Bitcoin Forum

The current application fee to list an asset on GLBSE is 8BTC.

From this Friday the fee structure will be different.

We are reducing the application fee to 5BTC, and increasing the listing fee to 7BTC.

When creating a new asset 12BTC will be charged, if the application is not accepted 7BTC will be returned but the application fee will not.

Is there a set of guidelines or requirements for having your application approved?

Can we have reasons explained?

I think this will answer your question:


Read that whole thread: It's golden!

We need to have some guide lines published, what I had in mind was putting into catagories on how likely your asset is to be approved.

Wont be approved:
drugs, weapons, prostitution related idea

Not likely:
"Investment program" where the actual investment method is not being revealed, or something that is the same or very similar to well known scams.

Investment ideas where the business doesn't exist yet, and the issuer doesn't want to be verified.

Likely:
Well detailed business plan and contract
Fully verified
Existing revenue generating activity

These would be guidelines and the final decision would rest with us.

Opinions on the above is very much welcome.

We're making these changes because a lot of people have tried to create assets that we just can't approve, and most of the time it's just from terribly written contracts or schemes that don't really map onto a stock exchange.

Do you have a link? I can't find that or I'm blind. Both are viable options.

Here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=109883.msg1194831#msg1194831)

Thanks.  :)


EDIT: Hahaha, oh boy.

Hey, brothels are legal businesses in Australia and have great cashflow (way better than mining)  :P

This may be true, and someday I hope to have a GLBSE branch around the corner from Kings Cross (Sydney) where they will allow people to sell shares of themselves if they so wish :p

Thats what http://empireavenue.com (http://empireavenue.com) is for (selling shares of yourself) :P

I'd like to see announcements like this made through the GLBSE mail feature as well as the forum.  I've never gotten mail through the GLBSE and it seems like that would be a logical place for these kinds of announcements.

Sure does, I'll see about that.

So if somebody comes to you with a horribly written contract, will you take their deposit and tell them to try again, or will you have them rework the contract and continue without paying a second deposit?

Oh no  :(

My free market  :-\

By the way i'm kidding Nefario, thanks for this move :)

Can't blame you for making this change. It's reasonable without making it unrealistic.
If it stops just a few junk assets from ending up there I'll see it as a good thing.

Good question, to discourage people from submitting bad contracts, the application fee will cover a single application, so applicants had better get their stuff right if they don't want to waste funds.

I think somone has already offered to vet contracts on the forum.

I would be willing to look at people's contracts and rip them apart with brutal honesty. Maybe I could offer to look at a contract for 1 btc, refundable if the contract is not accepted by GLBSE?

That sounds like a good idea.

I heartily endorse this service and/or product.

I paid the current fee and met all requirements to list my security of which there are others already doing the same thing. Nefario has threatened to not list my security unless I meet a new set of requirements. This seems quite unfair. Why bother implementing a fee change in a certain amount of days if you are going to change the rules effective immediately? I hope you change your mind Nefario. This is not the way to run a business and I cannot understand why you are choosing to single me out.

You have not been singled out, there have been very few new listings as of late for a reason.

I'm reluctant to approve another anonymous asset, especially one thats supposed to be a school project yet is raising over 1000BTC. Really the cost to GLBSE in having to clean up the mess of what will be a hit and run, as well as the damage to our reputation makes it not worth while.

The rules have not been changed, if you look at our terms of service we can require an issuer to verify, this is something you agreed to when creating an account on GLBSE.

Actually I was wrong, you were actually looking for 10,000BTC not 1,000.

Would it make a difference if I was willing to reduce the amount to 500 BTC? I do not want to waste all the effort I have put into this project and it seems that you are unfairly controlling the market. That seems anti-Bitcoin to me.

At this stage I think not since your intent is clear.

GLBSE is private property, generally private property is "controlled".  There is a competing exchange and maybe you can start a third one.  Not sure where you get the idea that Bitcoin doesn't support rights for private property owners.  

 ???  What? My intent to get a good grade in school and raise Bitcoin awareness? What are you basing your accusation on? Not the fact that I have been 100% honest and open to everyone as well as providing my teacher's name and my school address to my lenders. I hope other people take notice of this. I spoke to you prior to submitting my 8BTC and listing my IPO. You never mentioned anything except pointing me towards your new fees. I think your intent is the one that is clear. A shame that you had to go this route.

