Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 08:43:13 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [GLBSE] Request for input re: asset holder complaints about issuers.  (Read 2566 times)
glbse
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27


GLBSE Support


View Profile WWW
June 23, 2012, 08:17:26 AM
 #1

Over the last week or so we have received a few messages from asset holders who believe that an issuer is in some way in violation of their asset contract. We have no interest in adjudicating these kind of disputes, nor do we believe it is our role/responsibility to do so.

However, it does seem like there should be some mechanism where asset holders can raise grievances they may have.

To that end we thought it would be good to start a discussion here to see what the community thinks would be an appropriate way of handling this type of situation.


Trade Shares, Bonds and more.

GLobal Bitcoin Stock Exchange (GLBSE)

Get bitcoin capital for your project or organisation

For support/help/ or questions email: support@glbse.com
1480884193
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884193

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884193
Reply with quote  #2

1480884193
Report to moderator
1480884193
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884193

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884193
Reply with quote  #2

1480884193
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480884193
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884193

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884193
Reply with quote  #2

1480884193
Report to moderator
1480884193
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884193

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884193
Reply with quote  #2

1480884193
Report to moderator
mollison
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157



View Profile
June 23, 2012, 08:30:11 AM
 #2

You could consider using judge.me.

I can't vouch for their services (having never used it), but their site looks very upstanding, and they advertise that they accept bitcoin as payment.

I mentioned this previously to the founder of the CPA insurance firm and it is being integrated into their contracts as the dispute resolution mechanism.

I can really see four ways of this becoming adopted as a dispute resolution mechanism on GLBSE:

(1) Both parties volunteer to accept the judgement of judge.me. (This would apply to disputes that exist now.)

(2) In the future, asset issuers voluntarily include judge.me as part of their contract.

(3) In the future, GLBSE requires asset issuers to accept arbitrartion from judge.me as part of the terms of issuing on GLBSE.

(4) There may be something in the GLBSE Terms of Service that allows this to be retroactively mandated (e.g. for the disputes occuring as of now), but it would surprise me.
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2012, 06:57:47 AM
 #3

You could consider using judge.me.

I can't vouch for their services (having never used it), but their site looks very upstanding, and they advertise that they accept bitcoin as payment.

I mentioned this previously to the founder of the CPA insurance firm and it is being integrated into their contracts as the dispute resolution mechanism.

I can really see four ways of this becoming adopted as a dispute resolution mechanism on GLBSE:

(1) Both parties volunteer to accept the judgement of judge.me. (This would apply to disputes that exist now.)

(2) In the future, asset issuers voluntarily include judge.me as part of their contract.

(3) In the future, GLBSE requires asset issuers to accept arbitrartion from judge.me as part of the terms of issuing on GLBSE.

(4) There may be something in the GLBSE Terms of Service that allows this to be retroactively mandated (e.g. for the disputes occuring as of now), but it would surprise me.

+10

Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you


View Profile
June 24, 2012, 09:05:08 AM
 #4

If someone's acting fraudulently, and they become aware of complaints which may lead to the security being frozen or punitive damages awarded, what incentive does that Issuer have to not take off and give investors absolutely nothing, given that Issuer has no qualms with defrauding investors? The IPO would be the important event for the unsavory Issuer. Once he has IPO investment money, he withdraws and disappears if GLBSE restrictions are too great. If that happens enough, the market will decide Issuers and their contracts need to be more closely examined, and it is indeed the investors' duty to perform this task, anyway - and a task they will perform otherwise if they get burned by jerk Issuers, but not a tast of GLBSE acting as the Bitcoin SEC - at least not while GLBSE lacks any serious competition (<- disclosure: not intended as threatening language. Hermes is not in development. Don't freeze me, bro!). Though creating barriers to entry prevent the petty thief, the major assholes will scam, take the next tram, and scram (sorry) until investors start raising the standard for what they invest in, and perhaps talk even more harshly/skeptically than many already do. But -- what I am ignoring are the Issuers who've made simple mistakes or oversights, who perhaps need to be reminded to be more mindful of their contract with a penalty. Are there complaints along those lines, or are they all "this dude's stealing my money, he's probably a scammer because he should quintuple my mining bond's MH/s value since others are doing it, and you should ban him from the Internet so my securities will be worthlesss."?

Funds could be audited by GLBSE staff, but funds make up a fairly small percentage of GLBSE trade volume. I don't think it's a bad idea, though. I'd volunteer for that.

