Ahh, good call. Not all users from my experience (a few) have wanted their personal e-mail addresses made available directly to the issuers. (Esp. with all the scams that have gone around.) Awkward I think, but I have had people tell me this. Some have mentioned that "we have seen proof of how issuers will freely post what some people consider sensitive information".

While the forums system is definitely always an option, there are a few others as well.

Very soon, the issuer profile will be available for viewing, which will be required to have some form of contact outside of the exchange listed.
Granted, most people will not actually want to copy this information down.

I am adding an opt-in setting for users to be able to allow issuers to see their email address. This is to be added with the API updates.

I hope that most people would want to share their address. While much like BTC-TC any newer users that obtained shares since the last time the issuer pulls a list would not be contactable in this method. (Assuming the site is down and all data is unavailable.)

I was not actually trying to apply their ToS to the sites, but showing a comparison of how the sites and cryptocoins are not just the same as WoW/SecondLife.
You had stated: 

There are fundamental differences between them. That is all.



As long as you know how you will present the package in court (and hopefully this never happens, to anyone.), and feel comfortable with it that is all that matters in the end.
As I stated before, I am just tossing out concerns from my personal opinion, as well as providing another point of view that might hopefully be of some help, and are not meant to be considered an argument to fight instead.
As always, I wish you, and your partners the best of luck.

Err.. I am looking at the page right now.. I see things like 'Withdrawal fee of just 0.1 LTC'... when I search the page for 'LITS', chrome gives me 2 results, both in the same line.
"Security Page: Support for splits and reverse splits. (thx osoverflow)"  splits & splits... and no finds for the word convert.

Looking at the main page for btct... again, it is the same... Perhaps Burnside can clarify this a bit more?
It might have been something they decided to remove.
 

The message would have only been displayed to those who's code matched in a lowercase comparison, and only if a code had been generated for the email address within the last 5 minutes for obvious security reasons.

Thanks for that! The issue has been taken care of.

In the future, should you see any problems feel free to use the ticket system that will get someone's attention upon submission.

Great question! This gives me an excellent chance to clarify for anyone else who does not get it.

If a person was wanting to hide their identity, they simple generate a new address.
As long as they use this address for the public list, and do not receive or send any bitcoins from this address, it has NO history.

Should a user need to use this (and I sure hope it never happens.) then there are a multitude of ways to provide proof.

1. The user can send a micro transaction of BTC to the issuer, who could return it. (They then have proof of who controls that address.)
(One of the easiest methods to understand.)
2. The user can 'sign' an arbitrary message with their bitcoin address to show proof of control.
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3337/what-are-the-safety-guidelines-for-using-the-sign-message-feature/3339#3339

These two methods alone should be more than enough to be able to show identification.

Actually, at least with WoW, the company specifies that their 'virtual currenecy' is to have no real world cash value. Attempting to do so is breaking their ToS.
People reported and caught doing so, have the accounts they have invested time and money into taken away.
http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/legal/wow_tou.html
"
Ownership/Selling of the Account or Virtual Items.
Blizzard does not recognize the transfer of World of Warcraft Accounts or BNET Accounts (each an “Account”). You may not purchase, sell, gift or trade any Account, or offer to purchase, sell, gift or trade any Account, and any such attempt shall be null and void. Blizzard owns, has licensed, or otherwise has rights to all of the content that appears in the Game. You agree that you have no right or title in or to any such content, including without limitation the virtual goods or currency appearing or originating in the Game, or any other attributes associated with any Account. Blizzard does not recognize any purported transfers of virtual property executed outside of the Game, or the purported sale, gift or trade in the “real world” of anything that appears or originates in the Game. Accordingly, you may not sell in-game items or currency for “real” money, or exchange those items or currency for value outside of the Game.
"

SecondLife issues Linden Dollars that are "representing contractual permission from Linden Lab to access features of the Service." and is a limited license
that they maintain full control of. This is very different than using bitcoins on an asset exchange, as you are using a third party "virtual currency" that is
most commonly used in trading for fiat.
http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php
"
5. "LINDEN DOLLARS" ARE VIRTUAL TOKENS THAT WE LICENSE
5.1 Each Linden dollar is a virtual token representing contractual permission from Linden Lab to access features of the Service. Linden dollars are available for Purchase or distribution at Linden Lab's discretion, and are not redeemable for monetary value from Linden Lab.

The Service includes a component of virtual tokens ("Linden dollars" or "L$"), each of which constitutes a limited license permission to use features of our Service as set forth below. Linden Lab may or may not charge fees to acquire or use Linden dollars, and these fees may change at any time.

