FCoin Sharing Session Q&A — 07/23/2018

FCoin Founder Mr. Zhang Jian Addressed the Most Controversial Questions about FCoin since its Launch.

(July 23, 2018) FCoin held an online media Q&A session on Monday with its founder, Mr. Zhang Jian replying the most controversial questions on FCoin, a digital asset trading platform that was launched barely two months ago but has already become the most talked about phenomenon in the industry.

These controversial topics include FCoin’s efforts in token-reforming, the general concept of token economy, the fluctuation of FCoin price and response to the recent negative comments and accusations made by Binance on FCoin. A complete Q&A could be found as below:

Q1: We have seen many new announcements issued by FCoin with lots of new concepts. Could you first elaborate on FCandy? Why do you start to return in FCandy instead of FT, what’s the strategy behind it? What do you think is the true value of FCandy and what is your expected price for it?

Answer1: Regarding FCandy, we mentioned before in our announcement that it is an assert pool in which all kinds of assets could be placed in. We actually have placed lots of FTs during the first round. What do we mean by “placing”, basically it’s equivalent to donation and what is its true value? I think it could benefit our entire community through our donation. It is clearly stated in our announcement that any digital assets could be placed in FCandy and FCandy will be issued according to a certain proportion, but to guarantee the real asset value of FCandy. However, the assets placed in FCandy pool no longer belong to those who place the assets but to the entire community which makes FCandy vitally different from the other asset pools or various products. We designed a lot of ways to give out FCandy to our community members. It doesn’t mean that we no longer return in FT, 100% transaction fee is still returned in FT, this is our set rule which will never be changed. Which are some of the situations where we will not return in FT? Anything but “Trans-fee mining” mechanism. Because all the other mechanism is simply activities. Like our referral programs, incentive programs and etc. These are community activities with the aim to motivate the communities and bring more benefits, so these are the responsibility that FCandy should assume. I do not need to elaborate on the value of FCandy. I encourage everyone to see the front page of FCandy in which the amount of assets are clearly indicated. In the future, a large number of project participators will place their assets into this pool. We will also initiate voting system and community members could vote on whether we should sell part of the assets and these sold asserts will belong to FCandy holders, similar to the concept as dividends. But this will be a plan in the far future, not to be realized recently. Regarding the price of FCandy, I cannot comment on this. Based on the asset pool, everyone can gauge its reasonable price range.

Q2: What’s the latest listing rules? Is the new FOne trading zone transferring the token-listing right to the certified organizations? What’s the FCoin’s standard in selecting a certified organization? What’s the difference in the responsibilities and rights of these certified organizations compared to the ones in the Stock market?

Answer 2: Some adjustments were made on the listing rules with the launch of FOne. What made us launch FOne? Actually, we have encountered some problems when doing GPM, i.e there is a long list of projects waiting to be listed which is far beyond the capacity of the platform itself. Most importantly, we encounter the problems of verifying its authenticity. Hence, in order to make the entire mechanism work better, the essence of FOne is to let FCoin certified organizations to screen quality projects. Every certified organization has its own zone that has the right to list tokens and set its own listing rules. We provide service and technical support to various certified organizations. This relationship will guarantee a healthy growth of FOne. As for the rights and responsibilities, these are vitally important as well. Since these trading zones are opened by certified organizations, they have the responsibility to guarantee the quality of its listing projects. FCoin retains the rights to review and verify the performance of these certified organizations and details will be released soon. We really hope that good projects could stand out from this innovative mechanism and this will help motivate the entire industry. Regarding the selection standards for the certified organizations, these are mainly the mainstream token fund in the industry. Easy to get in but difficult to get out. First of all, these organizations need to have certain reputation in the industry. We welcome them to join us as our certified organizations in the beginning but more strict standards will be launched later. In addition, we will also have control over the organization list and eliminate those who are not up to our standards. We will soon announce the list of our second batch of certified organizations. The entire crypto industry is not yet mature and it’s currently a mix of everything. We are trying to introduce step by step some mature models to break through the mess. We are on our way to a revolutionary future

Q3: Is FOne the trial zone of token-reforming for FCoin? What is the difference about listing rules and circulation mechanism between Main Board A & B? As a mature product or company, what are the necessary steps for token-reforming and what are the biggest difficulties and challenges during the process? Are there any successful cases on token-reforming before? To a mature community, the compliance and legitimacy of listing can be a sensitive topic, is this going to be a key obstacle for the improvement of token-reforming trial zone? How will you solve this problem? In your opinion, which industries will make progress first during Coin-reforming trial zone?

