[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[burnside]

Any idea if TAT.VIRTUALMINE will be approved for trade? I might want to buy in at IPO prices and would rather do it here than at bitfunder

No idea honestly.  The site mods have all been notified of it's creation. 

[Lohoris]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. What would be the problem with sending an updated list to an asset holder after every trade involving his or her asset?

That'd be a lot of emails.    Way too many on most assets.

What about sending a complete list only once per day, and then sending diffs once per hour?

[burnside]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. What would be the problem with sending an updated list to an asset holder after every trade involving his or her asset?

That'd be a lot of emails.    Way too many on most assets.

What about sending a complete list only once per day, and then sending diffs once per hour?

If we're sending an email once an hour, might as well send the complete list.

I think I have a good solution to this issue.  I plan to stream the trades to a small VPS off-site, where issuers will be able to use their API keys to pull lists if the main site goes down.  It's going to take some coding to set it up, but isn't too difficult and is probably well worth the $30/mo for the peace of mind.

Cheers.

[burnside]

Cross post from: https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,551.msg29010.html#msg29010

Quick heads up, in the interest of transparency.  I'll be listing 150 shares of LTC-GLOBAL at 150 LTC here shortly.  This is roughly halfway between the current Bid and current Ask.

These are shares that I bought back when the value of the exchange tanked as the price of LTC skyrocketed.  I'm hoping that getting these shares back out in public hands will encourage more voting on new assets.

I will wait until the shares all sell, or 24 hours, whichever comes first before I issue the May dividends.  This will allow anyone who purchases these shares to see an immediate dividend.

Cheers.

[btharper]

Cross post from: https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,551.msg29010.html#msg29010

Quick heads up, in the interest of transparency.  I'll be listing 150 shares of LTC-GLOBAL at 150 LTC here shortly.  This is roughly halfway between the current Bid and current Ask.

These are shares that I bought back when the value of the exchange tanked as the price of LTC skyrocketed.  I'm hoping that getting these shares back out in public hands will encourage more voting on new assets.

I will wait until the shares all sell, or 24 hours, whichever comes first before I issue the May dividends.  This will allow anyone who purchases these shares to see an immediate dividend.

Cheers.

Any plans to setup a way to invest into LTC-GLOBAL or BTCTco using bitcoins instead of litecoins?

[burnside]

Cross post from: https://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,551.msg29010.html#msg29010

Quick heads up, in the interest of transparency.  I'll be listing 150 shares of LTC-GLOBAL at 150 LTC here shortly.  This is roughly halfway between the current Bid and current Ask.

These are shares that I bought back when the value of the exchange tanked as the price of LTC skyrocketed.  I'm hoping that getting these shares back out in public hands will encourage more voting on new assets.

I will wait until the shares all sell, or 24 hours, whichever comes first before I issue the May dividends.  This will allow anyone who purchases these shares to see an immediate dividend.

Cheers.

Update.  I've opted instead to process the divs tonight, and will drop the price to 149 LTC/share.

Cheers.

[Lohoris]

I think I have a good solution to this issue.  I plan to stream the trades to a small VPS off-site, where issuers will be able to use their API keys to pull lists if the main site goes down.  It's going to take some coding to set it up, but isn't too difficult and is probably well worth the $30/mo for the peace of mind.

This is a great idea, gg!

[ThickAsThieves]

I'm not sure where or how to respond to the dissenting votes for my TAT.VIRTUALMINE application, so I will do so here:

1. One person says this is not a bond, but it is. It is simply not the kind of bond people are used to. It is what's called a "callable structured bond" or simply a "structured bond".

2. Another person expresses that they simply will not approve a bond that is not guaranteed to pay out full ROI. First, I can easily argue that ALL bond assets present this risk. Furthermore, what I am providing is a dynamic and speculative instrument. This is not just a case of putting in X dollars, and knowing you will get X+Y% back on a specified date. Almost none of the bonds in bitcoin work that way anyway.

3. One person also says "A bond is a loan to be repaid. "Additional shares may be issued at fair market price at any time" means it can be diluted at any time." If it is a bond, then how can it be diluted? These structured bonds are ALWAYS worth 1MH/s, that is their denomination.

