[BitFunder] Asset Exchange Marketplace + Rewritable Options Trading

[Deprived]

Very trivial glitch to fix.

My transactions list includes this:

2013-01-26 03:18:43    DIVIDEND: (CoinBr.MPBPT-O)
0 * ฿0.10999000

I have held these in the past but presently don't have any.  Looks like when you did the buy-back thing on it, you added transactions for everyone who was in the transaction table for it rather than just for those who currently held more than 0 shares.

No funds were added/subtracted and no harm done - other than a spammy message in my transaction list

That's like a one line fix

Just add && amount > 0 to the SQL query.

Well you DO need to insert it into the right place in the query (and maybe qualify it with which table/query/view amount is to be taken from - which could be the bug in first place if 'amount' occurs as a field both in the transactions table and also in some query used to get current holdings).  Would guess current quantity held isn't a value stored in an actual database table (that would break normalisation) but rather a value in a query (or a virtual table - dunno which RDBMS they use).

[1715346515]

1715346515

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Very trivial glitch to fix.

My transactions list includes this:

2013-01-26 03:18:43    DIVIDEND: (CoinBr.MPBPT-O)
0 * ฿0.10999000

I have held these in the past but presently don't have any.  Looks like when you did the buy-back thing on it, you added transactions for everyone who was in the transaction table for it rather than just for those who currently held more than 0 shares.

No funds were added/subtracted and no harm done - other than a spammy message in my transaction list

That's like a one line fix

Just add && amount > 0 to the SQL query.

Well you DO need to insert it into the right place in the query (and maybe qualify it with which table/query/view amount is to be taken from - which could be the bug in first place if 'amount' occurs as a field both in the transactions table and also in some query used to get current holdings).  Would guess current quantity held isn't a value stored in an actual database table (that would break normalisation) but rather a value in a query (or a virtual table - dunno which RDBMS they use).

Obviously it depends on the implementation / structure but the site is storing the 0 * part..

[Ukyo]

Very trivial glitch to fix.

My transactions list includes this:

2013-01-26 03:18:43    DIVIDEND: (CoinBr.MPBPT-O)
0 * ฿0.10999000

I have held these in the past but presently don't have any.  Looks like when you did the buy-back thing on it, you added transactions for everyone who was in the transaction table for it rather than just for those who currently held more than 0 shares.

No funds were added/subtracted and no harm done - other than a spammy message in my transaction list

Heya, thanks for letting me know. I actually caught this earlier and corrected it.
Should not happen again. Thanks.

[Ukyo]

I noticed that if I cancel a bid by using the button beside it that the bid will disappear but the BTC will still be reserved

Hmm, I will look into that, as well as correct your reserve, and do a bids/reserves check.

Thanks for the heads up.

[Ukyo]

The order canceling reserve issue should be correct. Also made sure that no one should have reserves higher than they have orders for.

While working on the above issue, I noticed that BitFunder's volume as of this moment for the last 24hrs is over 175 BTC and earlier was at 230 BTC for a new record.

We also have a hand full of new assets getting ready to go live soon as well.

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has showed their support for BitFunder and has helped to get it to where it is already.

I look forward to continuing to to work with everyone building on a site the community loves and trusts.

[Deprived]

I noticed that if I cancel a bid by using the button beside it that the bid will disappear but the BTC will still be reserved

This may be just a temporary display glitch.  If you cancel an order, when the screen refreshes it still shows the OLD reserved amount (same thing happens if you actually buy/sell - it displays old value).  If you go to market then back to the asset it gets updated.  You CAN still place bids even if the (outdated) reserved amoutn would indiicate you couldn't - there's no client-side check for validity, it's only checked at server-side (which has the correct amount).

Oh - and big thanks to Ukyo for implementing reserves being on a per-asset basis rather than global: allows me to trade a lot more without tieing up actual BTC on lots of orders that individually only have a small chance of filling.

[Deprived]

You might be able to bump up volume with a little tweak to how you allow bids to be placed.
The bid side on bitfunder assets is really shallow compared to btct.co ...
Deprived explained the reason why in one of his updates a few weeks ago, catching my attention:

Bitfunder doesn't allow leveraging same funds across orders on multiple securities in the same wat LTC-Global/BTC.CO do - so unfortunately we have to keep more capital there to maintain same volume of orders.  Because of that I have to pass up marginally profitable trades - but there's enough decent opportunities there to still make trading there worthwhile.

That changed in last day or so - or seems to have done for me anyway.

[Ukyo]

You might be able to bump up volume with a little tweak to how you allow bids to be placed.
The bid side on bitfunder assets is really shallow compared to btct.co ...
Deprived explained the reason why in one of his updates a few weeks ago, catching my attention:

Bitfunder doesn't allow leveraging same funds across orders on multiple securities in the same wat LTC-Global/BTC.CO do - so unfortunately we have to keep more capital there to maintain same volume of orders.  Because of that I have to pass up marginally profitable trades - but there's enough decent opportunities there to still make trading there worthwhile.

