[IPVO] [Multiple Exchanges] Neo & Bee - LMB Holdings

[ThickAsThieves]

But that ignores the very reason exchanges exist: To provide a convenient, popular, trustworthy, efficient marketplace. Stocks are more than ledgers, they are an entire economy themselves.

This economy is made useful (and profitable) by Exchanges, Investments Banks, Investors, and the Businesses/Financial Instruments made available by and for those parties.

In addition to having this popular marketplace, made of these (centralized) powers, the separation, and expectation of having those powers in place, provides an environment where all 4 parties' interests can be aligned, and thus thrive.

If you break all this into pieces (decentralization), you lose most of benefits of this system, and swap them for only a literal protocol that takes its place.

Everywhere you look in the world, you will find systems defending my argument. In nature, in finance, in society, in politics, it's the very way of life and the universe itself.

Centralization is easy, decentralization is hard. That's why people flock to centralized solutions. So, although it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that the systems "defend" your argument (they don't, they are just not good enough), I partially agree with you. But we should keep things in perspective and calculate the trade-off's. I remember Nefario making the same argument about a centralized stock exchange.

Companies can keep track of shareholders easily in an automated manner. And accredited investors can run centralized pass-throughs. This is very doable without resorting to future tech. So, let's discuss the downsides.

Convenience: Agreed. Shareholders would have to keep track of issuing companies and relevant escrows. A proper decentralized system that doesn't need an escrow and can harvest a list of issuers will solve this completely and would be even more convenient than having accounts in multiple exchanges. However, in the current atmosphere, it is even less convenient to invest through a centralized exchange, so to me the issue is moot. Will we have risk-free legal exchanges sooner than the proposed decentralized solution? I doubt it.

Popularity: Not sure about this one. Any solution can become popular. If all companies kept their own list of shareholders using the same protocol, there would still be centralized directories and easy to use tools to trade their shares. This isn't as hard a problem as creating a completely decentralized exchange system.

Trust: Disagreed. Is the trust to current exchanges satisfactory? My trust to friedcat is higher than friedcat+exchangeoperator+PToperator. This should be obvious. Although, until we have some system that works without an escrow, there is that.

Efficiency: Agreed. Centralized solutions will always be more efficient. No doubt about that.

Bitcoin actually is a good example.

Bitcoin itself is not as simple to put in this box, as bitcoin is first a protocol, second a commodity, and third a currency. Arguably none of those things are centralized nor decentralized, as they are concepts, not services or products or the like.

We are certainly talking about Bitcoin as a solution to currency. The protocol, the commodity and the currency are all alternatives to centralized systems, so it fits perfectly. It also fits to your above criteria. Central solutions are far more efficient. Transactions are instant, and they can implement any solution to any problem that may arise almost immediately without having to invent a new technology. The protocol is extremely resilient, because you don't need to implement Byzantine fault tolerance. So on and so forth.

Yet, Bitcoin thrives. I have no doubt that people will always prefer a decentralized stock exchange whenever a proper one is developed. Until then, all companies should have a relationship with the shareholders directly. Legal downsides of this is up for discussion, however.

However decentralized bitcoin may be in and of itself, it did not thrive with order. This forum as a communication point, Gox as an exchange point, WOT, Reddit, Havelock, etc, etc, etc. They all have their flaws, but they all serve and continue to serve their purpose.

My argument is simply that a decentralized solution is a unicorn. The moment you think you can grasp it, it will slip away. All of the decentralized concepts ultimately rely on ordered powers to facilitate their usefulness. Maybe they are different areas of centralization, or smaller groups, or higher quantity groups, but any amount of a system being smaller parts, provides more points of failure, more points needing trust, etc.

Without centralized forces, people may have never heard of TAT Investments, nor Neo. We may have never even met to come together for the IPVO. Neo wouldn't have raised enough coin in the "wild" decentralized system, and TATI would not have a reputation as clear as it does currently.

I have already stated the advantages of centralized powers, but don't confuse this with me supporting the concept in its extreme. The answer is always somewhere in between; I simply do not believe true decentralization is possible or desirable. Same as how chaos and anarchy are not practical or desirable. Many people arguing for decentralization are merely describing a different system (usually with more, smaller parts), not a decentralized one.

[1714632534]

1714632534

[ThickAsThieves]

All a shareholder registry needs is a robot/service that receives and verifies digitally-signed messages, updating a ledger of share accounts.  This can be automated today using GPG tools, if PGP is used, or bitcoind, if ECDSA is used.