I know this is not your average offering, and I know it is a high-risk speculative tool, but the fact of the matter is that similar offerings already exist on BTCTC, and most of them are actually worse for the buyer in both risk and yield.

It is a bit frustrating to have to be held back for these reasons so far, as they are opinions, not fundamental flaws in my offering, nor based on any real concern for its viability, transparency, or reputation of the issuer.

[burnside]

I'm not sure where or how to respond to the dissenting votes for my TAT.VIRTUALMINE application, so I will do so here:

I think here is a good place to discuss it.  I would hope that shareholders subscribe to the official site threads.

3. One person also says "A bond is a loan to be repaid. "Additional shares may be issued at fair market price at any time" means it can be diluted at any time." If it is a bond, then how can it be diluted? These structured bonds are ALWAYS worth 1MH/s, that is their denomination.

Since this is a confusion of facts, I don't mind commenting that I think TAT's right on this one.  Unlike a company's stock, A bond that represents a fixed MH/s does not become diluted no matter how many TAT sells.  Each bond will always be worth exactly 1 MH/s.

The other points I'd rather stay out of.  I know the fixed rate mining bonds can be controversial.

Cheers.

[ThickAsThieves]

I'm not sure where or how to respond to the dissenting votes for my TAT.VIRTUALMINE application, so I will do so here:

I think here is a good place to discuss it.  I would hope that shareholders subscribe to the official site threads.

Cheers.

Is any guidance given to voters as to what requirements need to be met for a yes vote to be justifiable? Or is it merely up to each individual's personal values?

[burnside]

Is any guidance given to voters as to what requirements need to be met for a yes vote to be justifiable? Or is it merely up to each individual's personal values?

I encourage each shareholder (aka voter) to do what they feel is best for the exchange long term.  In theory that translates to what is best for the traders/investors to keep them coming back.  I think it's a mix of gut instinct, personal values, careful analysis, and social responsibility.

Cheers.

[btharper]

Any plans to setup a way to invest into LTC-GLOBAL or BTCTco using bitcoins instead of litecoins?

Take a look at BTC-TRADING-PT on BTC-TC.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131891.0

While it's closer, all the holders of the passthrough get one collective vote. I would be looking to buy direct shares with BTC, though this would possibly involve splitting the exchanges (BTCT and LTC-GLOBAL) or allowing accounts to be linked in both directions (though that gets messier).

[odolvlobo]

2. Another person expresses that they simply will not approve a bond that is not guaranteed to pay out full ROI. First, I can easily argue that ALL bond assets present this risk. Furthermore, what I am providing is a dynamic and speculative instrument. This is not just a case of putting in X dollars, and knowing you will get X+Y% back on a specified date. Almost none of the bonds in bitcoin work that way anyway.

I never wrote "guaranteed". The point is that you don't intend to ever repay the bond's face value (if it had one). That is typical for "perpetual mining bonds", and it is one reason that I typically vote against them. The other reason is that they generally lose money because the value of the bond goes to 0 and the dividends are typically not enough cover the depreciation of the bond.

It don't think the fact that it is a "dynamic and speculative instrument" (which is not how you portray it), or that you call it a "callable structured note" makes it any more suitable as an investment (BTW, "callable" is bad for bond owners, and "structured" means complicated and, in this case, risky).

Either way, you only need a few more votes and it has only been a few days.

[ThickAsThieves]

2. Another person expresses that they simply will not approve a bond that is not guaranteed to pay out full ROI. First, I can easily argue that ALL bond assets present this risk. Furthermore, what I am providing is a dynamic and speculative instrument. This is not just a case of putting in X dollars, and knowing you will get X+Y% back on a specified date. Almost none of the bonds in bitcoin work that way anyway.

I never wrote "guaranteed". The point is that you don't intend to ever repay the bond's face value (if it had one). That is typical for "perpetual mining bonds", and it is one reason that I typically vote against them. The other reason is that they generally lose money because the value of the bond goes to 0 and the dividends are typically not enough cover the depreciation of the bond.

It don't think the fact that it is a "dynamic and speculative instrument" (which is not how you portray it), or that you call it a "callable structured note" makes it any more suitable as an investment (BTW, "callable" is bad for bond owners, and "structured" means complicated and, in this case, risky).

