A BTC stock exchange for high-risk, unverified securities?

[Coincomm]

Would anyone be up for a stock exchange that accepts anyone and anything that isn't murder or CP?

Buyer Beware would be the main theme and securities would only cost 1 BTC or so to list. If somebody loses their money, they'll know the risk was there. Trading fees would be as low as possible. It would be hosted in Russia, China or in some other country that doesn't give a damn. I'll definitely include actual, verifiable receipts for securities purchased.

Ideas and opinions would be great.

[URSAY]

There's enough scams around here already.   

[Coincomm]

There's enough scams around here already.   

Is it scam if it's already clear it probably is a scam?

[misterbigg]

I'll definitely include actual, verifiable receipts for securities purchased.

Cryptographically verifiable scams.

+1

[Ben Walsh (beamer)]

I would be interested.

More competition for the existing exchanges is always good. Hopefully it would drive more rapid improvements in reliability, availability, functionality and value for money in them all.

Would anyone be up for a stock exchange that accepts anyone and anything that isn't murder or CP?

Buyer Beware would be the main theme and securities would only cost 1 BTC or so to list. If somebody loses their money, they'll know the risk was there. Trading fees would be as low as possible. It would be hosted in Russia, China or in some other country that doesn't give a damn. I'll definitely include actual, verifiable receipts for securities purchased.

Ideas and opinions would be great.

[theymos]

Yeah, this is necessary if GLBSE won't accept them anymore. MPEx's fees are insane.

[Bitcoin Oz]

GLBSE tried that model and it didnt work.

Although it would be interesting to invest in someones pot farm or other things that are on the grey/black markets 

[Nefario]

On the suggestion of someone else, we would consider setting up a B market, with lower requirements, lower startup fees, and obviously more risk.

opinions?

[Coincomm]

On the suggestion of someone else, we would consider setting up a B market, with lower requirements, lower startup fees, and obviously more risk.

opinions?

+1

[Bitcoin Oz]

On the suggestion of someone else, we would consider setting up a B market, with lower requirements, lower startup fees, and obviously more risk.

opinions?

 Like the pink sheets market  

Might want to setup on a different domain or server though so its even more separate and doesnt put the more professional exchange at risk.

A completely unregulated market has a higher risk of the government shutting it down which would impact the main site. It might even need to be behind TOR.

[Coincomm]

On the suggestion of someone else, we would consider setting up a B market, with lower requirements, lower startup fees, and obviously more risk.

opinions?

 Like the pink sheets market  

Might want to setup on a different domain or server though so its even more separate and doesnt put the more professional exchange at risk.

A completely unregulated market has a higher risk of the government shutting it down which would impact the main site. It might even need to be behind TOR.

Just host it in Russia and make a positive homage to Putin. Then you're good.

[Nefario]

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).

[Coincomm]

Why would the C market have a cap on funding?

[Hunterbunter]

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.

That sounds reasonably sensible. There is nothing that says the GLBSE has to follow practices set by stock exchanges and their regulators.

Why are you doing this, though? Have people been complaining to you about the pirate fiasco? How come it's a problem now and not 3 months ago? Although I suppose I can understand it being a "wait and see" situation.

This is one thing that I don't understand about the libertarian cause (not saying you're one)...they claim they want a free market (which is essentially what you had provided), but if they're the ones that are going to get screwed, they suddenly don't. Why aren't they all here berating this idea as blasphemy?

[Bitcoin Oz]

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.

That sounds reasonably sensible. There is nothing that says the GLBSE has to follow practices set by stock exchanges and their regulators.

Why are you doing this, though? Have people been complaining to you about the pirate fiasco? How come it's a problem now and not 3 months ago? Although I suppose I can understand it being a "wait and see" situation.

This is one thing that I don't understand about the libertarian cause (not saying you're one)...they claim they want a free market (which is essentially what you had provided), but if they're the ones that are going to get screwed, they suddenly don't. Why aren't they all here berating this idea as blasphemy?

I think you are confusing libertarians with anarchists  

The point is GLBSE is private property and can set any rules and regulations it wants to.

[Nefario]

Why would the C market have a cap on funding?

A cap on the amount any one person or group could raise, why shouldn't it? C market is for smaller unproven projects from people with little or no track record.

They shouldn't be able to raise millions of USD worth of bitcoin for a massive project that they have almost no experience for, that is a recipe for disaster, for larger projects or funds you need to have a track record and your level of responsibility grows. If the C market isn't enough for someone to raise the capital they need then they need to qualify for the B market. It's not unreasonable and not a huge step up.

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.

That sounds reasonably sensible. There is nothing that says the GLBSE has to follow practices set by stock exchanges and their regulators.

Why are you doing this, though? Have people been complaining to you about the pirate fiasco? How come it's a problem now and not 3 months ago? Although I suppose I can understand it being a "wait and see" situation.

This is one thing that I don't understand about the libertarian cause (not saying you're one)...they claim they want a free market (which is essentially what you had provided), but if they're the ones that are going to get screwed, they suddenly don't. Why aren't they all here berating this idea as blasphemy?

Why now and not before? Experience. When GLBSE first started we had no rules or even any form of verification, after about 6 months of this total absolute freedom GLBSE was a ghetto of scams and failed assets. Then we started to tidy things up, we moved to GLBSE 2.0 and added verification. The quality of assets skyrocketed and trade flourished.

I think looking back we can see where GLBSE has gone wrong and where it needs improvement, a little more market segregation and a few reasonable rules will help a lot.

Regarding your libertarian comment, I don't think you understand what the term free market means. It doesn't mean no rules at all, that's a free for all.

