[BitFunder] Asset Exchange Marketplace + Rewritable Options Trading

[Puppet]

well  the usgov don't have jurisdiction to do whatever they like wherever they like in the world

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, or illegal drugs for that matter, you cant sell securities in the US market that dont comply with SEC regulation. That the purchase happens over the internet doesnt change a thing.  If you dont like SEC requirements (which frankly are for the most part quite sane disclosure requirements that apply to almost any civilized country), sell your securities elsewhere, which is what bitfunder is doing by blocking US investors.

BTW, while SEC regulations might not be perfectly suited for the kind of securities we see on bitcoin exchanges, personally I have no problems whatsoever with forcing registration of these securities, giving us at the very least basic disclosure of the people, company and business plans behind  them. It would prevent at least 95% of all the scams, make it much more easy to invest wisely, while costing next to nothing.

Now legally operating an exchange under current laws would be another matter, and probably out of reach of bitfunder & Co, but even there I will not shed a tear to see them go and get replaced with much more trustworthy companies that do have the resources to operate legally, like Second Market. Its not like we were hurt to see the early bitcoin currency exchanges get replaced or regulated, I would love to see a similar move to more professionalism for security exchanges so we dont depend on amateurs (/scammers) running toy exchanges like GLBSE, Bitcoinica, Mpex, picostocks, and yeah, bitfunder. As it is, there is no snow balls chance in hell we could ever attract serious investment money and we are left gambling with our own playmoney on 50% scam securities on exchanges that disappear every 6 months, usually along with their anonymous operator.

[thy]

...
What will happen to the us citizens that can't get verified on Weexchange and those that refuse to sell at underprices caused by this mess, are Bitfunder going to steal there assets(stocks/shares..) ?

What will happen to international users that don't see what has happened before the 1 Nov and can't get verified on Weexchange or refuse to sell shares at underprices caused by this mess, will bitfunder steal there assets(stocks/shares...) to ?
...

Terms and conditions text from Ukyo's site:

Such terms is rather ridicules and im sure they wont hold up in court in many country's, what matters depending on what type of product/service people buy/use would be the laws in the country the company is registered/operating in and/or laws in the country the consumer/user is located in.

[crumbs]

...
What will happen to the us citizens that can't get verified on Weexchange and those that refuse to sell at underprices caused by this mess, are Bitfunder going to steal there assets(stocks/shares..) ?

What will happen to international users that don't see what has happened before the 1 Nov and can't get verified on Weexchange or refuse to sell shares at underprices caused by this mess, will bitfunder steal there assets(stocks/shares...) to ?
...

Terms and conditions text from Ukyo's site:

Such terms is rather ridicules and im sure they wont hold up in court in many country's, what matters depending on what type of product/service people buy/use would be the laws in the country the company is registered/operating in and/or laws in the country the consumer/user is located in.

See here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=308026.msg3307956#msg3307956

"While the aforementioned would be laughed out of every Podunk courthouse, you must agree that it leaves little to interpretation."

"The exchanges were taking risks, you have opted to bet on the FAQs & user agreements being simply words to fool the regulators.
The regulators weren't fooled.  You were."

[thy]

...
What will happen to the us citizens that can't get verified on Weexchange and those that refuse to sell at underprices caused by this mess, are Bitfunder going to steal there assets(stocks/shares..) ?

What will happen to international users that don't see what has happened before the 1 Nov and can't get verified on Weexchange or refuse to sell shares at underprices caused by this mess, will bitfunder steal there assets(stocks/shares...) to ?
...

Terms and conditions text from Ukyo's site:

Such terms is rather ridicules and im sure they wont hold up in court in many country's, what matters depending on what type of product/service people buy/use would be the laws in the country the company is registered/operating in and/or laws in the country the consumer/user is located in.

See here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=308026.msg3307956#msg3307956

"While the aforementioned would be laughed out of every Podunk courthouse, you must agree that it leaves little to interpretation."

