[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[BTC-TradingCo]

The site is closed.  Thank you for being a great community.

[1713511958]

1713511958

[1713511958]

1713511958

[1713511958]

1713511958

[1713511958]

1713511958

[1713511958]

1713511958

[MPOE-PR]

See here.

[warmach]

Your LTC-Mining security says the owners of at least 10 LTC-Global shares have the ability to vote.  Will voting rights and profit distribution be only to LTC-Global shareholders? Or will a new security be opening to buy into BTC Trading Corp exchange?

[Deprived]

Your LTC-Mining security says the owners of at least 10 LTC-Global shares have the ability to vote.  Will voting rights and profit distribution be only to LTC-Global shareholders? Or will a new security be opening to buy into BTC Trading Corp exchange?

The LTC-GLOBAL shares are actually now proxy-held shares in BTC Trading Corp.  If you check motions on LTC-GLOBAL you'll see last one was to appoint a director in Bermuda for BTC Trading Corp, which wouldn't otherwise make sense.  Basically owners of those those shares own both sites (remember only a minority of shares were sold to public - burnside still owns ~90%).

Dunno if BTCTC cross-references to LTC-GLOBAL shareholders for asset-approval but it would seem likely - judging by the test votes on LTC-MINING from burnside.

[BTC-TradingCo]

See here.

The first post was a good read.  Mostly good advice.  It kinda went downhill from there.

[burnside]

A quick rundown of how the moderation on BTCTC works.  If you want to moderate/vote on assets on BTCT.CO:

- First you'll need an LTC-GLOBAL account.
- In your LTC-GLOBAL account you must hold 10 shares of LTC-GLOBAL.
- Next you log into your BTCTC account and go to the 'Account' page.
- On the account page find 'Authenticate Your LTC-GLOBAL Ownership', plug in your LTC-GLOBAL username and your BTCTC pin.
- As long as your email addresses match up and you own 10 shares, you will now be flagged as a moderator on BTCTC.

Cheers.

[BTC-TradingCo]

There were issues with moderators voting NO and not giving any reasons.  Thus 'NO' votes require a private comment now.  We realize this doesn't change much, but hope that it encourages some positive feedback for the Asset Issuers.

[Deprived]

There were issues with moderators voting NO and not giving any reasons.  Thus 'NO' votes require a private comment now.  We realize this doesn't change much, but hope that it encourages some positive feedback for the Asset Issuers.

Probably worth explaining how this works for those not used to LTC-GLOBAL.

Anyone who owns 10 or more shares in LTC-GLOBAL is entitled to approve or disapprove of any current or proposed assets on the exchange.  This shows up as a number next to the security - with NO votes counting as -2 and YES votes counting as +1.  For a security to be tradable it has to get 5 YES votes (it used to be a NET of +4 - i.e. YES votes - 2*NO votes).  In theory this means you have to satisfy those with an interest in the welbeing of the exchange before your security can be traded,  In practice it hasn't quite worked like that - with securities getting NO votes with no explanation given (and assets with incomplete/unprofitable plans getting plenty of YES votes).

From my perspective it seems like votes are still largely based on "How much do they promise in dividends" rather than on any real assessment of whether the information provided indicates a business that's likely to do well.  Luckily (also, from my perspective) the same lack of math skills carries across to investors - making day-trading rather easy.

The platform's great to use after GLBSE - it doesn't have the 3 main problems I experienced with GLBSE namely:

1.  5-20 seconds to load a page (if it loaded at all) - GLOBAL loads pretty quickly.  There's some minor caching issues (e.g. main page showing all securities is cached - so can't be used to tell you promptly if you're outbid on any securities you've bid on)
2.  An unresponsive developer - I PMed nefario about a potential issue with voting (votes counting after you'd transferred shares - allowing double-voting) and didn't even receive a reply.  The issue, of course, then proved to actually be genuine and wasn't fixed right up until the site went offline.  burnside responds promptly to all reports of issues (I've reported a fair few minor things) and fixes them promptly when warranted.
3.  Funds being tied up for bids.  This was a huge issue for me on GLBSE - I could only make total bids equal to my balance.  GLOBAL lets you bid equal to your balance on EACH security - if one order is filled then orders you no longer have balance to cover get cancelled.  I'd prefer if they were only partially cancelled (i.e. reduced to a quantity you could cover) but as it stands it's still a massive improvement on GLBSE.  This adds liquidity to the market as well as convenience to people trying to trade and/or market-make.

