Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 02:41:08 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: GLBSE IPO Handling and Interaccount Transfers Discussion Thread.  (Read 5793 times)
glbse (OP)
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
April 08, 2012, 09:21:46 AM
 #1

It's evident there are some concerns with how some IPOs are potentially going to be handled on the GLBSE, and potential problems with allowing or disallowing the ability to directly transfer assets between accounts without use of the trading mechanism.

There are a lot of good ideas floating around, and it looks like it will be useful to consolidate that discussion into one thread.

Please let us know how you feel this process should be handled and we can hopefully establish some best practices that everyone can be satisfied working with.
1710816068
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710816068

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710816068
Reply with quote  #2

1710816068
Report to moderator
1710816068
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710816068

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710816068
Reply with quote  #2

1710816068
Report to moderator
1710816068
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710816068

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710816068
Reply with quote  #2

1710816068
Report to moderator
The Bitcoin network protocol was designed to be extremely flexible. It can be used to create timed transactions, escrow transactions, multi-signature transactions, etc. The current features of the client only hint at what will be possible in the future.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1710816068
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710816068

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710816068
Reply with quote  #2

1710816068
Report to moderator
1710816068
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710816068

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710816068
Reply with quote  #2

1710816068
Report to moderator
mila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 08, 2012, 09:25:32 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2012, 09:38:09 AM by mila
 #2

most important comment first:

do not change the rules in the middle of things. this way the changes seem retroactive because they impact agreements already made.

your ad here:
occulta
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 186
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 08, 2012, 09:47:11 AM
 #3

will this impact on gigamining pre-sales or not? alot of money has already changed hands.

GPG KeyID: F5A703CC74E46E5D
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054



View Profile WWW
April 08, 2012, 10:07:29 AM
Last edit: April 08, 2012, 10:21:34 AM by Meni Rosenfeld
 #4

Asset transfers between accounts have multiple use cases and need to be allowed. I can't stress that enough.

The simplest solution would probably be to charge a fee on transferring assets between users (within a user should be free) based on the last traded price, or the lowest ask.

After more critical issues are fixed, you can develop better ways to handle this.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000


AKA: gigavps


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 11:12:40 AM
 #5

Asset transfers between accounts have multiple use cases and need to be allowed. I can't stress that enough.

The simplest solution would probably be to charge a fee on transferring assets between users (within a user should be free) based on the last traded price, or the lowest ask.

After more critical issues are fixed, you can develop better ways to handle this.

I agree with Meni. I will be more than happy to pay the normal fee on the pre-sale transfers.

I am sending Nefario and glbse and PM to get this straightened out.
JWU42
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 11:38:05 AM
 #6

Glad to see everyone is working on a solution.  The ToS (posted in another thread) is helpful as well.

MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 522



View Profile
April 08, 2012, 02:11:12 PM
 #7

Quote
I agree with Meni. I will be more than happy to pay the normal fee on the pre-sale transfers.

As a significant shareholder, Mr. Popescu would prefer you skip the glbse listing altogether, never deliver any shares there and just keep spreadsheets.
You have probably a couple dozen people invested, how hard can it be to make a couple dozen payments once a month? Surely less hassle than dealing with this sort of thing on a continuing basis.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4676
Merit: 4153


Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2012, 02:58:22 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2012, 06:07:06 PM by OgNasty
 #8

Personally I don't see any reason why asset transfers would be wanted by anyone doing legitimate business.  The exchange exists for a reason and all trades/transfers should be made publicly on the exchange.  Allowing these asset transfers goes against transparency and seems to contradict the principles of Bitcoin.  If people want to circumvent the exchange using the exchange, why not create a competing exchange instead of trying to use loopholes in the GLBSE?

..Stake.com..   ▄████████████████████████████████████▄
   ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄            ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██  ▄████▄
   ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██  ██████
   ██ ██████████ ██      ██ ██████████ ██   ▀██▀
   ██ ██      ██ ██████  ██ ██      ██ ██    ██
   ██ ██████  ██ █████  ███ ██████  ██ ████▄ ██
   ██ █████  ███ ████  ████ █████  ███ ████████
   ██ ████  ████ ██████████ ████  ████ ████▀
   ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██
   ██            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀            ██ 
   ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀
  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███  ██  ██  ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ██████████████████████████████████████████
▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
█  ▄▀▄             █▀▀█▀▄▄
█  █▀█             █  ▐  ▐▌
█       ▄██▄       █  ▌  █
█     ▄██████▄     █  ▌ ▐▌
█    ██████████    █ ▐  █
█   ▐██████████▌   █ ▐ ▐▌
█    ▀▀██████▀▀    █ ▌ █
█     ▄▄▄██▄▄▄     █ ▌▐▌
█                  █▐ █
█                  █▐▐▌
█                  █▐█
▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█
▄▄█████████▄▄
▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄
▄█▀       ▐█▌       ▀█▄
██         ▐█▌         ██
████▄     ▄█████▄     ▄████
████████▄███████████▄████████
███▀    █████████████    ▀███
██       ███████████       ██
▀█▄       █████████       ▄█▀
▀█▄    ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄  ▄▄▄█▀
▀███████         ███████▀
▀█████▄       ▄█████▀
▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀
..PLAY NOW..
copumpkin
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 252


I'm actually a pineapple


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 04:15:57 PM
 #9

Personally I don't see any reason why asset transfers would be wanted by anyone doing legitimate business.  The exchange exists for a reason and all trades/transfers should be made publicly on the exchange.  Allowing these asset transfers goes against transparency and seems to contradict the principles of Bitcoin.

What? Because people are free to sell their property however they see fit. This isn't about transferring assets "under the radar" but about simply allowing OTC trades. gigavps is well connected and trusted in the bitcoin community, and he can get people with deep pockets who might otherwise not use glbse interested in his offering. If he decides he wants to appeal to them by offering his bonds to them at a slightly lower rate (I don't think this actually happened, but it has happened elsewhere), that's his prerogative, and glbse doesn't have a mechanism for that. And why should it? An exchange exists for two primary reasons: to pair up buyers with sellers and to act as a trusted third party so that counterparties don't need to trust each other. In gigavps's case, he needs neither of those for his IPO, because he is already well connected and well trusted (so nobody's worried about sending him coins and then receiving shares later).

From that perspective, there's no real reason for gigavps to go through glbse for his initial offering at all. For smaller companies, the IPO listings page might actually get them exposure that they would not otherwise get, and they don't have the unquestioning trust that gigavps has so glbse provides a useful service for them.

Now, I'm not arguing that gigavps should not use glbse at all. Holding shares on an exchange adds liquidity to the shares, which is inherently valuable. The speed at which gigavps's offering sold out suggests people think it's underpriced, which probably means there'll be some pretty active trading of gigamining on glbse, possibly generating even more fees than the initial sale would have (at higher prices).

Note also that these are bonds, and not shares.
mila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 08, 2012, 04:17:02 PM
 #10

Personally I don't see any reason why asset transfers would be wanted by anyone doing legitimate business.  The exchange exists for a reason and all trades/transfers should be made publicly on the exchange.  Allowing these asset transfers goes against transparency and seems to contradict the principles of Bitcoin.

which of the principles of bitcoin is preventing transfers of bitcoins between addresses?

what about the example you create a company that has a part of the funds coming from other sources and you just need to transfers shares to them?
or simply do not want to hold all your assets in the same account?

let the transfers be visible if you wish, but do not prevent them
and also which principle of bitcoin is it to have 1 central node you must trust that binds them all?

