GLBSE IPO Handling and Interaccount Transfers Discussion Thread.

[copumpkin]

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.

[1714009225]

1714009225

[Nefario]

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?

[JWU42]

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

[copumpkin]

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]

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]

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.

[OgNasty]

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.

[copumpkin]

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]

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?

[Meni Rosenfeld]

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.

[splatster]

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]

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]

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.

[Coinoisseur]

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.

[Nefario]

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.

[PatrickHarnett]

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]

You also have this...
http://tygrr.com/tygrr-tech/

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]

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.

[Nefario]

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

Shudder.

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

[mila]

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