Either way, you only need a few more votes and it has only been a few days.

The issue is that only about 6 people currently vote at all, so it becomes that much more important to establish what the justifiable standards are for approving an asset. I'd prefer to have 0 No votes, even if I didn't need every vote anyway.

Let me ask you a question. If a standard for allowing an asset of any kind: stock, bond, note, fund, etc, is whether it will ever reach 100% ROI, wouldn't the great majority of assets fail this test? Furthermore, in the cases where this is obviously possible, how often do you think any shareholder actually holds assets long enough to see them through to their potential 100% ROI?

My asset description is quite transparent, and quite clear. There is no confusion about how it is being portrayed, nor any attempt at deception. I think you are voting against it simply because you want to assume a role of protecting any investor too ignorant to use it successfully. But it is not for you to make decisions for investors. Your role is to vet me as an issuer, the contract's clarity, my asset's viability, and whether the offering stands to benefit the shareholders of LTCG. It is my assessment that your vote is in contrast with those values.

The fact remains that there are indeed ways to use this asset to make gains, even if you ignore the real possibility that difficulty could stagnate or go down at some point in the future.

There is also a hidden benefit within this offering in that it provides a vehicle to correct the mining asset market down to the prices I have established as the minimum the market and my risk can bear. This actually indirectly makes money for shareholders through the ironic incidence that they are already paying and losing too much with their current BTCTC mining investments.

There are also ways to play this asset by timely reinvestment and exiting at the right time. As the asset ages, and likely depreciates, newly issued bonds will continue to be offered at even more affordable prices, allowing me to set the market rate for 1MH/s in perpetuity.

These are just some of the ways this instrument can work. There is a real utility and service to be provided here, regardless of whether you would personally invest in it, or whether you think others should speculate on it.

[odolvlobo]

3. One person also says "A bond is a loan to be repaid. "Additional shares may be issued at fair market price at any time" means it can be diluted at any time." If it is a bond, then how can it be diluted? These structured bonds are ALWAYS worth 1MH/s, that is their denomination.

I think he meant "devalue" instead of "dilute". It is common for operators to attempt to sell more shares than the market can absorb, depressing the price of the shares. That's a general problem due to lack of liquidity, and it isn't specific to your security.

[burnside]

Hey all, I put in some basic price protection on the standard bid/ask interface.  It should pop an alert if you bid more than 2x the current ask, or ask less than 1/2 the current bid.  The goal is to prevent some of the accidents that happen when you accidentally plug in too many or too few digits after the decimal.

Please let me know if you run into any issues with it.

Other updates from the last two weeks or so: (in case you missed 'em)

- Options purchases now show up in the analysis tab of your portfolio.
- The asset creation page was bugged, it is now fixed.
- Fixed a wallet locking bug that occurred when you fill one of your own orders.
- Added summaries to the top of the analysis tab and the dividends tab on your portfolio.
- Reworked the Google Authentication so that it is harder to lock yourself out.
- Reworked the asset locking / trade locking engine to speed it up.
- Updated the trade tracking and history displays to show who initiated the trades.
- Fixed a bug in the order editing interface that allowed you to set an ask to more shares than you owned.  (which seems serious, but ends up being more of a order book display bug because all quantities are double checked at trade execution.)
- New DDoS code that prevents repeat attempts at various site resources.
- Improved the depth graphs.  (They didn't used to center very well.)
- Added rounded table corners and row highlighting.  (tested in Chrome and FF)
- Fixed a bug on the Wallet page that allowed you to submit an empty withdrawal address.

Cheers.

[elefter]

It is a bit frustrating to have to be held back for these reasons so far, as they are opinions, not fundamental flaws in my offering, nor based on any real concern for its viability, transparency, or reputation of the issuer.

Im with TAT on this one, as long as there is trust on the issuer to do exactly as he says in his contract then this being a good investment or not is irrelevant

[Lohoris]

Noob question, I'm a bit confused: why is BTC-TRADING-PT considered a FUND, as opposite to a STOCK, like ASICMINER-PT?
I.e. which are the differences?
Unless I'm mistaken they are both passthroughs, they both grant dividends, they can both be redeemed...

