Not all "securities" there are absent from the forum; here's a vircurex discussion for instance, though it might not be such a pleasant read by now. Hope you get some answers. |
|
|
|
If you can't trust potential investors making serious statements, you should rethink the way you handled this. Maybe wait a couple weeks and start over with a better, more detailed presentation of your idea.
Otherwise noone will take you seriously, which makes it hard for you to take others seriously.
A couple of weeks won't cut it, and it's unrealistic to expect someone without the faintest clue as to what investing means will somehow magically draft a working proposal through trying harder. OP, see here. It'll take a lot of time, and it'll take a lot of trying, sure. Trying differently. |
|
|
|
Nice notice. This should probably be in Scam Accusations though. Sick to see all the scams. I think there needs to be more regulation.
There needs to be less idiocy and a lot more reading. |
|
|
|
Nice. You should have left out the first sentence and the last one. I understand you probably want to say it anyway.
You seem to think that rephrasing honest words into something more palatable somehow makes everything better. It makes sense for sappy greeting cards, not so much for situations involving trust. |
|
|
|
It will be a alpha version or a final version?
Certainly not a final version, no. |
|
|
|
Any update?
There's going to be a further release sometime this month, they've just about got crafting prototyped. |
|
|
|
|
No, seriously. You need to chill out and read, gain a perspective. You're in no position to tell me what's what. Curiosity is fine and good, ignoring sense and authority to rehash the same broken assumptions over and over is not.
|
|
|
|
No point in providing "sufficient information" if people are willing to bid anyway - that's just extra work.
Bejesus. This deserves preservation for the inevitable Museum of BTC Idiocy. |
|
|
|
mpex has one of the worst interfaces I've ever seen, one of the worst PR I've ever noticed, and a 30 BTC registration fee.
30 BTC is more or less 1-2% of the whole BITVPS.
Unless they offered free accounts to every BITVPS current investor, it shouldn't even be considered, even disregarding the horrible interface and PR (which, alone, would be enough to walk away IMO).
You really have trouble learning, do you. How is it that you find yourself still convinced that what's important about an exchange is what its website looks like? People who hold rounded corners etc as what's important in investing have no business investing. It's been proven time and time again here and I'm sure it'll keep right on happening so long as people steadfastly cling to such completely broken ideas. Registration was free when MPEx was in beta. You missed out. Then it was 20 BTC. You missed out. It was amply announced that the fee was only ever going to go up. You continued to miss out. Do you see the trend here? What are you doing right now? As for "the worst PR you've ever noticed", the problem would be that what you've "noticed" before is a slew of people paid (or not) to go around patting people on the back for being idiots and ensuring everyone all the time that everything's just fine. Again, this sort of thing is only desired by and only valuable for people who would be much better suited to playing a dice game or throwing coins into a fountain for that matter. I clear stuff up, and often enough it comes with rubbing salt into cuts because otherwise, some people just cannot see through the emotional, totally undisciplined haze of their preconceived notions. People like you. |
|
|
|
"Trying to fix" self-made clusterfucks by mashing together "acceptable compromises" that people are not qualified to design or implement is not any sort of solution, long- or short-term. It's just more of the same posturing nonsense. Kindly refrain from contributing, eh. |
|
|
|
I agree with you. And you were right about Labcoin being a total scam. I do want regulation of issuers and I do think issuers should be checked and held accountable by the SEC if necessary. But what does regulating corporations have to do with preventing investors from investing?
I'm all for making corporations become transparent and regulated so that people aren't scammed and don't lose their money. The current set of SEC rules don't make any sense at all and don't apply very well for the particular situations you see in the Bitcoin community. Bitcoin investors do not want the SEC interfering with their ability to invest, region blocking, or invading their privacy. I also don't think Bitcoin investors want to mistakenly fund terrorism, or be involved in money laundering.
The problem is fraud, scams, money laundering and terrorist finance. The regulations of the SEC don't really apply to Bitcoin with it's decentralized concepts and P2P digital money. For example with Bitcoin everyone is pseudo-anonymous, does knowing an investor prevent money laundering? No not necessarily. But it does make sense if someone were trying to move large amounts of Bitcoins or to have suspicious activity which looks like money laundering to have an ability to look more closely at that. The fork in the road is between those developers who push for anonymity and those who don't. Anonymity means every individual will have to report directly to the government similar to how you have to report your earnings to the IRS while transparency on the blockchain would allow the blockchain to report it all. Either way we will have to interface with the government at some point.