When you acquire a Linden dollar, Linden Lab hereby grants you a limited license ("Linden Dollar License") to use the Linden dollar as a virtual token to be held, bartered, traded and/or transferred in Second Life with other users (and/or Linden Lab), in exchange for permission to access and use Content, applications, services, and various user-created features, in accordance with these Terms of Service. The Linden Dollar License is transferable by the holder to any other user, provided that both users comply with these Terms of Service, maintain their Accounts in good standing, and are not delinquent on any Account payment requirements. Except as expressly permitted by this Agreement or otherwise expressly permitted by Linden Lab, the Linden Dollar License may not be sublicensed, encumbered, conveyed or made subject to any right of survivorship or other disposition by operation of law or otherwise, and you agree that any attempted disposition in violation of these Terms of Service is null and void. Linden Lab may revoke the Linden Dollar License at any time without notice, refund or compensation in the event that: (i) the Linden dollar program is suspended or discontinued; (ii) Linden Lab determines that fraud or other illegal conduct is associated with the holder's Account; (iii) Linden Lab imposes an expiration date on usage of Linden dollars in compliance with applicable laws and regulations; (iv) the holder's Account is terminated for violation of these Terms of Service; or (v) the holder becomes delinquent on any of that user's Account payment requirements, ceases to maintain an active Account or terminates this Agreement."

Also, VERY importantly.. they state they can, at any time, take your Lindens away, which you simply can not do with bitcoins outside of the site. They also state that 'Linden dollars are not real currency or any type of financial instrument and are not redeemable for any sum of money from Linden Lab at any time.'
"
You acknowledge that Linden dollars are not real currency or any type of financial instrument and are not redeemable for any sum of money from Linden Lab at any time. You agree that Linden Lab has the right to manage, regulate, control, and/or modify the license rights underlying such Linden dollars as it sees fit and that Linden Lab will have no liability to you based on its exercise of this right. Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature, quality or value of the features of the Service that will be accessible through the use of Linden dollars, or the availability or supply of Linden dollars.
"

Both sites do definitely claim, or assert that their 'virtual currencies' have no monetary value.
I have even considered doing a similar thing for bitfunder, except that no one wants to be told that the moment they "convert" their BTC in, that it has 0 value until they transfer it out. Especially with the GLBSE nightmare. People want to be able to have recourse.
Neither site, WoW, or even SecondLife will directly let you exchange their 'virtual currency' to something else to be withdrawn.
Even SecondLife, LindenLabs directly will not convert your Linden Dollars to a fiat at any rate and give it to you as a withdraw.
(This would violate their own ToS stating their 'virtual currency' is not redeemable for any sum of money from Linden Lab at any time'.)

Having experience personal experience as a business owner for 12+ years, and having to see many Judges over the last decade to enforce contracts, I can share at least one thing I have definitely learned, is that you can 'play it' however you want with a judge. In the end, they look at it in a very factual, and straight forward manner, and they tend to look for people who play 'games' to avoid illegality, and will compare end results, not the means.

Object A
1. A shareholder of a publicly traded company spends their money to buy into shares of a company.
2. A shareholder of a publicly traded company get's to vote on company events.
3. A shareholder of a publicly traded company may earn dividends based on profits the company has hearned.

Object B
1. A user may have to spend money to but bitcoins to bbuy litecoinglobal's 'virtual shares'
2. 'Virtual shareholders' vote on actual events of of Litecoin Global.
3. 'Virtual shareholders' will receive actual profits from Litecoin Global via a 'real shareholder'.
4. 'Virtual shareholders' may at any time, in bulk, and without charge, convert 'virtual shares' into real ones.
5. 'Virtual shareholders' are being provided detailed company accounting data.
6. 'Virtual shareholders' 'actually' own a share of "the domain liteocinglobal.com, the website code, the customer list, and anythiing left in the site wallet.' and may receive these very real items in whole or part should litecoinglobal.com operate at a loss for more than 30 days. as stated in the LTC-ASSET 'stockholder agreement'.
6. 'Virtual shareholders' are liable for the 'Estimated startup costs' including up to $1,780 worth in company formation fees in the form of a clawback which would be paid by 'Virtual Shareholders' in the form of a debt, lowering the total profit paid out as dividends, should the corporation become successful.

These 'Virtual Shareholders' sure do have a lot of 'real world' responsibilities and promises for being a completely 'fake' system for 'entertainment' purposes only.