Answer 3: The answer to the first question is NO. It has clearly been stated in the announcement that token-reforming is not made by FOne. Token-reforming is in main Board C, right now we have main Board A & B; the mature blockchain projects are in main board A, and emerging projects in board B, while the token-reforming projects are in board C. FOne is the successor of the previous Innovation Zone on GPM with the aim to support startup projects. After the upgrading of the overall positioning, GPM will focus on supporting the long-term projects while the startup projects will move to FOne. FOne will transfer the listing power to certified organizations in order to attract more quality projects to get in in the early stage. As a matter of fact, token-reforming is not all that easy. We have just released an announcement on which a new project was applying to get listed on our main board C, of course there are many other projects doing so as well. We have to consider the project in a comprehensive manner, from the preparation, the qualification of the projects to the business model or the maturity of the business Situations(applications). There might be two ways for reforming, such as QOS, the one project that we have been observing and providing the technical support. It has applied to get listed on our main board C. QOS is a typical blockchain project with mature business applications and massive users, along with a solid preparation process. This kind of project is well prepared, that’s why it can enter the final verification and listing schedule stage very soon; as for some other projects, although they come from a mature company, they do not really understand the token economy, the listing process might take longer. In my opinion, we have to go through an important process to acknowledge the token economy, token and coin; Second, about how reforming can make a great influence, and connect its previous- designed products with business module, aligned them well and solve its previous conflicts of interest. That’s why reforming is quite difficult and challenging. To sum up I think there are two biggest difficulties for reform. First is the whole design of token economy model — it means completely different for different products or companies, even with different approaches , thus, quite challenging. Second is the overall interest arrangement. A mature product must face mature interest arrangement, including shareholder structure, existing resources and how to solve these problems. It requires of massive communication as well as knowledge and determinations to get all these problems solved. These two are the most difficulties we currently face. For the sensitive question about compliance, I think all innovations will face a certain kind of risk, the more subversive the innovation, the higher risk it may face, especially like token economy, as its target and core is to change the market relationships. It’s quite subversive and will meet lots of challenges never that have never been met before. Why people like to talk about the first person who eat the crab? If there is no challenges, people would just repeat doing things they have done like a hundred times before, but it’s not the case here. If you are willing to seize the opportunity of the new economy, you need to take risks and accept the challenges. I think it’s a trend for the future and it’s unstoppable. In addition, I don’t think it’s a key obstacle for a product or a company that are determined to explore in this direction. What I mentioned before are quite essential, firstly it has to be in the internet industry and financial industry, or the combination of these two, such as the finance technology. There are lots of opportunities within, so are in some other industries.

Q4: There are several institutions dabbling in Blockchain+Insurance model, however, this model has still not been widely applied. Therefore, will this new Insurance community FInsur just a publicity stunt? Is “Insurance is mining “ just some benefits to attract users, or is it a mutual insurance based on blockchain technology? How does this model work?