The benefit of digital is that you can be selective. Small investors should not be scrutinized or forced to give up their privacy. That means if someone is not investing large amounts of Bitcoins at the time there shouldn't be a need for verification anyway. Money laundering is usually something which takes place with large amounts of Bitcoins. If all the Bitcoins are anonymous this presents a problem though, because if a terrorist or money laundering situation does happen it puts a bad light on the entire Bitcoin economy if every transaction is hidden from authorities and this forces authorities to detain, question, and eventually make everyone report their activities.
At this time while it is true that there are a lot of illicit Bitcoins floating around out there, and a lot of scams, a lot of fraud and theft, the SEC has no solutions and until the Bitcoin community takes it seriously it's not even the SEC's fault entirely.
What do you propose should be done to prevent scams? fraud and money laundering? Should we have anonymity? if we do then how do we report a scam, a crime, or prove our innocence?
The SEC is a minor player. |
|
|
|
Well yes now, but historically speaking MNC exec's complained about all of the red tape in EU countries and how those economies were slower to recover from recessionary periods due to inability to adjust to new economic opportunities. It seems the tables have turned?
Well, the tables have turned inasmuch as the US has become a rogue state. I agree Mpex one way or another will not die silently
Unless MP gets put into jail
Don't recall the contingencies of MPEX if the operator is gone.
From the FAQ: 21. What happens if your domain(s) or server(s) are confiscated ?
In case the domain is confiscated or otherwise lost MPEx will move to a different domain, in a different jurisdiction. Should the same happen again, MPEx would move to what will at the time be a solid alternative for a free Internet, be it the TOR network, namecoin or some equivalent DNS or any comparable solution. No government will ever be able to stop the Internet, in general. We're prepared to show this in the particular.
Should the systems be confiscated or otherwise lost the service will failover to different systems, possibly on bulletproof hosting if need be. If sufficient pressure is put on this side MPEx will be recoded as a p2p system.
|
|
|
|
Arguments I found weak: I. The Securities and Exchange Comission is governed principally by the Securities Act of 1933, which gives a definition of a security as follows :
1. Investment of Money towards a 2. Common Enterprise which 3. Depends on the Efforts of Others That's not an argument, it's a point of fact. We're dealing with what is here, are you suggesting that people act so as to anticipate what "everybody thinks" (where everybody excludes those actually familiar with the topic) will happen in the future? What's next, tarot cards? II. It is our considered opinion that Bitcoin does not constitute either “Money” as discussed in the second reference nor does a purchase of a Bitcoin denominated virtual security such as offered on MPEx constitute “the placing of capital or laying out of money” as discussed in the first reference. Why does bitcoin not constitute money/capital? It is clear that bitcoins do hold a monetary value or they wouldn't be constantly selling for $100+ USD. That you are able to sell something for money does not mean that something is money. I'd urge you to read more about currency and money in general and think for yourself about these concepts rather than depending on, again, "what everybody knows" etc. "Bitcoin may be an item of value by one or more people" really?? This article pretends that the sole purpose of bitcoin isn't to store value. And the day that people begin using runescape cash/microsoft points to exchange securities I'm sure that SEC will be on their ass too.
It's not pretending anything, and again, this isn't about what the uninitiated "are sure will happen". What the uninitiated are sure will happen is common speculation, and there's a reason the actual players don't get themselves tripped up with it. As you've seen, those who would like to play but either cannot or remain willfully clueless do end up tripping. I still think the only solutions are at least try to comply with SEC, or use something decentralized like colored coins that cant be shut down affecting shareholders. Shocking as it may seem to every US citizen, your country does NOT have the right to expect everyone else to jump through hoops to ensure we don't happen to provide something to you which your government would prefer you not to have. I think most US citizens will agree that it is bullshit that the US implies its laws on other countries especially when not even involving US citizens but that happens to be how it is. The notion that anything not carrying the still-retarded, still-playpretend citizen finance banner, whether it's p2p or whatever else, will be shut down "because US" is very mistaken and probably an artifact of confused observation of how the play exchanges have crumbled thus far. That inept stuff ends up being unable to stand has zero bearing on the apt. This entire "you should try to fit facts into uninformed guesses about the future to appease the gods which have no business here and which we wish would stop infringing on people but whom we insist will hide under your bed and eat you up at night" is really silly. Let it go already. |
|
|
|
Not trying to cause panic but is it true that BitFunder is facing legal issue and might close down in following week instead of just US restrictions?
Then what's with Yes, its going to shut down just like any other site. What makes you think that the government would let it escape.
? Anyway, as I was sayin', |
|
|
|
Howdy. Getting in the WoT would be a good idea at this point. |
|
|
|
I read the entire article and found the arguments weak at best.
