To clear up one more small thing about the way it works:

It doesn't matter how many orders you have up on a single security - if someone sells YOU some of that security it will NEVER cancel any Bids you have on that security.  It's logically impossible.  Can explain why if you want - but it's actually pretty obvious if you just think it through.

Making sure it wasnt possible to load order-books with unbacked orders was one of the first questions I asked about the platform when I started using it (by which I mean LTC-GLOBAL - which is same code-base as BTC.CO).

Your example is exactly what I was explaing you CANT do.

If you deposit 100 coins then you can't ever have bids totalling more than 100 coins on any single security.  By totalling I mean "all bids on that security added together".

You CAN'T have X: 100@1, 1@1.01

You CAN have X: 100@1,  Y: 100@1.

If you put the second set up then as soon someone sold you one of X, the Y order would be cancelled (you can of course put up 2 orders of 50 each for X and Y meaning that you'd still have one order left up for each until you'd been sold 51 or more units).

Re-read my post bearing in mind your misconception - and you'll likely interpret it a bit differently.

WHo were you scamming?  The other 10% of investors who you didn't control.  90% != 100%.

If you actually believe what you've posted there, then it shows just how totally ufnit you are to ever be trusted to manage other people#s money.

Having control of 90% does NOT give you carte blanche to do what you like with funds.  Consider the following 3 scenarios:

1.  You give away a chunk of the company's assets to yourself.
2.  You give away a chunk of the company's assets to a different company managed by yourself.
3. You sign a contract with another company managed by yourself whereby they're given a chunk of assets in return for a consideration.  You never request the consideration from you other company.

Now it IS just about possible you'll claim to believe even scenario 1 is fine - I'm reluctant to set ANY limits on the extent of your ignorance and/or willingness to lie as you've proven amply qualified in both areas.  That's to say you may actually believe that you can just help yourself to assets of a company you manage because "I have 90% of the shares".

But if you DON'T believe you can do scenario 1 - then you need to look more carefully at scenarios 2 and 3 as they have an IDENTICAL impact on the shareholders of your company.  And all three scenarios would have a high chance of landing you in prison in most western countries (can't speak for whether it's fine to just help yourself to things "because 90%" in China).  Scenario 3 is what you did.

As for "it's not my fault I lost a ton of money investing in mining bonds".  Uh - yes it is.  You bought tons of mining bonds that could NEVER be profitable at the prices you paid (just look at how many years they'd take to repay investment if difficulty didn't rise - then look at a graph of past difficulty and wonder how you could be so dumb).  Maybe you bought them on the "Bigger fool" theory - in which case you found out there actually wasn't one - but I'd guess you just didn't ever do any proper analysis.  If you HAD done proper analysis then would have posted it to explain why it wasn't your fault - but if that were the case (and they were worth what you paid) then you wouldn't have sold them for a loss, you'd have been buying more.  So clearly you accepted your initial valuation was wrong - or you'd still hold the bonds.

Here's probably when you trot out the old chestnut about "but BTC rose vs USD" - as though basing an entire investment plan on gambling that BTC wouldn't rise is somehow good management.  Not to mention that the impact of that is pretty much marginal long-term on fixed-rate bonds anyway (hint: you don't get less BTC per block just because of exchange-rate changes).

You're one of those unfortunate people we have the misfortune to encounter in life sometimes.  Everything they touch gos to shit - yet they can never quite grasp that it may actually be their fault: it's always caused by things out of their control.  Were that your only problem I'd just feel sorry for you.  But you also lie through your teeth, attempt to bully people out of pointing out your lies and (as evidence in my quoted post) apparently believe that you actually have the RIGHT to steal from people in certain cases ("I have 90% of shares so am entitled to steal from those with the other 10%").  So you're actually pretty despicable - not just just pathetic.

Not much happening - but at least no longer 100% in cash.

Exchange-rate : 0.005
Adj NAV/U : 13.14996427

Bid at 12.95

Now to wait for nefario to appear on here in a panic and ask people to send back the lists as he sent them to the wrong people, or doubled the share counts or whatever.