Answer 4: FInsur for sure is not publicity stunt. A lot of people doubted about FCoin when it first came out, is FCoin a publicity stunt? With the concept of “Trans-fee mining” being widely spread and recently became a trend, it is obvious that we are not a publicity stunt, otherwise it won’t show such a strong vitality. Therefore, the concept of “insurance is mining “is quite simple. I would like to repeat it again, it’s similar to FCoin essentially. What is the concept of “Trans-fee mining”? Clients and users of an exchange are the traders. As the core concept of token economy, I think the main targets of business service, is like the relationship between an exchange and its users, which is in opposite relationship. We hope that after the reforms by token economy, it can be an untied relationship, even for the sake of common interest. So let the traders be the shareholders of FCoin, that is the essence of “Trans-fee mining”. Likewise, let the insurance applicant become the shareholder of an insurance company, or at least make their interest consistent rather than conflicting (money-making vs money-losing), which is a long-term target for us, and also my initial intention. It’s hard to image vehicles on road without insurances. That’s why there is compulsory insurance like Compulsory Traffic Insurance and commercial insurance that we must pay. It also applies to ourown digital currencies & assets. Therefore, I don’t think FInsur is a publicity stunt, but will be a benchmark for innovation in this industry and bring in massive benefits.

Q5: How about the operation of stabilization funds launched by FCoin? Is this stabilization funds really effective on regulating the dramatic market fluctuation and keeping the price of FT stable?

Answer 5: We have just wrapped up a one-month life cycle of the Stabilization fund Phase I and it is already in the process of balancing, not running any more. I am not the one who has proposed the concept of stabilization fund. I have repeatedly said that for an emerging trading product or an emerging market, especially when it has great innovations, nobody knows how to price it correctly in the early stage. It will also suffer from all kinds of malicious attacks and various rumors under such a complicated market situation. Hence, the market fluctuations will be very dramatic in the short term. The stabilization fund was launched in this context. Can this fund really keep the market volatility stable? This mainly depends on the factors of market volatility and various other situations. The stabilization fund will certainly ease the dramatic fluctuations of the market. But will the price stop to fluctuate with the funds? Or will the price not rise and fall sharply? This is uncertain. Since the market price, especially short-term market behavior, is very complicated and thus very difficult to predict. So the fund can only ease the dramatic fluctuations. As some unstable factors are gradually eliminated, or as the platform matures, these unstable factors will be disappearing slowly. Say, there are huge trust issues in the earlier stages, however, as the platform continues to grow, these problems will be reduced accordingly. Now everyone feels that FCoin is a very reliable platform which has been working so hard to make the platform, the community and the whole ecosystem bigger. In this case, those difficulties that we encounter before won’t exist anymore. Our risk control in the early stage might not be that sharp, leading to the existence of some malicious short-selling and other hostile situations. With the gradual improvement and maturity of our backend monitoring system, I believe there will be less risks in this aspect. Therefore, the whole market will gradually become more healthy in the long run.

Q6: You mentioned that the explosive effect of FCoin is a victory for the “tokenomics.” Can you share with us your understanding of the “tokenomics”? What is its strong driving force? What distinguishes it from the traditional business model and incentive mechanism?

