How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market

Here everyone can state their opinions on Onecoin/Onelife ecosystem. You are free to critique flaws or praise the good sides of the vision. Any hatred will be removed.
Post Reply
Site Admin
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market

Post by Igorkrnic » Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:32 pm

I encourage all Onecoin enthusiasts to read this thread and subscribe for updates to see how the whole market can be manipulated by unknown owners of this website and how they can kill and raise coins as they like. This way you might get an idea how Onecoin closed baby stage is a smart idea. And later, to create separate, own ecosystem away from fraudsters and manipulators.

Intro: How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market by showing fraudulent information to the community.

It has come to our attention that, the Number 1 website in the crypto-currency industry, is showing massively fraudulent and scam information (on purpose) to its users. As a site that is used frequently for reference points by many news organisations, trading outlets, companies, informational sites and individuals, we thought it would be in the best interest of the community to write about what has been really going on with this “trusted resource”.

Please note, our research indicates that multiple attempts to fix information by many coins on through contacting them through their support requests or online social media sites such as, and other places has gone unanswered, ignored and/or explicitly overlooked/denied. By explicitly overlooked/denied, we mean that after contacting their support with up-to date and obviously correct information, they refuse to update the data. Many hundreds of coins on CMC are affected very negatively (or positively) by this. A lot of them have given up trying to get CMC to put correct data on their site, and have made sticky posts in their own respective forums as to this issue instead.

We also believe that there is massive insider trading going on with the employees, owners and others involved with CoinMarketCap. Our research, including talking to multiple coin creators, shows anomalous buying of coins between times that the coin creators asked CMC to list their coin (through their google form) and between when it actually gets listed on the site. This could mean that CMC insiders know that certain coins will pump, and go on a buying spree to front-run the listing of the coin and the public market sentiment. This can be seen over and over again when analysing the action on coins when being listed.

Pump and dumps are also being actively allowed and managed by the team at CMC without the knowledge of the coin creators or coin communities themselves. This can be seen by the direct manipulation of the circulating supply of some coins. CMC puts the circulating supply as very high at certain points (increasing the market cap), then drops it down to a much lower number later (lowering the market cap). This moves these coins up or down their numbered list causing massive buys and sell offs at the whim of CMC. Luckily this fraud can only be made to happen once or twice with each coin as the public outcry from the coin communities (sometimes) usually puts an end to it one way or other.

There is also evidence of CoinMarketCap effectively “killing” off coins as it sees fit. How does it “kill” a coin? Well it removes it’s circulating supply to “?” or a very low number arbitrarily, and keeps it there for a prolonged period. As the coin goes lower and lower in the rankings, daily volume on the coin dies off until such a time that it is zero (even though the teams behind the coins are still active and growing their ecosystems). This leads to exchanges delisting the coin, and the ecosystem being entirely dead after a period of time. There is plenty of evidence of coin communities complaining and coin creators “begging” CMC to update their information with no luck. CMC literally decides which coin lives or dies with it’s own agendas. In defense of CMC, some coins do lose their circulating supply due to faults of the coins (the data end-points for circulating supply stop working on the servers provided initially by the coins), but many are brought down even with the objections and outcry of the coin creators and communities behind them.

Also of concern is the possible bribery of CMC officials and other nefarious behaviours that could very obviously be extrapolated from their current actions. What if one coin paid a handsome sum to CMC to make sure a “competitor” would have lower market cap? How do you make them have a lower market cap? Easy, refuse to update the circulating supply to what the real numbers are and instead show an arbitrary number of their choosing. This can also be seen on many of the coins listed on CMC. There is ample evidence of coins complaining publicly on many forums yet CMC taking it’s own numbers without any explanation or acknowledgement.

Another area of concern is the outdated/incorrect information of many of the coins listed on CMC. Official coin links being broken or unresponsive, including the main websites, wrong daily volumes (not updated in days or weeks), and hugely different circulating supplies (from those you can officially see on the respective blockchains of the coins themselves) are just some of the additional problems that ring alarm bells with us.

Because of these issues, (and many others including the pseudonymous nature of the founders and team members) we believe it is in the best interest of the entire community to get behind this initiative and make big noise until such a time that CoinMarketCap updates their site to show correct information, or another resource is created/promoted that shows correct and up-to date data on their website. Number 1 can go down to Number 0 very quickly in the space with the right community backlash.

Some may say that these issues may be due to incompetence of the team at CMC or them having limited resources. One of the parts of our analysis will take a much closer look at what kind of income CoinMarketCap really makes. You would be surprised. CMC is one of the most profitable businesses in the entire industry. The user is the product. The ads are the money maker. There are backroom deals, and much more happening beyond the scenes that the public does not know.

Most people here are concerned about centralised mining cartels, hardware producers, banks, governments, regulators and/or core developers being points of issues in this industry. We strongly believe that none of those come even close to comparing to the obvious fraud that has been going on at CoinMarketCap for many years.

The volume of money that is traded on information taken from CMC alone pales every other issue into oblivion. If traders are making buys and sells according to falsified data on, then they are being manipulated and lied to in one of the biggest frauds in the entire crypto-currency space.

We’re not just shocked at the level of incompetence, negligence, fraud, and outright lying that CMC perpetuates, but at the lack of information about this so far in this industry. For a community that prides itself on self-regulation through transparency and openness, it should be ashamed at not having blown this massive fraud into the public eye much sooner.

We owe it to the community to make sure resources (especially the Number 1 site in the industry) are not being placed in positions to freely commit fraud on this scale ever again.

Because of the importance of this topic, we are not just going to make comments, we will provide proof. Please wait on the follow up posts for more information. This has been a very intense effort in data gathering, reporting and analysis, so we will provide irrefutable proof of at least some of the fraudulent actions of CoinMarketCap in follow up articles.

Thanks for reading and stay tuned for some eye-opening information. We hope this series of posts gets the attention that it deserves. Only then will CMC clean up their act. We hope.

Source: CoinMarketCapped

Site Admin
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

Re: How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market

Post by Igorkrnic » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:16 am

Part A1: Fraudulent data provided on CoinMarketCap distorts entire crypto-currency market perception

For our initial “Part A1”, we focus on clearly false information being listed on CoinMarketCap (CMC). This sets us up for future posts which draw on these (and other) metrics to elaborate on our findings.