I'd love to see bearer bonds or bearer shares, kind of crypto strings or armored ascii files recognizable by the exchange that would be fully tradeable outside the exchange just like bitcoin. something like a throw away email with strong password used only for an account here, funded with shares or bitcoins and encapsulated for anyone to use. redeemable code for shares would be easier to use but i see no demand for this atm.


your ad here:
rdponticelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 325
Merit: 250


Our highest capital is the Confidence we build.


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 04:19:13 PM
 #11

Personally I don't see any reason why asset transfers would be wanted by anyone doing legitimate business.  The exchange exists for a reason and all trades/transfers should be made publicly on the exchange.  Allowing these asset transfers goes against transparency and seems to contradict the principles of Bitcoin.

Any individual investing in the company may, at their discretion, transfer 200 BFLS shares to the operator in exchange for a physical BFL Single being shipped (CONUS only. Additional charge for international shipping.) to the individual. When a BFLS is redeemed, a new unit will replace the redeemed unit, and 170 BFLS shares will be offered at current market rate.

This is an excellent reason why asset transfers would be useful. And this great offer could be impossible with the change in TOS. I hope you glbse guys can work it out. Maybe taking fees in transfers is the way to go, as already has been pointed some times, but transferences should be possible.
OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4676
Merit: 4153


Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2012, 04:42:01 PM
Last edit: April 09, 2012, 12:30:23 AM by OgNasty
 #12

First off, I am not picking on gigavps.  He has done nothing on these forums to make me think he is anything less than honorable.  I am just saying that if people are offering shares on the GLBSE, they should be traded on the GLBSE and a public record should exist showing the price the shares were traded.  If gigavps wanted to offer private shares that aren't connected to the GLBSE, there is no problem with that and I don't see why he would need to GLBSE to allow asset transfers in order for him to do this.  He could offer a % of his company on the GLBSE and a % of his company outside of the GLBSE.


Any individual investing in the company may, at their discretion, transfer 200 BFLS shares to the operator in exchange for a physical BFL Single being shipped (CONUS only. Additional charge for international shipping.) to the individual. When a BFLS is redeemed, a new unit will replace the redeemed unit, and 170 BFLS shares will be offered at current market rate.

Perhaps this is a legitimate reason for asset transfers.  I like this idea, but I think allowing ideas such as this opens the door for other asset issuers to engage in less than honorable behavior.  I don't know what abuses have occurred with asset transfers in the past, but it sounds like it has been a problem.


which of the principles of bitcoin is preventing transfers of bitcoins between addresses?

Huh?  I didn't say anything about Bitcoin transfers.  Pretty sure the GLBSE isn't proposing stopping anyone from sending their BTC whenever they want.

..Stake.com..   ▄████████████████████████████████████▄
   ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄            ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██  ▄████▄
   ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██  ██████
   ██ ██████████ ██      ██ ██████████ ██   ▀██▀
   ██ ██      ██ ██████  ██ ██      ██ ██    ██
   ██ ██████  ██ █████  ███ ██████  ██ ████▄ ██
   ██ █████  ███ ████  ████ █████  ███ ████████
   ██ ████  ████ ██████████ ████  ████ ████▀
   ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██
   ██            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀            ██ 
   ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀
  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███  ██  ██  ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ██████████████████████████████████████████
▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
█  ▄▀▄             █▀▀█▀▄▄
█  █▀█             █  ▐  ▐▌
█       ▄██▄       █  ▌  █
█     ▄██████▄     █  ▌ ▐▌
█    ██████████    █ ▐  █
█   ▐██████████▌   █ ▐ ▐▌
█    ▀▀██████▀▀    █ ▌ █
█     ▄▄▄██▄▄▄     █ ▌▐▌
█                  █▐ █
█                  █▐▐▌
█                  █▐█
▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█
▄▄█████████▄▄
▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄
▄█▀       ▐█▌       ▀█▄
██         ▐█▌         ██
████▄     ▄█████▄     ▄████
████████▄███████████▄████████
███▀    █████████████    ▀███
██       ███████████       ██
▀█▄       █████████       ▄█▀
▀█▄    ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄  ▄▄▄█▀
▀███████         ███████▀
▀█████▄       ▄█████▀
▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀
..PLAY NOW..
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054



View Profile WWW
April 08, 2012, 04:52:32 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2012, 05:11:57 PM by Meni Rosenfeld
 #13

Personally I don't see any reason why asset transfers would be wanted by anyone doing legitimate business.  The exchange exists for a reason and all trades/transfers should be made publicly on the exchange.  Allowing these asset transfers goes against transparency and seems to contradict the principles of Bitcoin.
Because asset transferring has many, many use cases. It's not just a way to trade assets for bitcoins outside the exchange. rdponticelli has given one great example; another one is borrowing assets (useful for shorting) or gifting them; I have an asset I plan which will simply be impossible to issue at all without transfers (I'm keeping it under wraps for now); many other uses which nobody has yet thought of, and mundane stuff like internal bookkeeping.

Quote
I agree with Meni. I will be more than happy to pay the normal fee on the pre-sale transfers.
As a significant shareholder, Mr. Popescu would prefer you skip the glbse listing altogether, never deliver any shares there and just keep spreadsheets.
You have probably a couple dozen people invested, how hard can it be to make a couple dozen payments once a month? Surely less hassle than dealing with this sort of thing on a continuing basis.
If gigavps is content with big players who don't care much about liquidity, sure. But if he wants to also deliver to the many people wanting to invest 1 BTC, he is not going to pay them each individually.

1) Learn from your mistakes
2) Don't be jerks - by that I mean don't be such knee jerks
3) Develop a process for changes to the ToS, I suggest:

a) Someone finds an issues
b) You all get together and discuss it, think about what you want to change, think of the impact on users
c) You privately contact some of the larger users that would be affected - get their feedback, discuss it with them
d) Float the idea in a post but instead of "We have taken this totally knee jerk reactionary measure to totally fuck with you, what do you think" instead try something like "We are considering doing X, how would this affect you all?  What do you think?  Should we do this?  Why and Why not? etc."
e) Make the changes to the ToS
f) Post the changes, get more feedback
g) If the feedback is negative go back to b)
h) NOW: Make the actual changes to the web site.

The above process would have averted both the Goat shit storm and this one.
+1.

I'm not sure I completely understand the Goat incident but I'm under the impression there were potential security issues, making it too time-critical for this procedure. But there's no excuse to handling the transfer disabling this way.

Because of this, it would be a good idea to offer an official apology for not having followed this procedure.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4676
Merit: 4153


Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2012, 04:59:26 PM
 #14

Because asset transferring has many, many use cases. It's not just a way to trade assets for bitcoins outside the exchange. rdponticelli has given one great example; another one is borrowing assets (useful for shorting) or gifting them; I have an asset I plan which will simply be impossible to issue at all without transfers (I'm keeping it under wraps for now); many other uses which nobody has yet thought of, and mundane stuff like internal bookkeeping.