My lawyers have always agreed on one thing. Judge's will go by 'the sniff test'. If it smells funky, it probably is.
This my friend, would _not_ pass the sniff test.

There is a possibility that the other side would call in shareholders, asking how they came to own the 'virtual shares',
including buying the bitcoins, the bitcoins held value worth selling on an open market for, how much they "paid"
for the shares, if they fully expected to get actual profits distributed to them from litecoinglobal regardless of if they
are labeled as 'virtual' and who actually gives them the payments, and if they felt that these payments based on the
profits were a "promise" of value to be paid.


This contradicts the websites own terms, where it states 'No assets on the site are to be considered real.'. In this case,
as you have clearly stated, the shares of the litecoinglobal asset are true shares being proxied by a nominee shareholder,
and may be traded evenly for actual held shares of the registered corporation in bulk.

The end result is, which the Judge's care about the most, is that the 'virtual shareholders' of litecoinglobal have the
same promises, and rights as a real shareholder, and is being traded in a public open market outside of any regulation,
having the option to (without any cost) evenly trade these 'virtual' shares for real ones, leaving the only difference
being that someone tagged the word 'virtual' onto them. This does not make them 'not real shares'.

Simply telling the judge that there is a "fake" service that manages the 'virtual shares' that act in good faith as actual
shares... well. I will stop beating a horse, dead or not. For the rest of the site, that is fine, but for your own real corporation,
it just sounds bad. (to me. of course I may be wrong, but it is my opinion.)

I have known many lawyers, and have never had one say "Yeah, it can look questionable, but we can fight it."
(Well.. there was one... there always is.. man, he made a LOT of money off that odeal. Was the first time I learned the
hard way about this stuff.)
Generally the response is "Well, if it looks like a dog, walks like a dog, and barks like a dog, I would't want to go to jail for try to sell it as a cat."


Oh.. they trust them.. Until something goes terribly wrong. Then it all goes down hill from there. Does not mater if the issuer is doing what they think is right, or not.

That is why I said you would just create an extra address to use just for the public list.
With bitcoin wallets, you can have multiple addresses and use them for different things.
If you want the info to stay private, create a new address (that has no history), and use that.

+1

Could not have been said better by anyone.

I actually have been writing something up to go with it that better explains what to expect. I have just been trying to do enough research to make it as correct as possible. Also. no need to be sorry. That is the point of the thread. Everything counts when trying to make something better. I am far from perfect, and so is BitFunder. It does make a great goal though. I am all ears.


I actually have a litecoinglobal account, and not sure what you are talking about.. as far as converting LTC to some other thing... (other than shares?)
litecoinglobal uses LTC... btct uses BTC... Perhaps I misundestood something.


This is a very true statement. Part of the reason for the previous amendment to the beta terms. I felt something extra needed to be there, as I still feel a more detailed and in depth version needs to be posted. And this kinda goes back to the first point of this reply.


Erm.. care to clarify?
I see the difference of an i vs. I...

Yes, very serious.
If you have any questions about it, feel free to join our discussion about it on the BitFunder launch thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=130117.0

Many questions have already been asked and answered, including how we differ from other exchanges. (Past and Present)
Of course those explanations include why you see the terms of service that you do. I do hope you at least give it a read.
Thus far, people have seemed very happy with the provided answers.

Oh and...


+1


Yup, we both offer up different variations and styles to choose from. Although, I am trying to convince Burnside to join the dark side and list everything publically for both users and issuers. I have already described how/why in the link I already plugged above so I won't bother fluffing this thread with it.

Friedcat, it does sound like you already have a lot of work to do, and in what appears to be a very short time span. As much as it may not be my business, it does kind of sound like you need all the time to focus on the main things that you can get, at least for the short term. (I may be very wrong, if so, just ignore me. 

BitFunder would be happy to help out any assets that even need a temporary home until other solutions can be finished. All our data us publicly listed, so everyone knows there is no funny business.

An issuer can pause trading when they are ready to do a migration. (We are not afraid of assets leaving us like other exchanges of the past who had a bad reaction.)
I am pretty sure I saw where btct.co has a trading pause option as well, however I cannot speak for Burnside & btct.co shareholders if they would want to do a "temporary" asset. I expect he will follow up shortly.

Thank you for the time and considerations!