As the number of listed coins on CMC exceeds over 1500 crypto-currencies and tokens, we have only directly studied about 1/3 of them (the top 500 coins), and listed notes on our findings for the first 50 in this Part A1. Our examination on the other 450 coins will be profiled in Part A2 and beyond until complete. Part B will commence with a further in-depth look at historical data as well as information brought to light from talking to various coin founding teams. We may also look at examining all the coins on the list at a later time as we are sure there are many at the bottom, that should instead be in the top 250. Some of the information Part C will include is details on the Korean Fiasco where CoinMarketCap removed all the Korean Exchange market data instantly, and other historic actions. Part D will bring all this information together and come at conclusions and remedies for this endemic problem.

The information we provide is factual. We may infer or extrapolate certain conclusions from our analysis, and in certain cases we might be incorrect or draw the wrong ideas. We try to stay as neutral in our observations as possible (given the gravity of the information) and provide CMC a fair chance to correct the information, or explain their own methodologies.

If any coin team wants to provide data or comments (that may or may not have been examined in our posts), we urge you to contact us so we can look into it (Twitter @CoinMarketCapd). We know there are many stories out there, as we contacted a lot of coin teams ourselves to find out additional information where possible. Some replied, some did not. We are only just getting started scratching the surface of these issues and want coin founding teams to get a hold of us with their viewpoints as well. Of note: Binance seems to have a huge outstanding problem with CoinMarketCap. Checkout the data below on Binance Coin (BNB).

The power of CoinMarketCap has kept these stories out of the lime-light so far, but we know we are opening up Pandora’s Box with our articles. We understand most coins will be reluctant to even speak out as the threat of CoinMarketCap “delisting” or “updating” a Circulating Supply of a coin (to something lower) could destroy them in an instant (you got CoinMarketCapped!). We hope with this series of posts, that CMC rethinks any such action, as from here on in, every one of your actions will be closely scrutinised not just by us, but also by the community at large.

To begin, we look at obviously false data provided by to the world. We believe that incorrect information on coins listed on CoinMarketCap is one of the biggest crimes in the cryptocurrency industry. According to our research, more than 75% of the coins listed on CMC have incorrect information on them. Some issues such as outdated links to block explorers, forums and websites can be forgiven, as those sites are out of the control of CMC, and they cannot be expected to always have up-to data on those sources available (but they should). Other issues such as false Circulating Supply have a much bigger impact not only on the crypto-currency community, but also the perception of the market by the world.

By listing falsified Circulating Supply, CoinMarketCap has the power to decide which coins “win” and which coins “die”. An incorrect Circulating Supply upwards is in the favour of a coin, and brings much higher rates of user attention and positive media exposure with the increased market capitalisation and higher ranking. An incorrect Circulating Supply downwards in number, drains the coin of volume, trading, market attention and eventually leads to its death. If correct (or at least much closer to correct) data for Circulating Supply was shown for a lot of the coins we examined, this list would look quite a bit different. Some coins would move dozens or even hundreds of spots up or down if it was not for the fraudulent data shown to users on CMC.

Many coins are negatively affected, while some coins gain positively from these false Circulating Supply numbers. Of additional issue are multiple methods which CMC uses to derive their data sets, including the actual calculation. Our analysis shows that it isn’t too difficult to figure out what most of these data points should be (look at a coin Whitepaper, Block Explorer, Website, Reddit, Talk to Team, etc.). As such it is very pertinent to figure out the actual intent behind the CMC team showing the data as it is on their site. They know they are showing wrong information for many coins, but for what reason?

Problems and inconsistencies across how coins are treated allow us to see favouritism towards some crypto-currencies (maybe CMC holds them?), as well as show direct negative actions against other coins (maybe CMC just doesn’t like them?). Other issues stemming from this “unfairness” include how some coins initial internal distributions are treated. Certain ones have “locked” up coins with founders included in the Circulating Supply, other coins do not. Even with lock-up periods expired or the funds spent already. Some include “burnt” coins, others do not. Many have private investor coins included in the Circulating Supply, other don’t. Multiple have pre-sale coins included in the Circulating Supply, others do not. A few have partner/marketing/community coins included, some have them out of circulation. Certain coins have an inflated Circulating Supply with CMC including undistributed coins still “held” by founders or associates. These undistributed coins could be bounties, partner programs, or community/development, but have not been given to the end recipient yet. Some of these coins will be in limbo for many years to come, but CMC has evidently chosen to include them in “circulating” coins in favour of the project. Other coins, do not have these undistributed coins included in their Circulating Supply (as it should be). A few of the circulating supply numbers are off by hundreds of percents. Many should be on the first, or second page of the CMC Ranking List, but are languising in the nether areas of the list (some cases way in the thousands). These issues and inconsistencies, in addition to evidence from community forum complaints, teams and many other sources, lead us to believe there are industry damaging activities being knowingly perpetrated by CoinMarketCap. This needs to stop now. Only community outcry will get this fixed. This is too important to all of us to be overlooked.

For our research, we decided to take a snapshot of the information on on March 20, 2018 at 10.45am UTC and used that data to compile this analysis. Here is the link to a backup of the site on this day. Included here is an image collection of the data in that backup as well.

As mentioned earlier, we only examined the top 500 coins (at this snapshot time), and will be reporting our findings in multiple posts for Part A. Part B and beyond will concentrate on findings built on top of the data provided in the various Part A posts.

For incorrect information, we are only focusing on CoinMarketCap’s provided coin information (websites, explorers, forums) as well as details such as Circulating Supply, Total Supply, and Volumes (if it looks obviously wrong). Due to constraints, we will not be focusing on available markets and other factors, but may come back to do an analysis on those and other items of note as well. Maybe the community can help bring attention to missing markets and other false data?

Currently there are 1567 Crypto-currencies / Tokens listed on CoinMarketCap. Out of these, only 1253 have any sort of circulating supply shown on their listing (the others have a “?”). That means 314 currencies are already showing the wrong information right off the bat.

Here we begin starting from the top.