"The exchanges were taking risks, you have opted to bet on the FAQs & user agreements being simply words to fool the regulators.
The regulators weren't fooled.  You were."

Not at all, i have not bet on it and i weren't fooled and whether the SEC or something else is behind this is still to be seen. Whatever the cause for this is in any case, won't matter that much for us non US citizens. Most of us should already be or be able to come out as a winner on this situation, i feel sad for the US based people thou that will end up loosing a lot on this, there the one that really got screwed...

 

[gotpetum]

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

I have no problems whatsoever with forcing registration of these securities … It would prevent at least 95% of all the scams

You are free to use or create an exchange that meets your requirements for legal compliance and "professionalism." You want force your standards on everyone else, which I think is unethical, and so I have strong feelings of antipathy towards you.

[LiteBit]

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

I have no problems whatsoever with forcing registration of these securities … It would prevent at least 95% of all the scams

You are free to use or create an exchange that meets your requirements for legal compliance and "professionalism." You want force your standards on everyone else, which I think is unethical, and so I have strong feelings of antipathy towards you.

Don't underestimate THE MAN. This is old news: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/world/asia/20beijing.html?_r=0

[gotpetum]

Don't underestimate THE MAN. This is old news: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/world/asia/20beijing.html?_r=0

Lol :-) Damnit.

[crumbs]

...
See here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=308026.msg3307956#msg3307956

"While the aforementioned would be laughed out of every Podunk courthouse, you must agree that it leaves little to interpretation."

"The exchanges were taking risks, you have opted to bet on the FAQs & user agreements being simply words to fool the regulators.
The regulators weren't fooled.  You were."

Not at all, i have not bet on it and i weren't fooled and whether the SEC or something else is behind this is still to be seen. Whatever the cause for this is in any case, won't matter that much for us non US citizens. Most of us should already be or be able to come out as a winner on this situation, i feel sad for the US based people thou that will end up loosing a lot on this, there the one that really got screwed...

Please send us Americans money (USD, if it's all the same 2U), cookies (i like chocolate chip/almond, but not if they're dry and crumbly), pictures of cute kittens (my compats go crazy for kittens!), or just words of commiseration (along the lines of "It's OK, Tiger, there's always next time").  One or all of the above should dispel your sadness, spread the wealth, and end this mess on a happy note

[crumbs]

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

The problem with your analogy is it ain't analogous.
Nobody is going to China here -- just greedy Americans selling crap to other greedy, but slightly dumber Americans.  Get it?
"Regulating" this fail is no more unreasonable than asking the kids on the short bus to wear helmets -- it's an act of mercy, not oppression.

[knybe]

info on Colored Coins and a long explanation/discussion about them on reddit:

Trades can be made in clients, but there needs to be a master list somewhere that says "this coin represents a share in this company".  

That can either be on the company's site or on an exchange site (or both).

This thread on reddit has a decent discussion of how it would work

Colored coins (decentralized exchange): we need developers to complete client implementation faster

[moribana]

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

The problem with your analogy is it ain't analogous.
Nobody is going to China here -- just greedy Americans selling crap to other greedy, but slightly dumber Americans.  Get it?
"Regulating" this fail is no more unreasonable than asking the kids on the short bus to wear helmets -- it's an act of mercy, not oppression.

I think the solution is simple. The us authorities should just simply physically block all foreign web sites to protect us citizens from the evils out there. Some countries have successfully done similar things although nobody went all the way.

[Puppet]

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

A chinese restaurant operating in china, no one sane would call that the US market. Its the chinese market and chinese laws will apply.

But a chinese company doing online sales of hamburgers, drugs, bitcoins or securities to US residents in the US, yes that is the US market and it doesnt matter one yota if its a chinese company doing it,  or if its from any other country.

You are free to use or create an exchange that meets your requirements for legal compliance and "professionalism." You want force your standards on everyone else, which I think is unethical, and so I have strong feelings of antipathy towards you.

