[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[God9394]

site has been hacked

balance 0 again. burnside help. TY

[dexX7]

My balance is fine.

Does Wallet - Withdrawal History show anything strange?

[Streets 2.0]

No, I am intact... did you get cleaned out?

Look at his post history, his is claiming the same thing for every service in existence.
It's some sort of scam or blackmail, I don't know. Just ignore him.

Thanks, didnt look at his previous posts... "doez I need know programming to spreads ze malware?"

ignored

[TsuyokuNaritai]

You can easily avoid ever having to use this reset system:
...
If you use Yubikeys, setup Google Auth as a backup or have a second backup key.

How does that work? You mean set it up so either one or the other rather than both can be used to log in? The account settings are worded as if you could set it up to require both but not either.

[ArcticWolf]

Is there any plan to implement a primary and a secondary market? As it stands if a company releases an IPO, speculators can undercut the offering leaving the company high and dry with no funding. Havelock has a system for this, are there any plans in the works for something similar?

[ArcticWolf]

speculators can undercut the offering

Why would they do that? They would only lose money.

If its a long IPO and they get cold feet, or if they actively dont want a company to succeed

[TsuyokuNaritai]

As it stands if a company releases an IPO, speculators can undercut the offering leaving the company high and dry with no funding. Havelock has a system for this

Oh, the delicious irony...

[ThickAsThieves]

As it stands if a company releases an IPO, speculators can undercut the offering leaving the company high and dry with no funding. Havelock has a system for this

Oh, the delicious irony...

Sounds like an IPO that is overpriced, or not an IPO at all (like AMC).

[ArcticWolf]

As it stands if a company releases an IPO, speculators can undercut the offering leaving the company high and dry with no funding. Havelock has a system for this

Oh, the delicious irony...

Im not saying their system is foolproof - the sandstorm debacle is proof that it isnt - but a system that allows for a primary and secondary market would be a good move if implemented well. Most investors want the company they are investing in to succeed, allowing people to buy shares directly from the company - and therefore having the money actually go to the company - would set btc-tc head and shoulders above the competition (in my opinion), and would entice more companies to list on btc-tc.

[ThickAsThieves]

As it stands if a company releases an IPO, speculators can undercut the offering leaving the company high and dry with no funding. Havelock has a system for this

Oh, the delicious irony...

Im not saying their system is foolproof - the sandstorm debacle is proof that it isnt - but a system that allows for a primary and secondary market would be a good move if implemented well. Most investors want the company they are investing in to succeed, allowing people to buy shares directly from the company - and therefore having the money actually go to the company - would set btc-tc head and shoulders above the competition (in my opinion), and would entice more companies to list on btc-tc.

Your "problem" is not a real "problem" currently, and your "solution" doesn't solve the "problem" anyway.

First, if an IPO is overpriced, people will still prefer to purchase via the secondary market.

Second, the Sandstorm "debacle" you speak of has no bearing on your argument. It was a simple case of wanton investor ignorance, and probably an asset that was too small to be IPOing in the first place. The ignorance led to extreme overvaluation, and the small size of the fundraising, allowed it to happen much more dramatically.

[ArcticWolf]

As it stands if a company releases an IPO, speculators can undercut the offering leaving the company high and dry with no funding. Havelock has a system for this

Oh, the delicious irony...

Im not saying their system is foolproof - the sandstorm debacle is proof that it isnt - but a system that allows for a primary and secondary market would be a good move if implemented well. Most investors want the company they are investing in to succeed, allowing people to buy shares directly from the company - and therefore having the money actually go to the company - would set btc-tc head and shoulders above the competition (in my opinion), and would entice more companies to list on btc-tc.

Your "problem" is not a real "problem" currently, and your "solution" doesn't solve the "problem" anyway.

First, if an IPO is overpriced, people will still prefer to purchase via the secondary market.