That changed in last day or so - or seems to have done for me anyway.

Still making adjustments to it also. )

[Deprived]

While working on the above issue, I noticed that BitFunder's volume as of this moment for the last 24hrs is over 175 BTC and earlier was at 230 BTC for a new record.

Your trade has definitely picked up significantly in the last week - but a word of caution.  Your policy of allowing anything to list will bump your trade volume in the short-term but at the cost of possible loss of trade later on.

One of the types of assets which bumps trade significantly is ponzis.  They bump it by trading shares to themselves early to make it look like demand - then pay high dividends (most of which gos to themself) to lure in investors to scam.  Right now you have one pretty blatant ponzi on your site:

Exchange.ESIF

Here's all the obvious things that make it a ponzi:

1.  No identity here or anywhere for issuer.
2.  Claims of very good past record - with absolutely zero evidence to support it.
3.  Zero records of what assets he claims to hold (he can't just make them up - as then he'd be unable to pay high dividends when it was apparent his pretend portfolio had made a loss)
4.  Willing to sell shares at any price - No stated face value or valuation of units and already sold into an order below his lowest Ask (quite probably to himself to make it look like demand - and did it cheap to reduce transaction fees he lost).
5.  Paid a high initial dividend despite fund only having been running a few days and where he claims to be investing in fiat-denominated assets (how CAN he make a high profit when assets are denominated in fiat and BTC was rising massively?).

There's a very similar one on Crypto (JDBIF) which amusingly still gets trades despite having stopped paying out his promised dividends back in October.

Hopefully nearly all the trades were sales to himself - as once he gains any traction you can bet that he'll just dividend out a percentage of his sales each week then vanish once sales dry up.

I'd seriously suggest you refuse to list such obvious crap - whilst it may generate some trade in the short-term, longer term a portion of all capital going into it is going to just vanish from your market.  Not only does that reduce the funds available for future trade it can also deter some investors from investing entirely.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

While working on the above issue, I noticed that BitFunder's volume as of this moment for the last 24hrs is over 175 BTC and earlier was at 230 BTC for a new record.

Your trade has definitely picked up significantly in the last week - but a word of caution.  Your policy of allowing anything to list will bump your trade volume in the short-term but at the cost of possible loss of trade later on.

One of the types of assets which bumps trade significantly is ponzis.  They bump it by trading shares to themselves early to make it look like demand - then pay high dividends (most of which gos to themself) to lure in investors to scam.  Right now you have one pretty blatant ponzi on your site:

Exchange.ESIF

Here's all the obvious things that make it a ponzi:

1.  No identity here or anywhere for issuer.
2.  Claims of very good past record - with absolutely zero evidence to support it.
3.  Zero records of what assets he claims to hold (he can't just make them up - as then he'd be unable to pay high dividends when it was apparent his pretend portfolio had made a loss)
4.  Willing to sell shares at any price - No stated face value or valuation of units and already sold into an order below his lowest Ask (quite probably to himself to make it look like demand - and did it cheap to reduce transaction fees he lost).
5.  Paid a high initial dividend despite fund only having been running a few days and where he claims to be investing in fiat-denominated assets (how CAN he make a high profit when assets are denominated in fiat and BTC was rising massively?).

There's a very similar one on Crypto (JDBIF) which amusingly still gets trades despite having stopped paying out his promised dividends back in October.

Hopefully nearly all the trades were sales to himself - as once he gains any traction you can bet that he'll just dividend out a percentage of his sales each week then vanish once sales dry up.

I'd seriously suggest you refuse to list such obvious crap - whilst it may generate some trade in the short-term, longer term a portion of all capital going into it is going to just vanish from your market.  Not only does that reduce the funds available for future trade it can also deter some investors from investing entirely.

There is one explanation for the first dividends - the asset issuer might have gambled the funds (however many shares they sold) and sold at the $19 peak to rebuy at $16.

But the fact that shares are traded not at face value but on a *massive* tiered system makes it very likely that it is a ponzi / scam asset.

[Deprived]

There is one explanation for the first dividends - the asset issuer might have gambled the funds (however many shares they sold) and sold at the $19 peak to rebuy at $16.

But the fact that shares are traded not at face value but on a *massive* tiered system makes it very likely that it is a ponzi / scam asset.

Well there's plenty of ways he COULD have made that profit - but not from doing what his contract says he'd do.

And what's face value?  I can't even see a mention of it anywhere (as it's a fund it shouldn't have a face value - but a unit valuation of some kind).  You know something's wrong when the big Ask wall is at 1.0 but nearly all shares actually sold changed hands at .5 or less.  Looks like he's just gonna try to hit and run on a small volume - which he's already made if either of the 50 unit sales was to anyone other than himself.

Which is why there needs to be SOME quality control on what gets listed - or after he runs with his proceeds this time he can come back, provide a new disposable email address as his only form of identification/history and repeat with a slightly different but equally vague, unsubstantiated and unbelievable proposition.

[Ukyo]

There is one explanation for the first dividends - the asset issuer might have gambled the funds (however many shares they sold) and sold at the $19 peak to rebuy at $16.