Don't mix your coins someone said isn't legal
MoneyIsDebt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 180



View Profile
June 24, 2012, 04:18:43 PM
 #5

I, incidentally, sell torches and pitchforks for bitcoin.

Sig for sale
LoupGaroux
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile
June 24, 2012, 05:33:42 PM
 #6

As someone who has had several conversations with you on this subject in the past, I disagree with your statement that you do not have the ability/power to do anything. I think you have an obligation to do something!

In the event that you have the report of a violation of the terms of an offering (the contract which you are hosting through your exchange) you have been served notice that there is potentially a violation of that contract. At the very least you should freeze trading on that asset until such time as the owner of the asset has an opportunity to address the claims. This communication should be open and transparent from both the accuser and the accused. Set a fixed amount of time for the issue to be addressed, and then, based on the results of the presentations by both sides, decide which party has the greater merit, and act. That action might be to liquidate the security bond posted by the asset creator, code the asset as one that is now longer trusted, and eventually de-list it, while banning the asset creator from creating new assets, or if the claim is found to have no merit- liquidating the assets of the claimant in that issue, and banning their participation in the market for a period commiserate with the level of disruption they have cause.

If you do not have the time or desire to conduct these investigations, appoint a panel of worthy reviewers (and yes, I volunteer to be on the panel) charge the claimant a bond of 25% of his holdings in any disputed asset, which will be returned if he prevails in the matter, or forfeited to the panel if the claim is found inaccurate. Similarly, if the asset is found to be in violation, the security is forfeit to the Dispute Review Panel, and the asset is required to now post double the security bond to have trading in the asset opened up again. If an asset goes a year without a claim, refund one half of their bond, after the second year a further refund of half of the balance. This way both sides have some skin in the game, everyone has to put up to participate in the market, and spurious claims will be avoided. Any claimant found to be doing so as a means of disrupting business for another asset with groundless claims would be subject to stronger consequences.

As host for the exchange you have the absolute right to require and enforce ethical and honest behavior from users of your exchange, on both sides of the sales counter. It would be a very strong statement in favor of integrity and maturity for the GLBSE to take the lead in providing a honest trading floor.

54Gh/s bASIC Bitcoin Mining Devices
Pre-Order Yours Today!     
Only $1069.99 ! @ http://www.BitcoinASIC.com


Look^^ I'm selling my soul too!
Namworld
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 741



View Profile WWW
June 24, 2012, 05:46:29 PM
 #7

I personally wouldn't mind if all withdrawals/deposits & transfers in/out & BTC/Shares/Bonds owned on an issuer's account were simply publicly viewable. Or at least if it was an option for security issuers to enable.

I also wouldn't mind if we had a readily available area to write info/news to investors.

You know those 3 links
Quote
Dividend payments
Verification
Company and security details, contract

Well I'd recommend they get switched to a single line at the top with the tab growing/shortening if you switch/close tabs. With contract on a unique tab and company infos on another with an editable area for security issuers:
Quote
~~1 very thin navigation line at the very top~~
Old Motions
Mail asset issuer
Auditing link (to see holdings and latest transactions in the account)

~~1 Bar at the top (expand/close info tabs)~~
Company and security details (with editable text zone for news/recent infos
Contract (only contract)
Motions (current active ones, highlighted in red/yellow when a motion is active)
Verification

~~1 table shown at all time near bottom~~
Dividend payments

I think that placement would be clearer and easier to use as all important infos and active motions would be visible right away, yet they would take only about 60px if unexpanded.

Coinroll - Bitcoin Dice



Coinroll.com Bitcoin Dice Gambling » 1% Edge - Instant - Provably Fair
OTC Ratings     » MPEx: F12DE6B4E1EF26F5768BE918F2758D83EEEDE453 - Mention this referral key and get 5 BTC on your account!
[/b]
sunnankar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1030



View Profile WWW
June 25, 2012, 12:26:58 AM
 #8

If someone's acting fraudulently, and they become aware of complaints which may lead to the security being frozen or punitive damages awarded, what incentive does that Issuer have to not take off and give investors absolutely nothing, given that Issuer has no qualms with defrauding investors?

These are the two main issues for disputes: adjudication and enforcement.

For adjudication I think judge.me is a great and cheap alternative and there is plenty of evidence for an arbitrator to sift through like the contract terms, forum threads, etc.

