2026-01-07 21:33:56

A major exchange recently launched new trading pairs, including TRY currency support and Chinese naming support, along with corresponding updates on the API side. From a functional perspective, this kind of expansion is worth肯定, but interestingly—there seem to be some issues with the configuration logic. Is naming convention priority or currency support priority? Has this design approach been sufficiently tested and validated with user feedback? If adjustments are truly necessary, the official should either optimize the existing logic or replace it with a more合理方案. Every update on the exchange impacts tens of millions of users; details determine the experience.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

8 Likes

Reward
8
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TheMemefather

· 23h ago

It's the same old story, details, details, and the key is whether it can be used or not.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoSourGrape

· 01-07 22:04

Once again witnessing the "creativity" of exchanges. If only they had listened to users' feedback during the initial design...

View OriginalReply0

MerkleTreeHugger

· 01-07 22:03

You're changing the logic again. Have you really thought it through this time? --- Chinese naming + TRY pairing sounds good, but that configuration logic really feels a bit off... --- Millions of users are using it, and small detail issues can cause big problems. How much testing has this transaction earned? --- Optimize or replace, pick one. Don't make it feel like a hotfix. --- Is the naming convention and currency support priority reversed? Feels like it went live without proper consideration. --- API updated the configuration but didn't keep up, a typical case of left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. --- Anyway, every update has its flaws. Are user feedback really being listened to? --- Details determine the experience. That's true, but these details are indeed lacking.

View OriginalReply0

SignatureLiquidator

· 01-07 22:02

Another half-baked update, launched quickly but with many bugs --- Supporting Chinese names sounds good, but the API logic is a mess—who can stand that? --- Details determine the experience? Come on, this exchange has never listened to users --- TRY coins are already listed, and you're still debating configuration—did you get it backwards? --- Testing? Probably just a quick internal run before going live, users are just guinea pigs --- No, why must optimization and replacement be mutually exclusive? Can't we just do both? --- Tens of millions of users' experience is just so-so, it's really outrageous --- Conflicting naming conventions and currency support? What kind of broken architecture is needed for that?

View OriginalReply0

GreenCandleCollector

· 01-07 21:54

Yet another half-baked update, launching without clarifying the configuration logic—truly impressive.

View OriginalReply0

ETHmaxi_NoFilter

· 01-07 21:42

It's the same old trick again—launch first and worry about it later. Anyway, users will help you debug.

View OriginalReply0

ThesisInvestor

· 01-07 21:39

Another half-baked update, I really can't take it. --- How messed up is the configuration logic? Even such a large exchange can screw it up? --- Details? Ha, exchanges never care about details, as long as it goes live. --- I won't even mention TRY tokens. Supporting Chinese names is indeed prone to issues. --- They go live without asking users, and only think about fixing it after problems occur. That's the current situation, right? --- Can you run a full test before API updates... --- Tens of millions of users are waiting. Is it really okay to be so casual? --- Waiting for the official statement to fix it again. This process is so annoying.

View OriginalReply0