You can bring an actual argument or else not bring anything; vaguely alluding to what you imagine are weak arguments without identifying them or your reasoning achieves exactly nothing. I dont think we are on the same page or at least im not. What is it exactly you are trying to say?
Me? What I'm saying is exactly in my posts above you. I just want to know why a company like e-trade couldn't begin accepting bitcoin as a payment option legally.
This discussion isn't about companies accepting BTC for services rendered. Im not 100% sure I understand what you mean but I think you are saying that it is impossible for bitcoin securities/exchanges to get registered with SEC.
This is what you said. The complete and seminal discussion of the matter is in MP's article. |
|
|
|
Yes, its going to shut down just like any other ultimately hollow facade masquerading as an exchange site. What makes you think that the well-meaning but unqualified the government would manage past the point of comfort and fashion let it escape.
FTFY. These panic threads are pretty redundant. Have a read. |
|
|
|
We're talking about reputation of burnside vs. reputation of... labcoin? srsly?
Nefario: You are obviously unqualified to be anywhere near a project of the complexity of an exchange, even for play money (which I suspect BTC are, for most of you here, at least judging on behavior records).
If that is the way you speak to someone of Nefario's standing in the community I wonder what you speak to your customers like. There is no need to descend into a slanging match.
There's plenty of history to learn from 'round here. |
|
|
|
All of this development discussion is kinda cool. I don't know why it's in Securities though, because these ideas either skip over entirely or flat out ignore the problems and standards of finance, which no amount of technical architecture, however great, can address entirely on its own. I am aware that Bitcoin CAN work with scripts (and in some cases it might make sense to represent IOUs with Bitcoins). The trading + order books of the represented IOUs however should likely happen outside, either with blinded tokens on dedicated servers like OpenTransactions suggests, on a completely new alt-chain (several ideas flying around, never heard about actual implementations - maybe Namecoin could be viewed as one), on Ripple or a fork of it or on a centralized exchange (GLBSE, btct, bitfunder... you see how they end up!).
"They" aren't "centralized exchanges", they are/were play exchanges operating on the notion that having a website and putting up the appearances of trading along with a lot of good intentions makes a thing real. They don't make it real. OpenSource software exists right now running on servers and being available for listing and trading assets denominated in BTC using Open Transactions (via blinded tokens), Colored Bitcoins and Ripple. Also there are centralized (often closed source) exchanges that put a strong focus on crypto (e.g. MPOE where every trade etc. is signed with PGP keys so it is externally verifiable and auditable).
There'd be one, MPEx. MPOE is a bond through which the options trader finances itself, and the trader together with MPEx form the underlying for S.MPOE (traded here). The platforms exist for months and years already, it is just that issuers of securities seem to be more happy with using centralized websites than not-so-nice but secure and distributed exchanges.
Issuers of real securities have no problem using the actually secure exchange, or with being held accountable, and so forth. People who either lack the requisite skill or knowledge, who simply don't have something of value to offer, or who are outright scamming on the other hand have a problem, and rightfully so, in terms of being accepted by MPEx and meeting its standards. A scenario in which this problem is removed and the only block to listing is messing around with some code or paying someone else a pittance to do it for you is doomed to as much spectacular failure as you've seen emanating from the previous "citizen finance" attempts. The current set of regulation obviously the community cannot live with. That is why Bitfunder and btct are shutting down. If it were just a matter of KYC then Bitfunder would have no reason to shut down. Bitfunder could just verify the current shareholders and let them continue trading. None of this had to happen except for the fact that the current laws in place have a lot of other stuff added to it which go beyond solving the problem of terrorist financing and money laundering.
This is a rather skewed representation of what's happening. That a series of people not qualified to run a securities exchange have stepped up in an attempt to bring low-boundary, incredibly sketchy non-solutions to "the community" at large and have subsequently found themselves in over their heads does not mean the problem is "the current set of regulation". The problem is that finance is not a mass consumer thing to be packaged up and handed out by anyone at all with a hope and a dream. There's a big difference between the sort of red tape regulation nonsense governments have no business injecting here and enforcing simple, established, powerful rules that keep scammy and otherwise worthless stuff out. GPG contracts. Security that isn't based on the limitations of a "slick" website. Actual IPOs from actually planned out, accountable entities. Yes, there's a fee. You're paying for that which works, which in the end is all that's worth paying for. No, I'm not especially nice in that In-N-Out Burger sort of way (though I'm just PR, you don't have to deal with me at all to use the exchange). The lies, the sugar-coating, the beating around the bush, is exactly for cheap food service and has no place in BTC finance. Plenty of people have thrown a fit over these facts, I'm sure plenty of people will continue to do so, and will continue to lose their money. MPEx will be right here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
