDAX.pro because we do not agreed on their terms (they called us hours before IEO, we have voice call recordings). They wanted to simulate all the sales in 1 hour time!
We tried to get refund, but unsuccessfully, they and our users pushed on us to do IEO anyway, to see what IDAX will do. Note: we do not agreed on simulation."
For evidence, they also uploaded a recorded phone call with the IDAX operations department here.
My editor here at The Global Crypto Press, Ross Davis, runs PR for one of the projects that's caught up in this mess, TuneTrade, asking his opinion on the information coming out, he told me;
"I can confirm that the experience with IDAX seemed to be all about getting their fee, saying whatever they needed to get it, then when the time comes - none of those promises were true."
However, it seems experiences vary, as he points out differences between what came out this week, and their IEO which occurred over a month ago:
"There's 2 pretty big differences i'm seeing with the story Crypto Market Ads posted and ours. We assumed IDAX dropped the ball when it came to marketing, they told us that tens of thousands of users would be receiving mobile notifications that the IEO was live, letting them know participate. When no one received these notifications, we figured their poor performance was simply because their users were never told the sale was even happening.
Something happened inbetween the weeks between dealing with us, and Crypto Market Ads. They are saying IDAX let them in on the secret, and tried to get them to agree to faking sales."
But why? I tend to agree with how he sums things up:
"So here's what I think we're looking at. We were able to compare their promises with what they delivered and say they didn't uphold their end of the deal. But if they can artificially make a token sale look like a success, and do with the blessings of the company behind it, nobody talks afterwards.
No company would come forward to complain 'yes we agreed to let IDAX make our sale look popular using fraudulent techniques, but we thought it would be more profitable'. These projects would quietly have to move on."
In the interest of fairness, the post by Crypto Market Ads does focus in-part on IDAX being a member of Coinmarketcap's Transparency DATA Alliance, which aims to stop fraudulent or inaccurate trading information from being when in tracking coin prices and trading volume.
However, one of my sources from a company still part of the DATA Alliance confirmed to me IDAX is out, and was before these accusations, saying "They we're a member for a couple weeks, then quietly removed. I never heard why but it looks like we're finding out now."
Other IEO's have already gone public over the last few days since I began working on this story, including Babbber, Migranet, and Stipend - making a class action lawsuit appear to be a likely next step.
For IDAX to make the problem go away some companies have said they'll settle for their money back, they just want to move on. Other say they're preparing evidence for authorities, believing IDAX is deserving of criminal charges. The fees are up to 30 BTC in some cases, not a small amount easily given up by either side.
We will continue to follow this story and bring you the latest!
-------
Author: Adam Lee
Asia News Desk
Exchange Accused of Stealing Millions From Crypto Projects - Calling Them a "Coordinated, Chinese Criminal Group"...
Behind the scenes for weeks now, IEO's that used the exchange had been reaching out to each other to compare their experiences, all were finding one thing in common - what they got did not match what they were told to expect.
Then, one of the more recent companies to attempt to IEO through IDAX decided to take the public route much faster, publishing a post on their blog that reads in part:
"As many of you know, Crypto Market Ads (CMA) project had IEO on IDAX.pro exchange recently. First time it was canceled by IDAX.pro because we do not agreed on their terms (they called us hours before IEO, we have voice call recordings). They wanted to simulate all the sales in 1 hour time!
We tried to get refund, but unsuccessfully, they and our users pushed on us to do IEO anyway, to see what IDAX will do. Note: we do not agreed on simulation."
For evidence, they also uploaded a recorded phone call with the IDAX operations department here.
My editor here at The Global Crypto Press, Ross Davis, runs PR for one of the projects that's caught up in this mess, TuneTrade, asking his opinion on the information coming out, he told me;
"I can confirm that the experience with IDAX seemed to be all about getting their fee, saying whatever they needed to get it, then when the time comes - none of those promises were true."
However, it seems experiences vary, as he points out differences between what came out this week, and their IEO which occurred over a month ago:
"There's 2 pretty big differences i'm seeing with the story Crypto Market Ads posted and ours. We assumed IDAX dropped the ball when it came to marketing, they told us that tens of thousands of users would be receiving mobile notifications that the IEO was live, letting them know participate. When no one received these notifications, we figured their poor performance was simply because their users were never told the sale was even happening.
Something happened inbetween the weeks between dealing with us, and Crypto Market Ads. They are saying IDAX let them in on the secret, and tried to get them to agree to faking sales."
But why? I tend to agree with how he sums things up:
"So here's what I think we're looking at. We were able to compare their promises with what they delivered and say they didn't uphold their end of the deal. But if they can artificially make a token sale look like a success, and do with the blessings of the company behind it, nobody talks afterwards.
No company would come forward to complain 'yes we agreed to let IDAX make our sale look popular using fraudulent techniques, but we thought it would be more profitable'. These projects would quietly have to move on."
In the interest of fairness, the post by Crypto Market Ads does focus in-part on IDAX being a member of Coinmarketcap's Transparency DATA Alliance, which aims to stop fraudulent or inaccurate trading information from being when in tracking coin prices and trading volume.
However, one of my sources from a company still part of the DATA Alliance confirmed to me IDAX is out, and was before these accusations, saying "They we're a member for a couple weeks, then quietly removed. I never heard why but it looks like we're finding out now."
Other IEO's have already gone public over the last few days since I began working on this story, including Babbber, Migranet, and Stipend - making a class action lawsuit appear to be a likely next step.
For IDAX to make the problem go away some companies have said they'll settle for their money back, they just want to move on. Other say they're preparing evidence for authorities, believing IDAX is deserving of criminal charges. The fees are up to 30 BTC in some cases, not a small amount easily given up by either side.
We will continue to follow this story and bring you the latest!
-------
Author: Adam Lee
Asia News Desk
