Since you probably didn’t see this mentioned in any recent highlights from the team: Bitget, one of the largest global crypto exchanges, officially delisted $RARI as of this month.
Withdrawals remain open until July 30.
What’s striking is how closely these reasons match concerns the community has voiced for months — only this time, someone outside the DAO actually acted on them.
Yes, governance is still technically alive. Proposals are being written. But when major exchanges quietly exit the stage, maybe it’s worth asking who all the effort is really serving.
Is it the broader community — or a small group, quietly drawing millions from the treasury each year, while delivering increasingly little in terms of real-world traction?
No drama, just facts.
Sometimes, outside signals speak louder than internal optimism.
You’re right, I can’t deny that. And yes, I’m still quietly checking in on the forums. The truth is, I started building here because of @forexus. I never really wanted to leave, but I had to. Honestly, it ended up being one of the worst experiences I’ve had on any chain. I genuinely feel for those still trying to deliver quality on what increasingly feels like a sinking ship.
I had the potential to deliver a range of tools and platforms, exactly what the remaining community was asking for, especially around NFTs. But the foundation was too focused on gatekeeping while being completely disconnected from what’s actually gaining traction in the broader crypto space.
They wasted months of my time in endless discussions, and the communication, especially from a business development perspective, was deeply unprofessional. That’s not how things should be run. Out of respect, I won’t share details or screenshots, but if I did, it would seriously damage the reputations of the foundation, and several former foundation members.
When I saw Dzonson’s post, I couldn’t stay silent. He knows the truth, and so do many others.
Welcome back @dzonson.eth, and thanks for sharing this info and your concerns. The announcement seems to relate to multiple delistings, so it’s difficult to say for sure which of these reasonings was crucial for RARI. Could we maybe get an update from foundation from your perspective?
There are other listings on major exchanges, so I’d not suggest putting additional funds in this. Rather, some on-chain liquidity for RARI would be a priority.
I have to agree with @bitblondy that it is not clear on understanding the reasoning of why $RARI was delisted by Bitget, since their press announcement did not state the specific disqualifications from their listing. Only that they conducted a regular review, six trading pairs were delisted, based upon their factors in the evaluation, and not specific to reasoning on why the $RARI token was delisted.
I agree with you that the $RARI being delisted is a problem, on this exchange or any others, and something that I would ask for the new FND Token Lead, @setvice (@RARI.Foundation) to address a response. However, how you portrayed the facts of the reasonings of why $RARI was delisted, could be interrupted incorrectly.
Really curious — how exactly do you suggest one should “correctly” interpret it?
Three tokens were delisted, and yes, Bitget didn’t spell out which reason applied to which token. But that’s a different problem: the fact that the team has been completely silent for over a month since the delisting. Not a single statement, no clarification, no attempt to take responsibility.
Let’s be clear — I’m not misinterpreting anything. Pick any of the reasons Bitget listed: low volume? Lack of development? Team negligence? Weak community? Every single one is a direct reflection of how poorly this project has been managed. You don’t just get “unlucky” and randomly delisted — there are tokens with far lower volume still trading on Bitget.
The difference is, those projects probably still have active teams, actual development, or at least a functioning roadmap.
What’s really interesting is how quick some are to nitpick over language or “interpretation,” while completely ignoring the core issue: the Foundation is failing. Instead of owning up to systemic problems, we get deflection, semantics, and silence — all while millions continue to be drawn from the treasury.
At some point, protecting incompetence becomes complicity.
What are we even discussing at this point? The token is effectively useless, it’s not being used for anything. There was no liquidity, and I was forced to sell the tokens I received as part of a funding deal at a 25% loss just to get any value out of them. That means I never truly received the first part of my funding. Uniswap had no liquidity, and neither did any other exchange. It’s absurd.
The reason it got delisted, both here and elsewhere, is due to a complete lack of communication and support from the foundation. They’ve shown little awareness of what’s happening on other chains or how projects are struggling. I’ve tried to stay respectful, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to stay silent.
Yes, I left Rari. Yes, Rumble is still online. Yes, I’m still covering the costs to keep it running. But no, there’s no saving this. The fact that they’ve clung to a “.fun” narrative at this point says everything. It’s a sinking ship, and there’s no fixing it.
@dzonson.eth is right. I’m only speaking out now because I see people still holding on, hopeful because the foundation once had their trust. But it’s time to let go. Move on. This is a chain with 20 or fewer active users. Let that sink in.