Other parties -- as shown in the past -- will create pass-through entities for the various exchanges that exist.


Frankly, I would not trust a third party to 100% manage my company's shareholder list.  But that's a business decision.  Plenty of Fortune 500 companies hire a 3rd party platform to manage their shareholder registry.

That is not decentralization, it is breaking out a piece of the puzzle to attempt to remove trust from one part the equation. It would not prove flawless, nor exempt from trust requirements anyway.

The PTs would still need to operate on an exchange, and assuming they are popular, we'd be right back where we started, simply placing all trust on PT operators, whom are also placing trust in the exchange.

Managing a private shareholder list isn't the problem to solve. Sure it could be made more verifiable or manageable to have a private list in place, but we still have many other needs to address for all parties, needs best addressed by centralized powers.

[Stelios]

The reasoning behind using a platform and not direct handling of shares for ourselves is down to the man hours required to operate on such a basis, we are operating in the real world, we have multiple aspects of the business that need constant oversight and attention, for myself to assign someone for the task is achievable however it comes at a cost to the business, we as a business do not specialize in the trading of shares or have a platform capable of doing so (at the moment) so the best solution is to operate using the platforms available to us. Do things need to change surrounding these platforms? YES they do, whilst we are investigating the matter in great detail we cannot provide a solution overnight.

Additionally, people need the convenience of being able to trade on an exchange. The forum tends to respond in extremes, first people will yearn for decentralization, private shares, etc. But if that's where they started, they'd be yearning for convenience, etc.

Neither way is wrong or right, but it's certainly more useful (to all parties) to have a platform.

You are correct, my opinion is clear. The infrastructure should be decentralized (i.e. i should be able to keep my shares in a "wallet" if i so choose) and centralized exchange points should be available for convenience (if i want to utilize this convenience I should load my shares on them and trade easily). Bottom line people should have a choice on how they treat their stocks, centralization is not bad per-se the only bad thing is having no say at it . Ofcourse this is not available right now so NEO & BEE is using the existing infrastructure (correctly ).      

[Herp]

If you don't want to offer direct share ownership, then what will happen to the US holders of Neobee shares? They will be migrated to Havelock apparently but what will happen when Havelock comes out tomorrow or day after that and says they don't accept US customers anymore? Will shares have to be migrated again or what?

[fr33d0miz3r]

btw, competition between centralized powers is also a kind of decentralization 

[cryptocyprus]

If you don't want to offer direct share ownership, then what will happen to the US holders of Neobee shares? They will be migrated to Havelock apparently but what will happen when Havelock comes out tomorrow or day after that and says they don't accept US customers anymore? Will shares have to be migrated again or what?

This is the reason why we have 4 people working as I type on finding/creating the long term sustainable solution. So we can cater for everyone regardless of their geographical location.

[ThickAsThieves]

NEOBEE Bitfunder Migration Grace Period

In light of Bitfunder's recent announcements, we are enabling each Bitfunder shareholder ONE free migration to Havelock.

The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate this migration request before November 1, 2013.
2. Due to a massive amount of requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 1st, all transfers will go back to having the 1btc service fee.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.

 How to Transfer Shares:
 1. Make the subject of your email: NEOBEE
 2. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: NeoBee
 3. Send an e-mail to tat.investments@gmail.com from your account email address registered with HavelockInvestments.com and include the following info:
  - Bitfunder account name (not email),
  - Bitfunder public wallet address
  - Quantity of shares
  - Havelock registered email address

Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include other requests, questions or comments.

Transfers will be transferred in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.

NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.

[mpr20rt]

NEOBEE Bitfunder Migration Grace Period

In light of Bitfunder's recent announcements, we are enabling each Bitfunder shareholder ONE free migration to Havelock.

The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate this migration request before November 1, 2013.
2. Due to a massive amount of requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 1st, all transfers will go back to having the 1btc service fee.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.

 How to Transfer Shares:
 1. Make the subject of your email: NEOBEE
 2. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: NeoBee
 3. Send an e-mail to tat.investments@gmail.com from your account email address registered with Havelock, and also note the address and quantity of shares within the email conent.
 4. Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include other requests, questions or comments.

Transfers will be transfered in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.

NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.

I haven't received my BTCT.co shares yet. Have you completed migration from BTCT.co or is it still in progress?

