[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[burnside]

Not sure if this was raised in the relation to the realtime sidebar (I've just started watchign the thread and haven't read back yet), is it possible to filter the realtime if you are on a security to only show that security and everything if at the homepage, etc?

Not yet, but we're looking into it. 

[dexX7]

Is there a way to link to the news tab of an issuer directly?

[burnside]

Is there a way to link to the news tab of an issuer directly?

Try this:

https://btct.co/security/ASICMINER-PT?tab=tab4

[Deprived]

Any chance of adding the ability to repay recurring dividends?  So I could check a box for "Daily" by a dividend then it would make the same payment at the same time every day until cancelled.   Would guess daily and weekly are the only ones likely to be of much use.  Dividend should be able to be a fixed amount or a fixed amount per share as at present.

[usagi]

Burnside;

https://btct.co/security/BMF

Anyone is allowed to vote 'no', but allegations of fraud are much more serious than that. If you have a limit on what mods are going to say, you might want to consider this the limit. Your moderators must be made accountable for what they say. Rather than trolling, which is what this mod is doing, how about providing a link or pointing out something more substantial than "review the history of the DMC company"?

I'm not going to stand for anonymous people accusing me of committing felony crimes. You see the problem here don't you? In a normal situation I could spend $1,200 on a lawyer and force you to give me his details then go after him legally. In a situation like this there's no point because such an order isn't enforceable internationally. It becomes a mere show, a farce, where I demonstrate I have the money to hire a laywer to present you with an unenforcable order.

So, it being entirely your choice, you have a moral duty to either reveal the identity of the moderator or remove the comment.

I hope you can see how a vote like this undermines the legitimacy of your moderation system.

[burnside]

Burnside;

https://btct.co/security/BMF

Anyone is allowed to vote 'no', but allegations of fraud are much more serious than that. If you have a limit on what mods are going to say, you might want to consider this the limit. Your moderators must be made accountable for what they say. Rather than trolling, which is what this mod is doing, how about providing a link or pointing out something more substantial than "review the history of the DMC company"?

I'm not going to stand for anonymous people accusing me of committing felony crimes. You see the problem here don't you? In a normal situation I could spend $1,200 on a lawyer and force you to give me his details then go after him legally. In a situation like this there's no point because such an order isn't enforceable internationally. It becomes a mere show, a farce, where I demonstrate I have the money to hire a laywer to present you with an unenforcable order.

So, it being entirely your choice, you have a moral duty to either reveal the identity of the moderator or remove the comment.

I hope you can see how a vote like this undermines the legitimacy of your moderation system.

Hmmm.  Community thoughts on this?

The wording used is "almost certainly committed fraud".  It's definitely a serious allegation, and it does include a point of reference the user can use to start their own research.  (Diablo mining + "other assets".)

I have a feeling that if we ban such statements on BTC-TC then we'd be forcing a rosy picture of some assets that may not deserve it.  Imagine if Bakewell had still been listed when it defaulted for instance.  I'd think at that point a "NO" vote with an accusation of fraud to be quite relevant.

[ThickAsThieves]

Burnside;

https://btct.co/security/BMF

Anyone is allowed to vote 'no', but allegations of fraud are much more serious than that. If you have a limit on what mods are going to say, you might want to consider this the limit. Your moderators must be made accountable for what they say. Rather than trolling, which is what this mod is doing, how about providing a link or pointing out something more substantial than "review the history of the DMC company"?

I'm not going to stand for anonymous people accusing me of committing felony crimes. You see the problem here don't you? In a normal situation I could spend $1,200 on a lawyer and force you to give me his details then go after him legally. In a situation like this there's no point because such an order isn't enforceable internationally. It becomes a mere show, a farce, where I demonstrate I have the money to hire a laywer to present you with an unenforcable order.

So, it being entirely your choice, you have a moral duty to either reveal the identity of the moderator or remove the comment.

I hope you can see how a vote like this undermines the legitimacy of your moderation system.

Hmmm.  Community thoughts on this?

The wording used is "almost certainly committed fraud".  It's definitely a serious allegation, and it does include a point of reference the user can use to start their own research.  (Diablo mining + "other assets".)

I have a feeling that if we ban such statements on BTC-TC then we'd be forcing a rosy picture of some assets that may not deserve it.  Imagine if Bakewell had still been listed when it defaulted for instance.  I'd think at that point a "NO" vote with an accusation of fraud to be quite relevant.

Asking the "community" is not a solution though. Real written standards and guidance need to be posted publicly and provided to all voters. Then you will have means to moderate according to that script.

