I wouldn't touch a PPT based asset without a corroborated link to a user of the forums with a very good reputation.

There are far too many charlatans around.

Why do you think the PPT.A ... PPT.E asset contract have the following ...

"These bonds will be partially insured and backed by a cartel of some of the most reputable and well known BTC lenders in the lending forums: BurtW, PatrickHarnett, dollartrader, hashking, imsaguy and ineededausername."

In this example, there are a bunch of posts to corroborate the statement in the contracts.

I was actually being deadly serious.

Let's assume we trust Cryptostocks both the poster and the exchange.

A unique piece of functionality I would like to see in an exchange is the ability to view the withdrawal history of the account that issued a given share. Only those holding the share should be able to do this. Notification by email would be a further enhancement. This way an asset issuer knows all investors can see exactly when and how much is taken from the company funds.

Go further ... a motion is required to pass before the withdrawal can be made. Motion fixes the amount maybe even an expiration date too.

Less extreme ... Another user (the company treasurer) has to co-authorise all (or a subset) of withdrawals of the company funds.

Limit the rate at which withdrawals can be made.

Build all configurable bits of above into the contract.

Contract is locked until a motion is passed agreeing to changes.

Implement most of the above and you could swipe the majority of the customers of the other exchanges in under a week.

The Enron boss got 24 years in prison. What's the Bitcoin community equivalent punishment to deter repeats of such behaviour?

I think the ability for asset issuers to remain anonymous is a selling point of the exchange for some potential businesses.

However, I expect asset issuers to fully justify to potential investors why they should remain anonymous and accept that a greater reward may be demanded to cover the greater risk.

I agree there is still room for a further exchange (or "sub" exchange) which mandates full verification and public disclosure, to the level of that seen with, for example, Companies House and Director Check in England i.e. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk and http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07995878 and http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/916764162.

On the tenuous assumption that BitFlowSystems was only a mining company ...

50 BTC appears to have been spent on mining hardware by WiseOldOwl on behalf of the company, which being a company asset, should therefore be sold at the best price achievable.
WiseOldOwl should provide receipts covering all company expenditure on this mining hardware.
WiseOldOwl should arguably keep 51% of the proceeds from this, with the remaining 49% being returned to investors.
I suggest WiseOldOwl seeks an offer from the cafe owners identified in early posts within the thread and raises a motion so that investors can decide whether the offer is fair value for the identified assets.

150 BTC of expenditure is completely unaccounted for. This is assumed to be held in cash by the company at this date. 100% of this should be returned to the investors - WiseOldOwl has no claim whatsoever on this.

To date WiseOldOwl has repaid 40 BTC to investors.

In the absence of any further justification of what expenditure occurred by WiseOldOwl on behalf of the company and on the assumption that 50% resale is achieved for the mining hardware, this leaves a debt of 135 BTC to be repaid to investors.

Should WiseOldOwl wish to challenge this figure, WiseOldOwl is required to provide full records of any additional expenditure identified.

WiseOldOwl should work with Nefario to ensure that the ownership records of the shares in BitFlowSystems prior to delisting are recovered so that all investors are paid fairly and proportionally.

I will be charging 1% interest on the outstanding debt for every week it remains unpaid starting today. I urge all other investors to do the same.

Interesting idea. Please put together a business plan and post link for download here. For an investment of this size I expect to see content of the level provided in this post for example - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=82866.msg913181#msg913181

As this exchange performs no validation of asset issuers and I can see no valid reason for you wishing to remain anonymous - please ensure sources to build trust / validate trust are included.

I've simply asked for a full and proper account of where the investment money was spent.

A whole lot more professionalism and a whole lot less deflection is required here.

Show some respect, have some dignity and answer the legitimate questions of all those who put their trust in you - that is the only "favour" I will ask of you.

Subbed.

I'm really quite amazed by the behaviour of WiseOldOwl ...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89114
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89127
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88551

Everything seems like it was so difficult for him and he apparently thinks he can just return to the community having made a token repayment of the money invested in BitFlowSystems, all will be forgiven, everything will be forgotten as easily as he seems to forget and he can start out on another project without a stain on his character.

I won't be forgetting this.

I urge anyone considering entering into any sort of business arrangement with WiseOldOwl to read the entirety of this thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18197.0

I would recommend others steer well clear of WiseOldOwl until he either justifies what was done with the funds invested in that project and/or repays the investors.

Not to be trusted.

I urge anyone considering entering into any sort of business arrangement with WiseOldOwl to read the entirety of this thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18197.0

I would recommend others steer well clear of WiseOldOwl until he either justifies what was done with the funds invested in that project and/or repays the investors.

Not to be trusted.

Still waiting for the promised information. Cumulatively a significant chunk of investment money is unaccounted for.

You talked previously of discussions with lawyers, $10,000 investments from initial investors etc ... so either this was a significant endeavour OR you don't consider the large number of small individual investments made in Bitcoin through GLBSE to be as important. You need to explain exactly what you spent our money on.

If you really want to repair your reputation in this community you need to sort this out now, enough excuses.

As it stands, I won't be trusting anything you do or any services / products you offer and will be recommending others have nothing to do with you either.

Fantastic news. I would be willing to switch from glbse with a superior range of order support particularly expiration, max and min etc ...

My only concern is trust. It will take time to earn that through demonstrated good CS, reliability etc ...

Have you considered escrow of a contingency fund of a relative size to that being traded. Lodging funds with someone trusted already and demonstrably held, would be good.

Bear in mind that a sizeable chunk of the potential investor population will want to remain anonymous. There are a few reasons for this; that's just the personality Bitcoin attracts (given it's properties as a currency), investing with/in Bitcoin is illegal / legally untested in the country of residence of the investor, exposure as an investor in Bitcoin / Bitcoin businesses would damage the reputation of the investor ...

I would certainly aim to ensure that investor registration of any kind is not required, or accept that requiring such will limit the volume and rate of investment.

I would personally consider investing in an asset which did mandate investor registration, however, I would expect additional reward for the higher risk that accompanies limiting the investor demand for that asset.

Of course, much of the reasoning for investors wanting to remain anonymous is equally applicable to asset issuers, however, again, I think it appropriate that investors expect additional reward to compensate for the higher risk that generates too.

I'm all for competition but someone with less than double digit posts has an awful lot of trust building to do before they can reasonably expect anyone to risk investing through their platform.

You got the approach with fee structure correct unlike other competitor exchanges - no "joining fee". However, you seem to have made a mistake with your fees too ...

Every one of them is greater than the equivalent fee on GLBSE (https://glbse.com/portfolio/fees) and you charge fees for services that GLBSE doesn't.
Clearly GLBSE is the major player in this market, so your fees have to be very similar or your service needs to offer something significant that GLBSE does not - so what do you offer that warrants that differential ?

Yes, a single payment was received from WiseOldOwl by Nefario representing a total of ~17% of the investment made by those buying in at the IPO price of 0.01 BTC.

The BitFlowSys asset was removed during the GLBSE 1.0 to GLBSE 2.0 transfer.

I lost a total of ~5.22 BTC. Nothing major but still felt conned. However multiplied across all the investors when BTC was trading at ~$18, it was a pretty significant sum of money, and will be again in the future. A significant loss for the community.

Once you give a satisfactory and full explanation of what assets / expenditure the remaining 83% of my investment was spent on, I'll decide whether I'll ever trust you again.

Subbed.

Personal note - research and comment on whether escrow is necessary.

What premium will these be offered at over the price on the other exchange ?