I apologize, I was reading the "Organization and Management" section of the LTC-GLOBAL asset. It mentions "Currently LTC-GLOBAL is majority owned by burnside", with the domain is maintained under your services in the U.S., and under "Financial Management" where it states "All costs to date have come out of burnside's pocket.", it appears is you are the "Big Cheese"/"Head Honcho"/owner along with the people you are designating as "shareholders" that buy into the "Corporation"(not sure what type?) that is registered in Belize? You might seriously want to consider posting an 'About Us' page listing off the Belize corporation information, as well as listing the people behind the corporation, and official titles and responsibilities. Show the people that it is a real corporation, and it has to means to operate as one.
(Also, it is very common for many small~medium businesses to post pictures and full profiles of the people operating, and making the decisions in the company.)
As it stands from an outsiders point of view, it's all you bud. (And any "shareholders" a court decides to indict. ) (While I was kind of joking about that, it is still a serious consideration.) So seriously think on putting something up to help show show _everyone_ who might be interested, and how real of a corporation that it is.


Oh yes, no one said it would be easy in any way shape or form. That's why no one has done it yet.
If you do not look, and press on, you never know.

As far as it being a joke, the moment you get into court, all laughs and games aside, the judge will ask you point blank, "If it's all 'virtual currency', fun and games, and exactly 'how' the users get this 'virtual currency' to trade it on your site since you do not sell it yourself. You could say "Users can 'mine' it using their already bought computers.", but I promise you within the first cross-examination, the DA will ask if "mining" uses additional electricity, and generally requires some investment of some sort, and could be traded out by many other central places for real currency, and if it has any sort of agreed value online or otherwise".

Putting that aside, you COULD argue that you are no different than a game company like World of Warcraft with your own 'virtual currency'. The problem is that unlike SecondLife, and many other's, you are not using your own 'virtual currency'. This is something you might want to consider doing with some simple fee-less third party exchanges, or possibly internally.

Although, I am curious what your lawyer thought about publicly trading "fake" shares of the "real" Belize corporation and treating those "fake" shares as "real" ones by giving out "real" dividends of "real" profits to those share holders as if they actually owned the "real" shares of the company, and how to deal with the Belize securities dept. if they come asking. (As you said, they won't be happy.) I do understand that you are claiming it is all fake, and has no value.. but I just don't see a judge agreeing with that in any way. "Yes your honor, none of our 'virtual shareholders' hold any real stock in our company. We just.. pay them out real profit worth of shares in that amount.. as if they actually owned them. It's all fun and games... for learning.. you see... ?" (Please, PLEASE tell me I missed something, because I feel bad now that I have considered and written this, and it is 5:10am. )


Ahhh, I apologize, I must have overlooked it or perhaps did not consider that the same. I think a lot of the problem is that many users do not trust the asset issuers when it comes down to money. Everyone has a scammer tag in their holster ready to quick draw the moment something even remotely smells funny, regardless of how well known, or reliable the issuer has been. We have already seen cases of people questioning issuers "where did XXX shares come from? Why do you have them? Do you have proof you owned them before YYY?" I guess in this respect, and the information not being out there for everyone to see, and not being 100% fully transparent just screams (to me, along with all the other voices in my head ) like it would still lead to many MANY more potential major incidents with a lot of "he said, she said".


Again, I try to make all my projects as transparent as possible. I am even looking to allow users to be able to use multiple addresses so they can split their holdings on the public list, however even that feels like it would be abused in some way. If you do not want people to know who you are, just create a new address that will only ever be used for an emergency claim. I just do not see a reason why everyone can not have a copy of the same data, and be on the same page as long as it maintains user privacy. As an exchange, we are responsible for maintaining a simple form of data that people have traded with their real money for. I can not stress enough to anyone how important that data is, and what a large responsibility exchanges have to insure data integrity up to the worst possible case scenarios. This also help's users feel assured that the exchange itself is not scamming the system. Many accusations of 'trusting' GLBSE's data flew pretty quick. With even just some holdings information withheld, for whatever reason, leaves an opportunity for people to worry that 'unclaimed' shares might be falsely listed under another person/s. Giving a list to asset owners is nice. Letting users click and see something that references what is theirs and knowing that other people are checking too and adding up the totals to see that the numbers balance out... to me, this is not some 'feature', but a sense of relief and confidence in the safety of their investment that the users deserve to have access to.
BitFunder aims to help protect everyone, issuers, and users alike in a fair and balanced fashion.



I do also like your systems voting model, it is a very unique and interesting system.
(Just make sure no one confuses it with a "real" shareholders vote! )

Offering "anyone" to vote could be abused much easier off the bat I think.
The sliding scale seems like it would hurt newer assets more, and "keep the little guy down" possibly?

