[BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED]

[xchrisxsays]

Wow burnside with the blindside. You just fucked a lot of people. Luckily, I am not one of them.

[creativex]

Are you going to publish a statement regarding the Labcoin warning, burnside?

Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.

Agreed. Just publishing such a warning seems very unprofessional, although your reasons may be good.

Disagree. Labcoin posted a news item 11 days ago that prompted a lot of buying. Time has proven that news item to be misleading...and that's being kind. Despite this, labcoin has released nothing official to clarify their statements. This obviously puts the exchange operator in a tough spot.

[burnside]

Are you going to publish a statement regarding the Labcoin warning, burnside?

Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.

Agreed. Just publishing such a warning seems very unprofessional, although your reasons may be good.

I tried to keep the warning low key.  I thought it was fairly self explanatory.  That there was market impact confirmed my suspicion that some users were flying blind with the asset, so to speak, unaware of the seemingly hundreds of posts going through on the forums.

Several concerned citizens have come to me worried about the situation so I tried to contact the issuer via PM and hadn't seen a response.  After waiting several days I didn't feel like there was another option.  We'll remove the warning when I am confident their contract is being followed and I feel like we can trust that future news posts appearing on the site are going to be better thought out.  (Eg; the claim that there is mining going on but no proceeds to show for it.)


Disclosure; I have many thousands of LABCOIN and I have not sold any over the last month.

Cheers

[FloatesMcgoates]

Are you going to publish a statement regarding the Labcoin warning, burnside?

Dispite the underlying reasoning for the warning, it's obvious that it had an immediat impact on the market. I suggest to implement clearer rules for stuff like this - maybe something like "if vote ratio changes to (...), a warning is published on the security". This makes it more predictable and minimizes arbitrariness.

Agreed. Just publishing such a warning seems very unprofessional, although your reasons may be good.

I tried to keep the warning low key.  I thought it was fairly self explanatory.  That there was market impact confirmed my suspicion that some users were flying blind with the asset, so to speak, unaware of the seemingly hundreds of posts going through on the forums.

Several concerned citizens have come to me worried about the situation so I tried to contact the issuer via PM and hadn't seen a response.  After waiting several days I didn't feel like there was another option.  We'll remove the warning when I am confident their contract is being followed and I feel like we can trust that future news posts appearing on the site are going to be better thought out.  (Eg; the claim that there is mining going on but no proceeds to show for it.)


Disclosure; I have many thousands of LABCOIN and I have not sold any over the last month.

Cheers

Has there been any progress on the issue of share locking?

[Puppet]

Still waiting for a statement why the registration is closed.

+1

+2

[dexX7]

I tried to keep the warning low key.  I thought it was fairly self explanatory.  That there was market impact confirmed my suspicion that some users were flying blind with the asset, so to speak, unaware of the seemingly hundreds of posts going through on the forums.

In case you or someone else (mightaswellallowanonymous and creativex especially) got me wrong: I'm absolutely in favor of the warning at the moment - Labcoin is highly speculative right now and the last thing I'd like to see is newbs getting burned by thinking "Lab is as safe as AM" or so. Sure everyone should do his own research etc., but it's not all that "black and white".

But my point was another one and of course no accusation or complain, but only suggestion to implement guidelines on when warnings are issued or lifted as well as when and how a security is going to be frozen. And one example might be be (probably not the best): "if moderator vote ratio is negative or below x, post an automated warning" or so.

[radiumsoup]

I tried to keep the warning low key.  I thought it was fairly self explanatory.  That there was market impact confirmed my suspicion that some users were flying blind with the asset, so to speak, unaware of the seemingly hundreds of posts going through on the forums.

In case you or someone else (mightaswellallowanonymous and creativex especially) got me wrong: I'm absolutely in favor of the warning at the moment - Labcoin is highly speculative right now and the last thing I'd like to see is newbs getting burned by thinking "Lab is as safe as AM" or so. Sure everyone should do his own research etc., but it's not all that "black and white".

But my point was another one and of course no accusation or complain, but only suggestion to implement guidelines on when warnings are issued or lifted as well as when and how a security is going to be frozen. And one example might be be (probably not the best): "if moderator vote ratio is negative or below x, post an automated warning" or so.

exactly this. The warning itself appeared to be a vote of no confidence from the exchange, and NOBODY was expecting it. The inference was that you had some sort of inside knowledge that you wanted to get across by hinting to everyone without coming right out and telling everyone that there was a problem. A moderator voting mechanism would be good, I think - and 24+ hour notice on the news tab would be preferred as an announcement that a vote is pending. That will give the market time to figure out what's going on without a big "THAR BE PROBLEMS HERE" getting thrown up all of a sudden.

I think the market was more spooked that this unprecedented warning came on suddenly, and less that people were unaware that there were issues.

[burnside]

I tried to keep the warning low key.  I thought it was fairly self explanatory.  That there was market impact confirmed my suspicion that some users were flying blind with the asset, so to speak, unaware of the seemingly hundreds of posts going through on the forums.

In case you or someone else (mightaswellallowanonymous and creativex especially) got me wrong: I'm absolutely in favor of the warning at the moment - Labcoin is highly speculative right now and the last thing I'd like to see is newbs getting burned by thinking "Lab is as safe as AM" or so. Sure everyone should do his own research etc., but it's not all that "black and white".