[ThickAsThieves]

NEOBEE Bitfunder Migration Grace Period

In light of Bitfunder's recent announcements, we are enabling each Bitfunder shareholder ONE free migration to Havelock.

The following limitations apply:
1. You must initiate this migration request before November 1, 2013.
2. Due to a massive amount of requests, your migration might take anywhere from 1-14 days to process.
3. Beginning Nov. 1st, all transfers will go back to having the 1btc service fee.
4. We can make no guarantees that Bitfunder or Havelock will not impose additional limitations on trading in the future.

 How to Transfer Shares:
 1. Make the subject of your email: NEOBEE
 2. Push the amount of shares to the issuer account on Bitfunder: NeoBee
 3. Send an e-mail to tat.investments@gmail.com from your account email address registered with Havelock, and also note the address and quantity of shares within the email conent.
 4. Do NOT send your request more than once, and do NOT include other requests, questions or comments.

Transfers will be transfered in batches, and confirmations will ONLY be sent after each batch. Do NOT send emails requesting updates.

NOTE: TAT Investments is not responsible for any lost value, arbitrage, or trading opportunities due to delays in processing transfer requests. TAT Investments is not responsible for any limitations or discontinuations of services or access to liquidity imposed by the host exchanges.

I haven't received my BTCT.co shares yet. Have you completed migration from BTCT.co or is it still in progress?

No migrations from BTCT.co to Bitfunder have completed. Unfortunately this requires assistance of Ukyo, the Bitfunder operator. He has not been available and makes no claims as to when he will be. Anyone wishing to migrate to Bitfunder must either wait til he faciliates, or resubmit their migration request to Havelock details.

[fr33d0miz3r]

No migrations from BTCT.co to Bitfunder have completed. Unfortunately this requires assistance of Ukyo, the Bitfunder operator. He has not been available and makes no claims as to when he will be. Anyone wishing to migrate to Bitfunder must either wait til he faciliates, or resubmit their migration request to Havelock details.

So, I'm able to cancel my transfer from BTCT to BitFunder and request transfer from BTCT to Havelock by writing email to you, right?

[ThickAsThieves]

No migrations from BTCT.co to Bitfunder have completed. Unfortunately this requires assistance of Ukyo, the Bitfunder operator. He has not been available and makes no claims as to when he will be. Anyone wishing to migrate to Bitfunder must either wait til he faciliates, or resubmit their migration request to Havelock details.

So, I'm able to cancel my transfer from BTCT to BitFunder and request transfer from BTCT to Havelock by writing email to you, right?

Correct, simply send a new request with all the pertinent details.

[jgarzik]

All a shareholder registry needs is a robot/service that receives and verifies digitally-signed messages, updating a ledger of share accounts.  This can be automated today using GPG tools, if PGP is used, or bitcoind, if ECDSA is used.

Other parties -- as shown in the past -- will create pass-through entities for the various exchanges that exist.


Frankly, I would not trust a third party to 100% manage my company's shareholder list.  But that's a business decision.  Plenty of Fortune 500 companies hire a 3rd party platform to manage their shareholder registry.

That is not decentralization, it is breaking out a piece of the puzzle to attempt to remove trust from one part the equation. It would not prove flawless, nor exempt from trust requirements anyway.

Nowhere was it claimed to be anything more than one piece of the puzzle.

Given all current field experience with unregulated securities,

Any company would be unwise to place their shareholder roster 100% in the hands of an unregulated third party.

Take a cue from ASICMINER, that developed a working method after GLBSE's collapse.

[fwzd]

The following formats correct?

Bitfunder User Name: fwzd
Number Of Shares:2000
Havelock Users Name:fwzd.org@gmail.com

[ThickAsThieves]

The following formats correct?

Bitfunder User Name: fwzd
Number Of Shares:2000
Havelock Users Name:fwzd.org@gmail.com

The ideal format would simply be:

fwzd
2000
fwzd.org@gmail.com




with the subject of the email being: NEOBEE

[Luckybit]

The reasoning behind using a platform and not direct handling of shares for ourselves is down to the man hours required to operate on such a basis, we are operating in the real world, we have multiple aspects of the business that need constant oversight and attention, for myself to assign someone for the task is achievable however it comes at a cost to the business, we as a business do not specialize in the trading of shares or have a platform capable of doing so (at the moment) so the best solution is to operate using the platforms available to us. Do things need to change surrounding these platforms? YES they do, whilst we are investigating the matter in great detail we cannot provide a solution overnight.