Rank 1 — Bitcoin (BTC)
>>> Official Website 2 is listed as To anyone knowledgeable enough about the bitcoin space and smart enough to know what’s going on (obviously CoinMarketCap isn’t), is now a BITCOIN CASH (BCH) promotional site. It should be immediately removed as an “Official Site” of Bitcoin (BTC) and added to Bitcoin Cash (BCH).
>>> Message Board 2 is listed as Should be immediately removed for same reason as above.
>>> Currently it shows the Circulating Supply as 16,929,600 BTC while on it shows as 16,928,925 BTC. One of these (or both) is wrong by about 675 BTC ($5,738,600 + USD worth of difference) or more. is definitely wrong as it only updates the supply once a day, while we assume the data on CMC is updated more regularly (hopefully). In our opinion, both CMC and are slightly wrong as they do not include the obviously burnt BTC. We personally believe that to get closer to the true circulating supply of bitcoin, then the Counterparty bitcoin (which provably burnt 2,100 BTC in 2014), and coins sent to the genesis address, the smallest possible Hash160, the largest possible Hash160 or other actions that concluded with the burning of bitcoin must be removed from the current circulating supply. In our opinion, “lost” bitcoin should be in included in the circulating supply as it will never be really known for sure if those coins are truly out of the market or not. Opening up that can of worms will be an entirely different undertaking.
>>> Our take on what bitcoin circulating supply should be currently? About 16,926,500 BTC with the assumption that about 3,100 BTC has been provably burnt already. By the time almost the entire supply of bitcoin is mined (just under 21,000,000 BTC), we expect there to be about 4,200 BTC provably burnt coins. We understand that the dynamics between “burning” coins and circulating supply is a very touchy and opinionated one. Should the “official” circulating supply stay the same as coin creators or others “burn” coins to increase the “value” of their ecosystem? Is this even ethical? Why do some coins include burnt coins in supply, why do others not? What would be the equivalent of this in the capital markets? Maybe a “coin buyback” by foundations or creators/organisations would make more sense to keep the circulating supply the same. The coin buyback would signal to the market that yes, some of the supply is now tied up for a period of time (either promised by the organisation doing the buyback, or just by general knowledge), but also that those coins could come back into active circulation. Permanently burnt coins should be deducted from the “circulating supply” otherwise.

Rank 2 — Ethereum (ETH)
>>> Circulating supply is off (in our opinion). Currently it shows as 98,302,975 ETH while on EtherScan it shows as 98,303,079.53 ETH. One of these is wrong by about 100 ETH (about $55,000 USD). In actual fact, both are slightly wrong as they do not include the obviously burnt ETH (sent to Genesis Address, etc.). We personally believe obviously burnt coins should be deducted to reflect true circulating supply which would lean towards being slightly lower than even what CMC shows. Other than this issue, the data here looks correct.

Ripple (XRP)
>>> Total supply is listed as 99,992,466,986 XRP by CMC. On the official Ripple Charts it is listed as 99,992,430,317.30 XRP (a difference of about 36,000 XRP), so negligible out of the total.
>>> How they figured out Circulating Supply for Ripple (currently at 39,094,094,840 XRP) is very much shrouded in mystery. CMC expects the public to take the values they put on their site at face value, while also showing multiple other circulating supplies incorrectly. CMC needs to show the users how this circulating supply was derived.
>>> According to Ripple, there are also 39,094,094,840 XRP in circulation except it states that out of the “Total XRP Distributed”, that the “*Total includes business development agreements that are still pending”. How much XRP is still “pending” and being held by Ripple? This amount should not be included in the circulating supply as it has not been let out and properly “distributed” just yet. Can XRP in this situation stay “pending” forever? What are the timelines? Do you put the “pending” XRP back every month into a new contract at the end of the lockup period? Some clarification from Ripple on these points would be of great help in bringing the circulating supply to a more LIVE and accurate number.
>>> Issues such as this (circulating supply suddenly goes down by over 2,800,000 XRP) are also very rampant in this coin’s (XRP) and other coin ecosystems.

Rank 4 — Bitcoin Cash (BCH)
>>> No obvious issues found, except for questions about Circulating Supply. There are obviously burnt BCH (same problem as BTC), which are taken into consideration when calculating Market Cap, but this is questionable as it can be understood that it is very hard to stay on top of obviously burnt coins for a team like CMC. In our opinion anything such as burnt coins should never be included in circulating supply as it gives incorrect (inflated) data, but “lost” coins should be, as it is really hard to say if they are truly out of circulation or not. The work involved in maintaining this is astronomical so we can forgive CMC for overlooking it.

Rank 5 — Litecoin (LTC)
>>> Circulating supply is off (in our opinion). Currently it shows as 55,709,751 LTC while on it shows as 55,710,558 LTC. One of these (or both) is wrong by about 750 LTC (about $12,000 USD) or more. Which one is correct? Hard to tell. We’re assuming is more live and getting their data directly from Litecoin nodes. Maybe CMC is behind in refreshing information. Either way, there is a discrepancy here, but a very small one. What may need a more closer look is the issue of burnt LTC.
>>> Explorer 3 link to does not work. Currently says “Application Error: An error occurred in the application and your page could not be served. If you are the application owner, check your logs for details.” Please keep your links current CMC!

Rank 6 — Cardano (ADA)
>>> Seems as if the Cardano team is having massive issues with getting CMC to update their circulating supply to show the correct information.
>>> Circulating supply is shown as 25,927,070,538 ADA while the Cardano team has stated multiple times it is actually 31,112,484,646 ADA ( ... tribution/). This is a difference of over 5,000,000,000 ADA which is a value of about $1,000,000,000 USD. Why is there such a discrepancy? Well we assume because CMC has removed the Cardano Ecosystem Coins (5,185,414,108 ADA split for IOHK, Emurgo and the Cardano Foundation) from the total. The move to do this by CMC seems fair at first glance (as the coins are pretty much now stationary until used), but how much ADA have those organisations used already and brought into the true circulating supply? Is it the entire 5,185,414,108 ADA allocated to them? Is it none of the amount allocated? A number in-between? The community needs to know the exact number to make informed decisions based on your list. Looking at information online seems to point the finger at a total disregard for figuring out the true Circulating Supply by CMC and its team members.