Perhaps I am stuck thinking "inside the box."  At the very least I think asset transfers should be made public somewhere (maybe a separate "Asset Transfers" page?).  Not even necessarily who got what, but the amount of shares transferred and whether they were transferred to or from the issuer, so shareholders can decide for themselves if that is a red flag.

..Stake.com..   ▄████████████████████████████████████▄
   ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄            ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██  ▄████▄
   ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██  ██████
   ██ ██████████ ██      ██ ██████████ ██   ▀██▀
   ██ ██      ██ ██████  ██ ██      ██ ██    ██
   ██ ██████  ██ █████  ███ ██████  ██ ████▄ ██
   ██ █████  ███ ████  ████ █████  ███ ████████
   ██ ████  ████ ██████████ ████  ████ ████▀
   ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██
   ██            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀            ██ 
   ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀
  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███  ██  ██  ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ██████████████████████████████████████████
▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
█  ▄▀▄             █▀▀█▀▄▄
█  █▀█             █  ▐  ▐▌
█       ▄██▄       █  ▌  █
█     ▄██████▄     █  ▌ ▐▌
█    ██████████    █ ▐  █
█   ▐██████████▌   █ ▐ ▐▌
█    ▀▀██████▀▀    █ ▌ █
█     ▄▄▄██▄▄▄     █ ▌▐▌
█                  █▐ █
█                  █▐▐▌
█                  █▐█
▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█
▄▄█████████▄▄
▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄
▄█▀       ▐█▌       ▀█▄
██         ▐█▌         ██
████▄     ▄█████▄     ▄████
████████▄███████████▄████████
███▀    █████████████    ▀███
██       ███████████       ██
▀█▄       █████████       ▄█▀
▀█▄    ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄  ▄▄▄█▀
▀███████         ███████▀
▀█████▄       ▄█████▀
▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀
..PLAY NOW..
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2012, 05:09:22 PM
 #15

Great thread

I just want to restate what our support account said, that is that transfers are suspended temporarily, and will be back up in action before the gigavps IPO, which will not in any way be impeded.

Trading (buying/selling shares) is as normal, and has NOT been stopped.

There are NO LIMITATIONS on transfering bitcoin between accounts.

I also want to apologize for the miss-communication and any unease it may have caused.

Many of you are aware that I've been rather busy as of late, and have not had time to keep track of the details of most shares and IPO's as they come onto the market.

I only became aware yesterday that GigaVPS was doing a pre-sale of shares, and not only that but doing everything manually. Clearly this is something that we will have to bake right into GLBSE IPO's, the ability to do pre-sales (so the whole process is transparent and automated).

It's a great idea with many obvious advantage and uses.

As to why would GigaVPS bother to use GLBSE (as opposed to doing everything by hand), we'll I'm sure he's busy making his shareholders profit, it also allows him to take advantage of the voting functionality on GLBSE. The biggest advantage is not to GigaVPS himself, but to his shareholders. Being listed on GLBSE allows his shareholders to cashout into a ready and waiting market that is growing extremely fast.

As was stated, there are legitimate uses for have account to account transfers of assets. We will allow unrestricted transfers between users personal accounts and asset issuer accounts.

The question that still needs to be answered is how to allow transfers of assets, while at the same time being fair to GLBSE.

We would very much like your input on this issue.

Nefario

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2012, 06:00:10 PM
 #16

Personally I don't see any reason why asset transfers would be wanted by anyone doing legitimate business.  The exchange exists for a reason and all trades/transfers should be made publicly on the exchange.  Allowing these asset transfers goes against transparency and seems to contradict the principles of Bitcoin.
You're absolutely right.
Why foster competition between trading platforms ?
Why fight centralization of the market ?
Why not ensure that everything is controlled by a few folks ?
Are you out of your effing mind ?

Now now, lets keep this thread on topic, how do we implement asset transfers (transfers, not trades, trades work just fine) in a way that is fair to all?

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000


AKA: gigavps


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 06:11:06 PM
 #17

How do we implement asset transfers (transfers, not trades, trades work just fine) in a way that is fair to all?

Transfers should have a fee.

The fee should be based on the last trading price or initial offering price and should be the normal .5%.

This would solve all of the problems (any sales outside the system) and still getting you guys paid for host the trading and IPO.

I feel this is the simplest solution and accounts for most if not all transfers.
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2012, 07:45:20 PM
 #18

How do we implement asset transfers (transfers, not trades, trades work just fine) in a way that is fair to all?

Transfers should have a fee.

The fee should be based on the last trading price or initial offering price and should be the normal .5%.

This would solve all of the problems (any sales outside the system) and still getting you guys paid for host the trading and IPO.

I feel this is the simplest solution and accounts for most if not all transfers.

If everyone is OK with this option, then this is how we'll go about it.
A transfer fee for asset/share transfers, 0.5% of a 5 day average trade price

Is this acceptable?

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
copumpkin
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 252


I'm actually a pineapple


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 07:53:15 PM
 #19

How do we implement asset transfers (transfers, not trades, trades work just fine) in a way that is fair to all?

Transfers should have a fee.

The fee should be based on the last trading price or initial offering price and should be the normal .5%.

This would solve all of the problems (any sales outside the system) and still getting you guys paid for host the trading and IPO.

I feel this is the simplest solution and accounts for most if not all transfers.

Gah, the forum ate my last post:

The difficulty with a percentage on transfers is that transfers are of securities, which aren't arbitrarily divisible. How do you, the site owner, get 0.5% of the 1 share I send to my dog?

You could require paying a fee in bitcoin to transfer shares, but would that be a percentage of last trading price? That might be easy to manipulate. If it's a fixed amount per transfer, that disincentivizes small transfers.

This may be radical, but I think that it might be time to move away from the "discrete" shares/bonds model. It's mostly a historical artifact arising from the fact that there were paper certificates representing ownership of a security, anyway. There could be a few book-keeping gotchas with allowing fractional shares, but not only would it allow a meaningful fee on asset transfers, but it'd also allow us to get rid of the weird asymmetry on trading fees that we see right now.

Edit: I didn't think this through. We probably don't want the exchange to own shares.
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054



View Profile WWW
April 08, 2012, 08:01:17 PM
Last edit: April 08, 2012, 08:13:45 PM by Meni Rosenfeld
 #20

If everyone is OK with this option, then this is how we'll go about it.
A transfer fee for asset/share transfers, 0.5% of a 5 day average trade price

Is this acceptable?
Sounds ok. Though I think the fee for transfer should be less than for a trade.

On that note, I think the fee for trades can be increased. The weak point of GLBSE isn't the fees, it's development/support. If raising the fees can help getting more work done (which I hope it will), I doubt anyone will object. So maybe 1% for trades, 0.5% for transfers?