Just to clear one thing up - in case you're misunderstanding it.  You can't place orders on a single security over your available balance.  So if there's 1 million LTC of bids on a security then there's always funds backing them sufficient that you could sell to all of the bids at once.  Of course, when you did so it may be the case that a bunch of bids on other securities may get cancelled.

Now I can see where you may be coming from - that if you add up the total of bids on ALL securities then it'll add up to more than the total funds actually committed to bids on the site.  But that total is pretty meaningless anyway - it's only a snapshot and is neither an upper nor a lower bound on funds actually available to purchase with.

When someone places an Ask order, they don't buy from the whole book - they buy from the book for a specific security.  Any time you look at the book for a specific security the list of bids DOES reflect cash available right that instant to fulfil matching Asks.  That's the most you can ever get - there's no requirement for bids to stay up for a period of time and no restriction on when/whether/why they may be cancelled.  In this specific case the reason they're being cancelled is because the funds the user was going to use for that bid has been used to purchase securities elsewhere - that the mechanism for that was an automated cancel rather than a manual one is of zero relevance whasoever to the seller: the offer is no longer there and that's all that really matters.

Any small devaluation of overall information about trade (and yes - I agree there's some devaluation of information about funds in play over the entire market) is, in my view, more than compensated for by the ability not to have to tie up funds on a 1:1 basis for bids on a range of pretty illiquid assets.

I didn't (and never have) claimed BMF actually paid 500 coins.  BMF agreed a contract committing them to paying over 500 coins in return for 500 BTC of insurance cover.

In fact BMF only paid (from memory) 20-30 BTC in premiums.

WHo did you scam?  BMF!

You've never explained why, if (as you now claim) the contract was just a "test" you:

A)  Actually charged BMF some premiums (which were NOT returned on the designated address),
B)  Announced to BMF shareholders that they were insured.

Testing what precisely?  How to default on contracts?

You cheated BMF investors - pure and simple.  If it was just a test (of what - what purpose did announcing insurance cover actually serve in terms of "testing" anything?) then BMF shareholders should have been told it wasn't real - and not charged ANY premiums.

Your explanation is total crap - if anyone is unclear why, just look back at my earlier posts where I quoted all relevant information.  The "it's only a pretend contract" bullshit only emerged months after the event when you no longer get away with just totally ignoring all questions about it.

if (i != k) {" is a totally unnecessary line of code

Look at how k is defined.  There's no way k can ever equal i - it starts off at i+1 and gets larger.

TagNode i_tagnode = (TagNode) getChildAt(i);
 String i_childname = i_tagnode.getName();

These are being recreated unnecessarily every time through the inner (k) loop.  If the issue is that the app is multi-threaded and the content of node i/k could change during execution of the function call then there'd be a seperate, much more serious issue.

String k_childname = k_tagnode.getName();
if (i_childname.equals(k_childname)) {

Creating a temp variable that will only be used in precisely one function call is code bloat.  Why not replace these 2 lines with:

if (i_childname.equals(k_tagnode.getName())) {

Not too clear on exactly what you're doing - but comparison of 2 objects of the same class shouldn't really be needing any temporary variables at all.  If you're doing a lot of string comparisons then consider using a string class with reference counters - so at least the overhead of creating temp variables/copies of identical strings has a lot less overhead.  Yeah - it likely makes no noticable performance difference but it's just bad practice to spew temp variables all over the place (including creating two repeatedly in an unnecessarily tight scope).

The first point (a check that can never be met of i!=k) is precisely why I dislike SLOC so much.  Your code with it in with be considered more/better work than mine without it.  If the concern is to somehow be sure that you aren't comparing the same object to itself then that should be addressed by a specific member function or operator that threw an exception when it happened: if you want to check for something that you know should never happen then do it properly so you can identify when it happens.

Let me clear up what happened (was me who made the first big post about this).  Have simplified some details.

1.  BMF signs contract for insurance with CPA.  BMF to pay 5 BTC/week for 2 years in return to receive insurance cover for up to 500 BTC worth of NAV loss (below NAV of 1/share).
2.  BMF pays premiums for 1st month or two.
3.  BMF's NAV falls well below 1.0 - entitleing it to claim under the policy.
4.  BMF doesn't claim.
5.  Usgai refuses to answer questions about it - claiming it's been answered before (when it hadn't).  Usagi further claims that a motion was passwed by shareholders in a vote for the insurance.  That was just an outright lie.
5.  Evenutally usagi claims that it wasn't worht claiming on the insurance - as it would have been paid back in premiums anyway - so both commitments were accelerated (allowed under the contract).
6.  No payment of the difference in the two commitments ever showed up on the listed BTC addresses.

