Yeah, will be working with issuers to get them into white, and then eventually blue.
I have a sneaking suspicion that companies who can list on blue wont go near glbse as they would be prevented by securities law from doing so. There is no such law. Bitcoins fall in the legal gray area, so there are no laws surrounding it. Given Nefario's (and other's) ideas for what it takes to enter the Blue Market, many small businesses could qualify. They could start an IPO to get funding to help expand their business, or any number of other possibilities. From an accounting standpoint, it would be somewhere on the same plane as when a larger company issues stocks/bonds on the normal security exchanges. The difference is that there's VASTLY less red tape to get through with GLBSE than there is with the SEC and NYSE...and it's cheaper. |
|
|
|
|
As I think more about this, I'm realizing that what we're creating shouldn't be a contract, but more of a Letter of Intent. A contract is a legally binding statement (talking broad strokes when it comes to legality here...I know bitcoins are in the gray area)...which isn't something you want 'defaulted' to when you haven't drafted up a proper document. Letters of Intent act as the sort of placeholder when no contract is currently available. They provide a set of guidelines and statements that, in this case, would express GLBSE's intentions for the Owner (because the Owner hasn't created anything for themselves).
Letters alone are not 'legally binding', which works in this situation because it wouldn't conflict with GLBSE's ToS. Instead, Nefario can alter the Terms to note that if the default Letters 'placeholder' is not followed through within 30 days (or whatever) the security will be removed from the exchange.
There are now 3 parts to this equation. GLBSE's Terms of Service apply to the Asset Owner, the contract created by the Asset Owner applies to the public/investors, and the Letters of Intent closes the gap by providing a general link between GLBSE and the public for unfinished assets.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Guys, is it just me or are we getting off topic a bit? It's exactly what it says it is, a default contract that will be turned to when there is no clause in the issuer written contract to handle a situation. @Nefario, do you want a default contract when nothing has been submitted by the Asset Owner? Or are you looking for a clause to handle an unknown situation? If the latter, I think that would be up to the Owner on how to proceed and modify their own contact to cover the situation in the future. For the former, a default contract should be relatively easy to create. We just need to remember that this is something to fall back on and can be used under any circumstance, so it needs to be GENERIC. You can't describe what should be done about dividends, coupon rates, buybacks, timeframes, etc, because all of that is under control of the Asset Owner regardless of whether or not they've established their contract yet. They decide how their business should be run, not a "default" contract that we all agree upon. With that said, the object is to assign accountability to the Owner. It's something that forces the Owner to acknowledge their security while making the public aware. Usagi said it perfectly with: 1. The asset issuer must respect and implement fully the result of any motion within 30 days.
Binding asset issuers to some form of public accountability is (in my mind) what this is all about. I propose the above rule as the first and most important rule of any default contract.
It gives the Owner 30 days to create their contract and motion before they move into the Black Market (or whatever would happen, this is just an example). It can be applied to any new security, and it gives the public an idea of what will happen to the IPO if the Owner doesn't follow through. One of the problems I've noticed (and I see others have noted as well) is that the GLBSE terms sort of conflict with all of this. They would need to be updated, specifically with greater detail, in order to allow for default contracts. Not to mention prevent other unnecessary situations (I've read up on the scammer thread  ). I'll put some thought in on this today and post back here when I have some ideas. |
|
|
|
It's clear to me that there are those that had/have no problems at all, but that doesn't make it less of an issue to me. Sorry. I am, however, still waiting for my IPO to launch (and show up in the market). I had my contract, financials, description, and other docs (as well as fee) submitted and paid by August 25th...so 3 weeks ago  So the expected launch date you have provided was supposed to be 3 weeks ago? Sorry, I should have clarified. 3 weeks ago was when everything was all submitted. My launch date was originally set for September 1st...but then given the work that's going on, I'm looking to move it to October 1st instead. But under the IPO tab where you see what's up and coming, I haven't been posted yet. Once I'm there, then I'll start updating the forum thread I've created with details. I don't want to put myself out there when no one can follow up and check on the IPO on GLBSE because it doesn't exist yet. It's not intentional guys, I'm really sorry for the delays.
For new assets I want to wait until after the conference, for a number of mainly policy reasons.
For address verification this is actually a tricky issue. We've been doing it a particular way but I'm worried it could be gamed.
How do you prove you live where you do?
Sending a letter with a code doesn't prove anything, just that you can get post at that address. What can really prove you live at a particular address?
