Why the Anti-Craig Sentiment
Changpeng Zhao (CZ), the CEO of Binance tweeted that Wright is “poisoning” the bitcoin community through his threats of suing people who called him a fraud because he has claimed to be bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. But Kraken was already negatively disposed toward BSV long before the kerfuffle started.
The feud was in place from December, during the contentious hard fork of bitcoin cash when it got split into bitcoin cash ABC and bitcoin cash “Satoshi Vision.” A Florida-based mining firm United Investment Corp. filed a federal lawsuit against a group of defendants for supporting the ABC version, including Kraken and its CEO Jesse Powell.
At the time Powell stated:
“They are suing us, our investors, well-respected and prominent figures in the community, and the community got to the point it’s fed up with it. It’s completely antithetical to what this community is about.”
In line with the Community’s sentiment
While the other two exchange announced the delisting, Kraken launched a poll on its Twitter account on Monday. The poll asked users to for or against delisting BSV. At the time of writing, over 70,545 users have voted and 71 percent supporting delisting, seven percent opposing and 21 percent not caring.
“We at Kraken have our own strong opinions, and it’s like a bubble, so putting out a poll was the opportunity to get other people’s opinions.”
Powell adds that if a vast majority of the votes have had been in BSV’s favor the platform wouldn’t have been delisted. However, if the results were indecisive, say 50/50, the coin would still have been delisted.
Kraken has had delisted other tokens in the past, including Namecoin and Iconomi. Namecoin due to its low volume and the need to support a technically onerous upgrade at some point and Iconomi because the protocol was changed by its creators.
Frnt.io on late Tuesday, that elaborated:
“We believe that crypto and certain actors specifically are setting a dangerous precedent in the delisting of BSV. Given the impact that trading venues can have on the visibility and price of a coin, such a subjective delisting sets a precedent which has the potential to increase the space’s vulnerability to manipulation. If a coin can be delisted due to some[one] not approving of a community/person’s legal activities, what’s to say that a similar narrative cannot be created in the future simply to support a malicious actor’s monetary interest.”
Pownall adds: “We feel this sums it up best.”