Actually, 2 competing exchanges.

It sounds like PPoweredP wants a KickStarter-like system.  That way, investors are protected because a project will not fund unless it reaches the fundraising goals.

I only wanted to do something fun and get a good grade in my class with my Bitcoin hobby. Nefario apparently wanted to make wild accusations and single me out for some reason. A shame. Adding insult to injury is that I contacted him prior to paying the non-refundable 8BTC fee and his only response was that he would be increasing fees soon. I guess he decided 8BTC is not enough for a listing and this thread was simply his way of pretending to run a transparent exchange. I hope people take notice of this. I for one have a different opinion of the GLBSE now. It looks more like the next Bitcoin Savings & Trust after this experience.

Not exactly protected. Sure if the funding goal isn't met then they get their funds back, but if it's a scam then it's a scam no matter.

PPoweredP has already started making threats to me in PM's, despite me telling him that I would refund the 8BTC. I don't see any reason to take him for anything other than a scammer, what teacher tells a student to go out and start an anonymous fund worth $100,000USD on a bitcoin market?

Besides, the only thing that I've required is that he get verified. His unwillingness to do so, along with his increasing hostility is a major red flag.

What threats? I said I would be forced to file a scammer complaint if you did not refund my 8BTC. You have not done so yet. Why? Your accusations are bordering on libel.

I also said I would be happy to only raise 500BTC to invest on the GLBSE but for some reason you are trying to paint me as something I am not. Shame on you.

Why would Nefario refund a non-refundable fee?

Because it is the right thing to do?

Why would refunding a non-refundable fee be the right thing to do? 

I did everything according to the rules and I even contacted him first to let him know what I was doing. He let me pay the 8BTC and then changed the rules in order to scam me. That deserves a scammer tag in my opinion.

Well you didn't do everything.  The terms and conditions you agreed to were that the exchange could require verification of any asset owner for any reason.  You didn't. The terms also gave the exchange the sole discretion in approving a new listing.  They didn't.

The fee was non-refundable and you new it was non-refundable.

That is why I contacted him prior to paying the 8BTC and laid out my entire plan. He knew I was not going to verify and let me pay it anyway without a word of concern despite me asking him directly if my IPO would be approved. That action was premeditated and I believe he baited me into paying the 8BTC will the full intention of denying my listing to steal my 8BTC using his terms of service as a shield. His only word of caution was that I should pay quickly because he was raising the fees on Friday. I am calling scammer.

Then collect the personal information you had with GLBSE and then go to the Scammer Accusations (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0) forum and make your case.  You might be shocked but this topic is not about you.  Some users of GLBSE want to be informed about the fee change and the contracts and not about your problems listing your asset.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110504.0

PPoweredP - You seem a little too miffed considering it was my BTC along with others that was lost.  It's Nefario's site, his rules.  I'd like to see my BTC0.8 returned, but it isn't worth it to me for Nefario to be labeled a scammer if it isn't.  I'll consider it a donation to the GLBSE, which I use quite a bit.

I will sell something for BTC and repay you if he does not refund me. Unlike Nefario I can be trusted.

Are contract revision voted by the shareholders going to need GLBSE approval now?

I dont see why since the shareholders voted for them.

I'm not talking extremes like sellings drugs,as long as it not against the GLBSE TOS if put a contract change to a vote and it passes by the required shareholder vote, will it require additional GLBSE(Nefario) approval?
Because currently according to the TOS it does not.

I mean, they'd probably lose less money, and switching GLBSE to a drug market might actually decrease scam rate.

More seriously, I would assume Nefario would freeze the asset and negotiate with the issuer / shareholders directly.

I assume you couldn't change your business to something thats against the glbse TOS

Is there any fees to change a contract after it has been accepted?  For example, shareholders amend the contract.

Very good question, because I need to change the contracts on 3 assets lol

I would expect assets created would be grandfathered in at no charge to change a contract.

Me too!
Of course the (wannabee) scammer is you.