The other ideas are definitely interesting.

Although I still think it takes away from those users who have "bought" into ltc-global with the expectancy of it being a private membership to vote type deal.
It has been thrown around a lot over and over as an strong reason for users to buy at least 10 shares.

Hey Burnside,

I would highly suggest against just 'taking' peoples accounts/shares if you are going to go the ToS route. I think it would lead to accusations of theft over
a difference in opinion. If you are selling shares of the company, and giving the share holders the right to vote on having customers or not, regardless of
the reasons why a shareholder makes their vote and if you like it or not, it is their vote. The ability to exorcise such ToS extremes of stealing (I am pretty sure it would be stealing because you are forcefully taking) shares in itself could easily be abused on purpose. (or happenstance) If you are worried what people will do, as stated before, going through what you have called a lot of trouble to setup 6+ separate accounts, linking them all, etc etc, and paying their money to have the rights to place their votes, they should be allowed to do it. After all, it IS their investment money at stake. I would also expect that at 10,000 shares and assuming all the owners are not scam artists themselves (lets hope not), they too will look out for their best interests and investment in their own judgement. Unfortunately, this could also lead them to not care about asset legitimacy as much as how much trade volume the asset could generate and earnings the asset may bring in. You could take away those peoples shares, or even just lock them from voting, but that would surely be theft in the lesat since they are just wanting to do business the way they think it should be done and may have the opinion to let the people be smart about things on their own. Stealing their shares or taking away their votes for "ToS" reasons would just be a personal disagreement of opinion even if in mass. We are all human, one person can have a different opinion out of 1,000, but they should still be entitled to that opinion, and not be punished for it. It is a problem we face every day in the the real world, and no one should have to be persecuted for it.

As for increasing the number of votes, that is now kind of tricky. You have already promised shareholders they get a vote if they have at least 10 votes, and
more than a few people have probably bought at least that much just to help out. By increasing the share requirement, or taking that away altogether, could almost be considered bait and switch. "Come buy our shares for X reason. Now that you have done it, we decided that X reason should not be there anymore."
Especially with a share increase to vote. To me that would be like dangling a carrot.. "Buy some shares... nope.. buy more shares.. NOPE!" etc...
If you were to increase the number of shares to vote, I would highly suggest considering multiplying the number of shares of the company to compensate
holders of the current amounts and ensure fairness and equality. Although at 10,000 shares, even double the votes would mean doubling to 20,000 shares.

I do like the idea of raising the number of required YES votes. That would definitely cause someone seeking bad dealings a lot more up front cost and trouble to possibly get shot down.

I hope this helps in your future considerations on the voting system.

Thanks everyone for the kind words and support.

Quick update:
Graphs now show a "D"ividend market with payout information.



EskimoBob:

In my honest opinion, I do not believe that making a claim that the site is 'virtual currency' and that
'No assets on the site are to be considered real.' would convince any U.S. Federal Judge (esp. when
a U.S. Citizen goes out of their way to put it in a server in Belize when they operate their own hosting
service in the U.S) that the service is not guilty of something already and deny an FBI warrant request.
The U.S. Government does not care where your services are hosted, or how you claim ownership is
divided up, and especially if you are a U.S. citizen that appears to be in control (and sometimes if you
are real lucky, they do not even care if you are a U.S. Citizen to begin with), if they want to make an
example out of you they will. (see. KimDotCom)

If you get on the list of "Notorious Markets", it really does not matter where you are, who you are,
your citizenship, your servers location, or if you have a legitimate  business that has acted properly to
comply under all rules and regulations, if you are targeted, you will have to deal with it.

Here is the older December 20th, 2011 '"Notorious Markets" report from the office of the president of
the United States.
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/3215

You will notice that many of these items state that they could be used for fully legal actions, but
include misuse, therefore on the list. Under "Cyberlockers" you will notice that "Megaupload" who
provided the same type of service as DropBox, and many other large named corporations is on that
list. I think most of us know the KimDotCom story. If you do not, a quick summery is, MegaUpload
was protected under the U.S. DMCA act, in which direct contact information is publicly available
for all to see, and is to be the direct point of contact for any persons claiming their site to be
hosting copyrighted materials. (I know, I am on the list due to my hosting business.) There had
been no actual complaints or suites filed against the company, and they had a working relationship
with the MPAA/RIAA for them to be able to remove any content they wanted at the click of a button.
Was the service illegal or not? The general answer is probably "legal", however, that is to be decided
after the site has been shut down, and fully investigated in this case. If it is not clearly legal (which
even those things get questioned), and is at worst case something that falls into a shade of grey that
is already being noticed by an entity, such as the SEC or FBI (who has published at least one report on
Bitcoin to my knowledge), then no matter what you do, or say, and try to be to protect yourself
the following applies.