[Deprived]

Noob question, I'm a bit confused: why is BTC-TRADING-PT considered a FUND, as opposite to a STOCK, like ASICMINER-PT?
I.e. which are the differences?
Unless I'm mistaken they are both passthroughs, they both grant dividends, they can both be redeemed...

A lot of the classification of securities is inaccurate or inexact.

In many cases securities don't meet the traditional definitions of ANY of fund, stock or bond.

Pass-throughs are funds.  A share in an ASIC-MINER pass-through is NOT a share in ASIC-MINER, it's a unit in a fund holding assets.  That those assets happen to be stocks doesn't make units in the pass-through stocks themselves.  If they were stocks then they'd be stocks representing ownership of ASICMINER-PT NOT stocks representing ownership of ASIC-MINER.  The distinction is largely technical but significant - specifically for any pass-through the question to consider (when determining whether it is a fund or a stock) is this:

Does the owner of the underlying asset recognise shares in the pass-through as representing ownership of the underlying asset?  It can only be a stock (represetning ownership of the underlying asset) if the answer to that is yes - and the answer to that as a general question is always going to be no.  All pass-throughs should be funds - unless run by the issuer of the underlying asset (when they MAY be stocks but not necessarily so).

With bonds the difference is a bit less technical and a bit more practical.  Bonds in general have a fixed face value.  So listing something as a bond immediately gives the impression (to anyone familiar with RL bonds) that an investment in them pretty much guarantees no loss of capital over the life of the bond (paying dividends cannot reduce face value).  Where that isn't the case then listing as a bond is inaccurate and misleading.  That, I assume, is why some are voting no to new listings that claim to be bonds when they aren't.  Whilst I personally strongly disagree with listing anything as a bond that doesn't have a fixed (and maintained) face value, I would NOT personally vote against listing such a security if everything else were fine with it.  It's possibly one of the few areas where my views are more lenient than those of some moderators.  The reason I'd personally pass them is because the term 'bond' has become so devalued in the BTC community as to be near meaningless - so the damage risked by allowing the term to further be used to misrepresent more securities is minimal (the damage having already been done).

[Lohoris]

Noob question, I'm a bit confused: why is BTC-TRADING-PT considered a FUND, as opposite to a STOCK, like ASICMINER-PT?
I.e. which are the differences?
Unless I'm mistaken they are both passthroughs, they both grant dividends, they can both be redeemed...

A lot of the classification of securities is inaccurate or inexact.

In many cases securities don't meet the traditional definitions of ANY of fund, stock or bond.

Pass-throughs are funds.  A share in an ASIC-MINER pass-through is NOT a share in ASIC-MINER, it's a unit in a fund holding assets.  That those assets happen to be stocks doesn't make units in the pass-through stocks themselves.  If they were stocks then they'd be stocks representing ownership of ASICMINER-PT NOT stocks representing ownership of ASIC-MINER.  The distinction is largely technical but significant - specifically for any pass-through the question to consider (when determining whether it is a fund or a stock) is this:

Does the owner of the underlying asset recognise shares in the pass-through as representing ownership of the underlying asset?  It can only be a stock (represetning ownership of the underlying asset) if the answer to that is yes - and the answer to that as a general question is always going to be no.  All pass-throughs should be funds - unless run by the issuer of the underlying asset (when they MAY be stocks but not necessarily so).

With bonds the difference is a bit less technical and a bit more practical.  Bonds in general have a fixed face value.  So listing something as a bond immediately gives the impression (to anyone familiar with RL bonds) that an investment in them pretty much guarantees no loss of capital over the life of the bond (paying dividends cannot reduce face value).  Where that isn't the case then listing as a bond is inaccurate and misleading.  That, I assume, is why some are voting no to new listings that claim to be bonds when they aren't.  Whilst I personally strongly disagree with listing anything as a bond that doesn't have a fixed (and maintained) face value, I would NOT personally vote against listing such a security if everything else were fine with it.  It's possibly one of the few areas where my views are more lenient than those of some moderators.  The reason I'd personally pass them is because the term 'bond' has become so devalued in the BTC community as to be near meaningless - so the damage risked by allowing the term to further be used to misrepresent more securities is minimal (the damage having already been done).

Thank you for this detailed post, it should really be added in the FAQs of btct.co...