Overall my experience of LTC-GLOBAL (which this new site uses same code-base from and has same operator) is very positive - both as a trader and as the manager of a very small asset (my fund has a market cap of about 6.5K LTC/30 BTC and isn't selling more units).  I don't believe this particular change will actually have much impact - instead of no comments on NO votes we'll now just see "I don't like it" which has no more value.  And, frankly, I expect 90% of people entitled to vote aren't competent to give a meaningful opinion anyway - which is true for just about any voting system (and saying so will likely get me another NO vote or 2).

[Smoovious]

3.  Funds being tied up for bids.  This was a huge issue for me on GLBSE - I could only make total bids equal to my balance.  GLOBAL lets you bid equal to your balance on EACH security - if one order is filled then orders you no longer have balance to cover get cancelled.

Is this optional? Personally, I dislike this behavior, and the way I like to trade, is to have the cash reserved for every bid I place.

This is something that is really something for the individual investor, and instead of allowing me to place bids I don't have the funds for, I want it to tell me I no longer have available funds to cover that bid.

This way, I always _know_ that the bids I place, are going to stay put, and not disappear just because someone dumped a lot on another issue, that I may not have been wanting to buy into as much as another issue.

A one-size-fits-all solution, for either side of this, doesn't work. Being able to customize our trading experience for ourselves is a big plus.

-- Smoov

[creativex]

Good explanation Deprived. I think it will open the door for asset issuers to challenge mods publicly if they see fit. Obviously this is risky, but if I'm an asset issuer receiving no votes based on "I don't like it" then I'm going to consider making those comments public.

At least voters have to have skin in the game, and requiring voters to offer some explanation gives asset issuers some feedback.

This isn't likely to be a fix all, but it is another step in the right direction for an already excellent platform.

[Deprived]

3.  Funds being tied up for bids.  This was a huge issue for me on GLBSE - I could only make total bids equal to my balance.  GLOBAL lets you bid equal to your balance on EACH security - if one order is filled then orders you no longer have balance to cover get cancelled.

Is this optional? Personally, I dislike this behavior, and the way I like to trade, is to have the cash reserved for every bid I place.

This is something that is really something for the individual investor, and instead of allowing me to place bids I don't have the funds for, I want it to tell me I no longer have available funds to cover that bid.

This way, I always _know_ that the bids I place, are going to stay put, and not disappear just because someone dumped a lot on another issue, that I may not have been wanting to buy into as much as another issue.

A one-size-fits-all solution, for either side of this, doesn't work. Being able to customize our trading experience for ourselves is a big plus.

-- Smoov

At present it's not optional.  You can kind of see what you have tied up in bids by going t your analysis screen - where it does how the funds ocmitted on bids to each asset you either own or have bids on.  Unfortunately it doesn't yet show a total at bottom - if it did then you could easily see whether you'd put more bids than could be filled and cancel some to adjust.

I can see how some types of users would dislike the way it currently works - definitely it's the case that cancelling whole orders suits neither type.  In a low liquidity market I do, however, believe this way is far better for the vast majority of users than the GLBSE way.  If someone really wants to spend exactly all of their funds on specific assets then, no matter how the platofrm operates, they've got to do some math to get their orders right anyway.

Best solution to deliver what you want would be to (somewhere) display the total of all current outstanding bids you have.  That would actually be useful info for me as well and not degrade any of the flexibility offered by the current method.

[Smoovious]

Best solution to deliver what you want would be to (somewhere) display the total of all current outstanding bids you have.  That would actually be useful info for me as well and not degrade any of the flexibility offered by the current method.

Well, if you get to that point, then it wouldn't be much further, to total up the value of my current bids, plus the one I'm trying to make, and if the result is a negative number, then to not place the order and show an "Insufficient Funds" on the screen, with a checkbox in a settings area to enable/disable this.

It isn't that far to make it optional, and give us more flexibility.

Sorry, but I would be less likely to trade there, without it.

-- Smoov

[creativex]

I like the current trading system and the increase to liquidity it brings.

[Smoovious]

I like the current trading system and the increase to liquidity it brings.

Then knock yourself out, use it all you want to. I don't want to forbid anyone from using it if they don't want to. I just don't want it imposed on anyone who does not want it, either. I don't even want the possibility of over-extending myself in my orders. If I don't have the cash to cover all of my orders, I want my attempt to be blocked.

