[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[EskimoBob]

Problem with what you propose is that then noone can sell their shares at all until the whole IPO sells out.

Actually they can if there is a open order at bid side or they find someone who did not get enough shares from IPO and is willing to buy them from you.

News-flash - most IPOs in crypto-land don't exactly sell out fast.

Correct, and as you have read in other news, those short term speculators are not helping the issuer at all.

Get yourself an underwriter to guarantee all your shares sell out within a day THEN come back with the proposal again. Until you can guarantee selling out fast there's zero way there can be a lock on trading until you've sold out.

Or just sell them all at one price - then no problem.

Why not? Locking public trading before part of or all, depends how it's structured, of the IPO is sold out is actually completely normal. IPO's main purpose is to raise capita for the Co and not to make quick profit for few speculators. Capital is raised for the Co so it can grow and move to next level.

[rini17]

Why not? Locking public trading before part of or all, depends how it's structured, of the IPO is sold out is actually completely normal. IPO's main purpose is to raise capita for the Co and not to make quick profit for few speculators. Capital is raised for the Co so it can grow and move to next level.

How would you feel after buying S.DICE and consequently being unable to sell the shares for arbitrarily long time, just because some OCD issuer decided "the IPO is not to make quick profit for few speculators"?

If so many people immediately resell the initial round instead of going long, then that is just bad price setting, or the stock is considered too risky for long-term investment, etc. Nothing of that is solved by forbidding to resell during IPO.

Moreover, if both the issuer and the exchange know what is gonna happen and won't give a shit (and in case of S.DICE, even MPOE-PR openly advertises this as profit for first-wave investors)... what is the problem then?

[Deprived]

Problem with what you propose is that then noone can sell their shares at all until the whole IPO sells out.

Actually they can if there is a open order at bid side or they find someone who did not get enough shares from IPO and is willing to buy them from you.

News-flash - most IPOs in crypto-land don't exactly sell out fast.

Correct, and as you have read in other news, those short term speculators are not helping the issuer at all.

Get yourself an underwriter to guarantee all your shares sell out within a day THEN come back with the proposal again. Until you can guarantee selling out fast there's zero way there can be a lock on trading until you've sold out.

Or just sell them all at one price - then no problem.

Why not? Locking public trading before part of or all, depends how it's structured, of the IPO is sold out is actually completely normal. IPO's main purpose is to raise capita for the Co and not to make quick profit for few speculators. Capital is raised for the Co so it can grow and move to next level.

So how long do you think you should be able to lock your IPO against other people placing Asks for?  A day?  2 days?  A week?  A month?  a Year?

A few days wouldn't change anything, anything much longer would just be unreasonable.

On your point that "IPO's main purpose is to raise capita for the Co and not to make quick profit for few speculators. " well you're right and wrong.  That may be the main purpose the asset issuer has for it - but it's not necessarily why most people buy it (in RL as well as crypto-land).  Plenty of IPOs are largely bought out by those looking to resell.  The company sets the IPO price such that it raises the funds it needs.  So long as it gets what it needs it doesn't matter who else makes a profit and how/when.  Your problem arises becasue you aren't selling out the IPO - not because some people only bought the shares to resell.

If you want to lock resellers out it's actually really easy to do - I did it on LTC-ATF.  I just keep a bid-wall up from the fund itsself at around 98-99% of fund value.  That wasn't done for that purpose (just to provide liquidity for investors) - but if you do that then it's not worth anyone's time to try to resell.

Remember this:  If an investor wants to sell their shares then they will.  Either:

1.  They sell back to the company through a bid-wall (and you've sold 1 less share) OR
2.  They sell back to a new investor (and you just lost one likely new sale) OR
3.  They sell to a reseller who lists just below IPO - and you lose your next share sale.

Either way you lose out on 1 share sale - placing a bid-wall just means no reseller gets the profit and the company does.

If you can't do anything until you've sold X shares then it really makes sense until you've sold X to just sling up a bidwall 1% below IPO.  It achieves ALL of the following:

1.  Every share that gets sold back makes 0.6% of share value to the company.
2.  No resellers can get profitably involved (noone's going to bother for 0.6% at most where they have to potentially undercut other resellers on Ask side).
3.  Prospective investors know they aren't locked in (or have to sell at a big loss) until you reach X sales.