This may be radical, but I think that it might be time to move away from the "discrete" shares/bonds model. It's mostly a historical artifact arising from the fact that there were paper certificates representing ownership of a security, anyway. There could be a few book-keeping gotchas with allowing fractional shares, but not only would it allow a meaningful fee on asset transfers, but it'd also allow us to get rid of the weird asymmetry on trading fees that we see right now.
I agree, except for the part where it's radical. It should have been continuous (allowing maybe 8 decimal places like Bitcoin) from the start, and I don't think it's too late to change that. (Edit: Fees should probably still be in bitcoins. There's no problem with making the trade fees symmetrical in the current system, they can be taken from the buyer's balance based on the trade price.)

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
copumpkin
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 252


I'm actually a pineapple


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 08:04:26 PM
 #21

If everyone is OK with this option, then this is how we'll go about it.
A transfer fee for asset/share transfers, 0.5% of a 5 day average trade price

Is this acceptable?
Sounds ok. Though I think the fee for transfer should be less than for a trade.

On that note, I think the fee for trades can be increased. The weak point of GLBSE isn't the fees, it's development/support. If raising the fees can help getting more work done (which I hope it will), I doubt anyone will object. So maybe 1% for trades, 0.5% for transfers?

I agree. I think the fee should be less than for a trade. For a regular trade, you're paying the exchange to match you up with a counterparty, whereas here they're just acting as a place to store/track your "ownership certificates". And I wouldn't mind seeing the fees raised, either.
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 08, 2012, 08:24:30 PM
 #22

It would be a fee, % of the average (over 5 days) trade price of an asset.

This would mean assets that haven't traded pay no fee.

I agree with copumpkin, in that part of the fee for GLBSE trades is to pay for the market to match it, and if transferring then only 1/2 that fee would be applicable.

So if the trade fee is 0.5% then the transfer fee is 0.25%

Reasonable?

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
JWU42
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 08, 2012, 08:39:16 PM
 #23

Seems fair to me - especially for those shares that lack liquidity...

copumpkin
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 252


I'm actually a pineapple


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 03:44:34 AM
 #24

Apart from gifts and OTC trades, I was thinking that GLBSE (or any other future stock exchange) transfers could also be used for "repos" (repurchase agreements) to make low-risk loans. GLBSE securities would effectively be used as collateral for a loan, allowing people to borrow for lower interest rates.

This doesn't really affect the fee structure, but it could be interesting if repos started becoming more common.
brendio
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 10:31:55 AM
 #25

I was thinking of putting out an offer to borrow shares to short them. I wouldn't be able to without transfers.

Also, the business model of Oz.AUD (not yet migrated to 2.0) requires transfers to function.

Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 11:19:43 AM
 #26

I was thinking of putting out an offer to borrow shares to short them. I wouldn't be able to without transfers.

Also, the business model of Oz.AUD (not yet migrated to 2.0) requires transfers to function.

We can always add the option to short shares, and offer your own shares to be lent out for shorting, and get a small payment.

We'll be adding specific functionality to allow Oz.AUD to function.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4676
Merit: 4153


Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 04:44:51 PM
 #27

We can always add the option to short shares, and offer your own shares to be lent out for shorting, and get a small payment.

If you are going to implement the shorting of shares on the exchange, please allow asset issuers enough time to raise funds in order to combat short attacks by traders looking to profit from crashing assets.  Any asset without a healthy amount of buy orders would be open to an immediate plunge in value by manipulators looking to make a quick Bitcoin.  I would also like to see high fees on open shorts (at least in the beginning, of something like 0.5% per 24 hours) to encourage shorts to cover their positions at some point & balance the market.  In addition to that, I would like to see a limit on the short % of an asset's floating shares and healthy margin requirements.

*Being an asset issuer, my opinion is obviously biased.  My goal is to protect shareholders on the GLBSE and lend my opinion to be taken into consideration in molding the exchange for everyone's benefit.  Please do not attack me for this.

..Stake.com..   ▄████████████████████████████████████▄
   ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄            ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██  ▄████▄
   ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██  ██████
   ██ ██████████ ██      ██ ██████████ ██   ▀██▀
   ██ ██      ██ ██████  ██ ██      ██ ██    ██
   ██ ██████  ██ █████  ███ ██████  ██ ████▄ ██
   ██ █████  ███ ████  ████ █████  ███ ████████
   ██ ████  ████ ██████████ ████  ████ ████▀
   ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██
   ██            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀            ██ 
   ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀
  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███  ██  ██  ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ██████████████████████████████████████████
▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
█  ▄▀▄             █▀▀█▀▄▄
█  █▀█             █  ▐  ▐▌
█       ▄██▄       █  ▌  █
█     ▄██████▄     █  ▌ ▐▌
█    ██████████    █ ▐  █
█   ▐██████████▌   █ ▐ ▐▌
█    ▀▀██████▀▀    █ ▌ █
█     ▄▄▄██▄▄▄     █ ▌▐▌
█                  █▐ █
█                  █▐▐▌
█                  █▐█
▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█
▄▄█████████▄▄
▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄
▄█▀       ▐█▌       ▀█▄
██         ▐█▌         ██
████▄     ▄█████▄     ▄████
████████▄███████████▄████████
███▀    █████████████    ▀███
██       ███████████       ██
▀█▄       █████████       ▄█▀
▀█▄    ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄  ▄▄▄█▀
▀███████         ███████▀
▀█████▄       ▄█████▀
▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀
..PLAY NOW..
copumpkin
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 252


I'm actually a pineapple


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 04:51:43 PM
 #28

We can always add the option to short shares, and offer your own shares to be lent out for shorting, and get a small payment.

If you are going to implement the shorting of shares on the exchange, please allow asset issuers enough time to raise funds in order to combat short attacks by traders looking to profit from crashing assets.  Any asset without a healthy amount of buy orders would be open to an immediate plunge in value by manipulators looking to make a quick Bitcoin.  I would also like to see high fees on open shorts (at least in the beginning, of something like 0.5% per 24 hours) to encourage shorts to cover their positions at some point & balance the market.  In addition to that, I would like to see a limit on the short % of an asset's floating shares and healthy margin requirements.

*Being an asset issuer, my opinion is obviously biased.  My goal is to protect shareholders on the GLBSE and lend my opinion to be taken into consideration in molding the exchange for everyone's benefit.  Please do not attack me for this.

Even if he did implement special short selling support on the exchange, how would you protect against me just approaching a large asset holder OTC on IRC, borrowing his shares, and then selling them all? It's effectively indistinguishable from a regular sale.
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 05:25:52 PM
 #29

We can always add the option to short shares, and offer your own shares to be lent out for shorting, and get a small payment.

If you are going to implement the shorting of shares on the exchange, please allow asset issuers enough time to raise funds in order to combat short attacks by traders looking to profit from crashing assets.  Any asset without a healthy amount of buy orders would be open to an immediate plunge in value by manipulators looking to make a quick Bitcoin.  I would also like to see high fees on open shorts (at least in the beginning, of something like 0.5% per 24 hours) to encourage shorts to cover their positions at some point & balance the market.  In addition to that, I would like to see a limit on the short % of an asset's floating shares and healthy margin requirements.

*Being an asset issuer, my opinion is obviously biased.  My goal is to protect shareholders on the GLBSE and lend my opinion to be taken into consideration in molding the exchange for everyone's benefit.  Please do not attack me for this.

I certainly won't be adding this functionality this week. Maybe next week but no guarantee.