This would also be a good thing to put on the blog, which has not been updated in a while. Really, it should be added as a notice at the top of the protfolio page when you log in or something. Not everybody checks this forum often, and many people would miss this announcement because it is so far removed from the actual GLBSE website. Is there even a link anywhere on the GLBSE to this forum? (other than a few of the assets which list a forum post as their "website", which seems kinda shady to me.)

I wish bitcoin companies would start making their announcements on their platforms, and stop using this forum as the primary means of communications with users.

Of course, many people do not have time to check a bazillion different websites for news on every bitcoin business, either.  That's the reason the concept of a community bulletin board has existed for hundreds (thousands?) of years.

But would it really be that hard to put the pertinent information both places, or at least a link to the information?

PPoweredP if you are looking to get your project off the ground for bitcoins let us know we are a kickStarter-like system for bitcoins we are pre-loading projects currently.

http://www.bitcoinstarter.com

Just PM us. Thanks!

The new changes going into effect per twitter.

http://blog.glbse.com/notice-of-new-asset-fee-change


"If you submit an application and later want to change the contract (because there was an error) that will be an additional 5BTC. The same will happen if the contract you have submitted has been found to be lacking in the detail or clarity needed to enforce"

I just want to be 100% clear, If you have an existing asset issued before this change and you want to change the contract it will be a 5 BTC fee?

I don't know. What do you suggest, we can't have contracts being changed willy nilly.

Well in my cases I need majority shareholder or higher approval to change the contract, so its not willy nilly.

But I could change the contract at any time, as long as i got voter approval with no cost.

This appears to me as a shack-down of Asset Owners, because if we don't pay 5 BTC to change our contracts to address all area your default contract will address them.(possibly without shareholder approval)

As an asset owner I consider a default contract to be Interference and a direct violation of the contract I made with my Shareholders.

Asset issuers have a contract with GLBSE as well.  That is the terms the asset issuer had when they created the asset.  GLBSE should make it so any new assets that need to be changed will require a 5 btc fee.  Any created before the fee change should have the same rate that was done before 0 btc.  There did not seem to be any restrictions previously on changing the contract as long as it was per the original contracts requirement.  Also, there was no restrictions on changing the assets name.  Just grandfather the old assets and make any fee changes on the new assets.

I think you missunderstand, I'm not interested in the 5BTC fee, I would like your opinion on how best to handle proposed changes to asset contracts.

If you are speaking about administrative issues, then those decisions would have to be done by GLBSE.

If you are speaking of more the fairness of changing contracts then there could be a lot of opinions of this.

It seems if an asset holder wants to amend their contract then of course they need the shareholders approval according to the contract.  They then contact GLBSE to get the contact amended.

There could be problems with just allowing direct democracy rule though.  Asset holders that are not being watched carefully could create more shares, send them to sockpuppet accounts, and then have enough shares to change the contract whenever they want. 

Another way, might be to require future assets to be listed to not only have one account holder, but a board, maybe the issuer is the head and the next few largest holders could make up the board.  They would be required to authorize any more shares/bonds to be issued.

For assets that are dead, as in no shares out.  The contract could be changed upon request by the asset issuer and approval by GLBSE based on any new contract guidelines.

I think what is most important though, is to get a contract between GLBSE and asset issuers.  Set out what is required of an asset issuer, the expectations of privacy, the fiduciary duty to shareholders, etc.

One shouldnt allow a change of contract without unanimous shareholder consent.  Every share represents a contract between issuer and shareholder, a third party (other share holders) has no right to change that contract.

There might be an argument to be made to allow addendums to a contract if a majority votes for it, but only as long as the addendum doesnt infringe on the original contract.

That isn't universally true.  As long as the contract specifies the contract can be modified under conditions (x,y,z) like say approval of 66% of outstanding shares then a change doesn't violate the original contract.  The original contract was subject to modification.  The shareholder agreed to that when buying their shares.

I do agree in general that if Nefario wants to tighten up standards it will need to be done forward looking.  Simply forcing changes on existing contracts shows a lack of respect for the property rights of others (both asset issuer and shareholders).