Of course to do that you can't start selling discounted shares.  But doing that is pretty dumb anyway unless by doing so you reach some meaningful target (like selling X shares so you can do Y).  Otherwise the main NEW sales it attracts (ones that wouldn't have occurred at full price) are .... resellers and you still haven't raised enough funds to actually do anything.

[EskimoBob]

It has nothing to do with ART. This is just an idea and open for debate.
If you do not mind, please edit your post so that ART related questions and ideas go to dedicated forum thread (see my signature)

Thank you

[Deprived]

It has nothing to do with ART. This is just an idea and open for debate.
If you do not mind, please edit your post so that ART related questions and ideas go to dedicated forum thread (see my signature)

Thank you

Edited out the bits that referred only to ART specifically.

[JimRogers]

Quote from: JimRogers on December 18, 2012, 08:18:56 PM
How do I find out my authorization pin?

I dont' recall creating one, and I can't seem to reset it, or transfer my shares without it.

Any help would be appreciated!

If you created your account on the site, you would have entered it twice on the registration page.

If you were setup with a new account via our GLBSE transition process, it would have come in your welcome email.  If you're missing this email, you can PM the user 'BTC-TradingCo' with your email address to request a re-send.  Note that many people have found their welcome emails in their spam folders, especially Gmail users.

Cheers.


Thanks this did the trick!!

[EskimoBob]

Why not? Locking public trading before part of or all, depends how it's structured, of the IPO is sold out is actually completely normal. IPO's main purpose is to raise capita for the Co and not to make quick profit for few speculators. Capital is raised for the Co so it can grow and move to next level.

How would you feel after buying S.DICE and consequently being unable to sell the shares for arbitrarily long time, just because some OCD issuer decided "the IPO is not to make quick profit for few speculators"?

First of all, the time is not set AFTER the IPO placement starts but before. It's not something that just pops up out of nowhere and you are suddenly locked in for some arbitrarily long time.
Idea is, that the time limit (or share limit) can be set before and it if it expires, you free to trade. Or if issuer wanted for some reason, the whole issue gets called back and that is it.

If so many people immediately resell the initial round instead of going long, then that is just bad price setting, or the stock is considered too risky for long-term investment, etc. Nothing of that is solved by forbidding to resell during IPO.

We are not talking about years here If the limit was set for X days or number of shares, you know what you are getting in to before you lock up your coin. If IPO looks so bad, that you can not sit on it for 3 (just as example) weeks, then the problem is somewhere else.

If you are for quick profit, then last thing you want is the huge second and third pile of stock to hover there and limit your possible gains for sure.

This is starting to get off topic... 

Moreover, if both the issuer and the exchange know what is gonna happen and won't give a shit (and in case of S.DICE, even MPOE-PR openly advertises this as profit for first-wave investors)... what is the problem then?

This is your guess. My guess is they did not know what is going to happen. Spinning it later to "profit for first-wave investors" was rather weak. What really happened, is that the max capital gain was locked by the price of the second pile of stock. It was not selling as expected by MP. Sure, s.dice guy was lucky, because he had no real need for additional capital to expand or start up a new project. Actually, where do S.DICE even plans to expand? Are they planning to come up with with a new and exiting product under the same company that will not cannibalize the existing dice game? Or is it just adding more and more virtual servers to serve more and more players? (not really a question for this thread, please ignore)

What is happening now is that every new share, that is sold form this same old IPO keeps watering down the soup. Those shares are not treasury stocks any more. While number of outstanding shares grows and if income remains about the same, suddenly those fabulous dividends to not look so exiting after all. Whats even worst, capital gains are still blocked by the 2 (or is it one now?) huge pile of unsold stock. Share price will not go above it unless those get sold or IPO size is reduced.

Imagine, if they had enough brains and cuts to cancel the rest of the IPO for now and hold the leftover shares for better days. Those shares can sit in the book as TS and bother no one - they do not get divs not can those be used for voting... voting is actually completely pointless in s.dice because IPO represents only 10%, if it's sold out in full.

[Carnth]

Bug report:

Custom APi url returns:

"balance":{"LTC":"XX.XXXXXXXX"}

Instead of BTC.

[burnside]

Bug report:

Custom APi url returns:

"balance":{"LTC":"XX.XXXXXXXX"}

Instead of BTC.

Good catch.  Fixed. 