What I was actually thinking is users who have shares would be allowed to lend them out for shorting, and they would be able to specify the rate they want to charge for this service. People who want to short would then be able to take their pick from whats available.

What you think?

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054



View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 06:13:01 PM
 #30

We can always add the option to short shares, and offer your own shares to be lent out for shorting, and get a small payment.

If you are going to implement the shorting of shares on the exchange, please allow asset issuers enough time to raise funds in order to combat short attacks by traders looking to profit from crashing assets.  Any asset without a healthy amount of buy orders would be open to an immediate plunge in value by manipulators looking to make a quick Bitcoin.  I would also like to see high fees on open shorts (at least in the beginning, of something like 0.5% per 24 hours) to encourage shorts to cover their positions at some point & balance the market.  In addition to that, I would like to see a limit on the short % of an asset's floating shares and healthy margin requirements.

*Being an asset issuer, my opinion is obviously biased.  My goal is to protect shareholders on the GLBSE and lend my opinion to be taken into consideration in molding the exchange for everyone's benefit.  Please do not attack me for this.
Being an asset issuer, I look forward for the day short selling on GLBSE is possible and easy. The possibility to short is a large part of my long-term vision for this asset.

I certainly won't be adding this functionality this week. Maybe next week but no guarantee.

What I was actually thinking is users who have shares would be allowed to lend them out for shorting, and they would be able to specify the rate they want to charge for this service. People who want to short would then be able to take their pick from whats available.

What you think?
I don't like this at all. Not because there's anything wrong with it, but because you have much better things to do, and because whatever you can do along these lines will not have the same flexibility as direct negotiations between lenders and borrowers.

Just make it possible to buy and sell on margin (and as great as that would be, I don't expect it to happen next week, or next month).

It would be a fee, % of the average (over 5 days) trade price of an asset.
Fees should apply only to transfers between users, not between accounts of the same user.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
splatster
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 176
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 06:17:02 PM
 #31

How do we implement asset transfers (transfers, not trades, trades work just fine) in a way that is fair to all?

Transfers should have a fee.

The fee should be based on the last trading price or initial offering price and should be the normal .5%.

This would solve all of the problems (any sales outside the system) and still getting you guys paid for host the trading and IPO.

I feel this is the simplest solution and accounts for most if not all transfers.

What about the situation of S²CM?  Smickles controls the asset so his account is the one that holds any shares when they are first issued.  I also run S²CM, so some shares were transfered to my account.  Should we be forced to pay a fee for having 2 people run the asset?
copumpkin
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 252


I'm actually a pineapple


View Profile
April 09, 2012, 06:23:09 PM
 #32

We can always add the option to short shares, and offer your own shares to be lent out for shorting, and get a small payment.

If you are going to implement the shorting of shares on the exchange, please allow asset issuers enough time to raise funds in order to combat short attacks by traders looking to profit from crashing assets.  Any asset without a healthy amount of buy orders would be open to an immediate plunge in value by manipulators looking to make a quick Bitcoin.  I would also like to see high fees on open shorts (at least in the beginning, of something like 0.5% per 24 hours) to encourage shorts to cover their positions at some point & balance the market.  In addition to that, I would like to see a limit on the short % of an asset's floating shares and healthy margin requirements.

*Being an asset issuer, my opinion is obviously biased.  My goal is to protect shareholders on the GLBSE and lend my opinion to be taken into consideration in molding the exchange for everyone's benefit.  Please do not attack me for this.

I certainly won't be adding this functionality this week. Maybe next week but no guarantee.

What I was actually thinking is users who have shares would be allowed to lend them out for shorting, and they would be able to specify the rate they want to charge for this service. People who want to short would then be able to take their pick from whats available.

What you think?

Rather than adding new features for things we can already handle ourselves over the counter, I'd much prefer to see you spend your limited time on getting the existing site polished up a bit.
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 06:32:58 PM
 #33


Rather than adding new features for things we can already handle ourselves over the counter, I'd much prefer to see you spend your limited time on getting the existing site polished up a bit.

Lol, sure thing.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
Coinoisseur
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 09, 2012, 11:45:34 PM
 #34

Going to agree you should have a fee on transfers. The issue cropped up because you were trying to be nice to people with multiple accounts. I think this is a case where you have to be some what neutral and figure out a fair rate on manual transfers, which as someone else mentioned should be a decent discount from matched trades.

                                                                               
                
                                                       ╓▄▌██P                  
                                                 ╔▄▌███▀███▌                   
                                           ▄▄▌██▀▀╚  ╓██╩██                    
                                     ▄▄███▀▀╙      ▄██  ▓█                     
                               ▄▌███▀▀+          ▄█▀   ▐█                      
                        ,▄▌███▀▀¬              ▓█▀     █▄                      
                  ,▄▌███▀▀                  ,██▀      █▌                       
               '█████▌▄▄,                 ╓██╩       ██                        
                  ▀██▌▐▀▀▀█████▌▌▄▄╓    ▄██¬        ▄█                         
                     ▀██▄        ╚▀▀▀████          ▐█═                         
                        ▀██▄        ▓█▀██          █▀                          
                           ▀██▄  ,██▀   █µ        ██                           
                              ▀███Z     ██       ██                            
                                ▐██     ▐█      ▄█                             
                              ,,╓╓█▓▄▌   █▌    ▐█U                             
                        º▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓███   ▀█    █▌                              
                          ▀█▓▓▓▓▓████▀█▌  █▌  ██                               
                            ▀███████▌  ▀█µ▀█ ██                                
                              ▀█████     ███▓█                                 
                                ▐███      ▀██Ñ                                 
                                            ▀                             

Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2012, 11:47:58 PM
 #35

To ensure there is no confusion regarding the transfer fee, any assets that have not traded will have no fee, neither will assets that have a trade volume of less than 20BTC a week(7 days).

The fee will be on the average trade price over 5 days(or less if the asset has not traded for 5 days).

Nefario.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
PatrickHarnett
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 10, 2012, 12:04:24 AM
 #36

Having had a couple of days to reflect on the recent activity, I would like to point out that there are actually two functions being combined here.

1: Asset Registry - most companies employ a registry service separate from the exchange to track asset holders (shareholders).
2: Trading/Exchange platform - to facilitate liquidity.

GLBSE is combining these two, while in many jurisdictions and operations they run separately.  Bearing in mind the differences in functions clarifies the duties and obligations of the two component parts.
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002



View Profile
April 10, 2012, 12:39:57 AM
 #37

You also have this...
http://tygrr.com/tygrr-tech/
Quote
I will be willing to send physical stock certificates to large long term investors. These certificates will only be valid if traded back to TyGrr Tech. I will also sell stock over the counter and move it to your GLBSE account if you would like to set a price and an amount before hand.
brendio
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 10, 2012, 03:56:22 AM
 #38

We can always add the option to short shares, and offer your own shares to be lent out for shorting, and get a small payment.

If you are going to implement the shorting of shares on the exchange, please allow asset issuers enough time to raise funds in order to combat short attacks by traders looking to profit from crashing assets.  Any asset without a healthy amount of buy orders would be open to an immediate plunge in value by manipulators looking to make a quick Bitcoin.  I would also like to see high fees on open shorts (at least in the beginning, of something like 0.5% per 24 hours) to encourage shorts to cover their positions at some point & balance the market.  In addition to that, I would like to see a limit on the short % of an asset's floating shares and healthy margin requirements.

