.

[PatrickHarnett]

The timing last week was early and this week was late.  The 1600 bid did move (I think twice), and so I expect there will be some annoyed people.

HOWEVER

for context there were bids for over 7400 bonds this week meaning around 5000 (two thirds) were not filled.  

That doesn't exactly make me feel any better   I had that 1600 outbid fair and square at 22:00 on the dot.

No, it's probably not going to, but you also know the platform is a bit flaky.  Also, the difference between the highest and lowest bids that cleared is quite small starting at 1.105 and going to 1.0999.  So, the difference between being the highest bid and missing out is just 0.5% over the 28 days.  I understand people wanting to get the lowest price, but complaining that your bid was too low on such a narrow margin doesn't really stack up.

[stochastic]

really needs to be on an automatic timer set by GLBSE. okay I lied but it did jump from 1.095 to 1.099(which it went off at) after 10pm. So it was more like .05 which does make a difference

edit: you beat me to it. auto timer is the way to go

What kind of timer is it now?

I believe one of the PPT guys probably just issues a sell order for 2500@ 1BTC as close as possible to the time, but I could be wrong.

That sucks.  When I was playing around with the dev site I thought the issuer could pre-release the set number of securities then when the IPO time occurred they would be released.

[Raoul Duke]

The timing last week was early and this week was late.  The 1600 bid did move (I think twice), and so I expect there will be some annoyed people.

HOWEVER

for context there were bids for over 7400 bonds this week meaning around 5000 (two thirds) were not filled. 

That doesn't exactly make me feel any better   I had that 1600 outbid fair and square at 22:00 on the dot.

We're disappointed in Nefario for his shitty infrastructure, and I know some people are angry enough that they are coming up with alternatives

In the meantime, I'm very sorry, but there's nothing we can do if Nefario doesn't step up and get his act together.

Yeah... You're so, so sorry that you'll just pocket the extra profits in the meantime...  lol

[PatrickHarnett]

Yeah... You're so, so sorry that you'll just pocket the extra profits in the meantime...  lol

Hi psy, it would have been interesting to see the 1600 bid miss out, along with others that were there for 400 and 600-ish that I saw.  Having a 100 or so people holding bonds would have been good.

In terms of "enhanced" profit, a few minutes before show time the average was 1.104 and it went down slightly, and the 1600 @ 1.095 moving to 1.1 might have changed things a maximum0.015, but it wasn't the only bid moving in the last few minutes.  The notes I took for total bids showed that by 2:01 there were 6950 and another 500 piled in after that. 

[Mousepotato]

No, it's probably not going to, but you also know the platform is a bit flaky.  Also, the difference between the highest and lowest bids that cleared is quite small starting at 1.105 and going to 1.0999.  So, the difference between being the highest bid and missing out is just 0.5% over the 28 days.  I understand people wanting to get the lowest price, but complaining that your bid was too low on such a narrow margin doesn't really stack up.

That's not what people are complaining about here.

[PatrickHarnett]

No, it's probably not going to, but you also know the platform is a bit flaky.  Also, the difference between the highest and lowest bids that cleared is quite small starting at 1.105 and going to 1.0999.  So, the difference between being the highest bid and missing out is just 0.5% over the 28 days.  I understand people wanting to get the lowest price, but complaining that your bid was too low on such a narrow margin doesn't really stack up.

That's not what people are complaining about here.

No, you are complaining that at the time the system was supposed to execute, it didn't.  And at the same time, people were changing their bids as long as the trading platform allowed them to do so - and everybody was in the same situation.  Some chose to take advantage of that, and others did not.

[REF]

I got different numbers then patrick mine are somewhat higher. Any chance you guys will come up with some "official" number the average moved by and buy back the bonds at that much more. so if your using patrick's number then buy then back at 1.295?

I was using 2 computers myself to prevent getting any errors. one I used us.glbse.com and the other I used glbse.com incase there would of been any sort of a problem. At least if its automated it can be blamed on PPT's fault.

[PatrickHarnett]

I got different numbers then patrick mine are somewhat higher. Any chance you guys will come up with some "official" number the average moved by and buy back the bonds at that much more. so if your using patrick's number then buy then back at 1.295?

I was using 2 computers myself to prevent getting any errors. one I used us.glbse.com and the other I used glbse.com incase there would of been any sort of a problem. At least if its automated it can be blamed on PPT's fault.

I'm not sure of the actual movement in average price from 2:00:00 to when the sale went through.  We have used our best endeavours to ensure that, given the limitations of the trading platform, that it takes place correctly.  

If it had triggered a minute early would you like it if we paid less than 1.28?  I wouldn't think so.
Also, if we paid 1.295 to the bond holders, that would enrich those who did get bonds, but not help people like mousepotato who missed out.

[REF]

If it had triggered a minute early would you like it if we paid less than 1.28?  I wouldn't think so.

Not the same thing but equally bad

Also, if we paid 1.295 to the bond holders, that would enrich those who did get bonds, but not help people like mousepotato who missed out.

That is a good point too.

Have to hope for things to go smoother next week. 

[PatrickHarnett]

Here's a question to those busy bidding and buying - if you're only prepared to pay 1.10 at auction, why do people pay 1.15 immediately after the auction?  Wouldn't it be better to bid higher with greater certainty of having your order filled versus the regret of not having a high enough price.  

I presume you bid at a level where you become indifferent between winning and losing - despite the problems with the auction today, it sounds like people were not indifferent between the two possible outcomes, and that was a deliberate strategy.

[imsaguy]

Here's a question to those busy bidding and buying - if you're only prepared to pay 1.10 at auction, why do people pay 1.15 immediately after the auction?  Wouldn't it be better to bid higher with greater certainty of having your order filled versus the regret of not having a high enough price.  