Doesnt change my opinion that you should not allow it. Allowing it means a majority shareholder can change the contract so that he is entitled 100% of the dividends or give himself the right to buy other shares at 0% of face value.  You may argue that the minority shareholder should have thought of that possibility before buying, and technically that might be true, but its still a terrible idea IMO. The issuer will want to have the possibility to alter the contract, so every issuer will put it in there, and its only a matter of time before its grossly abused.

Like I said earlier, contracts in the future should require some kind of better organization structure.

Well that possibility exists in every shared contract.   However there are remedies.  One option would be to prohibit certain actions in the contract and a second would be to allow minority shareholders to challenge any change in arbitration (judge.me for example).  You could make a term of the contract that all parties (to include GLBSE, the asset owners, and all shareholders agree to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute).

The problem is most contracts to date have been a paragraph is size.  They are woefully inadequate to provide shareholders any real protection. 

If they are more than a page, most will not read them and won't understand.

I am starting to be glad that in Open Transactions assets are identified by the hash of their contract so that even a totally trivial and semantically null change results in a different hash thus a different asset. It means this entire argument will not have to be rehashed (hahahaha punny) when using Open Transactions platform.

-MarkM-

If the contract has to list changes that are prohibited, such list can never be exhaustive and include all possible swindles. Its just unfeasible.  A much more realistic solution is that any shareholder that doesnt agree to a change has to be bought out on terms he agrees to, which is the same as requiring unanimity.



On what grounds would you allow a dispute? IOW, what would judge.me be ruling on? whether or not a contractual change is "fair"?

Then they shouldn't be investing.  That is the reality.  The operating agreement for our LLC is 18 pages and is stripped down excluding all legalese and just starting the right and responsibilities of members (LLC have members not shareholders).  The operating agreement or articles of incorporation for a major company is on the order of 50-100 pages.  Now I am not saying a contract on GLBSE needs to be 18 pages.  It might not even need to be more than a page but it should cover all major aspects of the operation. 

If the contract is a paragraph or less then the shareholder really has no rights.  It is merely a honor system.  
The shareholder is implicitly trusting the exchange and asset issuer won't screw them over. While that is fine but GLBSE is never going to grow beyond its current state unless people can trust larger sums will be handled in an equitable manner.  To do that requires putting more details explicitly in the contract and not left up to assumption.

Essentially.  People have this mistaken conception that the "law" (and we will use third party arbitration in place of the courts here) defines every aspect of every scenario imaginable.  The reality is it doesn't.  The law, contracts, regulations are more like guidelines.  A lot falls between the cracks.  Most of the time all parties can reach an equitable solution even when something isn't explicitly defined.  If multiple parties can't reach an equitable consensus then it falls on an independent third party to make a decision.

So lets take Matt's idiot bet.  I am 100% convinced that any third party arbiter would squash his "reason" for nothing paying.  It was nonsensical.  The contract doesn't have to define that the example isn't binding and is just an example in order to make that so. 

Look I am not saying it "should" be done this way or that way.  I am just saying that in the real world contracts do need to be revised, and amended.  The idea that you can't have that without allowing 51% of shareholders to rob the 49% is just silly.  As Bitcoin "grows up" it will need to forge its own standards otherwise things like GLBSE are merely toys where nerds rob other nerds pretending to be doing real business.  In other words GLBSE is just Eve Online without the starships. :)

Most people don't even read their prospectuses for their mutual funds.  It is just the reality of investing.

Which is why they pay taxes to the SEC to handle their responsibilities for them.  Entities like the SEC ensure that even idiots are shielded from the true risks of blindly investing.
So getting a little meta either you give over responsibility for the state OR you take person responsibility.  You can't have it both ways.  Nefario seems to be taking some of that "SEC like" role.  By putting up min requirements and specifying default contracts it would provide at least some protection.

Also I would point out in a community each shareholder isn't a "island" they can ask questions.  While the responsibility is still personal they can draw from the knowledge and expertise of others.  Community members can provide explanations.  Members can point out the risks of a contract saying X or not specifying Y.  At least putting it in writing creates a starting point.  Better and better contracts will be built by looking at prior contracts.  Simply having all rights undefined and nebulous prevents any sort of "best practices" to emerge.  

lol, it isn't?? ;)