*Being an asset issuer, my opinion is obviously biased.  My goal is to protect shareholders on the GLBSE and lend my opinion to be taken into consideration in molding the exchange for everyone's benefit.  Please do not attack me for this.

I certainly won't be adding this functionality this week. Maybe next week but no guarantee.

What I was actually thinking is users who have shares would be allowed to lend them out for shorting, and they would be able to specify the rate they want to charge for this service. People who want to short would then be able to take their pick from whats available.

What you think?
That makes sense to let the market determine the rental rate for assets.

Shorting can help provide liquidity and helps with price discovery.

It's probably not your highest priority for GLBSE, but as long as asset transfers are allowed, and if there is an API, a third party could develop something. Maybe we could ask Zhou Tong to create the Bitcoinica of GLBSE. Smiley

Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 10, 2012, 04:27:48 AM
 #39

Maybe we could ask Zhou Tong to create the Bitcoinica of GLBSE. Smiley

Shudder.

More seriously though I think we're too small for him to be interested.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
mila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 10, 2012, 05:55:27 AM
 #40

I think small facelift to the gui would do for now (add spacing, check proportions of elements on the screen, move them around maybe)
then refine some reporting (show trade history, not just total volumes)
and add a few options to existing features to make the use less rocky


your ad here:
mila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 15, 2012, 02:39:53 PM
 #41

Status update ?

I'm also waiting for the dev site to go live for some testing. ATM not known what the changes would be nor when it comes up.

your ad here:
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 15, 2012, 03:27:49 PM
 #42

dev.glbse.com will be up by the time I go to bed today, inter account transfer fees will be rolling out with the next GLBSE update at the end of the week.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
marked
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 15, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
 #43

I'm also waiting for the dev site to go live for some testing. ATM not known what the changes would be nor when it comes up.

I've seen it and played with "dev's dev" site a bit. I've given some feedback to nefario, mostly relating to layout and similar issues, some 18 hours or so ago. It looks much better, and has a couple of nice features.

There were a few quick tests, as it was only up for half an hour or so, so some still remained at the time such as pass/fail notification on finalised motions.


marked
galambo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 311



View Profile
April 17, 2012, 01:19:33 AM
Last edit: April 17, 2012, 03:02:21 AM by galambo
 #44

I agree with what you have done.

Its a good idea to suspend the transfer of unregistered (restricted) securities to unaccredited investors, considering its against the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

Also note that the service you are providing is not a stock exchange. Your service is a weird hybrid put together by someone with very little knowledge of how capital markets actually work.

A stock exchange only facilitates the matching of buyers and sellers. These parties are brokers, not the beneficial owner of the security.

The buyers and sellers arrange the transfer outside of the exchange, typically through a clearinghouse. The records of ownership are taken down by the issuer or a transfer agent. Each of these parties are seperate and distinct for some very good reasons.
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 17, 2012, 03:37:40 AM
 #45

I agree with what you have done.

Its a good idea to suspend the transfer of unregistered (restricted) securities to unaccredited investors, considering its against the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

Also note that the service you are providing is not a stock exchange. Your service is a weird hybrid put together by someone with very little knowledge of how capital markets actually work.

A stock exchange only facilitates the matching of buyers and sellers. These parties are brokers, not the beneficial owner of the security.

The buyers and sellers arrange the transfer outside of the exchange, typically through a clearinghouse. The records of ownership are taken down by the issuer or a transfer agent. Each of these parties are seperate and distinct for some very good reasons.

GLBSE in not a U.S. exchange or company.
The owners and managers of GLBSE are not American citizens nor do they live in the US.


I agree that GLBSE is not a stock exchange, it's an asset exchange (where the assets may be shares, bonds, futures or some other form of security), but GLBSE users like to call it that so that's what we do.

I wonder, should we change the name to Global Bitcoin Securities Exchange?

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
OgNasty
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4676
Merit: 4153


Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform


View Profile WWW
April 17, 2012, 03:58:23 AM
 #46

I wonder, should we change the name to Global Bitcoin Securities Exchange?

If GBSE.bit isn't taken, YES!

..Stake.com..   ▄████████████████████████████████████▄
   ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄            ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██  ▄████▄
   ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██  ██████
   ██ ██████████ ██      ██ ██████████ ██   ▀██▀
   ██ ██      ██ ██████  ██ ██      ██ ██    ██
   ██ ██████  ██ █████  ███ ██████  ██ ████▄ ██
   ██ █████  ███ ████  ████ █████  ███ ████████
   ██ ████  ████ ██████████ ████  ████ ████▀
   ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██
   ██            ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀            ██ 
   ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀
  ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███  ██  ██  ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ██████████████████████████████████████████
▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
█  ▄▀▄             █▀▀█▀▄▄
█  █▀█             █  ▐  ▐▌
█       ▄██▄       █  ▌  █
█     ▄██████▄     █  ▌ ▐▌
█    ██████████    █ ▐  █
█   ▐██████████▌   █ ▐ ▐▌
█    ▀▀██████▀▀    █ ▌ █
█     ▄▄▄██▄▄▄     █ ▌▐▌
█                  █▐ █
█                  █▐▐▌
█                  █▐█
▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█
▄▄█████████▄▄
▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄
▄█▀       ▐█▌       ▀█▄
██         ▐█▌         ██
████▄     ▄█████▄     ▄████
████████▄███████████▄████████
███▀    █████████████    ▀███
██       ███████████       ██
▀█▄       █████████       ▄█▀
▀█▄    ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄  ▄▄▄█▀
▀███████         ███████▀
▀█████▄       ▄█████▀
▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀
..PLAY NOW..
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002



View Profile
April 17, 2012, 04:08:33 AM
 #47

I wonder, should we change the name to Global Bitcoin Securities Exchange?

If GBSE.bit isn't taken, YES!

Why would that be?

AFAIK GLBSE means Global Bitcoin Stock Exchange. Same acronym, only switch Stock for Securities Wink
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 17, 2012, 05:01:12 AM
 #48

I wonder, should we change the name to Global Bitcoin Securities Exchange?

If GBSE.bit isn't taken, YES!

I think it already is, was taken shortly after namecoin started I think

Also the dot-bit.org site is down

If the person who actually has the glbse.bit domain under their control reads this, PM me cause I want it. Am willing to pay BTC very high in the single digits :p

But seriously contact me.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
galambo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 311



View Profile
April 17, 2012, 05:06:15 AM
 #49


GLBSE in not a U.S. exchange or company.
The owners and managers of GLBSE are not American citizens nor do they live in the US.


I agree that GLBSE is not a stock exchange, it's an asset exchange (where the assets may be shares, bonds, futures or some other form of security), but GLBSE users like to call it that so that's what we do.

I wonder, should we change the name to Global Bitcoin Securities Exchange?

I assure you that you will find the same laws WRT unregistered securities in the United Kingdom. London regulations are actually much more strict than those of Washington DC. Have you registered with the FSA?

Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 17, 2012, 05:09:13 AM
 #50

Bitcoin is not a regulated area in the UK.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054



View Profile WWW
April 17, 2012, 05:16:05 AM
 #51

Also note that the service you are providing is not a stock exchange. Your service is a weird hybrid put together by someone with very little knowledge of how capital markets actually work.

A stock exchange only facilitates the matching of buyers and sellers. These parties are brokers, not the beneficial owner of the security.

The buyers and sellers arrange the transfer outside of the exchange, typically through a clearinghouse. The records of ownership are taken down by the issuer or a transfer agent. Each of these parties are seperate and distinct for some very good reasons.
It may or may not be factually true that Nefario has "very little knowledge of how capital markets actually work". This has no relevance on whether GLBSE (or the ecosystem GLBSE is a part of) should be an exact copy of traditional markets. There's no problem with providing a service that serves multiple functions.

In the future, assets in the Bitcoin world will be based on a decentralized blockchain like Bitcoin itself; issuing, transferring and even atomic Bitcoin-asset trades will be done on this blockchain. Matching buyers and sellers can also be done on a p2p network if there is no problem with fake orders. There will be separate services that allow continuous trades and guaranteed orders.

But right now the Bitcoin market is too small for a separation of powers with multiple competing offerings for each function.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
PatrickHarnett
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 17, 2012, 05:18:35 AM
 #52

1st argument is in box 1 - not carrying out a business.  BTC is not recognised as currency or security, so trading with them exempts GLBSE.

I've dealt with tax officials on the definition of "carry on a business" with respect to value added taxes, and the intention is basically to create taxable income.  GLBSE is not aiming to create taxable income in the UK (or probably anywhere else).

(the S could be for "stuff")
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 17, 2012, 05:22:37 AM
 #53

GLBSomethingE

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
galambo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 311



View Profile
April 17, 2012, 05:31:57 AM
Last edit: April 17, 2012, 05:44:43 AM by galambo
 #54

1st argument is in box 1 - not carrying out a business.  BTC is not recognised as currency or security, so trading with them exempts GLBSE.

I've dealt with tax officials on the definition of "carry on a business" with respect to value added taxes, and the intention is basically to create taxable income.  GLBSE is not aiming to create taxable income in the UK (or probably anywhere else).

(the S could be for "stuff")


What this service does is not bitcoin, or any way related to bitcoin, other than that bitcoin is the chosen currency.

If instead you chose to accept kilograms of soil to act as a clearinghouse for unregistered securities, do you think it would really matter to FSA?

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/smallfirms/your_firm_type/financial/pdf/ucis_factsheet.pdf
jamesg
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000


AKA: gigavps


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 12:08:07 PM
 #55

1st argument is in box 1 - not carrying out a business.  BTC is not recognised as currency or security, so trading with them exempts GLBSE.

I've dealt with tax officials on the definition of "carry on a business" with respect to value added taxes, and the intention is basically to create taxable income.  GLBSE is not aiming to create taxable income in the UK (or probably anywhere else).

(the S could be for "stuff")


What this service does is not bitcoin, or any way related to bitcoin, other than that bitcoin is the chosen currency.

If instead you chose to accept kilograms of soil to act as a clearinghouse for unregistered securities, do you think it would really matter to FSA?

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/smallfirms/your_firm_type/financial/pdf/ucis_factsheet.pdf

Nefario,

The regulators are smelling blood in the water.

Time to move your server to tonga.

Or even better, to a .onion address.

Or both.

Iceland is probably a good choice.
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 512


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
April 17, 2012, 01:20:39 PM
 #56

Although we don't have a hot swap system ready and waiting GLBSE is prepared for the unlikely event of the  server being shut down, we would be offline for a maximum of 3 days.

I can assure you that the FSA sees bitcoin as monopoly money and simply doesn't care.

Just because I happen to live in the UK doesn't mean that this is where GLBSE is operating from. The fact is it would be very difficult for any country to shut down GLBSE (being as we have no bank accounts to be frozen or physical assets to seize).

Unlike the U.S. the British government (if they could ever care) would find it very difficult to prosecute a British citizen for running a virtual stock exchange, not even based in the UK, priced in (what they classify as) imaginary money.

We're not out there on the streets pushing for 20 year old single mothers to invest their life savings. We offer this service as is, and don't even advertise it, it's almost exclusively used by members of this forum.

This doesn't even start to become an issue until the volume of trade on GLBSE starts going into the millions, when the tax man starts to take an interest.

But as was mentioned we could always move to Tor if we wanted to, for the time being GLBSE is fine.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
silverbox
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1003


View Profile
April 17, 2012, 03:58:12 PM
 #57

Although we don't have a hot swap system ready and waiting GLBSE is prepared for the unlikely event of the  server being shut down, we would be offline for a maximum of 3 days.

I can assure you that the FSA sees bitcoin as monopoly money and simply doesn't care.

Just because I happen to live in the UK doesn't mean that this is where GLBSE is operating from. The fact is it would be very difficult for any country to shut down GLBSE (being as we have no bank accounts to be frozen or physical assets to seize).

Unlike the U.S. the British government (if they could ever care) would find it very difficult to prosecute a British citizen for running a virtual stock exchange, not even based in the UK, priced in (what they classify as) imaginary money.

We're not out there on the streets pushing for 20 year old single mothers to invest their life savings. We offer this service as is, and don't even advertise it, it's almost exclusively used by members of this forum.

This doesn't even start to become an issue until the volume of trade on GLBSE starts going into the millions, when the tax man starts to take an interest.

But as was mentioned we could always move to Tor if we wanted to, for the time being GLBSE is fine.

Awesome post..  A virtual exchange priced in imaginary money..  Your busted!!! 

NOT Wink
galambo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 311



View Profile
April 17, 2012, 10:19:19 PM
 #58

Although we don't have a hot swap system ready and waiting GLBSE is prepared for the unlikely event of the  server being shut down, we would be offline for a maximum of 3 days.

I can assure you that the FSA sees bitcoin as monopoly money and simply doesn't care.

Just because I happen to live in the UK doesn't mean that this is where GLBSE is operating from. The fact is it would be very difficult for any country to shut down GLBSE (being as we have no bank accounts to be frozen or physical assets to seize).

So on receipt of information that what you are doing is not legal, your announcement is that upon presentation of an interim injunction by FSA your intent is to flee to another jurisdiction and continue to operate?

That must make the holders of "unlimited duration bonds," and other assets for which GLBSE is the nominal custodian, feel very secure.
stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 18, 2012, 12:06:22 AM
 #59

Although we don't have a hot swap system ready and waiting GLBSE is prepared for the unlikely event of the  server being shut down, we would be offline for a maximum of 3 days.

I can assure you that the FSA sees bitcoin as monopoly money and simply doesn't care.

Just because I happen to live in the UK doesn't mean that this is where GLBSE is operating from. The fact is it would be very difficult for any country to shut down GLBSE (being as we have no bank accounts to be frozen or physical assets to seize).

So on receipt of information that what you are doing is not legal, your announcement is that upon presentation of an interim injunction by FSA your intent is to flee to another jurisdiction and continue to operate?