Note that usagi also claimed (contradicting its claim detailed in 5.) that the insurance was just a "test".  Something clearly given the lei to by usagi posting an announcement bragging about the insurance cover.

What usagi singularly fails to grasp is this:

Yes - BMF WAS entitled to agree to its acceleration of obligations to CPA (the premiums) - but acting on behalf of bMF there's NO reason why it was in BMF's interest to do this.  Either:

1.  The insurance policy had NO benefit to BMF (paying over 500 ppremiums for 500 cover that would never be claimed) OR
2.  It had benefit - which usagi then failed to claim on BMF's benefit.

If it DID have benefit then usagi had no right to give up that benefit.  If it did NOT have benefit then usagi had no right to agree to the policy in the first place.  As manager of BMF usagi is supposed to act in the itnerest of BMF's shareholders NOT CPA's shareholders.  If (as seems the case) incapable of distinguising between the two then it's blatant conflict of interest and usagi should have NOT made decisions on behalf of shareholders.

Here's what  really happened.  The insurance deal was probably made in good faith - it gave cash-flow to CPA and gave BMF investors security against another price drop as they'd just recovered from.  CPA wasn't risking much - as they'd make a profit even if they paid out the full amount they were liale for.  BUT then pirate happened - where usagi fucked up royally including insuring against pirate default even when it knew pirate was about to default just to prove it was trustworthy (lol).  CPA ended up broke just when BMF needed to claim.  And usagi pretended it hadn't happened - probably hoping to sort it out later when things got better.  But things didn't get better - as usagi's incompetence contiuned to spew funds away left, right and centre in every business venture it dabbled in.  So usagi then started lieing - claiming it had been explained (it hadn't), claiming it had been voted on by shareholders (it hadn't) etc.

This is also when usagi started defrauding nyan investors (which I never got around to posting about) by making interest free loans to CPA (dressed up as holding YARR shares for the books).  Including "selling" YARR shares to nyan at 1.5 each when pirate was in default with a buyback of 1.0 (and AFTER usagi had given up on the pretence YARR was going to change to OBSI - always a pretence as CPA didn't have the cash to insure them - it was just a bullshit claim made to try to get some people not to cash in their insurance which there wasn't funds for).  Interetsingly, there IS an argument to be made that these interest-free loans WERE in the interest of nyan shareholders - that an interest free loan generates more profit that having the funds be actively managed by usagi.

Question on the BMF insurance is simple:

When the policy was signed, did BMF intend to claim if the conditions to claim were met?
If no - then what possible benefit was BMF getting from the policy?
If yes - then what changed to make it in BMF's interest not to claim?

Expect all manner of bullshit from usagi - but no straight answer to those few very simple questions: as there's no conceivable set of answers which would support the contention that usagi acted (on BMF's behalf) in the best interest of BMF shareholders.  Usagi consistently treated its various companies as though they were all one entity - rather than acting for each in its own interest.  Unfortunately usagi's grasp of English doesn't extend to "conflict of interest" so it hasn't yet worked out that BMF's interests may not always have been aligned with CPA's (in fact, it would have been in BMF's best interests for CPA to go broke after paying out most of the insurance cover - as then they'd not have to pay the remaining premiums).

And on ths dumb point about "all mining bonds lost 60% and I only lost 50% so I'm a good investment manager". No.  Just No.  A good investment manager wouldn't invest in something that was going to lose 50% just to "outperform" even worse managers who lost 60%.  They'd research the area first - realise it was bad to invest in - and not touch it.  That simple.  A good manager certainly wouldn't repeat their losses again (nyan.b/c) just to prove they were up there with the best at losing money.  And you compare investment companies to other investment companies - not to mining companies.

