It’s usually the small investors that feel most entitled.
If Dan pulls this off, may I suggest to everyone that gets bailed out:
Help a good friend open a Safex wallet, and donate 10% of your holdings to your friend’s wallet. You’ll be 90% further ahead than you are today, and you’ll get the joy of introducing someone else to this heady elixir called crypto currency.
if you’re having trouble covering for transaction fees already you won’t be able to send any to your friend
That’s not what I meant. The way I read the message, is that Dan offered up the bc to buy the Safex coins that are hostage on that exchange, and then returning them to the affected members. The deal is not finalized, and may never be. It’s Dan’s deal.
What I was suggesting is that if he pulls it off, and returns the coins to some of our members, that those members pay that act of generosity forward.
Nate, I have no idea what you mean either. The transaction fees would be almost the same cost as the cost of the safex 1500 withdrawal
I agree Nate, it would be a great good will gesture for the community and an assurance of confidence. Especially towards those with weaker hands. There seemed to be several weak hands on satoshi exchange last night. GREAT deals to be had for those with just a little more patience. Regret later on could be brutal.
People, you need to hang on to your safex coins. 2.147 billion supply may seem like a lot right now but as the cryptocurrency space grows, these seemingly high supply numbers will look foolishly small later on. XVG or Ripple are good examples of what will happen. Safex has far fewer than those.
This ship is at port right now, only to load up on goodies. To some it may seem like an eternity but it will set sail again soon enough for those with patience.
Investing in CC requires some intelligence. You can’t just give it to someone and expect to know what to do with it. I’d love to share around, but im kinda selfish in reeling in those big bucks.
Sorry…sometimes getting my ideas across in writing not my strength.
Here’s what I’m trying to say:
There are Safex coins essentially held hostage on Cryptopia, because the owners of the coins don’t have enough to meet the minimum transaction requirements. How many owners, I don’t know.
Dan has put forth an idea to, in essence, buy all those coins from Safex, and return them to the owners.
As it stand right now, those affected owners have lost their coins.
If Dan is successful, they may get their coins back.
That’s one hell of a goodwill gesture by Dan.
I’m suggesting that those owners (nobody else) pay that goodwill gesture forward by sharing a small amount of their returned coins, vis-à-vis introducing a friend to Safex, showing them how to set up a wallet, and put a few coins in it. It was just a thought. Sharing good fortune often gets good fortune returned to you.
No need to be selfish about CC. Would you rather be retired early with your friends and family, or all alone?
There is plenty to go around in this new world of honest money. It really is a whole new system that’s being birthed right before our eyes, Better to get as many people on board the CC spaceship as possible before it leaves the launch pad…
Yes, if they can’t pull there coins already, it means they have less than 1500.
When they get back their < 1500 coins, they can’t transfer to their friends, because it cost around that much for the transaction.
Which is what caused the problem in the first place.
Hopefully, we can end up on an exchange that won’t charge high fees.
It’s not so much the exchange, but BTC’s inherent transaction cost.
Fair point. However, there is a disparity between exchanges, which indicates that some fees are not transaction cost-based.
Good point, I’m not sure how Bittrex could afford 100 safex transaction fee.
I suspect they are losing money on those.
I installed ver 5 safex wallet (before I have ver 3). And now, after login to the wallet I have massage and synchronisation error. It is temporary ?
I don’t think that’s why, they could have raised the transaction fee instead. If anything it has more to do with the fact that they consider SAFEX a security with dividend.
No they do not, if they did there are numerous others that distribute additional holdings and heck Dan himself even stated the reason was the transaction size