Talk:BitFlyer

References

From the Luxembourg magazine fr:Paperjam.

• https://paperjam.lu/article/news-bitflyer-ecrit-lhistoire-du-bitcoin-depuis-la-lhoft
• https://paperjam.lu/article/news-lombre-du-brexit-a-pousse-bitflyer-au-luxembourg
• https://paperjam.lu/article/bitflyer-se-lance-en-europe-et
• https://paperjam.lu/article/bitflyer-suspend-bitcoin-cash-

Ҥ (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Page edit proposal

I work in the marketing team of bitFlyer. The current page has barely anything on it. I would like to propose a draft of an expanded version, so that independent, impartial editors have an opportunity to review the draft and provide any feedback. This draft would make it more of a fully fleshed-out page, instead of just a few sentences.

Pinging @David Gerard:, who appears to be very active at WikiProject CryptoCurrency and may have an interest. Sebastien0693 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I looked it over. It needs a bit of work, and it needs too much for me to just make the changes.

You need to trim the history -- a lot. Nobody cares about every round of funding. In fact, nobody cares about the funding at all. It isn't what an encyclopedia reader wants to know. One sentence saying how much they have raised in total would be good.

You need to trim the services section, but you can keep a lot of it. For example: "bitFlyer operates a cryptocurrency exchange where users buy and sell cryptocurrency online." you already said that they operate a cryptocurrency exchange in the lead. No need to say it again. "The bitFlyer exchange will either pair buyers and sellers" Duh. That's rather obvious -- it's what a cryptocurrency exchange is. Try to make it more like an encyclopedia article and less like a vendors web page.

Finally, you have far too many statements with citations. Just cite the sources once the first time they are used and maybe one more time later. Right^[1] now^[2] it^[6] seems^[5] like^[3] there^[4] is^[7] a^[3] ref^[7] after^[1] most^[9] of^[8] the^[2] words,^[1] and^[7][9][1] it^[7] is^[7] often^[7] the^[7] same^[7] ref.^[7].

I am watching this page, so just drop a note here when you are ready for me to look at it again. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Macon! The revised draft here is shorter, uses less citations, and implements your other feedback. Let me know what you think. Sebastien0693 (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I just reviewed it. In my opinion, it is an improvement over what is there now, so I made the edit. As always when I help COI editors, the responsibility for any edit I make is mine.

Improvements still needed:

• I commented out the logo because the file doesn't exist. Do you need help with uploading a logo and choosing a license?
• The page says it is a private company, but the owner in the infobox is blank. Who owns BitFlyer?
• The number of employees is blank. How many employees does BitFlyer have?

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Restoration request

@Guy Macon: asked me to articulate an argument here for why this version of the page is better than the current version. In a nutshell, it adds more cited content to create a more complete profile of the company.

• It adds 2 paragraphs to the history section regarding funding, growth, international expansion, controversy, etc.
• It adds a Services section summarizing what bitFlyer does. For example, the current page only mentions a cryptocurrency exchange, whereas the prior version correctly points out that 75% of bitFlyer’s transactions are for derivatives as opposed to for currency itself. Sebastien0693 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone object to Sebastien0693's version? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Just checking in. Has anyone provided you with any objections to the proposed draft? Sebastien0693 (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. Got busy and didn't get back to this. :(

I just edited the page, but not exactly as it was before (there were a bunch of improvements such as replacing ’ with ' and replacing accessdate with access-date) Please look the result over and make any further suggestions. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)