GLBSE - request for next features

[Newar]

These things are usually made by a traditional broker, not an exchange.  I have been working on a 3rd party platform that would show the last thing in this list.

Can you point me to a broker?

[1714901907]

1714901907

[1714901907]

1714901907

[1714901907]

1714901907

[stochastic]

These things are usually made by a traditional broker, not an exchange.  I have been working on a 3rd party platform that would show the last thing in this list.

Can you point me to a broker?

Build it and they will come.

[Bitcoin Oz]

These things are usually made by a traditional broker, not an exchange.  I have been working on a 3rd party platform that would show the last thing in this list.

Can you point me to a broker?

It would be great to have a glbse share brokerage. They could then handle fiat deposits to buy shares on glbse as well. It might be better than glbse handling it directly and dealing with an extra layer of security/customer service.

[EskimoBob]

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

[Bitcoin Oz]

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

This is difficult because which verification do you think is the bare minumum ?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlqK0vuJMY4idG54YmZrakluSmNGbnVhNnl1SllQQXc#gid=0  I made a doc showing who has and who hasnt verified.

[Sukrim]

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

[stochastic]

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

[molecular]

Couldn't the GLBSE work with the major bitcoin exchanges to enable people to invest in GLBSE assets with fiat payments.  Hey they could even accept PayPal.  It would certainly induce more investing and could even work as an expensive way of buying bitcoins?

I emailed support@glbse.com and they said they will be implementing this idea of cash payments into the GLBSE for bitcoin security's but not and never a PayPal option.

Fuck Paypal. That is all.

+1

[Bitcoin Oz]

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

+1

Yes there should be some reward for going through the process. I like the idea of letting people have only so many assetts as they have verified infos. So if you have facebook you get 1 assett, add a photo and you get 2 assets etc.

[molecular]

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

Cut the crap already, I don't think it should be the responsibility of the exchange to enforce identification of issuers. It's nice enough they offer the feature.

Be a man, do your own due diligence and don't come crying when you invested in the wrong asset.

Fuck regulation!

EDIT: stochastic: isnt this something you as a broker could offer?

[stochastic]

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

+1

Yes there should be some reward for going through the process. I like the idea of letting people have only so many assetts as they have verified infos. So if you have facebook you get 1 assett, add a photo and you get 2 assets etc.

Any social network account is lame and does not prove anything.  Not everyone has one.

[Bitcoin Oz]

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

Cut the crap already, I don't think it should be the responsibility of the exchange to enforce identification of issuers. It's nice enough they offer the feature.

Be a man, do your own due diligence and don't come crying when you invested in the wrong asset.

Fuck regulation!

EDIT: stochastic: isnt this something you as a broker could offer?

Or come up with a service that offers it. See it as a business opportunity.

[Bitcoin Oz]

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

+1

Yes there should be some reward for going through the process. I like the idea of letting people have only so many assetts as they have verified infos. So if you have facebook you get 1 assett, add a photo and you get 2 assets etc.

Any social network account is lame and does not prove anything.  Not everyone has one.

Of course they are lame 

[stochastic]

It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.


Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.

I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.

I think the verification is a little lax.  The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams?  I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets.  Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth.  Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.

Cut the crap already, I don't think it should be the responsibility of the exchange to enforce identification of issuers. It's nice enough they offer the feature.

Be a man, do your own due diligence and don't come crying when you invested in the wrong asset.

Fuck regulation!

EDIT: stochastic: isnt this something you as a broker could offer?

I sense a little hostility, anyway I am not a broker, I only promote brokerages to form.  I would love to make one but I don't have the time right now.

Also, I don't see what is wrong with private company of a private exchange creating private regulations.  People are free to use and issue assets on the exchange or not.  I bet most people dont' look at the verification at all and mostly from their trust using the reputation of the issuer in the bitcoin community anyway.  I do think there should be some kind of asset issuer contract between GLBSE and the issuer.

This market would be similar to the pre 1930's stock market:

... a strikingly information-starved environment. Many firms whose securities were publicly traded published no regular reports or issued reports whose data were so arbitrarily selected and capriciously audited as to be worse than useless. It was this circumstance that had conferred such awesome power on a handful of investment bankers because they commanded a virtual monopoly of the information necessary for making sound financial decisions. Especially in the secondary markets, where reliable information was all but impossible for the average investor to come by, opportunities abounded for insider manipulation and wildcat speculation.

[mollison]

The downside of having so many junky low-quality (and occasionally fraudulent) assets is that it will lower investor confidence in GLBSE as a whole and thus the high-quality assets. In particular, it will scare away new blood, which is what is needed more than anything. I can think of some ways to approach solving this problem, such as creating a separate grouping for "highly verified and trusted" GLBSE assets, but the solutions I see have downsides as well.

[Daily Anarchist]

If GLBSE wants to limit IPO's to verified individuals only, it's their prerogative. However, if they do that then they open the door for a competitor. On the flip side, if they do not verify individuals then they risk losing confidence.

There is no right or wrong here. It's totally GLBSE's preference.

[arsenische]

If GLBSE wants to limit IPO's to verified individuals only, it's their prerogative. However, if they do that then they open the door for a competitor. On the flip side, if they do not verify individuals then they risk losing confidence.

There is no right or wrong here. It's totally GLBSE's preference.

Just let the users to filter out unverified shares

[nimda]

Due diligence is due. For example, I've invested in Goat's bonds, and he's not verified at all. I let his reputation be the collateral. There are some other securities, however, which I refuse to invest in because there's no verification, and the issuer is not well-known within the community.

TLDR freedom please

[Otoh]

How about extra points for verification with a diplomatic passport, photo driving license, ID card & utility bills package

I'm just surprised that they don't take bitcoins, though I expect someone on TSR probably does if only as acting as a pass through.

[piotr_n]

TYGRR is 100% unverified and yet he seems to be a fair guy - IMO more trustworthy than some others, verified ones.
So I vote against a requirement to verify!

As Otoh has pointed out, the verification process can be cheated - such a requirement would only create an illusion of safety, without actually making GLBSE a safer place.

I agree that it would be a nice feature if a user could choose in his settings whether he wants to have the unverified stuff listed, or not.
Though, personally I would have it set to "yes"