More specifically though, you could always refer to my epic pm from a month or so ago on the matter

[Deprived]

Burnside;

https://btct.co/security/BMF

Anyone is allowed to vote 'no', but allegations of fraud are much more serious than that. If you have a limit on what mods are going to say, you might want to consider this the limit. Your moderators must be made accountable for what they say. Rather than trolling, which is what this mod is doing, how about providing a link or pointing out something more substantial than "review the history of the DMC company"?

I'm not going to stand for anonymous people accusing me of committing felony crimes. You see the problem here don't you? In a normal situation I could spend $1,200 on a lawyer and force you to give me his details then go after him legally. In a situation like this there's no point because such an order isn't enforceable internationally. It becomes a mere show, a farce, where I demonstrate I have the money to hire a laywer to present you with an unenforcable order.

So, it being entirely your choice, you have a moral duty to either reveal the identity of the moderator or remove the comment.

I hope you can see how a vote like this undermines the legitimacy of your moderation system.

Hmmm.  Community thoughts on this?

The wording used is "almost certainly committed fraud".  It's definitely a serious allegation, and it does include a point of reference the user can use to start their own research.  (Diablo mining + "other assets".)

I have a feeling that if we ban such statements on BTC-TC then we'd be forcing a rosy picture of some assets that may not deserve it.  Imagine if Bakewell had still been listed when it defaulted for instance.  I'd think at that point a "NO" vote with an accusation of fraud to be quite relevant.

In theory I'd like to see comments like that not allowed.  In practice I think they have to be allowed.

First two general points:

Moderators MUST be allowed to make their votes anonymously.  Otherwise we open the door to issuers harassing them by PMs, blackmailing or threatening them or offering to bribe them.  Anonymity is a key part of allowing honest expression of opinion without fear of reprisal.  Legal threats are one element of that - we don't want people changing votes from NO to YES because they're threatened with legal action.

The second point is also key : issuers must be allowed to respond to allegations against or negative about them.

In theory I'd like comments like the one in question to be deleted because it lacks sufficient specific detail for usagi to be able to work out what it is that is claimed to constitute fraud.  Short of explaining every action he's ever made in respect of all securities he's run it's impossible to refute the claim.

In practice I don't think it's an approach that can be taken.  For that to be done then some means would have to be provided where someone making a strong accusation was anonymously able to provide proper supporting detail for it.  And IF that were done then it would then lead on one-sided results, where those saying NO had to justify their responses in detail whilst those voting YES didn't have to.  If, for example, someone voting no and saying "Dishonest" had to justify that characterisation then a similar level of justification should also be required for those voting YES and saying "Honest".

Somewhere, of course, there HAS to be a line.  If, for example, a NO vote said "Issuer is a paedophile" then I assume you'd delete it - or would you be inclined to let it remain if accompanied by a link to a page justifying the claim? (NOTE : I'm NOT in anyway accusing usagi of being a paedophile - it's just an extreme example I picked).  I think the line (at which a comment is not allowed even WITH justification) has to drawn at around the point where comments become personal in nature rather than related to the issuer's conduct in business.  This comment is short of that line so doesn't warrant deletion because of its nature.

That leaves the matter of the issuer being able to respond.  To an extent, issuers have that ability even if the detail of an allegation isn't spelled out.  Were I viewing that comment without any preconception of usagi's character then I would tend to discount it if I could also see a response from usagi saying "Please be more specific about what you believe consituted fraud."  If whoever made the vote didn't respond (by editing their response to include a link to a pastebin or whatever) then I'd tend to ignore the specifics of it (especially if it were the only allegation of such a nature).  Issuers can also make (and link to) threads in which explain why an allegation is ridiculous - they can even make those threads self-moderated so that if their accuser DOES post details they can just delete it.  So it's not as those they're totally without recourse.

My suggestions are two:

1.  Provide a means whereby an issuer can respond to a NO vote with their (brief) response being shown below the NO vote.
2.  Add to Issuer Terms that by listing an asset they undertake not to threaten or engage in legal action or exert other pressure to attempt to make Moderators edit or remove votes.

As 2 would be change to the terms, obviously any existing issuers not accepting it would be free to delist their asset.

[ThickAsThieves]

2.  Add to Issuer Terms that by listing an asset they undertake not to threaten or engage in legal action or exert other pressure to attempt to make Moderators edit or remove votes.

As 2 would be change to the terms, obviously any existing issuers not accepting it would be free to delist their asset.