A. It will never be enough to keep them from trying if you get targeted.
B. It will only make you look more guilty the more you try to "hide" things in other countries, etc.

If any entity targets you, the big question is what will happen to all of the users of the site and their data?
With the voluntary shutdown of GLBSE all data was retained, and is eventually being distributed. In the
previously mentioned worst case scenario, there would be no such luxury.

BitFunder has learned from this incident and has the users best interests in mind.
When a user signs up for BitFunder they are asked to provide a bitcoin address that will be listed publicly.
BitFunder publicly lists all data by coinaddress,asset,shares live on the site at all times without violating
any users privacy and allows them to proove ownership should the need arise.
You can view the public asset list at https://bitfunder.com/assetlist.

As of this point, re-checking their websites, and to the best of my knowledge, I can not find on either
btct.co or cryptostocks, a plan of action provided to the public that would stop such a terrifying loss
to the users and community, be it from "three letter agencies" to server and data failures, hackers, or
some other reason.

James (Nefario) was correct that the best course of action would be to become a legally supervised
entity. At least this somewhat lowers the chance.

I currently own and operate an AUD/CAD/USD exchange (https://WeExchange.co), and am
presently pursuing licensing in multiple countries & states for it. While in the process of this, I have
also been working out a method to potentially further legalize BitFunder in a respectable country.

I would hate to see this thread change to the subject of whats legal or not, options, etc.
If you want to continue the discussion I am more than happy to on another thread, or on IRC.

Again, this is only my opinion on the matter, which it may very well be wrong, but I allowed to have it.
I am always open to new ideas, concepts, etc and generally want to hear them.
(That is, after all the proper way to form an opinion of your own, not by shutting down others responses.)

Also, this opinion is not attempting to insult anyone in any way, if it has done so, I apologize ahead of time.

Just launched was BitFunder, a new exchange site for trading asset shares.
 
Shares of assets listed on BitFunder can be bought and sold using bitcoins, an online digital currency.
 
BitFunder is the first asset share exchange that both protects shareholder privacy while at the same
time provides a method for the shareholder to assert ownership.  This is accomplished by publishing a
live, public list of all shares and leverages the message-signing capability available through bitcoin.
 
BitFunder is easy-to-navigate and provides information in a clear manner.  BitFunder's highly responsive
support is available to answer any questions to resolve any problems that might occur.
 
Accounts can be protected from unauthorized access by enabling Google 2-Factor authentication.
 
The BitFunder sandbox at https://sandbox.bitfunder.com lets issuers and shareholders learn
how the site is used without putting any funds at risk.
 
Following the closure of the GLBSE asset exhange, BitFunder built a bridge to allow issuers to easily migrate.
GLBSE issuers can simply upload a claims YAML fle, and manage the claims provided.
When dividends are paid out, they are also distributed and stored on the claims so they are ready for users,
and accounting becomes easier on the issuer. Not to mention that all GLBSE assets that move to BitFunder
require no setup cost.

You can join us on IRC on irc.freenode.net #bitfunder
When you signup with BitFunder, we have IRC WebChat built into the help page.

Features:
Public shareholder data without giving away private information
Google 2-Factor
Bid List - "My Bid" notation to know where your bid stands.
Bid List - Cancel button for quick and easy cancel to re-post at a different price.
News system
Asset images
DDoS Proection
Interactive Graphs
Easy GLBSE Import/Claim system
Dividend management for GLBSE claims
Fully searchable trade history. (Search by date, asset, price, etc)
Dividend Reinvestment Program
Share Transfers

Coming Soon:
Trade API + Proper documentation ( Now in private beta testing phase. )
Direct Trades
User Messaging
Voting System
Additional Graphs *: Depth Graph is up. Crossing this out until someone has a new graph request.

Hey Sukrim,

I contacted PsychoticBoy about this, and he needs to know your e-mail address from the GLBSE claim to be able to check on this for you.
If you can send that over to him, we should be able to get this resolved pretty quickly.


Thanks!

Hey guys,

Been meaning to make some posts on here for a while!

I run WeExchange.co, Hashpower.com, and BitFunder.com.

Thanks!
Ukyo / Ukto / Jon