Allowing illegal exchanges requiring no disclosures, no financial reserves, no safety guarantees, no nothing to compete with legal and compliant one's isnt exactly my idea of fair competition or even of a free market.

[crumbs]

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

The problem with your analogy is it ain't analogous.
Nobody is going to China here -- just greedy Americans selling crap to other greedy, but slightly dumber Americans.  Get it?
"Regulating" this fail is no more unreasonable than asking the kids on the short bus to wear helmets -- it's an act of mercy, not oppression.

I think the solution is simple. The us authorities should just simply physically block all foreign web sites to protect us citizens from the evils out there. Some countries have successfully done similar things although nobody went all the way.

What will that do?  The owners of BTCT & Bitfunder are both American.  Bitfunder domain resolves to eNom's whois blocker -- a US addy.
Everything's strictly in-house  

[molecular]

so... what did I learn from GLBSE desaster? Shit, apparently I'm immune to learning.

[moribana]

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

The problem with your analogy is it ain't analogous.
Nobody is going to China here -- just greedy Americans selling crap to other greedy, but slightly dumber Americans.  Get it?
"Regulating" this fail is no more unreasonable than asking the kids on the short bus to wear helmets -- it's an act of mercy, not oppression.

I think the solution is simple. The us authorities should just simply physically block all foreign web sites to protect us citizens from the evils out there. Some countries have successfully done similar things although nobody went all the way.

What will that do?  The owners of BTCT & Bitfunder are both American.  Bitfunder domain resolves to eNom's whois blocker -- a US addy.
Everything's strictly in-house  

Then we are doomed. The us authorities cannot stop this shit even at home!  Why didn't they close these exchanges a long time ago? I actually though that Bitfunder is not operated from the US. And if it is then I do not see how blocking us customers would mean compliance. Does this mean that the us can export this evil and offer it to citizens of other countries? 

[crumbs]

No, but they do have jurisdiction over the US market. Just like a Chinese OEM cant sell RF equipment on the US market if it doesnt comply with FCC regulation, ...

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

The problem with your analogy is it ain't analogous.
Nobody is going to China here -- just greedy Americans selling crap to other greedy, but slightly dumber Americans.  Get it?
"Regulating" this fail is no more unreasonable than asking the kids on the short bus to wear helmets -- it's an act of mercy, not oppression.

I think the solution is simple. The us authorities should just simply physically block all foreign web sites to protect us citizens from the evils out there. Some countries have successfully done similar things although nobody went all the way.

What will that do?  The owners of BTCT & Bitfunder are both American.  Bitfunder domain resolves to eNom's whois blocker -- a US addy.
Everything's strictly in-house  

Then we are doomed. The us authorities cannot stop this shit even at home!  Why didn't they close these exchanges a long time ago? I actually though that Bitfunder is not operated from the US. And if it is then I do not see how blocking us customers would mean compliance. Does this mean that the us can export this evil and offer it to citizens of other countries? 

Fear not, citizen.  The gears of Justice grind slowly, but they grind...
You must realize that size does matter, and the government despots had bigger fish to fry.
But (to keep my cesspool of stale metaphors churning), every dog has his day, and even Pedro pushing bunk bundles eventually gets a ride in the Party Van. 
Now who's that pulling up the drive?

[arousedrhino]

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

A chinese restaurant operating in china, no one sane would call that the US market. Its the chinese market and chinese laws will apply.

But a chinese company doing online sales of hamburgers, drugs, bitcoins or securities to US residents in the US, yes that is the US market and it doesnt matter one yota if its a chinese company doing it,  or if its from any other country.

You are free to use or create an exchange that meets your requirements for legal compliance and "professionalism." You want force your standards on everyone else, which I think is unethical, and so I have strong feelings of antipathy towards you.

Allowing illegal exchanges requiring no disclosures, no financial reserves, no safety guarantees, no nothing to compete with legal and compliant one's isnt exactly my idea of fair competition or even of a free market.