I can't agree with this.

First, issuers have to be able to have a voice, or "exert other pressure to attempt" to change votes. I know what you are going for, but it's unenforceable if worded strictly, and unfair if worded loosely. In that sense, I think the statement is probably trying to solve the wrong problem.

Second, if the exchange begins to change the terms for issuers whenever it likes, the exchange will suffer. It would be unfair to both stockholders and issuers to behave in this way because if an issuer does decide to migrate, his shareholders are disrupted as well.

When problem-solving, if I encounter grey situations and intricacies like these, it tells me that that the wrong problem is trying to be solved. Broader perspective is likely needed here.

[Deprived]

2.  Add to Issuer Terms that by listing an asset they undertake not to threaten or engage in legal action or exert other pressure to attempt to make Moderators edit or remove votes.

As 2 would be change to the terms, obviously any existing issuers not accepting it would be free to delist their asset.

I can't agree with this.

First, issuers have to be able to have a voice, or "exert other pressure to attempt" to change votes. I know what you are going for, but it's unenforceable if worded strictly, and unfair if worded loosely. In that sense, I think the statement is probably trying to solve the wrong problem.

Second, if the exchange begins to change the terms for issuers whenever it likes, the exchange will suffer. It would be unfair to both stockholders and issuers to behave in this way because if an issuer does decide to migrate, his shareholders are disrupted as well.

When problem-solving, if I encounter grey situations and intricacies like these, it tells me that that the wrong problem is trying to be solved. Broader perspective is likely needed here.

Yeah, on reflection tend to agree with you - as arguing against the comment IS a form of other pressure.  I think agreeing not to threaten or engage in legal action is reasonable though.

[usagi]

You guys are rehashing basic human rights.

I demand the right to face my accusers in an appropriate court -- consisting of qualified judges -- at the very least, a jury of my peers. An anonymous set of unqualified moderators, there because they paid to be there, is not sufficient and can not work.

[Deprived]

When problem-solving, if I encounter grey situations and intricacies like these, it tells me that that the wrong problem is trying to be solved. Broader perspective is likely needed here.

Well yeah - we ARE trying to solve the wrong problem.  We're trying to define how an upaid and unqualified group of people selected entirely on the basis of owning specific shares should act when determining whether a security and issuer are fit to list or not.  And we're also discussing how much ability potentially unfit issuers should have in suppressing criticism of themself.

There's NOT going to be any easy solutions to that - as the former (the moderator concept) is by no means an ideal concept.  But there's a lack of feasible alternatives on a low budget - the Bitfunder approach (one guy has a quick look then says yes) is at least as bad (don't think AML's first draft where it predicted mining more coins per day than the whole network does would have got through on BTC-TC - nor would a company that wouldn't even disclose its AREA of business).

Ultimately you get what you pay for.  Bitfunder and BTC-TC both want listing to be cheap (and neither can afford to raise their fee significantly if the other doesn't) so the means of appraising those listings is also going to be cheap.

[parseval]

I agree with the principle of free speech, and allowing the comment to remain if there is some suggestion of further research to be followed up on.  The allegation of fraud is serious, but can often be taken as hyperbole if the suggested evidence doesn't meet up with expectations.  This research is an exercise for the reader, and less weight is given to poorly founded arguments.  I would suppose that comments without supporting evidence would have a line struck through them (eg, a strike-through font) with a note saying there is no evidence, rather than a deletion.  Let the reader take note that the allegation is poorly founded, but then decided the level of research to be done on their own.    Ideally, everyone would be able to reply to each other and discuss the contracts and allegations in detail in an open forum.

I wouldn't mind seeing a line-by-line comment system, a la UComment, for the contract discussions.  This would allow users to post comments inline with specific sections or statements in the contract, rather than just a general comment above or at the end of the contract listing.  It makes very clear the section which it is discussing (because the comments are inline, right next to the section being referenced).  Check out an example ucomment page here:

http://ucomment.org/what-does-this-application-do/

That said, I'm not an LTC-Global asset holder (yet), but these are just my thoughts.

[furuknap]

Hmmm.  Community thoughts on this?

I'm standing by my original opinion on the voting system, and frankly, I don't see why a comment is required at all.

However, how about just having an arbitration over comments? If an issuer gets an unwarranted vote with a comment, they can question the comment and have it appealed to you. There are something like 30 assets listed and at most perhaps 2-3 no-votes per asset, so I'm sure the workload wouldn't kill you.

If you insist on the community involvement, pick three random voters and ask them to review the comment instead.