Rank 7 — Neo (NEO)
>>> Everything looks pretty straight forward at the beginning as Circulating Supply shown as 65,000,000 NEO as stated by the NEO Council matches that on CMC. What is not straight forward is what follows: initially 50,000,000 NEO was distributed (out of a total of 100,000,000 NEO created) and on October 16, 2017, a lockup period ended allowing the NEO Council to spend an additional 15,000,000 NEO (from the remaining 50,000,000 NEO) for the next year (until October 16, 2018). As stated by the NEO Council: “The annual use of NEO in principle shall not exceed 15 million tokens.” So does that mean that the entire 15,000,000 has already been spent halfway through the year? How many are remaining with the NEO Council unused and not in distribution on the markets? This could be anywhere from 0 NEO to 15,000,000 NEO.
>>> The NEO Council should outline exactly what has been used up to that point in the year as allowing an up to 25% ambiguous difference in ACTUAL circulating supply to exist on the market is not cool. What number is actually circulating between 50,000,000 NEO and 65,000,000 NEO CoinMarketCap?

Rank 8 — Stellar (XLM)
>>> The Stellar Circulating Supply is extremely skewed in its favour. Circulating Supply is shown as 18,548,925,524 XLM while the real circulating supply should be much lower at 8,131,476,076 XLM as seen on the stellar organization dashboard as “Lumens Distributed” . Why should it not be the “Lumens Available”? Although not directly held by the SDF (Stellar Development Foundation), they are “waiting” to be allocated in the future and have only been “approved” to be allocated by the SDF. How long these allocations will take is anybody’s guess. Therefore, they should not be included in calculating the circulating supply. They are obviously not circulating.
>>> Without this manipulation, the current XLM market cap would be $1,966,735,724 USD (instead of $4,486,372,970) putting it at much lower ranking (and assumedly volume, market reach, etc.) of about 16th place or below on the CMC list.
>>> Is there something going on here that the world should really know about?

Rank 9 — EOS (EOS)
>>> CMC shows the Circulating Supply as 740,346,705 EOS. On the site it shows as 848,000,000 EOS distributed (this includes the currently being distributed 2,000,000 EOS which won’t be “actually” given to the purchases until the end of the 5 day purchase period . So, until this period finishes, the real circulating supply of this coin should be 844,000,000 EOS. Now here’s the switch-up in CMC’s favour: after looking at the ethereum blockchain on you can quickly calculate the actual circulating supply. 1,000,000,000 EOS was initially created. 100,000,000 EOS was set aside for the founders (the 2nd biggest wallet). The rest was put towards the prolonged 341 day EOS token sale, so 900,000,000 EOS. Out of that 900,000,000 if you take out the quantity of EOS in the biggest wallet (159,649,425 EOS) you have about 740,650,575 EOS in circulation and not being held by for its purchasers.
>>> So what should the real circulating supply of EOS be? We think it should be 740,650,575 EOS as per our calculations. Slightly higher than what CMC has listed, but much lower than was says has been “distributed” into the ecosystem.

Rank 10 — IOTA (MIOTA)
>>> At first glance everything looks nice: 2,779,530,283 MIOTA in circulation as confirmed by the IOTA Foundation. What is unclear is that although there were no pre-mine or developer allocations of IOTA initially in 2015, a “significant” amount of IOTA was donated to the foundation, and the foundation through its activities has also acquired altogether about 5% of the total supply available (as of last year). If that is true, and the IOTA Foundation should honestly answer that, then the circulating supply should be pushed downwards to show what’s really circulating in the markets. The IOTA held by the foundation are very obviously stationary for the foreseeable future. Foundations usually have mandates on how to spend held funds as well as over what sort of time periods. These funds are not really liquid at all.
>>> Circulating supply should really be somewhere around 2,640,553,769 MIOTA

Rank 11 — Monero (XMR)
>>> The Monero circulating supply shown on CMC seems to be somewhat similar to other sources out there. Small discrepancies can be explained by data update delay by CMC or the other locations showing information.

Rank 12 — Dash (DASH)
>>> Looks like the information on CMC matches up with data from a Masternode. The currently shown supply of 7,957,217 DASH is the same on both sources. One thing that might need to be taken into consideration is the amount of DASH owned and held by the DASH Foundation. These could be semi-permanently out of circulation, so updating the data to reflect what’s been used by the foundation (and what hasn’t) may get a better circulating supply data set.

Rank 13 — NEM (XEM)
>>> Although the circulating supply is set at 8,999,999,999 XEM by both CMC and the NEM Foundation, there seems some doubt as to exactly how much XEM has been taken out of circulation by the Foundation. There may be hundreds of millions of XEM in the holdings of the Trust Fund that was setup. This XEM is effectively out of circulation and should not be including in the “circulating supply”. Some transparency from the NEM Foundation and further due diligence by CMC is to be expected and demanded from the community.

Rank 14 — Tether (USDT)
>>> Let’s not even get into this debacle. We will let @Bitfinexed stir that pit of snakes up. For now we will keep it simple. CMC has USDT listed with a Circulating Supply of 2,157,137,827 USDT. Tether on its official site says it has 2,248,090,823.52 USDT in liabilities in circulation. That’s a market cap difference of over $90,000,000 USD in value. Don’t get us started on who’s right and who’s wrong. With no blockchain to help audit the amount of dollars in the bank accounts of tether, we just have to take their word for it. Audit anytime soon?
>>> Also the “Explorer” link is not working. How about you update this CMC?

Rank 15 — Tron (TRON)
>>> Information all seems to match. Tron recently reduced the Circulating Supply by locking up funds. CoinMarketCap also reflects this. This is the right way to do it.

Rank 16 — Ethereum Classic (ETC)
>>> Burnt ETC and coins held by the Ethereum Classic Core Developers in trust should be taken out of circulating supply. Other than that, looks good.
>>> Explorer 2 ( link is not working.

Rank 17 — VeChain (VEN)
>>> A few big issues here. According to CMC the Circulating Supply is 519,084,256 VEN and the Total Supply is 873,378,637 VEN. In a public post by VeChain themselves, they state the following: Circulating supply as 495,674,734 VEN and Total Supply as 867,162,634 VEN. This is a difference of about 25,000,000+ VEN and is a market value difference of over $75,000,000 USD. Why the difference in data from VeChain and CMC? What methodology did CMC use to come up with that number?
>>> Two months ago VeChain was listed as 277,162,633 VEN. Why the sudden jump to almost double the circulating supply? What happened? This was coordinated with a pump and increase in exposure for VeChain.