What do you consider a free market then? A market with regulations?

[pedrog]

Let's say a US citizen goes to China and orders a hamburger. Your logic indicates that you think the Chinese restaurant has to (or should have to) have the food inspected by the US FDA. That's absurd.

A chinese restaurant operating in china, no one sane would call that the US market. Its the chinese market and chinese laws will apply.

But a chinese company doing online sales of hamburgers, drugs, bitcoins or securities to US residents in the US, yes that is the US market and it doesnt matter one yota if its a chinese company doing it,  or if its from any other country.

You are free to use or create an exchange that meets your requirements for legal compliance and "professionalism." You want force your standards on everyone else, which I think is unethical, and so I have strong feelings of antipathy towards you.

Allowing illegal exchanges requiring no disclosures, no financial reserves, no safety guarantees, no nothing to compete with legal and compliant one's isnt exactly my idea of fair competition or even of a free market.

What do you consider a free market then? A market with regulations?

There must be some rules in place so it can be fair for everyone.

[BitThink]

(copy from the security post)
A proposal to help US investors of this stock:

As we know, this stock, unlike most others, has sound foundation and solid dividend. If not for the BF issue, the share price will be well above 0.0003. US investors, however, have to sell this stock at current market price, which is pretty unfair if they believe the price will rise after everything calms down. They could at least lose much less if they could stay in the market for two to three months.

So how about instead of selling shares at current market price, US investors (or other investors don't want to submit documents) sell a contract to verified investors. By selling the contract, he could benefit a higher return if the share price recovers in certain period.

The contract includes the following elements (amount, current price, target price, expire date, commission). Then the buyer send BTC (amount * target price - commission) to an escrow service, and the seller transfer the shares to the buyer. Once buyer receives the shares, she/he releases (amount * current price) in the escrow to the seller. If the market price exceeds (strictly larger than) the target price before the expire date, the rest in escrow will be released to the seller. Otherwise, the rest in the escrow will be returned back to the buyer.

This proposal has various advantage. First, it's like an option escrowed out of the stock market, so once the contract is sold, the seller can safely leave the BF. Second, the seller does not need to trust the buyer. Third, this is a one-time trading so it is much easier than a private proxy service, which is too complex for an escrow service. Fourth, since this is a one-to-one contract, so there should be much less legal issues compared with a proxy service.

Any thoughts? If you are US investors (or other investors don't want to stay in BF), are you interested in this contract?

[knybe]

(copy from the security post)
A proposal to help US investors of this stock:

As we know, this stock, unlike most others, has sound foundation and solid dividend. If not for the BF issue, the share price will be well above 0.0003. US investors, however, have to sell this stock at current market price, which is pretty unfair if they believe the price will rise after everything calms down. They could at least lose much less if they could stay in the market for two to three months.

So how about instead of selling shares at current market price, US investors (or other investors don't want to submit documents) sell a contract to verified investors. By selling the contract, he could benefit a higher return if the share price recovers in certain period.

The contract includes the following elements (amount, current price, target price, expire date, commission). Then the buyer send BTC (amount * target price - commission) to an escrow service, and the seller transfer the shares to the buyer. Once buyer receives the shares, she/he releases (amount * current price) in the escrow to the seller. If the market price exceeds (strictly larger than) the target price before the expire date, the rest in escrow will be released to the seller. Otherwise, the rest in the escrow will be returned back to the buyer.

This proposal has various advantage. First, it's like an option escrowed out of the stock market, so once the contract is sold, the seller can safely leave the BF. Second, the seller does not need to trust the buyer. Third, this is a one-time trading so it is much easier than a private proxy service, which is too complex for an escrow service. Fourth, since this is a one-to-one contract, so there should be much less legal issues compared with a proxy service.

Any thoughts? If you are US investors (or other investors don't want to stay in BF), are you interested in this contract?

which stock does the above refer to?