Answer 6: It is very hard for me to talk about my understanding of the tokenomics, since this topic is too big. But I can talk about some key points, such as what I just mentioned, “What is the strong driving force?” I just mentioned that the distinguished difference between the structure of the tokenomics design and the traditional business model and incentive mechanism is the reversal of the production relationship. How to reverse? As mentioned earlier, producers and consumers are a pair of relationships. The common form of the Internet is the relationship between the platform and its user. In fact, they are all similar. That is, the relationship between a service provider and a client, or the relationship between a product provider and a consumer. Under the traditional business model, this group of relationships must be antagonistic at the level of interests. Because the mission of a commercial organization is to make money. They earn money from consumers or users. Under the traditional business model, you buy any goods, or you consume any service, the only relationship between you and the service provider and the producer of the goods is that you pay him. Let us think about the reason why this commercial system can exist. It is because these users are paying so that the commercial system can exist. In other words, these consumers and users are the basis for the existence of this commercial system. But if this commercial system develops bigger, then it has nothing to do with the users which are the basis and premise of the existence of this commercial system. I think this is the problem of the traditional business model, and it will definitely face a big upgrade in the future. The big upgrade has started slowly now, and I think its solution is tokenomics. FCoin is such a practice of tokenomics. We found that as FCoin grows and matures, traders gradually become shareholders of FCoin. The trader not only becomes a user of the platform, but also contributes fees and transactions. At the same time, he can also get 100% return of the exchange’s “shares” FT. The returned FT can enjoy FCoin’s income distribution forever, and it is 80% of the income distribution. This is unimaginable in the traditional capital market. Let me give you an example. In the traditional capital market, basically everyone does not pay attention to dividends because they are so little. There are too many companies that don’t pay dividends all along the year. Everyone can check the dividends of the traditional market which are so little and nobody concerns about the dividends. The timeliness of dividends distribution is also executed poorly. As the price of crypto currency fluctuates dramatically, users do not feel the power of our model in the early stages. With the maturity of FCoin, they feel that our model of income distribution is extremely revolutionary. Firstly, its proportion of dividends distribution is so large. How about the traditional listed companies? They distribute neither revenues nor profits. It is possible that the companies might need to keep enough cash for development, so they do not distribute dividends. FCoin directly distribute income to users, the vast majority 80% of our revenues on a daily basis. This is an absolutely revolutionary concept in the traditional capital market. Because the entire concept of the so-called financial system and finance of the crypto industry has not yet been established, and it is still relatively chaotic, the crypto industry is still at a very early stage for the pricing and cognitions. The creation and power of FCoin and FT takes time to show, as I always say “let the bullets fly for a while.” The same is true for FInsur. I hope that in the future, various new models based on the creation of the tokenomics or the transformation of the original model will have the power to make our customers consistent with our interests . I have to say one more thing. I think that this power is actually much underestimated. Because once the production relationship changes, once the service provider and the client are in the same interests, the whole decision-making process, the starting point and mentality of decision-making, all community-based architecture and all future mechanism design and gameplay will change. I am appreciating this in a more in-depth sense now. Therefore, the future of the tokenomics will definitely show great vitality. It will have a huge impact on the original business model, commercial design and corporate system. This is my judgment on the future.

Q7: Many exchanges are allegedly using bots wash trading and their users are mostly zombie users who have no practical effect. Could you please tell us about how would FCoin gradually increase the number of real users so as to make the platform grow in a more healthy manner?

Answer 7: Time will prove everything. We are constantly upgrading and innovating. Everything we do is to make our various mechanism work in a more robust way. The number of FCoin users and daily transactions continue to grow and FCoin is definitely on the right track. Many people are still accusing us of hiring bots to do wash trading. As our platform matures, there is more Quantitative transaction going on which provides real benefits for our community members. If you pay attention to our recent changes on the platform, you could definitely feel it.

Q8: What has FCoin revolutionized the industry in terms of the rules, both the unspoken rules and the apparent rules?

Answer 8: First, I will talk about the unspoken rules. The biggest difference between FCoin and all the other exchanges is that when you open our front page, you could clearly see that almost all our data are transparent and as we continue to develop our products and enhance users experiences, the level of our transparency will only be elevated accordingly. This is something you cannot imagine in traditional industries. No company, in our times, would announce its revenue because they do not need to distribute their profits to their users. But we are different, we cannot fake our data. If you are a black box i.e a company that does not need to disclose data to the public, you actually have the opportunity to fake data. I’ve said many time before that it was ridiculous to accuse FCoin of bots wash trading. We simply cannot fake any data as otherwise we will not have enough funds to be distributed to our users. All our data is real and transparent which brings the first revolutionary change of rules in the industry. About the apparent rules. Many users said that FCoin still made a lot of money after they saw the platform had used all kinds of algorithms. But what I want to point out is that why not take a look at other exchanges that make huge amount of money but still give back nothing to its users? On our side, FCoin distribute 80% of daily revenues to its users and for quite a long period of time, even 100%. After the launch of FCandy, we spend a majority of platform’s daily revenue to buy back FTs which later on are distributed to its community members. I hope you can look further with FCoin. FT certainly has its market cap, but so long as you hold FTs even for just a day, you will be able to get your daily dividend from that day. That’s just the beginning of how FCoin is going to revolutionize this industry. Stay tuned!

Q9: Mr Zhang, you always say that the market will eventually see the value of FT, but the price of FT has been dropping drastically non-stop. Why is there a vast difference between what you see in the value of FT and what the market see it?