I presume you bid at a level where you become indifferent between winning and losing - despite the problems with the auction today, it sounds like people were not indifferent between the two possible outcomes, and that was a deliberate strategy.

meh

[Rygon]

Since the first buyback is coming up here on Friday, is the 0.5% fee paid by the seller on the buyback price of 1.28? This would make the effective face value of 1.2736 for each bond, if I understand correctly.

[imsaguy]

Since the first buyback is coming up here on Friday, is the 0.5% fee paid by the seller on the buyback price of 1.28? This would make the effective face value of 1.2736 for each bond, if I understand correctly.

Fees are rebated to the market makers.  So if you have bidsasks up at 1.28, you shouldn't incur any fees.

[stochastic]

Here's a question to those busy bidding and buying - if you're only prepared to pay 1.10 at auction, why do people pay 1.15 immediately after the auction?  Wouldn't it be better to bid higher with greater certainty of having your order filled versus the regret of not having a high enough price.  

I presume you bid at a level where you become indifferent between winning and losing - despite the problems with the auction today, it sounds like people were not indifferent between the two possible outcomes, and that was a deliberate strategy.

That does not make sense.  You expect people to bid higher just for a little convenience and lose a potential 5% more return?  That is like not bothering going to the petrol station across the street that sells petrol for 1.10 while the one you are at sells it for 1.15.  People could bid low (1.10) before the auction for the chance of getting a low price.  If they fail to get the asset and they still want it then they can bid higher (1.15).  PPT should worry more about buyers remorse than regret.

[Timbo925]

Damm i'm missed out due to the 1600 shares bid. If all those big players are going to pick this bonds op the point of this for the small BTC owners goes away.

[PatrickHarnett]

Here's a question to those busy bidding and buying - if you're only prepared to pay 1.10 at auction, why do people pay 1.15 immediately after the auction?  Wouldn't it be better to bid higher with greater certainty of having your order filled versus the regret of not having a high enough price.  

I presume you bid at a level where you become indifferent between winning and losing - despite the problems with the auction today, it sounds like people were not indifferent between the two possible outcomes, and that was a deliberate strategy.

That does not make sense.  You expect people to bid higher just for a little convenience and lose a potential 5% more return?  That is like not bothering going to the petrol station across the street that sells petrol for 1.10 while the one you are at sells it for 1.15.  People could bid low (1.10) before the auction for the chance of getting a low price.  If they fail to get the asset and they still want it then they can bid higher (1.15).  PPT should worry more about buyers remorse than regret.

I was asking a question rather than making a statement, and no, I don't expect people to unnecessarily bid an extra 5% in the auction.  I like the analogy though.

I would expect people to perhaps pay 1% higher (for a 15% return rather than 16% return), rather than scrambling around after the auction paying 5% higher and then bitching about how they got shut out because someone else with a spare coin over-bid them.  (the issue of the 1600 bid is less relevant as there were many bids higher than the clearing price this week.  And, while bids that might have cleared on the time marker of 2 a.m. exactly could or should have cleared, the market did not facilitate that exactly.)  What I am looking at is a number of people prepared to pay much higher shortly after the auction close compared to shortly before, and nature of the complaints.  (Certainly the promoters of PPT are also not particularly happy with how things went this week, nor last week, but that is the system we are working within.)

I would also observe that if the volume was unlimited, there would be less implied value in what we are doing with PPT bonds (other than the funds we have locked for insurance payments), and that having 8000 coins committed in a short space of time helps to illustrate how small these offerings are with respect to the overall bitcoin economy.  Plus, the appetite of the BS&T is also not unlimited.

One of the things that should also be obvious to people watching this process is that the potential to scoop a bargain (close to 1.00) is simply not there, but those still grabbing a 15%+ return for the month are likely to be happy.  Next week (following the PPT.A redemptions) should be interesting.

[Sukrim]

You could try to spam the GLBSE servers with API calls at sale time instead of relying on the interface...

Also writing snipe bots might become increasingly interesting, if I look at the aftermarket there's a lot of profit to be had nearly immediately every week so far.

[Otoh]

you could just change the OP to reflect the reality that GLBSE infrastructure can't cope atm so:
The bond auctions will take place every Saturday morning between 2 & 2.05 AM UTC.
It would make for a fun < 5 minute show & be less stressful for the bond issuers as they could pick a random time in that window to suit themselves, it will never be exactly on the dot of 2 AM unless it's automated at the exchange

[Rygon]

Since the first buyback is coming up here on Friday, is the 0.5% fee paid by the seller on the buyback price of 1.28? This would make the effective face value of 1.2736 for each bond, if I understand correctly.

Fees are rebated to the market makers.  So if you have bidsasks up at 1.28, you shouldn't incur any fees.

Actually, just saw this post from GLBSE: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78744.0

Fees will be as follows:

An 8 BTC fee for listing of a new asset.

A 0.4% trade commission on both the buy and sell side of a trade.

A 0.2% fee to directly transfer an asset between accounts. This transfer fee is not applicable to assets that have had less than 20 BTC of volume since the inception of the asset. This transfer fee will be based on the asset's average traded price over the last 5 days it was traded, or the assets initial price if no trading has taken place.

But my last buy (where I was a market maker), my fee was 0.5%. I'm confused. 

[imsaguy]

But my last buy (where I was a market maker), my fee was 0.5%. I'm confused. 

When you submitted your order, did it execute right away or did you have to wait some time?  If it filled right away, its because it matched against someone else's order, meaning you weren't the market maker.  If it took some time, it meant someone else had to match your order, which means you were the market maker.  Market makers don't pay fees (or at least aren't supposed to).