At present it's not optional.  You can kind of see what you have tied up in bids by going t your analysis screen - where it does how the funds ocmitted on bids to each asset you either own or have bids on.  Unfortunately it doesn't yet show a total at bottom - if it did then you could easily see whether you'd put more bids than could be filled and cancel some to adjust.

I can see how some types of users would dislike the way it currently works - definitely it's the case that cancelling whole orders suits neither type.  In a low liquidity market I do, however, believe this way is far better for the vast majority of users than the GLBSE way.  If someone really wants to spend exactly all of their funds on specific assets then, no matter how the platofrm operates, they've got to do some math to get their orders right anyway.

Best solution to deliver what you want would be to (somewhere) display the total of all current outstanding bids you have.  That would actually be useful info for me as well and not degrade any of the flexibility offered by the current method.

SLOC is a pretty meaningless measure.

Consider the following two (pseudo)code samples:

Sample 1:

X=Y*P/100;


Sample 2:

T=P;
T=T/100;
X=Y;
X=Y*T;


Both do exactly the same thing (set X to equalling P% of Y).  Under pretty much any measure of (physical or logical) SLOC sample 2 has 4 times the count of sample 1.  Is it really 4 times as much effort, 4 times as good or does it represent 4 * as much of ANY useful measure?

No.  In fact sample 2 is worse than sample 1 for at least two reason (three if P/100 will never be reused elsewhere).  THAT is why SLOC is useless as measure of what "value" the code has.  If the intent of SLOC is to reward effort then it's meaningless without knowing what portion of the code was auto-generated (e.g. by placing widgets in some IDEs or by using YACC/LEX to generate parser code etc etc).

If, of course, quoting SLOC was just some pathetic attempt to grow your e-peen then well done!  You wrote 10k lines of code (which could represent anywhere from a day to a few months work).  Of course we don't know if that's really GOOD code - or if it's something a better programmer could have done in 1k lines of code (SLOC counts are higher for bad programmers than for good ones for the same functionality).  It could be the best 10k lines of code ever written - or it could be 10k lines of bug-ridden junk.  It's a meaningless figure - other than to demonstrate that you've put a bit of work into your project.

If you want to brag, boast about what your code can do - not baout how many lines of typing you had to do to make it perform.  That way it at least has some meaning.  Just so you know, I've written (and documented, maintained and given training in) software with an SLOC an
order of magnitude larger than what you're claiming.  Strangely I never felt the need to discuss SLOC with clients - they seemed far more interested in what the software actually did.

(This paragraph is pure opinion).  I view SLOC as a pretty useless means of ameasuring anything worthwhile.  I expect it was devised by managers with insufficent knowledge to more properly assess the output of programming staff.  As a measure (if reward is based on it) it actually encourages bloated, inefficient code.  If you wrote something with an SLOC of 10k and I wrote something that did the same with an SLOC of 1K I'd very firmly believe I had more bragging rights (though if I were going to brag it wouldn't be about the lower SLOC it would be about the lower memory usage/speed/easier maintenance due to less code etc).

So - do you believe my sample 2 is better than my sample 1?  If not - how do we know your 10k SLOC isn't a crappy sample 2 of what should be a 2.5k sample 1?  And if you can't answer that then why 'brag' about your SLOC in the first place?

Oh - and quoting some website for a specific application as being the definition of a concept isn't exactly legitimate.  If you want a definition of SLOC then why not use the IEEE one (or even the SEI one)?  Fact is there's no universally accepted rule on whether blank lines (or comments) count.  As it happens I agree with Wheeler (and yourself it seems) that they shouldn't - but there's no standard definition for it and tbh I don't see to much point in wasting effort on the definition of an essentially meaningless metric.

If he was trying to do things in a sensible fashion he'd just have cleared order book and prevented adding new orders/making cash transfers/paying dividends.  Then everyone could have withdrawn their funds at leisure and sorted things with asset-issuers with no risk of idiocy like returning funds twice.  That would have taken all of 5-10 minutes of his time and not had any problems (I didn't do any transfers of shares on GLBSE but assume it showed who sent them - so asset issuers could just have requested shares to be returned then reissued them on a different platform).