Normally I have seen a fresh utility bill is used for that. (electricity, internet, phone...) It normally is, and I've always hated that, for myself I mean, as I've never had a utility bill in my name, utilities were always included in my rent. But you're right, no one is going to pay the bills for a house unless they live there. This has always been a problem for me as well. I rent an apartment with 2 other people. My first roommate moved in about a week before my friend and I, so her name is on the power and tv/internet bills. My cell phone is bought and paid for by my company...which is awesome since I don't have to worry about those bills, but crappy because it's not in my name. I am verified on Mt. Gox though, thankfully since I was able to use my most recent tax returns to show proof of address. Maybe that might be something to pursue? I'm always on edge about that stuff though...utility bills are one thing, but tax docs are just a treasure trove of personal information that you definitely don't want leaked. Unfortunately at the time it was the only thing I could use... There's a lot of things that do have my name on it though. I have bank statements (stemming back for 4 years when I last switched banks), credit cards, student loans, pay stubs from my current job, car loan, and car insurance all 100% in my name and all with my address. I get how you can fake a few of these items, but still... And what about people looking to get a start on the exchange without any of these things? What if they live with their parents, or are under 18? Chances are, they don't have any docs that would prove their address under the traditional verification methods. Quite the tricky situation indeed! |
|
|
|
Not for long.
Also there are several on GLBSE at the moment that would only need a little help in reaching that status.
Most on GLBSE are already that status imo. No offence to you. Not exactly, getting into the white catagory would mean you need: 1) A revenue generating business 2) Provide accounts 3) Get verified (minimum photo and address verification) The majority of GLBSE assets do not meet these standards. You can start by streamlining the address verification. Some members (myself included) have to chase you for weeks to get that part done. I didn't have any trouble getting verified. I submitted all my information and had my phone and address verified within 2 weeks...all while substantial changes took place on GLBSE and everyone was busy. Given the circumstances I'd say that's pretty good. I am, however, still waiting for my IPO to launch (and show up in the market). I had my contract, financials, description, and other docs (as well as fee) submitted and paid by August 25th...so 3 weeks ago |
|
|
|
Samsung 830 and intel 320 are the most reaible, almost server grade (the intel one).
All ssd are equal if compared with an old spinning disk, don't bother too much.
Very true, but what got me about those two are the max write speeds and 4K Random Write IOPS. I do suppose, however, that I really REALLY doubt I'm going to tell the difference between 320MB and 520MB write when coming off of a 7200RPM disk that does maybe 50-100 at this point Cheers guys! After some deliberation (as well as including your thoughts) I'm going with the Enhanced Chronos Deluxe. Good reviews, great speeds, and a fantastic price ($190!) for 240GB. Not the best performing on the market, but it's definitely up there. |
|
|
|
Hopefully the shipping times get reduced dramatically. The rest of there issues i can probably live with at the moment. The demand is obviously huge so there should be no reason to under produce on units. I'll take a miner that uses twice the power at half the price for the same MH/s any day. 9+ weeks plus to reach my door is the deal breaker even if it still is the better option from a profitability stand point, which it is. I actually just canceled my order because of that. I'll re evaluate them in a few months.
Yeah, I'm actually contemplating the same. 3 months to reach your door after paying for the order is insane. What are they doing, digging up the silicon and building each chip by hand for the small devices? Maybe they didn't expect the volume of FPGAs? Ugh, who knows... I wish there was a reliable company representative that would be around to answer all our questions, give BFL some good PR, and put some of the cynicism and conspiracies to rest |
|
|
|
Well you learn something new everyday! These are valid opinions, But when you look at it through noob eyes, it really looks like someone has to gain from raising the difficulty.
"If someone can gain from a bad situation, They will make it bad" - cant remember who said, But was a world class entrepreneur, and helped to mould me into the conspiracy theorist I am today.
You are more than correct with "learn something new everyday"! The quote below that just blew my mind with the feeling of "Wow-that's-so-obvious-and-true-why-didn't-I-realize-that". 2008 financial crisis anyone? |
|
|
|
I can't say for sure what they would do if they do not meet the specs. But with the last prouct they released, they lowered the price from $699 to $599 when it was found that the product missed the projected specs on hash rate and power consumption. With that product one would assume they had very, very little wiggle room between their costs and the selling price because of the particular FPGA chip that was used. With this product, it is assumed that the costs to manufacture the actual units, after NRE costs are set aside of course, is a much smaller percentage of the current listed selling price. If they did have to lower the initial price, it would cause some logistical headaches but could be compensated for by extending the time before which they lower the price again, competing products being unavailable that is.