[burnside]

Here is one more idea.
The way IPO's are done at the moment, has some serious flaws, that are actually really easy to fix.
In short, when IPO gets listed, there will be a time period, set by issuer, when only issuer can post orders to Ask side.
We can even add a second limiting factor: Bid orders can be only placed, if they meet the minimum order size and they have to fit in to a price range, set by the Issuer. This is obviously for larger block trades.
Now we have a IPO market, that looks almost like a real life IPO.

The problem at the moment is, that if issuer has split the offer up in to 3 different price levels
A 1
B 1.1
C 1.15
 
some investors from the A can start undermining the sellout of B and C. Their speculative short therm gain is actually hurting all the other shareholders, because the Co receives nothing and if they need the coin to get the project going, they just have to sit and wait until the spculators run out of "cheap" shares and IPO can continue.
This is not how IPO's get done in the real life Not even in 1800's

Usually A has minimum purchase set as large as possible. To make sure, that issue has as many shareholders as possible, offer A can be limited to X % of the whole issue. Offer B block size is smaller and sells what ever is left from A and C is the "retail" offer, where everything, that is left, will be sold and no minimum block size is set. (there are mechanisms to control maximum distribution, but not lets go there for now)
Sure, issuer can set max limits to A, B and C so nobody gets left out.

I see your point, but public offering is public.  Once the public has the shares, the public gets to trade the shares.  In my experience, the sale limitations typically extend to parties that have purchased (or are otherwise entitled to) the stock pre-IPO.  The site supports this style of operation via the free internal asset transfers.  You can even enforce the pre-IPO trading limitations by simply waiting until the no-trade period is up before you send them their shares.  (though you'd have to manually transfer them dividends during this period...)

It shouldn't be too much of a concern anyway, as Deprived mentioned, put up a bid a percent or two below ask and make some quick profit off someone else's buyer's remorse. 

[MPOE-PR]

On one hand it's nice to see that MPEx style IPOs are becoming the norm, rather than the braindamaged GLBSE style prevalent until recently.

On the other hand its kind of sad to see this being done by people who have absolutely no understanding of what they're doing like Eskimo Dood.

I guess the world moves in small steps.

I'm genuinely interested why IPOs irl are done the way they are done, why no trading is allowed during IPOs, so naturally, I'm inquisitive. But don't want to spend hours researching in wikipedia, as I don't see any big problem with the way how it is done currently in btcland. Seems you have done the research already, why won't you just drop some relevant URLs?

As Deprived points out, irl IPOs have underwriters, which are large investment banks which buy out the whole IPO and then pass it along to their preferred investors etc. This makes the share lock more a matter of convenience, to allow the distribution to be entered into record etc.

This only partially works in BTC yet because the only people in the position to play the investment bank mostly don't think the market is mature enough and risk granularity sufficiently small. This further doesn't work in the case at hand because nobody cares about tiny projects poorly managed by idiots who might have a business plan if by business plan we mean what'd be acceptable as a Home Ec term paper in a HS for developmentally delayed children.

[BTC-TradingCo]

Quick reminder --

If you're a site mod, please vote on PAJKA.BOND.  They're a GLBSE refugee.

[ShireSilver]

Bug report. Just tried to register and even though it says up to 20 characters for password, it said my 20 character password was too long. 19 worked though.

[burnside]

Bug report. Just tried to register and even though it says up to 20 characters for password, it said my 20 character password was too long. 19 worked though.

It should allow up to 200 chars now.

Cheers.

[creativex]

The exchange is down.

[usagi]

The exchange is down.

Seems down for quite a few hours now. I was trying to unlock an asset.

[creativex]

Yeah, this is the longest I've seen it down. Usually Burnside is all over it, probably enjoying a richly deserved holiday weekend.

[BTC-TradingCo]

Yeah, this is the longest I've seen it down. Usually Burnside is all over it, probably enjoying a richly deserved holiday weekend.

Burnside did sleep in this morning.  

There is a ticket in, they should be working on it.  The exchange has enough revenue now to afford a second frontend server, so we'll get that setup after the holidays.  Should greatly reduce the exposure to a single server going down.

Thank you for using BTC-TC!

[burnside]

Just wrapped up the import for PAJKA.BOND.

As usual. if you didn't get an email, check your spam folder!

Cheers.

[LoweryCBS]

I don't think it was intentional to give a limited-time-asset issuer "voting" rights against other assets, and thereby another platform upon which to barf his foolish rage. Everything else about the BTC-TC platform is quite professional; let's kick this other insanity to the curb, please.