.

[REF]

Ok 6 confirmations, and I still don't see it

takes like 10mins longer glbse needs to catch up too. I missed PPT.A the same way

[1714809494]

1714809494

[1714809494]

1714809494

[1714809494]

1714809494

[1714809494]

1714809494

[1714809494]

1714809494

[Rygon]

That was an interesting auction! 1.08001 for the cutoff. Looks like someone was trying to snipe at 1.086 with 1200 buys, but didn't get it quite on time.

[filharvey]

Well nice again. Bought at 1.0805 and already sold at 1.155

Keep this going I'm always on for a nice quick turn around. 7% in 5 mins???

[REF]

Well the system was very slow there for a while and I could not log on to do the sale - got kicked off in fact.  But at the last second I was able to log in just in time.  On my computer it showed me about 5 seconds late, but on the timestamps it shows us 25 seconds early.

I will ask Nefario if he can maybe put together a "sell at an exact time" feature so I can program the sale to go off at exactly the right time.

Thanks everyone, see you in one week for PPT.D!

had that problem as well glad I made it just in time. downforeveryoneorjustme.com showed glbse was down for a 5 minutes heavy load is getting worse with each sale .

its a date, next friday for PPT.D ill be there

[MrTeal]

I didn't get in in time. Died on me a couple minutes prior, and by the time I logged back in it was too late. Oh well, next round.

[filharvey]

Was down for me for several minutes before. I managed to get in a couple of minutes for close.

But servers may definitely have to be upgraded for this:-)

[Nefario]

I've already done a lot on speeding glbse up after the update, I'll be doing more before Fridays IPO next week.

I expect to have a dedicated api.glbse.com just for working with the API, so it should be a lot faster(using the API that is).

We'll have another server for glbse.com as well.

To be sure to get in, don't leave it until the last few minutes to place an order.

[filharvey]

Well leaving it to the last minute is how to make a deal.

[filharvey]

Btw you should be able to click on any sales and go directly to the stock on the web site.

[REF]

is there any chance you are going to increase the # of bonds sold each week past 2000 in the future?

[REF]

is there any chance you are going to increase the # of bonds sold each week past 2000 in the future?

Yes, this has been discussed and we are thinking about it.

I may have missed it but I dont believe I read any reason why the there are 6 bond issuing peroids. once we get to week 4 both .A and .E will be started. Why not eliminated PPT.E and .F to avoid overlap and distribute the possible 4000Bonds evenly between .A .B .C .D it would avoid any possible confusion as well. PPT would still go off once a week.
never mind .A will be held for 2 weeks and it would avoid the bonds from the same period being bought back and sold on the same day.

[Otoh]

http://www.thebitcointrader.com/2012/05/bitcoin-stock-market-miners-and-pirates.html#more

[2weiX]

This is a pet peeve of mine regarding the use of the word "auction":


If i understand correctly, you will fill the bids from top to bottom, so if you were to "auction" 500 shares and there were the following bids:

100@1.20
100@1.18
100@1.15
100@1.14
100@1.10

then each of those will pay their bid price.

My understanding (and the way this works in the real world) would be that all 500 shares should be allotted at the lowest price where all auctioned shares will be traded, which in this case should be 1.10 BTC!

Of course, when there are multiple orders at the lowest price limit, one would need to apply time-price-priority (orders are ranked by price, order of same price are ranked by time, oldest first).

Whilst I agree that this cuts into your margin, I will strongly advocate for GLBSE to implement such a modus for IPOs.

[2weiX]

There should be a real "auction" mode for IPOS.
from here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=76594.msg886401#msg886401

This is a pet peeve of mine regarding the use of the word "auction":


If i understand correctly, you will fill the bids from top to bottom, so if you were to "auction" 500 shares and there were the following bids:

100@1.20
100@1.18
100@1.15
100@1.14
100@1.10

then each of those will pay their bid price.

My understanding (and the way this works in the real world) would be that all 500 shares should be allotted at the lowest price where all auctioned shares will be traded, which in this case should be 1.10 BTC!

Of course, when there are multiple orders at the lowest price limit, one would need to apply time-price-priority (orders are ranked by price, order of same price are ranked by time, oldest first).

Whilst I agree that this cuts into your margin, I will strongly advocate for GLBSE to implement such a modus for IPOs.

[Sukrim]

It seems similar to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction to me...

[Timbo925]

Intresting. Gonna try this I think

[2weiX]

It seems similar to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction to me...

Oh it is. At least it should be.

In Dutch Auction, there is ONE SALE at ONE PRICE.
If PPT is to auction off 2000 shares, these should be sold in ONE SALE at ONE PRICE (to x customers).

[Timbo925]

It seems similar to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction to me...

Oh it is. At least it should be.

In Dutch Auction, there is ONE SALE at ONE PRICE.
If PPT is to auction off 2000 shares, these should be sold in ONE SALE at ONE PRICE (to x customers).

So the buyers will set their max buying price and then they see how they will fill up the 2000 shares.
If it needs to be one price they will need to set it at the price of the lowest of all the x costumers.
This doesn't make any sense for them because their profit is in the extra margins people pay and by lowering this their profit will shrink.

[2weiX]

It seems similar to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction to me...

Oh it is. At least it should be.

In Dutch Auction, there is ONE SALE at ONE PRICE.
If PPT is to auction off 2000 shares, these should be sold in ONE SALE at ONE PRICE (to x customers).

So the buyers will set their max buying price and then they see how they will fill up the 2000 shares.
If it needs to be one price they will need to set it at the price of the lowest of all the x costumers.
This doesn't make any sense for them because their profit is in the extra margins people pay and by lowering this their profit will shrink.

That is true.
It is also true, however, that nowhere it is stated that the issuer of a bond or somesuch be entitled to a profit.
Neither is the bond holder, to take that argument away as well.

I was only pointing out that in an auction at a stock exchange (vola phases, open, close) and at an IPO there is only ONE PRICE which is exactly where demand and supply meet. Any economics book will show two intersecting lines with supply and demand meeting at the intersection as the OPTIMUM (ie the state of MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY). Everything else favors either side of the deal greatly.

The way this is currently handled is neither optimal (as a whole) nor does it bear resemblance to any functioning stock market behavior.

[Sukrim]

It's similar to MtGox behaviour for example.

If I sell 1 million BTC right now down to 2 USD, I would fill orders for some BTC at 5 USD, some at 4 USD... otherwise the ones putting up the buy orders are in a huge advantage (expect to buy 100 BTC @ 5 USD but get them for 200 USD).

Also: Let's say, bidding gets really crazy and a few freaks bid 100 BTC per share but they get sold down to 1 BTC anyways. They might then start to complain that they should get 100 shares, since they most likely want to have a big amount of shares as opposed to having a big amount of money left.

With the current system you get the maximum amount of shares and the seller gets the maximum amount of profit.