Nefario won't be approving securities for non-existent businesses.

[Coincomm]

He just told me in a private message there won't be security approvals for non-existent businesses. GLBSE is getting a overhaul.

Just a heads up.

[1715644897]

1715644897

[1715644897]

1715644897

[Hunterbunter]

arr how long is a "while"?

[Nefario]

Not exactly.

No more IPO's for non-existent businesses. I think we've already gone through our .com phase of projects that had little or nothing to show after the money has gone so enough of that. Also enough of Pass thru's for schemes like pirates, I think overall he's had a bad effect on the bitconomy, at the very least raising expectations of returns to unrealistic levels, and funding through GLBSE has been a very large part of that.

For businesses with revenue (doesn't mean profitable) looking for capital to grow, we'll work with them to IPO (the IPO's are going to be a lot larger as well).

I think for the time being we'll leave mining untouched as that's worked out well so far, the offers are fairly transparent.

For smaller projects we're looking at starting a fund that will get them to the point of a viable business or project and then IPO them on GLBSE (think ycombinator for bitcoin).

I think the 100% hands off approach has proven not to be the best for GLBSE, investors, and the projects themselves.

I'd like opinions and suggestions on where to go from here.

[BinaryMage]

No more IPO's for non-existent businesses. I think we've already gone through our .com phase of projects that had little or nothing to show after the money has gone so enough of that. Also enough of Pass thru's for schemes like pirates, I think overall he's had a bad effect on the bitconomy, at the very least raising expectations of returns to unrealistic levels, and funding through GLBSE has been a very large part of that.

I agree with your intentions, but I advise you to be careful with your execution. Over-regulation would be catastrophic.

For businesses with revenue (doesn't mean profitable) looking for capital to grow, we'll work with them to IPO (the IPO's are going to be a lot larger as well).

Is being a lot larger a requirement? Some small IPOs on GLBSE have been quite successful.

For smaller projects we're looking at starting a fund that will get them to the point of a viable business or project and then IPO them on GLBSE (think ycombinator for bitcoin).

If you do it well, this would be absolutely wonderful. Let me know if I can help.

I think the 100% hands off approach has proven not to be the best for GLBSE, investors, and the projects themselves.

I guess that depends on your perspective. I agree, many of the companies turned out to be scams of one sort or another, but not more so (probably less so) than Bitcoin projects in general. A certain amount of that is probably unavoidable at this point in the Bitcoin market evolution. Now, I'm not saying that less scams would be a bad thing, but I also think the market will naturally learn on its own. 'Protecting' the market from that learning could lead to unintended consequences later, when someone leads a much more elaborate and harder to recognize scam. Children don't learn to walk by being held up by their parents. They have to fall, cut themselves, get frustrated, yell, scream, and try again. Eventually, though, they obtain their balance - and rarely, if ever, fall again.

I'd like opinions and suggestions on where to go from here.

Oh, I've got plenty of those.

All in all, I think your ideas show merit, I just advise you to tread with caution.

[thebaron]

The thing is that it's even easier to scam and get away with it if you're a legit company.

I don't know what a real solution would be in the BTC environment. People could still use fake ID's.

I think if I was doing it, I'd require the business to have been around for at least a year. And applicants would have to pay an "investigation" fee to determine their legitimacy. Of course, that might open you up to a lawsuit if things went sour.

[muyuu]

I think this change was required at this point. We need a couple anchors of trust.

Keep the good stuff coming.

[ciuciu]

Maybe we can create a stronger verification system. For example, I or somebody else can go and check the information provided in the Greater Montreal Area.

[racerguy]

Not a fan of putting more hoops infront of small startups. The more hoops you put in front of them the more the forces of corruption will be aimed at Nefario, then the whole system could be comprimised.

[FreeMoney]

Not a fan of putting more hoops infront of small startups. The more hoops you put in front of them the more the forces of corruption will be aimed at Nefario, then the whole system could be comprimised.

If there is demand for that there will be other markets.

If GLBSE wants to deal with larger and more reputable stuff I think that's cool.

[Ragnar17]

Nefario this website is yours, you can choose who you do business with and how you do it. Thats the only way you can ensure its the best possible by your judgement. Pirates bonds are definitely crowding out investment that could have been going to "real" business. GLBSE is one of the easiest and only places where bitcoin related companies can grow publicly and it can only do goo things for btc.

Hope you can get it working soon.

[Lethos]

Pirates investments could of been more contained if their was more vigilance on what securities was allowed, but hindsight is always a bitch.
Probably would of screwed just of many bitcoins out of investors, but the effect would of been to a relatively small number of people and not by association damaged the credibility of every single person who made a pass-thru-bond.

This will probably be a good thing, to make the process of making a security more difficulty, as long as it's not taken too far.
Small measures, in small steps - No need to issue a grenade when a pistol will do.

[Nefario]

Have a look at this thread, seems to be a continuation of this topic and has some really good points.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=103268.0