Rank 18 — Qtum (QTUM)
>>> Few huge issues here. According to CMC the Circulating Supply is 73,963,808 QTUM while on the official QTUM Explorer it is 88,463,840 QTUM. That is a difference of over 15,000,000 QTUM (over $30,000,000 USD in value difference). This seems to have had happened just recently and not much information is available about this difference in supply between CMC and Qtum’s official values. Maybe the foundation should clear this up? CMC should stay on top of any changes, no matter how recent.
>>> Explorer link to is not working. Please remove broken links.

Rank 19 — Lisk (LISK)
>>> CMC seems to have recently reduced Lisk’s circulating supply by about 16,000,000 LSK. This was done in order to remove the tokens held in the wallets of the Lisk Foundation, as well as those of Co-Founders Max and Oliver, Bounty Assets and Advisors. Lisk is a pretty aged project (in crypto-crrency industry terms), so this should have been updated long ago. What should be noted, is that these coins are not really “locked” or “held” and can be used at any time by these token holders for various purposes. If these coins come into the main circulating supply, we believe they should be instantly added to the CMC supply amount, but otherwise kept out as CMC has intentioned.
>>> Of interest is when reading this, and scrolling to the bottom, you can see mention of CMC doing this to many other coins as well. Some of the ones mentioned are IOS, ICON, ONION, LOOPRING, and BTX. There is conversation on this thread about CMC just doing what it wants and making market caps smaller or larger as it sees fit.
>>> SSL error when going to (Message Board). This one is Lisk’s fault. Fix it!

Rank 20 — OmiseGo (OMG)
>>> Nothing big wrong here except the link to Chat 2 (their Slack) leads to a blank page.

Rank 21 — Bitcoin Gold (BTG)
>>> All information looks to be correct currently. There is evidence of historic issues with incorrect supply figures (4 months ago) as can be seen here in this thread.

Rank 22 — Nano (NANO)
>>> At first glance, everything looks good. The circulating supply of 133,248,289 NANO matches those from what was initially created. We believe this circulating supply to be incorrect as it also included 7,000,000 NANO that was retained as a development fund and is currently out of public circulation. The fund should be open about how much of these NANO it still holds and remove them from the circulating supply amount on CMC.
>>> Coins held by foundations, funds, founders, etc. should all not be included in the circulating supply until such a time they are free to be used in full and moved from their initially allocated wallets.

Rank 23 — Binance Coin (BNB)
>>> Looks like CMC has not updated the circulating supply of BNB in over two months since the “burn” as can be read in this thread. Admins apparently made requests to CMC to update it, but looking at CMC currently, it is still not corrected. This could be because CMC considers the burnt BNB to have originated outside of the existing circulating supply, but from our research it came from BNB collected from the public through various means (fees, etc.) and then burnt by Binance to increase the value of the ecosystem.
>>> Another huge issue is that Binance considers the BNB circulating supply to be 133,192,382 BNB (check out the official binance info charts). While CMC lists a significantly smaller circulating supply number of 99,014,000 BNB. Why a 34,178,382 BNB (about $300,000,000 USD) value difference?
>>> We believe the true BNB circulating supply should be what Binance states. Here’s the math: 100,000,000 BNB (crowdsale) — 3,000,000 BNB (burnt) + {a % of the 80,000,000 BNB allocated to Founding Team that’s been used} + 20,000,000 BNB (Angel Investors BNB allocated). Our estimate would be around 137,000,000 BNB in circulation (if 20,000,000 BNB of the 80,000,000 BNB fund has been used). It’s obvious from the numbers that Binance is correct entirely, as doing the calculations shows us 16,192,382 BNB has been used by the founders fund (less than our initial estimation). Angel Investors tokens should absolutely be included in the circulating supply if there were no lockup provisions, or the period has completed.
>>> We guess Binance got so mad at the lack of updates or changes from CMC that they created their own version with their actual numbers on it (binance info charts). The Number 1 Crypto-currency exchange vs. The Number 1 Crypto-currency site on the planet? CZ where are you at? We need to talk!

Rank 24 — Zcash (ZEC)
>>> Looking at CMC and the official circulating supply of ZEC there seems to be agreement between both of them in regards to their official number of 3,525,406 ZEC. Of note should be that the team behind Zcash receive 20% of the mining rewards for the first four years (10% of the total supply), which is distributed between the investors, the founders, the employees, the foundation and others while some is kept in reserve. The number of ZEC in these allocations should be looked at and a corresponding percentage from the circulating supply removed to reflect coins not able to move yet, or ones unspent and out of general circulating supply. This could be anywhere from 0 ZEC to a percentage of the 352,541 ZEC mined and allocated so far. This would bring the Circulating Supply down by a few percentage points.
>>> Explorer 2 link not working.

Rank 25 — ICON (ICX)
>>>Seems like ICON has tons of problems getting CMC to update their circulating supply to show the correct information. For quite a while they were showing the Total Supply as 400,230,000 ICX and the Circulating Supply as 285,880,636 ICX, In fact, according to the team behind ICX, the actual numbers are the Total Supply as 800,460,000 ICX and the Circulating Supply as 400,230,000 ICX. CMC currently shows the Circulating supply as 386,542,514 ICX and the total supply as 400,230,000 ICX.
>>> From some research we find that there are quite a few problems that stand out to us. Firstly, looking at EtherScan we can see the Total Supply of the coin to be 400,230,000 ICX. Out of those, a significant portion (about 19%) is held by one wallet that just moved 76,330,418.5 ICX in a few weeks ago as a withdrawal from Binance. Perhaps that is their ICX cold wallet. The rest of the wallets look to be individuals participating in the crowdsale, exchanges, and others.
>>> We believe the circulating supply should be increased to 400,230,000 ICX as stated by the team. If more ICX is created in some way (the ICON emission model after the ERC20 stops being used), then those should be added to the Total Supply and only brought into the circulating number once the coin is in the public domain. Either way, both the teams behind ICON and CMC are both showing false information to the world. In defence of CMC, there may be some ICX held by the founding team for other purposes in smaller wallets. If this is the case, then ICON should be open about this as well. Also, the terms of distribution seem to have changed or seem strange in the whitepaper, on page 28, the originally claimed distributions can be seen: “Expected allocation of the ICX Token are Token Sale 50%, Foundation 14%, Community Group & Strategy Partners 10%, Team, Advisors & Early Contributors 10%, and Reserve 16%.” What’s happened since then? We looked for data online but couldn’t find anything concrete. Maybe in fact, the circulating supply should be much lower than what even CMC has?
>>> This one can go either way. Ether CMC is wrong, or ICON is wrong. Likely both are here.