But where would the fun, drama and chance to excel in demonstrating incompetence have been had he done that?  This way he gets to drag his 15 minutes of fame on for a few months and gets to make sure he has absolutely zero chance of ever having any credibility in the BTC community again.  Can only assume he wanted to make sure he burned his bridges - as, had he so chosen, he could most definitely have left them intact with far less effort.

Probably worth explaining how this works for those not used to LTC-GLOBAL.

Anyone who owns 10 or more shares in LTC-GLOBAL is entitled to approve or disapprove of any current or proposed assets on the exchange.  This shows up as a number next to the security - with NO votes counting as -2 and YES votes counting as +1.  For a security to be tradable it has to get 5 YES votes (it used to be a NET of +4 - i.e. YES votes - 2*NO votes).  In theory this means you have to satisfy those with an interest in the welbeing of the exchange before your security can be traded,  In practice it hasn't quite worked like that - with securities getting NO votes with no explanation given (and assets with incomplete/unprofitable plans getting plenty of YES votes).

From my perspective it seems like votes are still largely based on "How much do they promise in dividends" rather than on any real assessment of whether the information provided indicates a business that's likely to do well.  Luckily (also, from my perspective) the same lack of math skills carries across to investors - making day-trading rather easy.

The platform's great to use after GLBSE - it doesn't have the 3 main problems I experienced with GLBSE namely:

1.  5-20 seconds to load a page (if it loaded at all) - GLOBAL loads pretty quickly.  There's some minor caching issues (e.g. main page showing all securities is cached - so can't be used to tell you promptly if you're outbid on any securities you've bid on)
2.  An unresponsive developer - I PMed nefario about a potential issue with voting (votes counting after you'd transferred shares - allowing double-voting) and didn't even receive a reply.  The issue, of course, then proved to actually be genuine and wasn't fixed right up until the site went offline.  burnside responds promptly to all reports of issues (I've reported a fair few minor things) and fixes them promptly when warranted.
3.  Funds being tied up for bids.  This was a huge issue for me on GLBSE - I could only make total bids equal to my balance.  GLOBAL lets you bid equal to your balance on EACH security - if one order is filled then orders you no longer have balance to cover get cancelled.  I'd prefer if they were only partially cancelled (i.e. reduced to a quantity you could cover) but as it stands it's still a massive improvement on GLBSE.  This adds liquidity to the market as well as convenience to people trying to trade and/or market-make.

Overall my experience of LTC-GLOBAL (which this new site uses same code-base from and has same operator) is very positive - both as a trader and as the manager of a very small asset (my fund has a market cap of about 6.5K LTC/30 BTC and isn't selling more units).  I don't believe this particular change will actually have much impact - instead of no comments on NO votes we'll now just see "I don't like it" which has no more value.  And, frankly, I expect 90% of people entitled to vote aren't competent to give a meaningful opinion anyway - which is true for just about any voting system (and saying so will likely get me another NO vote or 2).

Yeah - mentioned that in my last paragraph.  The real weakness is that it allows people to delete just their sell line - and leave in their buy.  With the buy being genuine (so unlikely to be contested) it would give huge credibility to someone who had bought/sold shares but was now claiming to only have ever bought them.  All it can really show is that at some point they probably owned some shares - not that they still retained them when GLBSE closed down.

Exchange-rate 0.0053

Current Adjusted NAV/U : 13.0082307
Bid at : 12.85

Overnight we temporarily went to a position of holding zero securities (other than the handful locked on GLBSE) - i.e. we were entirely holding cash.  Pretty sure that's the first time we've been that in position since launch (when we started we already a few shares that I transferred in - and had bought more before those were sold).  We're no longer all cash now (just mostly).

There's various pretty crude attempts at price maniluplation occurring at moment on LTC-GLOBAL - essentially someone buys up most of the Asks for a share, places a high bid themselves then hopes others will overbid them.  Right now the obvious two are esecurity.sa2 and ltc-gaming.

Esecurity.sa2 is interesting - as yesterday the actual asset issuer was manipulating the price.  Basically he was putting up bids himself at 5.2, then selling NEW shares to anyone who overbid him.  Obviously once I spotted this pattern I made us some profit off it (would guess about 3% gain before weekly results and another 3% after) - by bidding just over 5.2, waiting until he did next dump (KNEW it was him as outstanding shares would rise after each dump) then selling them back off at 5.4-5.9 via Asks.  A LOT of the massive volume last few days in esecurity.sa2 was through this - with a pretty big chunk of it having me on one side or the other of trades (I was happy to take smaller profits on larger volume - as the asset-issuer, through his market manipulation, was setting a floor for me so risk was low).

