MPEx soon out of beta.

[MPOE-PR]

MPEx, the up and coming GPG based stock exchange is slated to hopefully come out of beta later this month.

This means that the time to play around with paper money and virtual stocks is running short --and it also means that the current waiver of the 20 BTC new account registration fee is soon to expire --so take advantage now!

It also means a killer line-up of high-value, respected and respectable businesses will be offering shares, so get your investor boots ready and caps handy for an April that won't be soon forgot. (And if you're the proud owner of just such a business, we certainly want to hear from you --bear in mind that a high OTC rating is required however.)

See you soon in the pits!

[brendio]

You've got me interested ...

A suggestion, though. I've registered to get in free for now, but I think that having to spend $100 to register will put a lot of buyers off, thus vastly reducing the market.

I also think 1% seller's fee, while reasonable, is a little on the high side. You would get more liquidity, at least starting out, if you lowered this fee. For market markers, 1% eats in to a lot of the trading profits.

[MPOE-PR]

Any marketmakers (ie, people willing to commit to a fixed monthly trade volume) can negotiate lower rates based on their volume. Hit Mircea Popescu up on #bitcoin-otc and cut yourself a deal.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Wait a $100 registration fee?  Really?

[MPOE-PR]

Wait a $100 registration fee?  Really?

Yes.
Currently waived, but if you fail to take advantage now you will have to pay 20 BTC to be allowed to trade later.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Yeah got no interest then.  Even if it is free for me I doubt anyone is paying the $100 which makes it worthless.

[abbeytim]

lol rediculous glbse is much better

[marked]

lol rediculous glbse is much better

I wouldn't be too sure about that, given the complete clusterfuck that has happened since 2.0 limped to life.

marked

[rapeghost]

BitVPS will be listed on MPEx.

So if anyone wanted to get in on our profit powerhouse, now is the time to do it.

[MPOE-PR]

lol rediculous glbse is much better

In what way?

[MPOE-PR]

Yeah got no interest then.  Even if it is free for me I doubt anyone is paying the $100 which makes it worthless.

Your judgment is flawed in the same way as saying "if this club charges a cover I've got no interest, there won't be any hot chicks there". Experience shows that it is usually the no-cover clubs that sport the sausage fests.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I am not looking to meet hot chicks at an exchange.  I am looking for max liquidity on assets.  Charging a cover means less investors and thus less liquidity.

no cover bar tends to have more participants which is the only thing I really care about in this analogy.

[vampire]

Yeah got no interest then.  Even if it is free for me I doubt anyone is paying the $100 which makes it worthless.

Your judgment is flawed in the same way as saying "if this club charges a cover I've got no interest, there won't be any hot chicks there". Experience shows that it is usually the no-cover clubs that sport the sausage fests.

Hmm. Most of clubs control the ratio.... Cover or not.

Sorry the link that was provided looks so amateurish.

[MPOE-PR]

no cover bar tends to have more participants which is the only thing I really care about in this analogy.

I'll recycle an irc discussion, seeing how most people here don't irc:

Apr 08 17:38:46 <mircea_popescu>   the thing with bitcoins is that they are not the very flat cone USD is. in BTC, you have a very cash rich top, and then nothing, and then a piddly base of ppl with 5-10 btc and less.
Apr 08 17:38:59 <mircea_popescu>   here you want to cater to the top not to the base, exactly opposite of usd, where consumer rules.
Apr 08 17:39:22 <BohemianHacks>   HEY
Apr 08 17:39:30 <BohemianHacks>   I am proud of my <5 BTC!
Apr 08 17:39:39 <mircea_popescu>   so no, having your assets with someone well known  and respected is WAY more important than having access to 10`000 consumers fresh off bitcoinfaucet
Apr 08 17:40:01 <mircea_popescu>   BohemianHacks and that's all nice and fine, but business is business and there's no hearts there.
Apr 08 17:40:20 <Blitzboom>   mircea_popescu: there is ♥
Apr 08 17:40:21 <BohemianHacks>   I know
Apr 08 17:41:14 <JWU42>   mircea_popescu: when you frame things in the "pointy cone" - understand better when you are coming from...
Apr 08 17:41:30 <mircea_popescu>   JWU42 its not even a pointy cone, it's a water tower.
Apr 08 17:41:47 <JWU42>   Inverted Eiffel tower?
Apr 08 17:42:19 <mircea_popescu>   http://www.dmhs.org/map-photos/images/water_tower_new.jpg exact thing i mean JWU42
Apr 08 17:43:17 <JWU42>   mircea_popescu: heh - yep.  I know them - we sell the steel that makes them
Apr 08 17:43:22 <mircea_popescu>   haha cool.
Apr 08 17:43:37 <mircea_popescu>   so yea, what matters most is remaining credible to the top.
Apr 08 17:43:50 <mircea_popescu>   the access to the base... it hurts nothing, but it's not worth sacrificing anything for.
Apr 08 17:43:52 <JWU42>   yeah - so scale matters is my lesson
Apr 08 17:44:09 <mircea_popescu>   at least that's my understanding, which obviously could be  flat out wrong.

Sorry the link that was provided looks so amateurish.

Amateurish, sorta like pgp.mit.edu for instance? Maybe it's worth taking a moment to consider who the real amateurs are, on the interwebz.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You flaw is you assume just having a cover means you will have the "tip of the cone" while other services without a cover won't.

That isn't proven.   If anything a cover with insufficient liquidity will simply mean less of the "tip of the cone" will even make any account much less trade.

Now if someone like MtGox decided they wanted to specialize in large money accounts and decided to implement a annual fee and flatter pricing (1BTC + 0.1% per trade)  they likely could get away with it especially if they used that annual fee to improve customer service.  They already have a premium service and likely could retain the "big money".  Their change in pricing would drive out the small accounts and allow them to focus on larger accounts.  Now it may not be optimal but they could do it.

TL/DR:
Simply putting a $100 cover on a cardboard box isn't likely to make the "club" swarming with hot chicks.

I mean if $100 cover alone somehow attracts the big money then a  $10,000 cover should work even better right?

Best of luck in your marketplace though having competition is always good.

[jwzguy]

the thing with bitcoins is that they are not the very flat cone USD is. in BTC, you have a very cash rich top, and then nothing, and then a piddly base of ppl with 5-10 btc and less.

Citation needed.

[MPOE-PR]

You flaw is you assume just having a cover means you will have the "tip of the cone" while other services without a cover won't.

Wouldn't you say at the very least this is a novel concept worth giving a try? I don't think anyone is saying this is necessarily so, I think what's being said is that it may well be so. Sure, pecunia non olet and all that, but at the end of the day if you have two bakeries down the street do you want them both to be Panera?

Anyway, you keep talking about liquidity but for some reason you don't seem to notice that glbse has absolutely no liquidity to begin with. 4@0.6, 9@0.1024 and 1@0.99999999 plus twenty bucks buys you a restaurant meal, and these are the top three right now. So in the end what are we talking about, you really think it's a big deal to beat 5 btc "liquidity"?

At any rate, just passed 50 registered members which I think renders the point moot. Unless you want to tell me there's literally thousands of people trading on glbse there seems to be very little significant difference.

Citation needed.

I think this would be original research.

[jwzguy]

I think this would be original research.

I thought so too, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[MPOE-PR]

I thought so too, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Haha original research is a crime now? Sad times.
(Do you have what to cite to prove the contrary, incidentally?)

[jwzguy]

I thought so too, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Haha original research is a crime now? Sad times.
(Do you have what to cite to prove the contrary, incidentally?)

It's not a crime, but if you've truly done some kind of statistical sampling to make this conclusion, please tell us the details. I would be very interested in that data.

I personally doubt that the bitcoin distribution matches your description. But I believe the onus is on you to back up your claim, not me to prove you wrong.