Rank 26 — DigixDAO (DGD)
>>> As each DGD represents 1g of Gold in this ecosystem, it is hard to keep this circulating supply dynamic (without an access point for data). Currently CMC shows it as 2,000,000 DGD while on EtherScan it shows supply to be 1,999,420.6383 DGD. CMC is obviously wrong by about 579.3617 DGD (~$218,000 USD) or about 579g of Gold. Live prices by getting data from the blockchain perhaps CMC? Ethereum is easy!

Rank 27 — Populous (PPT)
>>> Looks good. No complaints. Company info, blockchain explorer and CMC match up.

Rank 28 — Steem (STEEM)
>>> At first glance, it looks as if CMC is close to estimating what the circulating supply of STEEM is but is always slight off. Not by much, but calculating from here as well as here shows that supply on average is 1–2% off, well within our crypto-currency industry accepted standard. STEEM has a complicated emission schedule, so perhaps someone from there can educate all of us EXACTLY how you derive it, and what to expect in the future. Maybe CMC can show their calculations? Either way some clarity would go a long way towards closing even small differences up. Every coin matters. Right now, we just have to take your words for it.

Rank 29— Bytecoin (BCN)
>>> From what we know of Bytecoin, hundreds of millions of BCN have been lost forever due to many reasons. Frankly, we believe “lost” coins should stay in the “Circulating Supply”. We agree with the numbers shown.

Rank 30 — Waves (WAVES)
>>> CMC has the circulating (and total) supply listed as 100,000,000 WAVES. According to the ICO structure outline, 85,000,000 WAVES was sold to the public. 15,000,000 WAVES was retained by the team for various purposes. How much of that 15,000,000 WAVES is in actual circulation? How many of them have been allocated to the various breakdowns? How much is locked up and for how long? We believe only the WAVES in public circulation should be counted.
>>> Our Total Supply would be 100,000,000 WAVES, while the circulating supply would be between 85,000,000 WAVES and 100,000,000 WAVES, depending on how much of the 15,000,000 WAVES has already been used as per their outline. Clarification from both WAVES and CMC would be required, but we are strongly against all of the 15,000,000 WAVES non-public allocation being counted towards the circulating supply.

Rank 31 — Stratis (STRAT)
>>> CMC shows Circulating Supply as 98,785,056 STRAT. During the ICO, 98,000,000 STRAT was created with 84,000,000 STRAT distributed publicly. The remaining 14,000,0000 was allocated internally for various purposes (team, advisors, partners, bounties, marketing, etc.). How many of these have been used? The remaining 785,056 STRAT in CMC most likely comes from a rate of inflation coded into STRAT.
>>> We believe the Total Supply should be 98,785,056 STRAT, while the Circulating Supply is somewhere between 84,785,056 STRAT and 98,785,056 STRAT. This is dependent on what the Stratis usage of their allocated coins is. If it’s sitting there with the team and hasn’t moved since creation, then it should NOT be included in circulating supply.
>>> Message Board link not working to

Rank 32 — Verge (XVG)
>>> Looks like circulating supply updates are done manually and happen every while or so. This conversation thread shows a quick jump of about 700,000,000 XVG for this coin around 5 months ago (before an unprecedented pump). At this time, it went from there being 13,409,472,280 XVG to 14,101,641,297 XVG in circulation instantly. A change in market cap of about 5% may not seem like much, but that coordinated with pumping on markets can create false hype. This kind of action can be seen on many coins.
>>> Both Verge and CMC have to get together and get live information according to current circulating supply. No sudden jumps (or crashes) in numbers ever again unless to remedy mistakes. Currently CMC shows a circulating supply of 14,735,473,721 VXG and the official Verge blockchain explorer shows 14,735,487,178 XVG. With a difference of about 15,000 XVG between them, we believe the numbers are close enough currently.

Rank 33 — Maker (MKR)
>>> Looks as if though Maker had serious issues with getting CMC to update their circulating supply until about 2 months ago. Once their number was input correctly, Maker showed up on the front page of CMC giving it good exposure and setting it up for growth. According to comments from one of the redditors on the previously mentioned thread “We have been spending half a year trying to fix the frustrating issue of not having the circulating supply displayed, and it finally came through 😊”. Half a year? Are you fucking serious? How can CMC keep a coin down in the thousandth place of nowhere land (with a ? as a circulating supply) for that long? Then after finally correcting the data, the coin now skyrockets to the first page? Is it because you’re a bully and choose who wins, and when? What kind of insider trading is going on there?

Rank 34 — BitShares (BTS)
>>> CMC shows the Total Supply as 3,600,570,502 BTS and the Circulating Supply as 2,611,430,000 BTS. According to OpenExplorer, the Circulating Supply is 2,611,397,389 BTS. This is a difference of almost 33,000 BTS. Not a large number in comparison to overall supply, so can be overlooked.
>>> Explorer 1 link not working (node replay in progress).

Rank 35 — RChain (RHOC)
>>> Multiple instances of circulating supply jumping can be seen here and here. CMC lists Total Supply as 870,663,574 RHOC, and Circulating Supply as 359,478,523 RHOC. By looking at EtherScan, we can see that 1,000,000,000 RHOC was initially created. Out of this, 129,336,426 RHOC was burnt to a null address (Address 3). This gives the total supply provided by CMC. According to a spreadsheet provided in this thread, we can see that about 181,963,195 RHOC was in circulation at the time. Since then (about 4 months) the RHOC circulating supply has almost doubled. What happened during this period? Were you holding the RHOC circulating supply down artificially and then decided to increase it and benefit from the pump? Or were there issues deriving the true supply as the RHOC team spent coins from the “Treasury” allocation? Treasury Rchain 1 seems to have entirely spent its 488,700,379 RHOC allocation to other wallets (it is still held in a new Treasury 1b wallet). Treasury Rchain 2 still contains its allocated amount of 200,000,001 RHOC.
>>> Here is our math: 1,000,000,000 RHOC (Initial Supply Created) — 129,336,426 RHOC (Burnt) — 200,000,001 RHOC (Treasury 2) — 311,185,050 RHOC (Treasury 1b) = 359,478,523 RHOC for the Circulating Supply. This is the same info that CMC shows for this circulating supply. Other than historic issues, we believe RHOC information is currently correct.