I don't agree with asset issuers manipulating their own share price - sales policy should be transparent.  The last statement from the asset issuer was that he wasn't selling more shares (this was because LTC/USD rate had risen to the extent he could no longer sell without undercutting previous sales).  Now, unannounced, he's selling back onto the market - and doing so whilst attempting to manipulate the price.

Now someone bought all the way up to 10+ - and there's an Ask at 6.0 which is almost certainly going to be whoever's trying to mess with the price.  I've no evidence to suggest this is still the asset issuer - could well be someone who saw the massive traded volume last few days and thought they could push the price up and resell for a big profit.  If so, they're in for a pretty epic fail - as a whole lot of that volume didn't represent demand at all (for starters, volume is pretty much doubled by me picking them up cheap and reselling for modest markup - and my belief is a lot more of the volume is false as wel for a slightly different reason).

Same thing (attempted price raise) is happening on LTC-GAMING.  Someone's bought the market out - and now there's an isolated big Bid up.  I'm even less clear on what's happening here.  Esecurity.sa2 at least pays good dividends and has a defined, credible, model by which those profits are being delivered - so if you believe they're doing what they say they are they offer good value as an investment.  LTC-GAMING, on the other hand, was set up as a website to develop games yet appears to have completely failed to develop anything of note - but has kept ticking over due to its policy of paying out miniscule dividends every day (which would amount to an annual return of 1-2% that isnt even profit as the site generates no revenue other than donations).

It's hard to see how this price rise could be genuine given that the contract states:

"50000 shares will be issued at 1 LTC per share

Funds raised will be invested into the rapid and agile development of original
intellectual property and games."

Only 11000 shares have been sold so far, so to actually keep the price over 1 LTC you need to soak up the other 40,000.  And there's zero sign of any "rapid and agile" development going on - just a third--party solitaire game on the site which looks like it was written in an afternoon by someone as an exercise whilst they were learning to program.  Though there IS an announcement of unspecified major developments - so maybe it's someone speculating who didn't realise there are still 40,000 shares to be sold at 1 LTC each.

I post the above, as much as anything, to explain why - at times - we HAVE to sit on mainly cash for a while.  When a few securities are in artificial bubbles I have to stay clear of them until the bubble bursts - as it's not worth the risk of trading a security when you KNOW it's in a bubble that will collapse (probably sooner, rather than later).  And with only a small range of available investments in the first place, losing the ability to trade a few DOES restrict overall ability to trade.

 Note that whether I view a security as a good investment or not is pretty much totally irrelevant to WHETHER I trade it - I'll trade any old junk (NOT saying either of the 2 securities above IS junk) if I can make a profit doing so.  The quality of it (and, more importantly, how I perceive the market as perceiving it) just alter what % of funds I'll risk on it, how big the likely profit margin has to be to trade it and what degree of credibility I'll give to any apparent moves in its market value.

It seems like a decent starting point - but what's to stop someone either:

1.  Adding lines into the .csv file,
2.  Deleting sales from the .csv file - so the record of them buying shares is still there, but not the record of them subsequently selling them.

Haven't got a GLBSE .csv file on this computer, but last time I looked at one, I don't remember it being GPG signed or anything to allow guaranteeing its unmodified nature.  It would deter casual scammers - but actually could be used to give credibility to slightly more sophisticated ones.

One thing it DOES do (in its favour) is link shares claimed to specific transactions - so anyone inserting lines would run the risk of claiming a sale to someone else was to them and having it contradicted by the genuine buyer submitting a claim on the same transaction.

If you're not offering an investment then:

A) Why does thread title say "kongzi.ca going live -- investment/presales opportunities".  How can it be an investment opportunity if you aren't offering an investment?
B) Why is this thread in a sub-forum that is specifically FOR investments?