Answer 9: FCoin has just been launched for less than 2 months. It’s way too early to talk about the value of a new born thing. For instance, a lot of people asked me about Bitcoin many years ago, at a time when the price of Bitcoin kept dropping from 8,000 RMB to 900RMB. I told them that the value of Bitcoin needed to be evaluated in a 4-year full circle, not just for a few months. If you use a 4-year full circle to draw the candlestick of Bitcoin, what will you see? The short-term price is unpredictable and is being influenced by many factors in the short term, like the market supply, all kinds of different judgments, disapprovals of new things in the early days and even rumors, but in the long run, the price is surely determined by its value. I have some data in FCoin’s front page, our dynamic P/E ratio is 0.56 as of today. You can go to any A-share market to check their P/E ratio, especially those innovative internet companies or high tech companies and judge by yourself. As I mentioned earlier, we have upgraded our Incentive programs, it is now returned with FCandy instead of FT. Because FCandy is highly linked with any activities that benefit the entire community members. This will be our future principles. In the meantime, transaction fee is still returned 100% as in FT and this is some ething, I have reinforced many times, that we won’t change. Why? Because this is our basic model, everything that FCoin is based on which is to make traders as the shareholders of FCoin.

Q10: Mr. Zhang, my questions might come across as a bit of sharp. Two days ago, FCoin announced on its website that the price of FT has been fluctuating drastically and later on, some media reported that the price was being manipulated by a professional team called “Ghost in the Dark” and implied that it had something to do with Binance. Miss He Yi from Binance accused FCoin of paying for media to write negative articles about Binance. Do you have any comments on this? In addition, Mr. Zhao Chang Peng (CZ) from Binance remarked during a media Q&A session in Seoul that “FCoin won’t last long as it is constantly selling new tokens but the price of them keep on dropping.” Do you have anything to say to his remarks?

Answer 10: Your so called sharp questions are actually not sharp at all. First of all, we announced officially on our website that the price of FT encountered abnormal fluctuations because we had found malicious attack from a team that was deliberately short-selling FT and we have proof of it. That’s why some immediate action has been taken to limit the sales order in 3 trading pairs which effectively destroy the botting programming designed by that professional team. As for the media report, I do not want to comment on it, but they did report the same to us through their investigations. About CZ’s comments? Actions speak louder than words. Why does he keep on talking about me if I am not threatening him? This is weird, let the fact speak for itself.

Q11: FCoin has been launched for only 2 months but developed really rapidly with trading volumes topping the chart while it took Binance 3 months to become №1 with real trading volumes. FCoin is very strong with ecosystem, but users’ experience is really bad. No trading depth and the webpage get stuck all the time. The launched app version (still in beta) is even worse than a third-party app while it takes forever to launch an official version. My question is, as a digital trading platform, shouldn’t Trading experiences be respected and focused?

Answer 11: Your question is quite sharp. Trading, in many industries are indeed not well respected, but for FCoin, we have been trying our best to perfect it. There is a process for everything to grow in maturity. If it is something great, it is bound to be less mature in the early stage. More patience please and we welcome everyone to supervise and support us.

[More to the question] — My question of trading not being respected has another sense to it in terms of users’ experience. This should always be put in the priority but with FCoin, it is not the case. It seems that there are always be put in the priority but with FCoin, it is not the case. It seems that there are always things far more important than users’ experience but shouldn’t it be the core for any exchanges?

Answer 11: Apologies for my misunderstanding of part of your question. As for the priority, if you have to choose between platform’s security/stability and users’ experience, which one would you choose? We are still in the initial stage and have been developing really fast. Therefore, we have to contribute tremendously to the security and stability of the platform. The core of a mature exchange is not only about users’ experience. As we all know, we cannot really see an exchange model with the traditional capital market. When you are trading in stock exchanges, it’s the brokers that you see, not the exchanges. That’s why I think currently for us the main focus is still to improve our core strength and in the meantime, to perfect the trading experiences along the way.