But my point was another one and of course no accusation or complain, but only suggestion to implement guidelines on when warnings are issued or lifted as well as when and how a security is going to be frozen. And one example might be be (probably not the best): "if moderator vote ratio is negative or below x, post an automated warning" or so.

exactly this. The warning itself appeared to be a vote of no confidence from the exchange, and NOBODY was expecting it. The inference was that you had some sort of inside knowledge that you wanted to get across by hinting to everyone without coming right out and telling everyone that there was a problem. A moderator voting mechanism would be good, I think - and 24+ hour notice on the news tab would be preferred as an announcement that a vote is pending. That will give the market time to figure out what's going on without a big "THAR BE PROBLEMS HERE" getting thrown up all of a sudden.

I think the market was more spooked that this unprecedented warning came on suddenly, and less that people were unaware that there were issues.

It's not unprecedented. I think there's just more attention on this issue than there was on previous issues I have posted warnings on.

[superduh]

burnside, labcoin seems to be a first for you - first special script ipo and first traders beware warning! let's see what else they'll be a first in.

[Ukyo]

burnside, labcoin seems to be a first for you - first special script ipo and first traders beware warning! let's see what else they'll be a first in.

If all are lucky, a raging success who's IPO originated on BTCT.

[ThickAsThieves]

I get "Xcoind backend failure at 1966" while trying to create an Ask order.

[burnside]

I get "Xcoind backend failure at 1966" while trying to create an Ask order.

bitcoind issue... it should be back now.

[radiumsoup]

It's not unprecedented. I think there's just more attention on this issue than there was on previous issues I have posted warnings on.

that doesn't really justify it

[VolanicEruptor]

Burnside, can you see IP addresses of the party involved with issuing shares? 

[Duffer1]

Burnside, can you see IP addresses of the party involved with issuing shares?  

He's OP.  He sees all.  Never assume otherwise.

[EFS]

Will you open registration again? Everybody asked the same question, why don't you answer or did I miss the answer?

[AngelSky]

Officially posted on BTCT:

Posted: 2 months ago
Regarding shares owned by the Labcoin founders and developers.
Due to inquiries LABCOIN has received from investors, the founders and developers involved in the LABCOIN project has decided to voluntarily lock in 75% of all shares owned by the LABCOIN core team for 12-months.

Mining started Posted: 12 days ago
We're currently averaging about 2 TH/s in solo mode, and expect to deploy at least 4 TH by monday 16, to reach gradually 50 TH within October.

Status:
- Shares not locked.
- Where are the 4TH/s ? The 2TH/s ? Dividends ?

From the "Asset Issuer Terms of Service:" of BTCT:
"If you are proven lying on your contract, your asset issuer information, or in any communication with the exchange, your asset will be frozen indefinitely, all assets you hold on the exchange will be frozen, and your asset will most likely be delisted."
"You are responsible for following through on your contract. Do not promise anything you cannot deliver."
"If found in violation of these rules, you will be given a warning and will have 7 days to come into compliance. If you do not comply your asset will be delisted."

People complaining about burnside's warning should keep an eye on that.

Finally, as "Rannasha" said:

The problem with that clause is that delisting only hurts investors. Labcoin already has their IPO money, whether they're listed or not.

This is the only reason why burnside is protecting shareholder's interest by not delisting this >20x lying Labcoin. Right ?

[EskimoBob]

Please, keep security specific drama in so called official threads. Posting a link here, to a specific problem, is not a bad idea but lets not threadcrap this thread so it become useless as most forum threads around here.

If you feel that issuer has scammed you, please use Scam Accusations sub forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0).
Sorry, no one can "freeze" Labcoins or anyone else assets to punish them. Welcome to BTC world.

[AngelSky]

Please, keep security specific drama in so called official threads. Posting a link here, to a specific problem, is not a bad idea but lets not threadcrap this thread so it become useless as most forum threads around here.

If you feel that issuer has scammed you, please use Scam Accusations sub forum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0).
Sorry, no one can "freeze" Labcoins or anyone else assets to punish them. Welcome to BTC world.

I'm not interested in scam alert neither posting crap around here.

I see it as a legal issue and if you feel that it doesn't worth one post then you should just close your eyes and listen to some music. And yes, I know how the BTC world works, thanks for your useless advice. Labcoin is not interesting, but this case scenario is. It could be a motivation to change (or think) how a security market can be regulated.

[dexX7]

This is a legal issue and if you feel that it doesn't worth one post then you should just close your eyes and listen to some music. And yes, I know how the BTC world works, thanks for your useless advice. Labcoin is not interesting, but this case scenario is. It could be a motivation to change (or think) how a security market can be regulated.

I wish people would say "this is morally incorrect" instead of "this is illegal". But that's a meta discussion and the Labcoin stuff doesn't belong here either, in my opinion.

1. Burnside, a question re this topic:

There are two scenarios now. They improve and work things out, in this case it would be great if you not only remove the warning, but I think it would be great, if you issue a statement. Not sure, if you are following the Labcoin thread, but the consens was "warnung is fine, a vague reason not". The other outcome would be no improvement. I'd like to know: how would you handle this case, if it comes true? Is the timer ticking now? T -6 days?

2. Share transfers and public Bitcoin/Litecoin address

Is it possible to implement an API endpoint on which I could transfer shares to the public address of an user instead of to the username? I'd like to implement an automatic share exchange service, but right now there is no 100 % way to identify an user outside of BTCT/LTCG. An address/signature based identification could solve this easily.


Edit:

I have one BTCT account that I'm not using right now. If anyone is seriously interested, send me a PM with an offer.