supporting, despite being paid to ensure liquidity. They say this in a coin telegraph article. I felt this statement was insulting to the investors who have stuck with this project - with the promise that a competent team was ensuring liquidity.
I just want to note that this seems like a big conflict of interests. If you are shorting the projects you support what incentive do you have to ensure the projects do well? How do you protect investors interests in current market conditions if those market makers intend to profit from a projects decline?
Can the team check if they are shorting ergo, and if so, can you ask them to not do that. And instead to their job to and ensure better performance.
source ?
Why would you expect a market maker to "support projects" or "protect investor interests"? Afaik the deal was for them to provide liquidity. Was there something else?
The only own 4% of the erg
4% total, not currently though. Running a network and paying for things has a cost.
So kairon has more ?
Обсуждают сегодня