Verification details on GLBSE..who has submitted what ?

[Bitcoin Oz]

http://bitcoin.me/post/25285014822/who-has-submitted-verification-details-on-glbse#.T92wkvHbbRw

I went through all the companies listed on GLBSE and made a spreadsheet showing which companies have submitted verification details.

The results are interesting and bear further investigation on who is listing without supplying any details at all....I have noticed a couple of individuals with multiple listings who dont show any transparency at all.

[Ben Walsh (beamer)]

Time for asset owners to justify there lack of transparency. I've got plenty more to invest when asset owners act to nullify some further risk for me.

[VEscudero]

I would love to have a similar spreadsheet and even better an official GLBSE hall of fame page showing exactly the same for verified investors.

[Dalkore]

Time for asset owners to justify there lack of transparency. I've got plenty more to invest when asset owners act to nullify some further risk for me.

Our listing is almost ready, I will have an offering statement and I will be verified on GBLSE.  Also, before the launch, I encourage potential investors to setup conference calls so we can answer specific questions.

I agree with what your saying, from the beginning I knew being accessible and known would be a great benefit to the company and people wanted to see what we offer.


Dalkore

[RandomQ]

Thanks for the reminder. I only have 1 of 6 right now and I will submit all the rest tonight. And I hope others will do that same.

[Nefario]

I would love for an outside, specialised service to begin offering this.

[Bitcoin Oz]

I would love for an outside, specialised service to begin offering this.

+1 there is a need for it.

[VEscudero]

I would love for an outside, specialised service to begin offering this.

Sub

[Bitcoin Oz]

Is it time to start denying listings for people without verifiction ?

[Sukrim]

No, but maybe it's time to only allow IPOs with a total initial share value of e.g. < 100 BTC for unverified assets. Yes, this can be circumvented by selling OTC, but then it's up to the users to check for identification of their trading partner.

Nefario, do you mean a web site that shows who is verified with you, or a service that actually does verification and it's results can be displayed on GLBSE?

There needs to be much stricter contracts to determine when such informations can be released for that (like missing a dividend payout for 48h for example) and the points in these contracts need to be verifiable with public knowledge, not only via GLBSE insider knowledge ("By the way, the issuer has not even logged in once since 4 months...").

[Ben Walsh (beamer)]

Absolutely not.

There are obvious genuine reasons for not wanting to verify ...

Projects/businesses seeking funding for activities which are legally untested (or outright illegal) in the country of operation - remember Bitcoin itself falls into that category in many - e.g. now almost certainly Ethopia - http://allafrica.com/stories/201206180068.html.

One of the main reasons I am involved with Bitcoin is to ensure that the capital of everyone (not just the banksters, oligarchs, dictators ...) is able to flow freely - I would almost certainly withdraw my support of GLBSE should any such move be made.

I fully understand why GLBSE provides the optional service of verification for asset owners and actively encourage it - it is an essential means of maximising investor confidence and should be viewed by asset owners are a superb differentiator, however, it should never be made mandatory.

Is it time to start denying listings for people without verifiction ?

[RandomQ]

I would be willing to submit my details to a 3rd party and sign a contract saying they are allowed to release my info if I stole asset funds or if I defaulted and didn't sell off all assets to satisfy the debt to the stock holders.