For enforcement I think the issuer should deposit bitcoins into escrow held by GLBSE. The amount of bitcoins in escrow should always be viewable and part of the ticker page just like the contract terms, etc.

Also, the contract page should be 'editable' but all previous versions should always be viewable. Issuers should be able to upload new PDFs that become part of the contract. These PDFs could be monthly or quarterly financial statements, material statements, etc., pretty much like 8K and 10K functionality, and not necessarily changes to the contract.

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2012, 12:37:16 AM
 #9

I would let shareholders make comments on the assett page. But you can only make those if you own shares.

I also agree a panel reviewing contracts is a good idea.

Kluge
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Michael, send me some coins before I hitman you


View Profile
June 25, 2012, 12:42:01 AM
 #10

If someone's acting fraudulently, and they become aware of complaints which may lead to the security being frozen or punitive damages awarded, what incentive does that Issuer have to not take off and give investors absolutely nothing, given that Issuer has no qualms with defrauding investors?

These are the two main issues for disputes: adjudication and enforcement.

For adjudication I think judge.me is a great and cheap alternative and there is plenty of evidence for an arbitrator to sift through like the contract terms, forum threads, etc.

For enforcement I think the issuer should deposit bitcoins into escrow held by GLBSE. The amount of bitcoins in escrow should always be viewable and part of the ticker page just like the contract terms, etc.

Also, the contract page should be 'editable' but all previous versions should always be viewable. Issuers should be able to upload new PDFs that become part of the contract. These PDFs could be monthly or quarterly financial statements, material statements, etc., pretty much like 8K and 10K functionality, and not necessarily changes to the contract.
I heard Nef is planning on implementing a nifty feature to handle contract changes where they can be editable, but changes between versions uploaded are highlighted. Being able to attach documents would be great, too. Without turning this into a feature request thread -- it's currently near-impossible to update investors except through the forum, which not everyone checks. Allowing the Issuer to able to email all security-holders would be excellent, partially so they aren't suddenly being hit with big changes to the security if they aren't constantly monitoring the security's thread on the forum, or keeping in contact with the Issuer.

Don't mix your coins someone said isn't legal
sunnankar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1030



View Profile WWW
June 25, 2012, 12:42:26 AM
 #11

I would let shareholders make comments on the assett page. But you can only make those if you own shares.

I also agree a panel reviewing contracts is a good idea.

What usefulness could there possibly be from 'shareholders' making comments on the assets page? They can start a website, make comments on forums, etc. There is no need for GLBSE to provide a platform and it would needlessly raise GLBSE's costs.

Why have a panel review the contracts? Just provide an adjudication mechanism and enforcement method. Then the market can sort it out. Why raise GLBSE's costs? The shareholders should bear the contract review expenses.

sunnankar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1030



View Profile WWW
June 25, 2012, 12:45:38 AM
 #12

I heard Nef is planning on implementing a nifty feature to handle contract changes where they can be editable, but changes between versions uploaded are highlighted. Being able to attach documents would be great, too. Without turning this into a feature request thread -- it's currently near-impossible to update investors except through the forum, which not everyone checks. Allowing the Issuer to able to email all security-holders would be excellent.

Differences between versions is kind of a burdensome way to go about it. Upload a PDF, have it send a message to all holder's mail account in GLBSE and vote on a motion to accept the latest PDF which then becomes the binding contract and supersedes all others.

PatrickHarnett
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
June 25, 2012, 12:50:28 AM
 #13

I would note, that in the course of compiling some data on fixed rate payments, that there are contracts on GLBSE that are not being followed and the terms are changed elsewhere.  I also note that with unforeseen changes in technology, there are people wanting issuers to disregard their contracts (Gigamining in particular).

The initial point was that there are complaints against issuers not following the terms of their contracts, not about auditing issuers themselves.  If there needs to be a market surveillance committee or similar, then having that separate from the exchange might be a good idea.

(And for disclosure, I hold/trade several assets on GLBSE and am an issuer via PPT.)
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2012, 12:51:16 AM
 #14

I would let shareholders make comments on the assett page. But you can only make those if you own shares.

I also agree a panel reviewing contracts is a good idea.

What usefulness could there possibly be from 'shareholders' making comments on the assets page? They can start a website, make comments on forums, etc. There is no need for GLBSE to provide a platform and it would needlessly raise GLBSE's costs.