Second, the Sandstorm "debacle" you speak of has no bearing on your argument. It was a simple case of wanton investor ignorance, and probably an asset that was too small to be IPOing in the first place. The ignorance led to extreme overvaluation, and the small size of the fundraising, allowed it to happen much more dramatically.

As I said, this is just my opinion. If you don't think it's necessary that's your opinion and I respect that.

[burnside]

As it stands if a company releases an IPO, speculators can undercut the offering leaving the company high and dry with no funding. Havelock has a system for this

Oh, the delicious irony...

Sounds like an IPO that is overpriced, or not an IPO at all (like AMC).

It's not too hard to do.  Just single out the issuers orders, highlight them, and have a checkbox on the order form requesting to fill the issuer orders first.

I see wanting to buy direct from the issuer if there is a large order 0.00001 below the IPO price.  True, this is a side effect of a poorly executed IPO, BUT, for the investors wanting to fund the company, it'd still be nice to be able to bypass those and go straight to the issuer's order.

The other thing this would do (the highlighting) is make it slightly harder for the issuer to manipulate the price.  Because you could see all their buy/sell orders.  I say slightly because they could still transfer the shares to an alt account and sell from there, however, as soon as you transfer the shares they become market shares not treasury shares, so it's easy to detect.

The highlighting would also allow you to verify that the buyback walls on funds, bonds, etc are those of the issuer.  (Essentially a way to validate that an issuer is doing what they said they would contractually on some issues.)

I'm sure there's some other creative edge cases in there.

Cheers.

[burnside]

You can easily avoid ever having to use this reset system:
...
If you use Yubikeys, setup Google Auth as a backup or have a second backup key.

How does that work? You mean set it up so either one or the other rather than both can be used to log in? The account settings are worded as if you could set it up to require both but not either.

When you turn both on, you can use one or the other.  Thus you could back up your google auth setup with a yubikey, or backup your yubikey setup with google auth.  You can also setup multiple yubikeys, so you could register a second yubikey and lock it up somewhere as a backup.  Most all the site interfaces adjust to show separate fields for the two separate auth methods.

Hope that makes sense.

[odolvlobo]

... Most investors want the company they are investing in to succeed, allowing people to buy shares directly from the company - and therefore having the money actually go to the company...

The real problem that the company is trying to sell too many shares at too high of a price. Your solution does not solve the problem.

In the real world, an underwriter goes on a "road show" trying to sell the IPO shares, and that involves determining what the right price is. If the price is right, then it will rise after the IPO. If the price is too high, then it will fall and the initial investors will lose money, and it will be regarded as a failed IPO. That is what happened to the Facebook IPO. Either way, the company sells all its shares in an IPO before they appear on an exchange.

I think a solution is to have a pre-IPO auction for shares. In this auction, investors place bids for shares and after all the bids are in, the company decides on the price that they will accept. Then shares are only issued and sold at the accepted price to the people that bid above the price. If the company can't raise enough money, the IPO can be cancelled. I think this is an effective way to determine how much money a company can raise without having a glut of unsold shares.

[Vbs]

There is a clear need for a primary and secondary market in the current bitcoin stock exchanges.

A primary market is used when assets need to raise equity, either by IPO or FPO, a very different purpose than what the secondary market is used for.

The question is not so simple as to only want to buy from the issuer when undercutting is just one satoshi less. The more you own of a certain asset, the more you are interested into buying shares directly from the issuer, as the increase in asset equity/book value trickles down to all the shares you own (you get a bigger piece of the pie and the whole pie also got bigger) vs simply buying from anyone else (you get a bigger piece of the pie but the whole pie still has the same size).

What is a primary market?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vgzqhjm_RU

What is a secondary market?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVtl814yFbI

Currently assets have no guaranteed clear path to raise equity, which is indeed very bad.

[dexX7]

I see wanting to buy direct from the issuer if there is a large order 0.00001 below the IPO price.  True, this is a side effect of a poorly executed IPO, BUT, for the investors wanting to fund the company, it'd still be nice to be able to bypass those and go straight to the issuer's order.

