Yeah, tomorrow or today (depending on where one is) is going to be a very interesting day. The ATMs are already out of money!
Forget sleep! Overrated! Still pretty calm after lower opening.
But back on topic:
thought about it: if you start with rules there is probably no end to it because if you start setting out rules for one aspect you likely will have to set rules for other aspects too and then rules for what happens when rules aren't followed. Effectively in the end of the day you need a judge and a lawyer. Too much.
Probably the best to go with 'open for all' without looking at character only at reputation for honesty and maybe require some amount of coins to be shown. Better put some escrow and tradelimits for beginners in place for protection of course. People with more coins owned can actually get a slight bonus in reputation for example as it serves their own interest to behave honestly in that environment. (just an idea)
We need to remember: on the one hand the service is publically advertised so then on the other hand one shouldn't tell people who do own bulks of coins (not even those that only hold smaller amounts) to not be able to use said service 'because they are rogue elements' or whatever other crap.
Because if you publically advertise a service that's not really open to the public (only those that aren't
perceived as such 'unliked persons' to the standard of some arbitrary other person) then we get in trouble with butthurt people all over the place which we don't need and which is avoidable. To tell some people "you're in" and others "you're not in" is complete BS and will only create trouble without end as it stirrs emotions with people who are for arbitrary reasons not 'let in'.
If you want to deny access on basis of 'personal feelings' and
perception, then you can't advertise it publically because lots of butthurt and mudslings. But doing it not public is also not an option.
So i personally think we're basically stuck with 'let everyone in' and get safeguards like escrow and such into place to protect trading, also a better structure to that reputation system would be good because right now it looks completely arbitrary too (or at least last time i looked).
Some table for
what tradereputation is earned
when would be also good there. Some transparency and shit, you know? We should get away from anything that mixes trading and personal liking and disliking of participants very quickly as that's no way to work actually. It'll create heaps of trouble with emotions otherwise and probably would sink the whole thing sooner or later.
So i'd suggest: get the safeguards for trading up, write everything down in an introduction for people to read, make the reputation system free of personal like and dislike by making it transparent, applicable, comprehensible and clear cut, well and then let Gekko in of course. Just moderate him if he starts shouting insults at people and all is good. But let that man trade otherwise he's gonna be upset and would actually have a valid reason for it.
Behaviour of people/ character needs to be
not subject to anyones' judgement because that will almost always lead to people feeling discriminated and who says the perception of the 'judge' is correct? It can't be correct all the time and likely is never correct. You end up with broke, friendly scammers indoors and upset real holders outdoors possibly. Complete arbitrary BS. It's not an option for a publically advertised thing. Basically you can't say a person can't trade bcause he or she doesn't express themselves in a way that everyone else likes.
Look, if i go on cryptsy trollbox and tell the mod to eat a dick he will ban me from talking in the box but not from trading. That's the thing. If Gekko in this example spouts insults on you, moderate him, but his trading and his character can not go together. That needs seperation for trading without discrimination, with accessibility and to not be arbitrary, really.
So that's my recommendation to clean the thing up a little: Get the personal stuff out of trading, open for all, no rules or low rule besides safeguards for trading and a transparent reputation system. Kicking people from trading should only be possible if they scam or try to scam. Kicking people from talking should be handled completely seperately so that way it should be possible to resolve this issue, no?
Getting human judgement out of the equation especially when it comes to ability to trade will serve us well imo. Human judgement is flawed and emotionally charged and it creates trouble when you have one person telling another person what he or she can and can't do and on top of it money is involved. Make everything quantifyable and free of human judgement and interpretation as much as possible and it'll work sweet imo. (maybe try to bring in good objectivity and transparency -> quantify, write down)
Subjective Face-check at the door has no future, really. It'll only create endless discussions, butthurts and upset people. It's not working.
my 2c
edit: if you want exclusivity, tie it to amounts of coins held or amount of coins traded and not to human perception as that ends in discrimination and emotional dogpoop. (an example for what i mean with 'quantifyable' and 'objective')
If you desire to have VIPs, tie that to coins or tradeactivity or something else that's quantifyable, not human perception, cheers