.b

[Deprived]

One possible bodged solution would be to allow asset issuers to check a box whereby no public comments from moderators would be displayed - just the tally of votes.

I don't particularly like it but it would at least allow those sensitive souls who don't want anonymous and unhindered commentary to get it.  Of course it would also make it harder for them to change moderators' minds.  But you can't really have a scenario where comments are allowed - but only if the asset issuer likes them.  The choice would basically be between allowing feedback or not allowing it - with no horrible middle ground of "allow feedback unless I don't like it".

Then anyone who wanted existing comments removed would just ask for all their votes to be cleared and the box ticked before voting recommenced to reenable trading on their asset.

[burnside]

Asking the "community" is not a solution though. Real written standards and guidance need to be posted publicly and provided to all voters. Then you will have means to moderate according to that script.

I am asking for input that will be used to form policy.

Current draft in dev:

Please observe the following rules when voting:

    Comments of a personal nature are not allowed.
    False statements are not allowed. (Be truthful!)

The following guidelines may also be helpful:

    Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this contract or shareholder agreement is complete and clear.
    Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this prospectus, where applicable, is complete and clear.
    Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this issuer has the experience necessary to operate an issue.
    Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this issuer can be trusted.
    Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this issue is good for the exchange LONG TERM.
    Try to be constructive.

I'm also going to work on an input field where issuers can respond to the moderators comments with a sentence or two.

Cheers.

[Deprived]

However, how about just having an arbitration over comments? If an issuer gets an unwarranted vote with a comment, they can question the comment and have it appealed to you.

I assume when you said "unwarranted vote with a comment" you actually meant "vote with an unwarranted comment" - as it would clearly be rather silly to have a voting system if burnside already knew which VOTES were warranted.

Think the suggestion fails on logical grounds anyway.

Say I'm a moderator (I'm not) and I vote with the comment "Asset isn't fit to be listed" or "Contract is unfair to investors".  If burnside is going to determine whether the comment is fair or not then he may as well just approve or delete the asset in the first place as he can't rule on the fitness of the comment without (largely) determining the thing that the listing process is supposed to do.  That, in a nutshell, is the problem with ruling on comments - that the effort to determine whether comments are fair could be as much as, or even exceed, that to determine whether an asset should be listed without bothering with moderators at all.

[odolvlobo]

I don't think there is a good decentralized consensus-based solution. I think the most effective solution is for the exchange to moderate the moderators. A list of guidelines is good, but someone still needs to enforce it. If the issuer doesn't like a comment, he can appeal to the super-moderator who has the final say.

Say I'm a moderator (I'm not) and I vote with the comment "Asset isn't fit to be listed" or "Contract is unfair to investors".  If burnside is going to determine whether the comment is fair or not then he may as well just approve or delete the asset in the first place as he can't rule on the fitness of the comment without (largely) determining the thing that the listing process is supposed to do.

The determination could be on the relevance and effectiveness and perhaps the truth of the comment rather than the fairness of the comment.

[Unluckyduck]

I have a sizeable amount of coins spread out over my portfolio on your exchange, but moving them with is slow which in turn inhibits my ability to trade. Could you add support for Inputs.io as I have many coins stored there and that would greatly increase trading productivity.

[furuknap]

However, how about just having an arbitration over comments? If an issuer gets an unwarranted vote with a comment, they can question the comment and have it appealed to you.

I assume when you said "unwarranted vote with a comment" you actually meant "vote with an unwarranted comment" - as it would clearly be rather silly to have a voting system if burnside already knew which VOTES were warranted.

I meant unwarranted vote.

"I vote no because I don't like Mondays" is an unwarranted No vote; it has no relevance for the asset, investors, or the exchange.

Say I'm a moderator (I'm not) and I vote with the comment "Asset isn't fit to be listed" or "Contract is unfair to investors".  If burnside is going to determine whether the comment is fair or not then he may as well just approve or delete the asset in the first place as he can't rule on the fitness of the comment without (largely) determining the thing that the listing process is supposed to do.  That, in a nutshell, is the problem with ruling on comments - that the effort to determine whether comments are fair could be as much as, or even exceed, that to determine whether an asset should be listed without bothering with moderators at all.

Why? First of all, you skipped the 'question' part of my argument. Appealing with no process would be a waste, but for a question, such as "What exactly is the relevance between your hate of Mondays and the evaluation of the suitability of this asset?", a response could be posted, to which the issuer could agree or choose to appeal on basis of being irrelevant or unreasonable.

.b