Rank 36 — Dogecoin (DOGE)
>>> We’re not even going to mess with Dogecoin over here. That’s just plain wrong. You either got information on here right, or you got it wrong. Either way CMC, leave old Doge out of it. We know the distribution is highly skewed, but whatever.
>>> Maybe we can say something small: needs some work. Anyone?

Rank 37 — Status (SNT)
>>> Looks to be showing the correct information as CMC, the blockchain explorer, and the Status team are in agreement. Take the Total Supply of 6,804,870,175 SNT and subtract what’s held by the Status team: Address 1 and Address 3 as seen on the explorer (Address 2 is Bittrex). The rest of the SNT are in the public domain. Doing this gives you the number 3,470,483,791 SNT in circulation, which is slightly higher than what CMC shows of 3,470,483,788 SNT . A big whopping 3 SNT difference. Great job CMC and SNT on this one.

Rank 38 — Siacoin (SC)
>>> As there was only a small pre-mine for the developers of about 29,995,000 SC (of the total in circulation of 33,254,993,255 SC) as stated by CMC (a fraction of a percent), we believe this number to be close to accurate.

Rank 39 — Aeternity (AE)
>>> CMC how are you calculating this Circulating Supply? By our math it should be 227,529,261 AE in circulation. Why? 273,685,830 AE (Created) — 23,494,005 AE (Address 1) — 22,662,564 AE (Address 2) = 227,529,261 AE. CMC currently shows a Circulating Supply of 273,685,830 AE. This is a difference of over a 45,000,000 AE between what’s shown on CMC and what can be learnt from the blockchain explorer. This would drop AE in the rankings.

Rank 40 — Augur (REP)
>>> CMC shows 11,000,000 REP as the circulating (and total) supply. From publicly available information, we know that 80% of the 11 million REP created, or 8,800,000 REP went directly to the crowdsale for the public. 16% of the 11 million REP (1,760,000 REP) was allocated to the Augur founders and 4% of the 11 million REP (440,000 REP) in seed funding was set aside for the Forecast Foundation. Since 20% of the supply of REP was initially sitting in the hands of the team (and associates), whatever is remaining, and unused, should not be included in the current circulating supply. Has there been disclosure from Augur regarding this direct information?
>>> We believe Circulating Supply should really be between 8,800,000 REP and 11,000,000 REP. Whatever has NOT been used from the pre-allocated coins should NOT be included as circulating. Perhaps all of the allocated funds have been used? Your community would definitely like to know this sort of information. Augur, step up! CMC, do some digging and update!

Rank 41 — Decred (DCR)
>>> According to CMC, the current Circulating Supply is 6,975,147 DCR and the Total Supply is 7,395,147 DCR. In this document, Decred outlines that it pre-mined 8% of the total FUTURE supply of 21,000,000 DCR. This was split equally between compensation for bring-up costs (840,000 DCR) and an “airdrop” (another 840,000 DCR). According to Decred “The airdrop concluded with awarding 282.63795424 DCR each to 2972 participants.”
>>> We believe the Decred project to be credible but some more data as to how they get their “available supply” of 7,395,233 DCR, and why over 400,000 DCR is missing on CMC should be forthcoming. Also, what has not been spent from the bring-up costs allocation? These are still effectively OUT of circulation, so this needs a closer look.

Rank 42 — Bytom (BTM)
>>> The circulating and total supply seem to be correct initially. At closer look we can see that 357,000,000 BTM (out of the total 1,407,000,000 BTM currently) was allocated to “Private Distribution” (was this founders, etc.?) and “Business Development”. Questions remain about the Private Distribution (are they locked), and how much of those Business Development BTM have been used.
>>> By our calculation, the real circulating supply should be between 630,000,000 BTM and 987,000,000 BTM. The Total Supply as stated by CMC is correct. Circulating Supply is very questionable.

Rank 43 — Waltonchain (WTC)
>>> Total Supply is correct. Questions remain about the Circulating Supply. Is it about 19,200,000 WTC as talked about in the mentioned thread, or 24,898,178 WTC as stated by CMC? Some clarity from Waltonchain as well as CMC would be good. Maybe both of them are wrong.

Rank 44 — Ontology (ONT)
>>> This thread outlines the initial distribution. How much of the initial allocations are really in circulation now? Some clarity on how the Circulating Supply of 241,236,451 ONT is calculated on CMC and what Ontology themselves thinks of that number is required. Transparency CMC. We can’t believe your data otherwise.

Rank 45 — Aion (AION)
>>> We see some issues here including how Circulating Supply is updated from TRS distributions. By our calculation the Circulating Supply should be 116,321,952 AION not 115,319,871 AION as stated by CMC. This is a difference of over 1,000,000 AION. Our calculation may also be incorrect as it does not include information about exact make-up of AION wallets above what can be seen on the blockchain explorer. We’re assuming the top 2 wallet addresses belong to the Aion team and subtract them from the Total Supply. Looks about right?

Rank 46— Zilliqa (ZIL)
>>> Looking at the details in this post, we believe that the Circulating Supply, should be updated to beyond what CMC has stated as 6,605,326,966 ZIL. Why? Well, 6,300,000,000 ZIL (30% of total for Group 2) was given to early community fund contributions, with a 10%-15% additional bonus. This is perhaps why CMC thinks it is the number it is. What is NOT taken into consideration is the amount of ZIL used from the other 30% of total allocation for Company, Team, Agents and others (Group 3) so far. Where the additional “bonus” given to early participants was drawn from is also of issue. Was it Group 3? Clarity from both Zilliqa, and an update from CMC is needed here.
>>> We believe the actual Circulating Supply of ZIL to be quite a bit higher than stated on CMC. More information is required to find out how much higher.