(this is kinda similar to a big argument I had with my bank with my debit card, when they would still allow charges I didn't have the money to cover, and then charge me overdraft fees. if I don't have the money in my account, then decline the transaction. they finally relented once they realized I wasn't going to let it go)

Overall, unless there is some solid reason why a change has to be imposed on everyone, many features only need to be optional so we can pick and choose how we want to trade.

-- Smoov

[creativex]

All you have to do is simply not place orders that exceed your balance. Orders are easy to see from the portfolio "my orders" tab or from separate security trade screens and unlike your debit card example there are no overdraft fees. Also when a trade executes and other trades need to be cancelled the system seems to cancel your lowest bids first, notifies you on screen instantly, and issues an email. This isn't credit and there are no margin calls. It's merely a system that increases liquidity and allows investors to maximize the effect of available capital.

[Smoovious]

All you have to do is simply not place orders that exceed your balance. Orders are easy to see from the portfolio "my orders" tab or from separate security trade screens and unlike your debit card example there are no overdraft fees. Also when a trade executes and other trades need to be cancelled the system seems to cancel your lowest bids first, notifies you on screen instantly, and issues an email. This isn't credit and there are no margin calls. It's merely a system that increases liquidity and allows investors to maximize the effect of available capital.

Like I said... without the ability to disable that feature for myself, I won't be very likely to trade there...

I don't expect you to make it optional, just to get me to trade there... just offering my reason for my choice.

If it doesn't prevent my placing an order, due to insufficient funds, then it isn't acceptable.

From what I've heard, one of the strengths of your system(s) is the amount of features that you have been making available that sites like GLBSE lacked, for the users' benefit. Giving us the flexibility to tailor our experience according to our individual trading habits and preferences, is an important thing to have, and the particular one I'm talking about is SOOOO EASY to implement, so I just don't understand the unwillingness to allow us a choice, and force this system on those who don't want it.

Take it however you want, but that is my thought about it. >shrugs<

-- Smoov

[BTC-TradingCo]

All you have to do is simply not place orders that exceed your balance. Orders are easy to see from the portfolio "my orders" tab or from separate security trade screens and unlike your debit card example there are no overdraft fees. Also when a trade executes and other trades need to be cancelled the system seems to cancel your lowest bids first, notifies you on screen instantly, and issues an email. This isn't credit and there are no margin calls. It's merely a system that increases liquidity and allows investors to maximize the effect of available capital.

Like I said... without the ability to disable that feature for myself, I won't be very likely to trade there...

I don't expect you to make it optional, just to get me to trade there... just offering my reason for my choice.

If it doesn't prevent my placing an order, due to insufficient funds, then it isn't acceptable.

From what I've heard, one of the strengths of your system(s) is the amount of features that you have been making available that sites like GLBSE lacked, for the users' benefit. Giving us the flexibility to tailor our experience according to our individual trading habits and preferences, is an important thing to have, and the particular one I'm talking about is SOOOO EASY to implement, so I just don't understand the unwillingness to allow us a choice, and force this system on those who don't want it.

Take it however you want, but that is my thought about it. >shrugs<

-- Smoov

Appreciate your input Smoov.  Will definitely consider putting an option in the settings.  As you mentioned, it should be easy to alter behavior to the way you describe on a per-user basis.  It's a minimal amount of programming.  (hour? maybe two?)  So after some of the higher priority items are done it should be easy to plug in.

[Garr255]

Excellent. I will look in to moving Cognitive and Synergy here.

[MPOE-PR]

If I don't have the cash to cover all of my orders, I want my attempt to be blocked.

(this is kinda similar to a big argument I had with my bank with my debit card, when they would still allow charges I didn't have the money to cover, and then charge me overdraft fees. if I don't have the money in my account, then decline the transaction. they finally relented once they realized I wasn't going to let it go)

Afaik only MPEx does what you want, in spite of the fact that the alternative is a bad idea.

[burnside]

If I don't have the cash to cover all of my orders, I want my attempt to be blocked.

(this is kinda similar to a big argument I had with my bank with my debit card, when they would still allow charges I didn't have the money to cover, and then charge me overdraft fees. if I don't have the money in my account, then decline the transaction. they finally relented once they realized I wasn't going to let it go)

Afaik only MPEx does what you want, in spite of the fact that the alternative is a bad idea.

Bad idea how exactly?  It's a commonly used order strategy?

One-Cancels-All Orders: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/onecancelall.asp

Thank you for pointing out that MPEx is doing it the other way, I suppose I can bump up the priority on it a bit.  I'm sure it will be beneficial having the option to alter your BTCTC order behavior depending on your preference.

Cheers.