The other thing this would do (the highlighting) is make it slightly harder for the issuer to manipulate the price.  Because you could see all their buy/sell orders.  I say slightly because they could still transfer the shares to an alt account and sell from there, however, as soon as you transfer the shares they become market shares not treasury shares, so it's easy to detect.

Forcing to buy only from one source is not really acceptable imho. If a holder can't place asks, his only chance of selling would be to sell into available bids. They would essentially be trapped and only left with hope that everything goes fine and fast. Buyers could abuse this by placing very low bids and wait till holders lose their patience. There are several more scenarios... but I'm sure, you are aware of the consequences.

I really like the highlighting idea. Not sure about persistent highlights for issuer's orders though. +1 for transparency, but ... well, I'm not sure. Other possibilities would be to only do this for IPOs or make it optional at all.

Fillig a specific order would be very nice feature also. In combination with color highlights this would be very helpful pre-IPO and there are more use cases. For example: if I want to buy/sell into my own orders safely. There should be some limitations in a way that it would be impossible to create a very different impression of an asset, i.e. by pushing 24h high/low or something. To fill a specific order there could be an advanced view of the order book which would show the orders unstacked.

[odolvlobo]

It's not too hard to do.  Just single out the issuers orders, highlight them, and have a checkbox on the order form requesting to fill the issuer orders first.

I see wanting to buy direct from the issuer if there is a large order 0.00001 below the IPO price.  True, this is a side effect of a poorly executed IPO, BUT, for the investors wanting to fund the company, it'd still be nice to be able to bypass those and go straight to the issuer's order.

You don't need to do this. Investors preferring to buy at the company's price can just buy at the discounted price and donate the difference to the company. It will be the better for the company because subsequent purchases will have to be bought from the company plus the company gets a donation.

[Vbs]

You don't need to do this. Investors preferring to buy at the company's price can just buy at the discounted price and donate the difference to the company. It will be the better for the company because subsequent purchases will have to be bought from the company plus they get a donation.

Still leaves the problem unsolved. The main issue is that both markets serve different purposes.

Also, it's still better for an investor to buy from the issuer depending on how much he already owns of the asset (for assets that are company-like).

Using a napkin math example, if I own 10% of the stock, I get back 10% of what I invest directly in increased book value of the shares I own. At best, I would only buy from someone else if they were selling 10% cheaper than the issuer price.

[odolvlobo]

You don't need to do this. Investors preferring to buy at the company's price can just buy at the discounted price and donate the difference to the company. It will be the better for the company because subsequent purchases will have to be bought from the company plus they get a donation.

Still leaves the problem unsolved. The main issue is that both markets serve different purposes.

Also, it's still better for an investor to buy from the issuer depending on how much he already owns of the asset (for assets that are company-like).

Using a napkin math example, if I own 10% of the stock, I get back 10% of what I invest directly in increased book value of the shares I own. At best, I would only buy from someone else if they were selling 10% cheaper than the issuer price.

I agree with you about the two markets. That's why I propose the pre-IPO auction, which serves as the primary market.

However, your napkin math is flawed.

Let's say that you own 10 of 100 shares worth 1 BTC each. If you buy a share from the issuer for 1 BTC, there are now 101 shares total, each still worth 1 BTC. You now have 11 shares worth 11 BTC.

If you buy a share from someone else at 0.95 BTC, there are still 100 shares worth 1 BTC each. You now have 11 shares worth 11 BTC plus the 0.05 BTC you saved. Plus, now you own 11% of the company instead of 10.9%.

If you buy a share from someone at 0.95 BTC and donate 0.05 BTC to the company, there are still 100 shares, but they are now worth 1.0005 BTC each. You now have 11 shares worth 11.0055 BTC.

Regardless, the smartest thing to do is to not invest in an undercapitalized company at all.

[FloatesMcgoates]

Does anyone else get constant issues with "Cannot find a lock" when attempting to put an ask order? This happens to me all the time on TAT.Asicminer