Ah, didn't know that they dropped prices...though that makes sense. I noticed that BFL has been around since August 2009, but are the first products they've released been the FPGAs? If so, I imagine that it's been sort of 'trial and error' for them to get everything right within the Bitcoin community. Given a year of FPGA deployment so far, I'd hope that they have a better idea of what to do and look for when they release ASIC devices. Maybe we'll get "closer-to-posted" specs...or maybe faster shipping...or maybe a discount of sorts? At this point I guess only time will tell... |
|
|
|
I've read that OCZ VERTEX 3 is pretty good, they have recently released VERTEX 4 but from what I read it seems unstable (buggy) and with no significant performance improvement.
Yeah, the same goes for the new Corsair "Neutron" series, which implements the new LAMD controller instead of SandForce. Some reviews mention the instability, while others haven't had a problem at all. I figured it's best to stick with what's been on the market and tested thoroughly. I'll be going through and updating the SSD firmware and my BIOS as it is anyway. |
|
|
|
Out of those 4, I would choose the Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe.
It's one I usually suggest. It's a good reliable model.
In all honesty, it's really just that I'm torn between the Chronos Deluxe and Corsair Force Series GS. Both have similar specs, and the reviews look good for both. EDIT: I did find, however, that the GS has some issues with AMD based north/south bridges, which results in SATA 3Gb/s speeds instead of 6Gb/s. Researching on the Chronos now... |
|
|
|
I'll be adding tags in the next couple of days for things like bonds, mining etc. to shorten the assets page.
But what I actually had in mind was having 3 different markets (or 3 different market pages) with differing requirements to get into each of them.
The (C) market could be unverified, no accounting records etc. and considered very risky, it would also have the lowest starting fees and maybe a limit on the amount that can be raised.
(B) market would be where most of the good assets currently stand, verified to the current level, but I think providing monthly accounting statements, they'd need to have a running business as well (compared to funds to get a project started). So it would only be a little more effort (I think mostly for the accounting side) for some existing assets to get into this category.
(A) market would have even higher levels of verification than now(background and credit checks), would also require a treasurer to approve the use of funds, provide GAAP accounts and be audited by an external source.
This way an asset could start off in the C market and as they grow (if they're successful) they will be moved to B market and then eventually A market, each step up raising the levels of capital they have access to.
We still wouldn't allow assets that would make GLBSE a target for government regulators/police (i.e. drugs, prostitution).
I actually like this idea a lot, as it has a lot of roots in the actual stock exchanges. As it is right now, wading through the various sketchy securities on GLBSE is tiresome as I look toward actual investments and ideas. Not to mention bad timing for me as I try to get my IPO off the ground! |
|
|
|
and $600,000 in preorders/trade-ins for the Rigs (that have been posted so far), so the specifications they promised will surely be met.
Where is the info about the pre-orders from? Do we have stats about actual units ordered or just the total amount of money? |
|
|
|
"unknown" has been there for ever it didn't just "pop up" blockchain.info (source of that graph) take best guess on block source - anything they cannot identify goes into "unknown" this includes solo miners, private pools, botnets and blocks from pools they cant identify (often including some of deepbits blocks) I quote http://blockchain.info/pools"A large portion of Unknown blocks does not mean an attack on the network, it simply means we have been unable to determine the origin" its even in red on that page to stand out  Ah, wasn't quite aware of that...though I suppose reading would have helped And if we did assume it was ASIC testing, then solo mining does make sense...or at least a private pool of sorts. |
|
|
|
 Yay ASIC testing! Or at least that's what I'm assuming it is as well...nothing like a random ' Unknown' popping up and taking up 3+TH/s |
|
|
|
|
[Reserved - Investor Q/A, Risks/Compensation]
|
|
|
|
|
[Reserved - Details / Contract]
|
|
|
|
[Place holder for thread] DETAILS COMING SOON!  EDIT: Ticker should be [ ASICMining.B]. And everything is on hold since GLBSE is being overhauled |
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------- Price per kWh | 0.147 USD Current as @ | Aug 2012 Provider | Green Mountain Power State/Province | Vermont Country | USA ---------------------------------------------------------- Flat rate of $.147 per kWh...but still makes me jealous of those of you under $.10 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