On point A) you appear to be attempting to solicit a loan (which there's actually a loans section for) - yet it reads more like an investment than a loan.  There's no stated repayment schedule and it seems repayments will only be made out of profits - i.e. if it doesn't make a profit then there's no repayment.  In what parallel universe is "I want you to give me money which I'll use in a business and only repay if it makes a profit" a loan rather than an investment?

And no point you offering "guarantees" until you've delivered on the ones to nyan.a, your existing loan (or has that been paid back? Haven't checked - so maybe you repaid that one), the last few YARR bond-holders (who should have been paid back the second you decided you weren't going to change that into an OBSI pass-through) etc etc etc.

Maybe start sorting out your current mess before creating new ones?

Heh, well it's gonna take a while for the price to rise to what you paid for the last of them.  But welcome aboard.

You weren't buying direct from the fund - but from sellers by the way.  Only new units in last few weeks have been the ones I've taken for management fee.  Can't see any new units being sold by the fund for quite a while - so at least you don't have to worry about me selling new ones for less than you just paid.

UPDATE AND REPORT



It's been a good week for trading - pretty steady throughout then very busy last few days.  There's definitely some new investors into LTC-GLOBAL, at least one of whom is buying up whole chunks of assets at stupidly high prices.

Although we're, as usual, mainly cash that definitely hasn't been consistently the case last few days.  To give some idea, we currently hold ~1000 LTC worth of (non-cash) assets.  My last 30 trades (which is all that's easily viewable) were all in the last 10 hours and have a total value over 3200 LTC.  If half of those were buys and half sells (which is about right - cash was around same 10 hours ago) then we've turned over 1600 LTC worth of securities in that period: or over 25% of total fund value.

LTC dived heavily this week - but is now showing first signs of recovering (though the upward movement is small it's actually against arbitrage pressure).

Management fee due is 6.6 0 recalced at 6.2 to exclude the small impact our GLBSE assets have from exchange-range change.  That gets rounded down to 6 - which units will be transferred to my personal account (and HWM updated) after posting this.

Earlier in the week I made a post here : http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,857.0.html

This explained a proposal to issue BTC-denominated bonds to raise new capital rather than selling more units.  Feedback on it was pretty much zero (which was expected tbh).  I will NOT be creating a bond asset on BTCTC in the near future to issue bonds - I can't justify the 5 BTC listing fee when initially we'd only be looking to sell 5-10 BTC worth of bonds anyway.  I still like the idea of removing currency risk and leveraging our capital - so may consider private bond sales (i.e. just handled through a forum thread rather than on a trading platform) in the short-term.  Will probably put up a motion authorising this later in the week - so I can move on it when securities to trade in actually get listed on BTCTC.

Bid at : 12.2 for now.  Might be able to move it up slightly after I've had a proper look at the BTC-E currency markets.

Think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what wiould casue a stable exchange-rate.

I'll assume that, by stable,  we're talking about a fairly steady exchange rate (i,e, you don't have to worry that it'll have moved up/down by 10% in an hour's time) not about having an absolutely fixed (pegged) rate.

The main factor which will cause a stable exchange-rate for LTC, BTC or any other crypto-currency has nothing to do with coins/block, hashing difficulty or anything similar.  It's simply that there needs to be something exerting pressure FOR stability against speculative moves.  The most obvious thing which would achieve that is having significant uses for the currencies which were actually priced in BTC/LTC/whatever rather than, as at present, having everything which has a price be set in fiat and converted to crypto only for the actual transaction.

Imagine there were a significant number of useful/desirable products whose price was fixed in BTC.  Then, if BTC starts to fall there's an increased demand for BTC to buy them - pressuring the price back up.  Similarly the demand for BTC to buy them decreases if BTC rises - acting as a brake on the rise.  It's that sort of thing (and some financial options) which will bring stability to exchange-rates: right now there's nothing exerting any noticable pressure against speculative changes (cost of mining maybe sets a lower bound on rate - but not an upper bound).

Fiddling with details of the implementation won't deliver stability.  Wide-spread use will, eventually, lead to the chicken and egg problem getting solved (can't price in BTC/LTC as its unstable,  price is unstable because nothing priced in it, etc etc).  It's only then that tinkering with minor stuff will have any real impact.