That must make the holders of "unlimited duration bonds," and other assets for which GLBSE is the nominal custodian, feel very secure.

You must be new here and already trolling with 10 posts.

What do you want nefario to say.  "Sure I will spend millions of dollars on being regulated for a small virtual security exchange."

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
camem
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 45
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 18, 2012, 06:26:58 PM
 #60

Bitcoin is not a regulated area in the UK.

Sold.

(literally)
mila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 18, 2012, 09:47:49 PM
 #61

did any of you had a look at:
http://www.slcapex.com/

and asked the question if the second life capital exchange is regulated?

my opinion is similar to trading imaginary money for virtual stock and if you want to regulate that, please remember to take your meds.

your ad here:
galambo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 311



View Profile
April 18, 2012, 10:28:58 PM
 #62

did any of you had a look at:
http://www.slcapex.com/

and asked the question if the second life capital exchange is regulated?

my opinion is similar to trading imaginary money for virtual stock and if you want to regulate that, please remember to take your meds.

Theres quite a large section of this site devoted to this topic.

Quote
Article I: Capital Exchange Disclosure Statement

Capital Exchange (CapEx) is a fictional stock market simulation game operating for entertainment and educational purposes only, and currently exists solely in support of Second Life®, a feature-rich online 3-D virtual world including an "economy" and a "currency" ($Linden) operated and supported by Linden Research, Inc. Capital Exchange (http://www.SLCapEx.com) is not affiliated with Linden Research, Inc. For more information regarding Second Life® please visit (http://www.secondlife.com).

To be very clear, Capital Exchange is not a real-world stock exchange and does not offer opportunity for direct real-world investment or profit. Shares purchased on this stock exchange simulation game do not entitle you to any legal real-world rights to a listed virtual company. Please play accordingly!

CapEx operates within the Second Life® environment, and beyond its boundaries via our website which acts as a clearinghouse for the trading of CapEx-listed "Stocks" and "$Lindens". The underlying companies are fictitious and none of the companies offer "registered" investment quality securities for sale in any form whatsoever via our website. Lindens used to purchase virtual stock here are in essence being transferred to the ownership of the person you are buying the virtual shares from, and not Capital Exchange. All stock and shares purchased are for purely entertainment only, and not considered part/whole ownership in any legal entity or real life company.

The terms "profit" and "earnings" as used within the context of the CapEx.com website, and any claim of monetary value therein, relates solely and specifically to the valuation of $Lindens as specified in the Linden Lab Terms of Service, Section 1.4 (http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php).

The $Linden "currency" is a limited license right available for purchase or free distribution at Linden Lab's sole discretion, and is not redeemable for monetary value from Linden Labor from CapEx.com.

CapEx offers no direct opportunity for conversion of ($Lindens) to legal tender currencies including $US Dollars. Linden Lab does offer an Exchange, called LindeX™, for the trading of $Lindens. Please refer to the Linden Lab Terms of Service, Section 1.5 for information regarding LindeX™ transactions.

Notwithstanding the warnings herein, CapEx as designed and offered is a serious stock simulation game. The participants here “play for keeps” and their time and $Linden-based holdings represent a considerable investment in our community.

Your participation here is not without risk. You could lose some or all of your $Lindens invested here. Only invest here what you can afford to lose.

There are additional policies, rules and Terms of Service for participation as published and amended from time-to-time. Please review and fully understand them before playing.

Finally, the operators of CapEx.com make no representation of any kind regarding the accuracy, fitness for purpose, or use of the software residing at (http://www.SLCapEx.com). Your use of the software in any manner whatsoever shall constitute an understanding and acceptance of this Disclosure Statement in its entirety. The individuals who operate the software residing at (http://www.SLCapEx.com) offer no warranty and offer no remedies whatsoever for its use or consequence. You play this stock simulation game at your own risk.

http://www.slcapex.com/content/disclosure

This text is unfortunately legally meaningless, and contains far too many undefined terms to be taken seriously by anyone working in the legal profession.

Basically, this document attempts to say that these securities are a worthless component of a video game and only intended for entertainment.

It is, however, an acknowledgement that what they are doing is not legal, and more importantly an indication that the exchange and the value of the securities could disappear to the wind at any moment.

The outlook for a bitcoin based stock exchange is even darker. Bitcoin in no way resembles a video game, and its anonymous nature makes it impossible to guarantee to the courts that Nefario is not the sole issuer of these counterfeit securities.

For these reasons, and more, I recommend the immediate closure of GLBSE and any other issuers of counterfeit securities.
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002



View Profile
April 18, 2012, 10:51:41 PM
 #63

Quote
For these reasons, and more, I recommend the immediate closure of GLBSE and any other issuers of counterfeit securities.

And you are...?
mila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 19, 2012, 12:34:16 AM
Last edit: April 19, 2012, 01:55:42 PM by mila
 #64

such as this guy.

maybe he's obnoxious and his expectations unrealistic but he's kinda polite contributor
(though off topic with regard to "IPO handling and interaccount transfers discussion)".

one day it might become an issue : )

your ad here:
Meni Rosenfeld
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1054



View Profile WWW
April 19, 2012, 03:42:40 AM
 #65

For these reasons, and more, I recommend the immediate closure of GLBSE and any other issuers of counterfeit securities.
To paraphrase Einstein: If GLBSE is illegal, then I would feel sorry for the dear law. GLBSE is correct.

1EofoZNBhWQ3kxfKnvWkhtMns4AivZArhr   |   Who am I?   |   bitcoin-otc WoT
Bitcoil - Exchange bitcoins for ILS (thread)   |   Israel Bitcoin community homepage (thread)
Analysis of Bitcoin Pooled Mining Reward Systems (thread, summary)  |   PureMining - Infinite-term, deterministic mining bond
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1010


View Profile
August 15, 2012, 01:00:04 AM
 #66

Was there ever a post that states the final details on how these are treated?

Here's what appears to be the last discussion as far as method and rates:

It would be a fee, % of the average (over 5 days) trade price of an asset.

This would mean assets that haven't traded pay no fee.

I agree with copumpkin, in that part of the fee for GLBSE trades is to pay for the market to match it, and if transferring then only 1/2 that fee would be applicable.

So if the trade fee is 0.5% then the transfer fee is 0.25%


To ensure there is no confusion regarding the transfer fee, any assets that have not traded will have no fee, neither will assets that have a trade volume of less than 20BTC a week(7 days).

The fee will be on the average trade price over 5 days(or less if the asset has not traded for 5 days).



Unichange.me

            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █


Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


Wat


View Profile WWW
August 15, 2012, 01:53:00 AM
 #67



Quote


For these reasons, and more, I recommend the immediate closure of GLBSE and any other issuers of counterfeit securities.


 Roll Eyes


mila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 15, 2012, 03:31:45 PM
 #68

Was there ever a post that states the final details on how these are treated?

not sure if it's summarized better than what you just did. I remember the same outcome (of a discussion) that if there is a new asset create and it did not trade yet, transfers are w/o fees. also I noticed that both parties pay fees (seller and buyer) (have to divide glbse ballance with 1.005 first to see how much i can spend) and when selling I pay fee as well.

your ad here:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!