Additionally, people need the convenience of being able to trade on an exchange. The forum tends to respond in extremes, first people will yearn for decentralization, private shares, etc. But if that's where they started, they'd be yearning for convenience, etc.

Neither way is wrong or right, but it's certainly more useful (to all parties) to have a platform.

This is the same argument used to defend Facebook. Privacy being sacrificed for convenience...

We need security over convenience in this particular demographic. How many exchanges have to shut down or implement region locks before people understand that the model is insecure/failing? Also with thousands of Americans locked out the centralized exchanges aren't a realistic option long term.

Sure for a month or two Havelock could work just fine, but then it could lock out Americans too and each time this happens money is lost, trust is breached, and these people aren't going to be going back to centralized exchanges. So when you say convenient you must mean for the people who aren't region locked. You must mean the people who weren't using btct when the order books got wiped clean and the site announced it's shutting down. That kind of stuff never happens on a real stock market.

What about when MtGox did that cool down period, when the Bitcoin price was hacked or collapsed this April? Look at the response to that event where MtGox went from being the number 1 centralized exchange to the situation now. The market share has changed drastically and it will be no different here. The consequence for region locks and midnight shut downs will be felt because that is the way of the market.

At this point the market is demanding decentralization because central exchanges cannot be trusted. The only options for US investors are a Canadian exchange which most likely is going to region lock US citizens at some point, an obscure exchange somewhere in China which only has Asicminer shares and which most Americans don't want to have to deal with, or the decentralized exchange. Sure you can build a web front end for a decentralized exchange, but that is the only way it will work for everyone without unacceptable risk. If no one can wipe the order book because it's the blockchain, if no one can region lock and leave it up to each individual issuer, then you have a lot less risk.

[Peter Lambert]

All a shareholder registry needs is a robot/service that receives and verifies digitally-signed messages, updating a ledger of share accounts.  This can be automated today using GPG tools, if PGP is used, or bitcoind, if ECDSA is used.

Other parties -- as shown in the past -- will create pass-through entities for the various exchanges that exist.


Frankly, I would not trust a third party to 100% manage my company's shareholder list.  But that's a business decision.  Plenty of Fortune 500 companies hire a 3rd party platform to manage their shareholder registry.

Sounds like you are describing the way MPEx works?

[klee]

No migrations from BTCT.co to Bitfunder have completed. Unfortunately this requires assistance of Ukyo, the Bitfunder operator. He has not been available and makes no claims as to when he will be. Anyone wishing to migrate to Bitfunder must either wait til he faciliates, or resubmit their migration request to Havelock details.

So, I'm able to cancel my transfer from BTCT to BitFunder and request transfer from BTCT to Havelock by writing email to you, right?

Correct, simply send a new request with all the pertinent details.

A request with the details of BTCT account or Bitfunder? I had previously requested from BTCT to Bitfunder.

Apologies but I have to be sure!

[ThickAsThieves]

At this point the market is demanding decentralization because central exchanges cannot be trusted. The only options for US investors are a Canadian exchange which most likely is going to region lock US citizens at some point, an obscure exchange somewhere in China which only has Asicminer shares and which most Americans don't want to have to deal with, or the decentralized exchange. Sure you can build a web front end for a decentralized exchange, but that is the only way it will work for everyone without unacceptable risk. If no one can wipe the order book because it's the blockchain, if no one can region lock and leave it up to each individual issuer, then you have a lot less risk.

I have the opposite response. At this point, the market needs a real, legitimate bitcoin stock exchange that is compliant.

Your focus on what might improve about a decentralized exchange completely ignores all of the things that would be made worse.

[velacreations]

Take a cue from ASICMINER, that developed a working method after GLBSE's collapse.

this.

I finding it worrying that companies can't anticipate threats to their shareholders like this.  Why didn't you put a plan in place after the BTCT announcement?

Pushing everyone to Havelock is a band-aide that shows us a legitimate solution is not available.

Direct shares is the only way forward, at this point. The fact that you have not put together a direct share system shows the short-sightedness of management.

[Skinnkavaj]

All respect to Danny and TAT! You sure seem to be doing a good job out there.
It's a little unfortunate that this happens with BTCT and Bitfunder BUT...

Please listen to your fellow investors.
Convert to direct shares is the only way to go from here.

Keep your investors pleased and listen. The investors are also potentional customers.