Any updates on Stellar integration?

awesome, gonna send mine in next week then. ty

saw you selling some graded coins on another post. did you end up sending these in the airtite cases?

coin is backwards in the case?

bump for beautiful collection.  I'd like to get my coins graded, how did you fill out the submission form?

not sure if this was missed, didnt see it quoted anywhere or updated on the list

I have finished episode 48

http://www.scribd.com/doc/187677456/Let-s-Talk-Bitcoin-Episode-48-Cypherpunks-and-Globetrotting

 BTC1bVectorBnXrdSB2p3mhv6tG5c1eTHG9i

what color?

page still says 'orders opening soon' for me and neptune isnt listed on the products page. am I taking crazy pills?

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

could I reserve:
E48 – Cypherpunks and Globetrotting

This exchange has a track record of arbitrarily changing the rules as it sees fit. They are not contracts in the eyes of this exchange, but just words written on a webpage that they can disregard as they see fit.

They are also manipulating trade ranges essentially devaluing the market as they see fit instead of allowing people to sell down to what they deem as its valuation. Just today they manually adjusted the price down $130, without allowing for selling on the way down. Locking the price closer to spot without allowing trades in between is not just unfair, its outright theft. It is in direct breech of contract which states the maximum move per trading session is 10%.

Just this week they agreed not to do manual clearing, instead relying on more frequent scheduled clearing, which they have disregarded as well. Having a trading session of only 6 minutes, this is a new low even for them.

rPE9dw1gR8ravY2o25zudXmj2L28UTNt4D

plz2send rPE9dw1gR8ravY2o25zudXmj2L28UTNt4D

This is patently false. The trading range SHOULD provide safety to the trader, but on multiple occasions the admin of the site has performed a 'manual clearing' that reset the prices so that trading could drop far below the 10% maximum in 24 hours. This happened due to market manipulation that drove the price down to 75 briefly from 94 (similar to what happened a couple days ago). The spot price quickly returned to normal, but the admin removed the trading range protection, and caused loss of many positions and forced margin selling on lot of traders. This has resulted in a great loss to many traders, who are still trying to get the admin to repay at least the considerable amount of fees that went into opening these positions that were unfairly closed.

This all happened BEFORE the admin added the arbitrary manual clearing clause to the futures description.

I would disagree with this point, but note that I used the word deceptive and not dishonest. Though I do believe that you have something to gain by doing a manual clearing in that the exchange has reduced risk (this should not be disregarded, as risk is used as a financial instrument), my main point is that the trading range on the site and the definition of a trading session led many users to believe that they would at least have some time to react to >10% market moves.

It was grossly negligent on your part to implement this risk management solution without redefining a trading session and giving everyone with a contract notice and opportunity to object. Honestly, I still don't believe you should be able to do so without everyone's permission that is still in a contract with you. A trading session should not be defined outside the contract to begin with. This is a material part of the contract that was (and still is) omitted.

While I believe that negligence caused the entire loss that I endured, I don't think it would be realistic to hold you accountable for the entire realized loss for the contracts. I'm actually not sure what would be fair in this case, and I'm open to suggestions from the community, but at the very least the fees should be returned or credited towards future volume.

it all depends on how you define overleveraged. I was not overleveraged adhering to the rules set forth by the exchange, which is my point

Force closing only occurs if you do not have funds to cover the losses over dips. The advertised trading range per session is 10%, and I had enough funds to cover any dips in that range. Furthermore, I did not purchase most of those contracts above 100, that is the price they moved to, and your position moves to whatever the price is at each clearing. I had additional funds in my offline wallet, and would gladly have funded the account further to prevent closing of positions, but unfortunately the manual clearing was completely unexpected and gave no opportunity to do so.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is a scam, but I believe it is at the very least deceptive practice and I would go so far as to say that it is a breech of contract.  The text on the site defined a trading session is 24 hours, with a maximum trading range of 10%. Fireball, could you provide the original text that was on the site before you updated so that it can be considered? 

I had contracts of BUJ3 with enough money in reserve to handle 10% movement, and had my finger on the button to add additional funds if the clearing proved to move the price down to a range that might put some of my contracts in jeopardy.  The clearing actually moved the price range center from 103 to 106, so I did not add additional funds. The manual clearing I believe moved the price range center to 95, causing a loss of a very large portion of my positions as the price went down to 86. I've since closed all of my positions at a great loss to myself as I've lost all confidence that this site will perform as it says it will without making things up as they go.

I feel that this manual clearing should not have happened according to the definitions laid out on the site at the time. I feel that the exchange did this as a CYA disregarding the fact this is not a provision set forth and agreed upon with its customers. Some sort of compensation is due.