It means the owner of the football gets to decide the rules of play instead of the government, that a free market is free of government regulation. We don't run GLBSE for the purpose of collecting tax, we run it with the intention of helping investors, projects, business and people. So it's in our interest to try to ensure the market runs as smoothly as possible to the benefit of everyone.

I don't want to see any more rules on GLBSE than are absolutely needed, and the ones that are in place are there for a good reason and are clearly not enough. I, we at GLBSE hate rules because every one means more work and expense for us, it's against our own profit interest to have any, but at the same time it's against our profit interest to have an exchange that is full of scams and nothing else, that is not a market with a future.  

We need to strike a balance.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Why would the C market have a cap on funding?

A cap on the amount any one person or group could raise, why shouldn't it? C market is for smaller unproven projects from people with little or no track record.

They shouldn't be able to raise millions of USD worth of bitcoin for a massive project that they have almost no experience for, that is a recipe for disaster, for larger projects or funds you need to have a track record and your level of responsibility grows. If the C market isn't enough for someone to raise the capital they need then they need to qualify for the B market. It's not unreasonable and not a huge step up.

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.

That sounds reasonably sensible. There is nothing that says the GLBSE has to follow practices set by stock exchanges and their regulators.

Why are you doing this, though? Have people been complaining to you about the pirate fiasco? How come it's a problem now and not 3 months ago? Although I suppose I can understand it being a "wait and see" situation.

This is one thing that I don't understand about the libertarian cause (not saying you're one)...they claim they want a free market (which is essentially what you had provided), but if they're the ones that are going to get screwed, they suddenly don't. Why aren't they all here berating this idea as blasphemy?

Why now and not before? Experience. When GLBSE first started we had no rules or even any form of verification, after about 6 months of this total absolute freedom GLBSE was a ghetto of scams and failed assets. Then we started to tidy things up, we moved to GLBSE 2.0 and added verification. The quality of assets skyrocketed and trade flourished.

I think looking back we can see where GLBSE has gone wrong and where it needs improvement, a little more market segregation and a few reasonable rules will help a lot.

Regarding your libertarian comment, I don't think you understand what the term free market means. It doesn't mean no rules at all, that's a free for all.

It means the owner of the football gets to decide the rules of play instead of the government, that a free market is free of government regulation. We don't run GLBSE for the purpose of collecting tax, we run it with the intention of helping investors, projects, business and people. So it's in our interest to try to ensure the market runs as smoothly as possible to the benefit of everyone.

I don't want to see any more rules on GLBSE than are absolutely needed, and the ones that are in place are there for a good reason and are clearly not enough. I, we at GLBSE hate rules because every one means more work and expense for us, it's against our own profit interest to have any, but at the same time it's against our profit interest to have an exchange that is full of scams and nothing else, that is not a market with a future.  

We need to strike a balance.

The problem is that there are probably no existing securities that currently qualify as "A" 

[Nefario]

Not for long.

Also there are several on GLBSE at the moment that would only need a little help in reaching that status.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Not for long.

Also there are several on GLBSE at the moment that would only need a little help in reaching that status.

I think it would take glbse to a whole new level.

[Hunterbunter]

Why now and not before? Experience. When GLBSE first started we had no rules or even any form of verification, after about 6 months of this total absolute freedom GLBSE was a ghetto of scams and failed assets. Then we started to tidy things up, we moved to GLBSE 2.0 and added verification. The quality of assets skyrocketed and trade flourished.

I think looking back we can see where GLBSE has gone wrong and where it needs improvement, a little more market segregation and a few reasonable rules will help a lot.

That's an acceptable explanation to me; lived and learnt. It's what makes us human.

Regarding your libertarian comment, I don't think you understand what the term free market means. It doesn't mean no rules at all, that's a free for all.

It means the owner of the football gets to decide the rules of play instead of the government, that a free market is free of government regulation. We don't run GLBSE for the purpose of collecting tax, we run it with the intention of helping investors, projects, business and people. So it's in our interest to try to ensure the market runs as smoothly as possible to the benefit of everyone.

I don't want to see any more rules on GLBSE than are absolutely needed, and the ones that are in place are there for a good reason and are clearly not enough. I, we at GLBSE hate rules because every one means more work and expense for us, it's against our own profit interest to have any, but at the same time it's against our profit interest to have an exchange that is full of scams and nothing else, that is not a market with a future.  

We need to strike a balance.

I completely agree there is a balance, and I think all that matters is who's in charge, and what the scale is.

Perhaps I don't really understand what "free market" means; I read your definition but I have trouble with the paradox - you are allowed to decide the rules of your football game with your football (GLBSE) which I must submit to if I want to play in it, but the government is not allowed to define the rules of the football game (society) for it's football (the country) which we must submit to if we want to play in it. The only way I can imagine resolving this paradox is to consider the modern government as the sum of people's cumulative actions and experience. That is, the modern government was created by the cumulative effect of individual anarchy. This allows for the resolution of the paradox - they are fractal representations of each other. You are free to create rules which people may not follow in your game, just as the government is free to create rules you may not follow when playing their game.

You would say you have an incentive to manage GLBSE, perhaps in the pursuit of profit by recognizing the need for certain constraints. Is this any different to a government managing the rules of trade on the NYSE, so that they may too metaphorically profit via a positive happy to sad ratio of citizens? Their scale is much bigger than yours, sure, but they still believe they are creating a more interesting market where more people can have fun rather than less. I do believe that, albeit in larger scale, the government is fractally mirroring you by applying their own experience when creating regulation. It may be too much or badly done (as yours might be), but I would say that's a problem with the people in charge, not the concept of rules being created to benefit particular people.

I suppose I was being facetious in my original comment anyway...so sorry about that. I certainly back your ability to apply your intellect to run your business successfully.