But the fact that shares are traded not at face value but on a *massive* tiered system makes it very likely that it is a ponzi / scam asset.

Well there's plenty of ways he COULD have made that profit - but not from doing what his contract says he'd do.

And what's face value?  I can't even see a mention of it anywhere (as it's a fund it shouldn't have a face value - but a unit valuation of some kind).  You know something's wrong when the big Ask wall is at 1.0 but nearly all shares actually sold changed hands at .5 or less.  Looks like he's just gonna try to hit and run on a small volume - which he's already made if either of the 50 unit sales was to anyone other than himself.

Which is why there needs to be SOME quality control on what gets listed - or after he runs with his proceeds this time he can come back, provide a new disposable email address as his only form of identification/history and repeat with a slightly different but equally vague, unsubstantiated and unbelievable proposition.

To be honest, I had instructed him to put up more details.
If he doesn't comply I may freeze trading.

Also, I have actually turned away about 7 people who wanted to do funds and no real details. This one was an unexpected.

I am trying to get the profiles live so people can see which issuers are WeexVerified.

[Deprived]

Reserved amounts are now totally wrong.

It shows a reserved amount of  ฿0.5186460 for me on all assets - whether I have zero bids on them or a lot more than .5 BTC in bids.

[MPOE-PR]

The stuff I'm reading in this thread...

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

The stuff I'm reading in this thread...

Yawn. Yet another low effort post.

[Peter Lambert]

The stuff I'm reading in this thread...

... is all in the posts above this.

[Monster Tent]

While working on the above issue, I noticed that BitFunder's volume as of this moment for the last 24hrs is over 175 BTC and earlier was at 230 BTC for a new record.

Your trade has definitely picked up significantly in the last week - but a word of caution.  Your policy of allowing anything to list will bump your trade volume in the short-term but at the cost of possible loss of trade later on.

One of the types of assets which bumps trade significantly is ponzis.  They bump it by trading shares to themselves early to make it look like demand - then pay high dividends (most of which gos to themself) to lure in investors to scam.  Right now you have one pretty blatant ponzi on your site:

Exchange.ESIF

Here's all the obvious things that make it a ponzi:

1.  No identity here or anywhere for issuer.
2.  Claims of very good past record - with absolutely zero evidence to support it.
3.  Zero records of what assets he claims to hold (he can't just make them up - as then he'd be unable to pay high dividends when it was apparent his pretend portfolio had made a loss)
4.  Willing to sell shares at any price - No stated face value or valuation of units and already sold into an order below his lowest Ask (quite probably to himself to make it look like demand - and did it cheap to reduce transaction fees he lost).
5.  Paid a high initial dividend despite fund only having been running a few days and where he claims to be investing in fiat-denominated assets (how CAN he make a high profit when assets are denominated in fiat and BTC was rising massively?).

There's a very similar one on Crypto (JDBIF) which amusingly still gets trades despite having stopped paying out his promised dividends back in October.

Hopefully nearly all the trades were sales to himself - as once he gains any traction you can bet that he'll just dividend out a percentage of his sales each week then vanish once sales dry up.

I'd seriously suggest you refuse to list such obvious crap - whilst it may generate some trade in the short-term, longer term a portion of all capital going into it is going to just vanish from your market.  Not only does that reduce the funds available for future trade it can also deter some investors from investing entirely.

The policy of listing this sort of crap is what destroyed glbse, and it seems to be destroying cryptostocks in the same fashion. The same policy on btcjam means "investors" overall have lost 23% to scams and caused negative returns mostly.

Unless there is a zero tolerance to hyips schemes and rules for listing on the exchange it will most certainly lead to glbse debacles happening again. Just because something pays dividends for awhile doesnt mean squat.

[Peter Lambert]

The policy of listing this sort of crap is what destroyed glbse, and it seems to be destroying cryptostocks in the same fashion. The same policy on btcjam means "investors" overall have lost 23% to scams and caused negative returns mostly.

Unless there is a zero tolerance to hyips schemes and rules for listing on the exchange it will most certainly lead to glbse debacles happening again. Just because something pays dividends for awhile doesnt mean squat.

And just because there are requirements for listings does not ensure that no scams make it onto an exchange. The investors still need to do due diligence, as we have all learned.

[MPOE-PR]

The policy of listing this sort of crap is what destroyed glbse, and it seems to be destroying cryptostocks in the same fashion. The same policy on btcjam means "investors" overall have lost 23% to scams and caused negative returns mostly.

Unless there is a zero tolerance to hyips schemes and rules for listing on the exchange it will most certainly lead to glbse debacles happening again. Just because something pays dividends for awhile doesnt mean squat.

Mr. Peckerhead does have a point.

[Peter Lambert]

I am not sure where to put this, but I just noticed that WeExchange has on their withdrawal page a tab for using Ripple. I find the idea of Ripple exciting, I think it will couple nicely with the bitcoin economy. Hopefully they get out of beta soon so we can all try it out.