Rank 47 — Komodo (KMD)
>>> CMC shows the Circulating Supply as 104,030,525 KMD. We assume this to include the 100,000,000 KMD which was given out in the ICO, as well as additionally distributed through its ongoing emission mechanism. How exactly are the numbers calculated CMC? Is the 10,000,000 KMD initially given to development, marketing, advisers, and bounties included here? How much of that allocated amount has been spent and is in circulation? How was the BTCD swap calculated, and how did it work out? Answers to these questions can get us a better understanding of how this was all determined. Hopefully not arbitrarily like other numbers.
>>> Message board link not working
>>> Explorer 2 link not working

Rank 48 — Ardor (ARDR)
>>> CMC lists the Circulating Supply and Max Supply as 998,999,495 ARDR. This seems correct at first glance. With more digging, we can see that there are some questions in regards to what really is circulating in the markets. NXT was lost prior to the distribution in October 2016, but fundamentally, we believe lost coins should stay calculated in the Circulating Supply. As there was no pre-mine, we believe CMC showing that Circulating Supply is ethically correct. Is it true and reflective of what’s more likely circulating? No. Figuring that out would likely take a tremendous amount of work, without guarantee of being accurate. CMC is correct here for all intents and purposes.

Rank 49 — Ark (ARK)
>>> CMC has the Ark Circulating Supply set as 101,375,110 ARK and the Total Supply as 132,625,110 ARK. The Ark Explorer shows the Supply as 132,625,374 ARK. This is a little higher than the Total Supply shown by CMC (explainable by update delay). According to the ARK whitepaper, out of the originally created 125,000,000 ARK, exactly 31,250,000 ARK (25% of total) was initially set aside for other purposes. How much of this is now in the public market? How much is locked away and for how long? Information about current emission for calculation is also needed. Some clarity on this information from both the ARK and CMC teams is absolutely required here. There are also concerns about this issue available publicly.

Rank 50 — Cryptonex (CNX) /cryptonex/
>>> According to CMC, the current Circulating Supply is 45,174,515 CNX, the Total Supply is 106,612,141 CNX and the Max Supply is 210,000,000 CNX. According to the Cryptonex Blockchain Explorer, the Supply is 106,612,164 CNX. The difference between this and the CMC Total Supply can be explained by an update delay. What’s mysterious is how the Circulating Supply for Cryptonex is calculated. This ANN Thread talks about the initial distribution of CNX according to the team: “85,000,000 CNX will be the emission for free circulation via pre-sale, website and exchanges. 15,000,000 CNX will be used for Bounty Program. The Cryptonex team owns 5,000,000 CNX. Cryptocurrency in the amount of about 100,000,000 CNX will provide liquidity while acquiring.” This leaves a lot of room for the actual Circulating Supply to juggle around. A HUGE margin. How is the Circulating Supply calculated CMC? Cryptonex? Anyone? The public has a right to know.


Source: CoinMarketCapped

UPDATE: Here is PArt A2

Part A2: False Circulating Supply changes Market Capitalisation, Ranking & Value of coins significantly on CoinMarketCap

Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:54 am

Re: How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market

Post by slobodanboda » Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:28 am

So, thanks to Igor my question to Tim get more reasonable and also shows his poor knowledge that OC will never go to CMC.
Every day we find new proof about visionary project OC/OL.
Centralized system, KYC, DealShaker and decision not go to CMC market ever...............what is next brilliant move we will see.
All those show that people who lead company are ready fight on open market and already passed many battles, got huge experience and no fear for future of the OC success.
Sorry, Tim but you can cry, I heard that tears help to feel relax after lost your last battle in Oct.

Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market

Post by Abilbek » Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:09 pm

I remember Igor wrote about it more than a year ago. However not so many people paid attention to it.

Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:30 am

Re: How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market

Post by vhaakmat » Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:09 pm

Thanks for the lengthy detailed explanation of the crap that is going on at CMC. It took a while to read but now I know what to look for as well. This is our money we're talking about.

John Reiner
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market

Post by John Reiner » Sun Mar 25, 2018 4:53 pm

Igor ,a very thorough and in depth write up about the Wild West cryptocurrency market ! I believe the heart of this issue stems from most exchanges being unregulated ! It seems that most recently there has been a staunch movement heading towards regulation , and that’s where in my opinion the future of cryptocurrency will be headed. If even some of what you have written and posted is true , it just goes to show that there is manipulation abound.

However , even with regulation there can still be manipulation as evidenced in the US Stock Markets . There are always loop holes to find ways to alter the intended natural path of investments unfortunately , but even with that it is definitely better than the Wild West of crypto going on now! Nice job .... Kudos to you my friend !

Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:42 pm

Re: How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market

Post by flatrate » Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:31 pm

Igor, nice work indeed my brother..when you really delve into this market it is abundantly clear to the sane thinking brain this scam will not last much longer. without a strong KYC component the scam-hack-criminal-mistake loophole will be continue in earnest.

imo, it will all be KYC in the very near future. the tentacles of the on going digital coin scam is enormous and growing by the minute because con artists and scammers run the entire thing without any KYC. see my point ?

i expect a giant crash soon and most will never recover. we can only hope. i can't be believe how so many people have bought into this thin sheet of ice. if ONE can survive this assault and implement its vision IT WILL REPLACE BITCON.. my nickle rant :D :D :D

Posts: 315
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:41 pm

Re: How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market

Post by detroyer » Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:25 pm

a real investigation financial on CMC Igor that you did do, it me recall the handling of jordan belfort in the market of stocks, CMC proclaimed himself the managing authority and the referee of the crypto decentralized market, it cannot escape the Governments and authorities financial, let's see what the countries of the G20 will do after the 08/10 when OC will become public and that the capitalisation of the whole of the 1530 cryptocurrencies + OC will reach 1% of global capitalization of financial assets, the FSB (Financial stability Board) will call for the regulation of the crypto because it will dangerous for the global economy after the FSB and the GAFI (Financial Action Task Force) report... No more place for fraud rotting the crypto world.

Posts: 920
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:42 pm

Re: How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market

Post by flatrate » Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:35 pm

top to bottom fraud detroyer ! that is why they attack ONE 24/7 nights,weekends and holidays because ruja is the only one who has been committed to compliance with world gov and is the answer to this very criminal market. there will be a few companies in distributed ledger tech that will emerge. KYC will be the standard after the collapse.. mark that down buddy this will end badly.. :D :D

Site Admin
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:47 pm

Re: How CoinMarketCap (CMC) manipulates the market

Post by Igorkrnic » Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:00 am

This is getting more and more exciting.
Awesome in-depth analysis of fake and inflated volumes on biggest crypto exchanges:
Chasing fake volume: a crypto-plague

Anyone see the reason to run away from this crypto circus marketplace?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot] and 6 guests