Why have a panel review the contracts? Just provide an adjudication mechanism and enforcement method. Then the market can sort it out. Why raise GLBSE's costs? The shareholders should bear the contract review expenses.

Well then judge.me should be in every contract and part of the verification process. I dont know about you but if I went to buy an assett and saw they were refusing to go to arbitration I would avoid their assett like the plague.

http://www.judge.me/api/v1  they have an API so it could be built into glbse.

Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2012, 12:53:35 AM
 #15

I heard Nef is planning on implementing a nifty feature to handle contract changes where they can be editable, but changes between versions uploaded are highlighted. Being able to attach documents would be great, too. Without turning this into a feature request thread -- it's currently near-impossible to update investors except through the forum, which not everyone checks. Allowing the Issuer to able to email all security-holders would be excellent.

Differences between versions is kind of a burdensome way to go about it. Upload a PDF, have it send a message to all holder's mail account in GLBSE and vote on a motion to accept the latest PDF which then becomes the binding contract and supersedes all others.

Thats an easy way to do it and makes it easy to edit contracts. Otherwise you need the wiki model to know what has changed.

DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
June 30, 2012, 10:48:23 AM
 #16

Over the last week or so we have received a few messages from asset holders who believe that an issuer is in some way in violation of their asset contract. We have no interest in adjudicating these kind of disputes, nor do we believe it is our role/responsibility to do so.

However, it does seem like there should be some mechanism where asset holders can raise grievances they may have.

To that end we thought it would be good to start a discussion here to see what the community thinks would be an appropriate way of handling this type of situation.



Just fix BTCMC's contract.

stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
June 30, 2012, 03:37:46 PM
 #17

Over the last week or so we have received a few messages from asset holders who believe that an issuer is in some way in violation of their asset contract. We have no interest in adjudicating these kind of disputes, nor do we believe it is our role/responsibility to do so.

However, it does seem like there should be some mechanism where asset holders can raise grievances they may have.

To that end we thought it would be good to start a discussion here to see what the community thinks would be an appropriate way of handling this type of situation.



I am with you, I don't think GLBSE should be involved with this.  Let the emerging insurance industry take care of disputed contracts or judge.me or a combination of both.

You can have it in the terms that if a asset holder takes an issuer to 'court' via judge me that you will follow the settlement that jude.me recommendation.  I think 3rd party insurance would be better as they would be doing the investigation and determination of contract violations.

Of course, this is exactly what surety contract bonds are for.  A third party insures that the contractual obligations will be done.

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
stochastic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


View Profile
June 30, 2012, 04:06:01 PM
 #18

I have the most volume of assets on GLBSE and honestly I am not sure if I follow any contract on GLBSE. Does anyone take GLBSE seriously? We can not update our contracts. The first and second largest traded asset on GLBSE do not obey the GLBSE contract. Anyone who thinks GLBSE contracts means anything is well, ignorant.

If we can update them then maybe people should start taking them seriously.


(full disclosure I'm an ass hat on a clown boat)

I think contracts should be able to be changed, but only by following the previous contract and not if there is still outstanding contracts still in the market.  For example, a contract that says it will buy back shares/bonds/whatever at the 5 day average wants to change their contract.  First they can buy back the contracts as they say they will, then change the contract, and then rerelease the new contract for sale.

I think there will be a lot more disputes if a contract was changed midway without the above process I mentioned.  That is more like a bait and switch, especially when the only way to keep a contract from changing is to vote against the motion.  The only other way is to sell it at a loss and that does not benefit the asset holders.

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.
burnside
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 882



View Profile WWW
July 02, 2012, 08:31:56 AM
 #19

Wouldn't hurt to just make the contracts editable if there are no outstanding shares.

Issuers wanting to change their contracts could buy back all the outstanding shares at the terms of their existing contract, change the contract, and re-issue.

Otherwise, I don't think the contracts should be editable without a 100% asset holder vote, which should be fairly rare and not too hard for GLBSE to deal with via support requests, no need for new code.

Seems like anything [else] is just asking for abuse?

[ ] = fixed.

I'm not a Coinbase fan -- I placed a buy order, they took the funds out of my account, then a week later the price went up and they canceled the buy and closed my account.  You've been warned.  Use a different exchange.
Bitcoin Oz
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


Wat


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2012, 12:20:30 PM
 #20

I think there should be a vote whether the terms can change and then let people change it if the shareholders agree. If they do then the contract is editable for 24 hours after the vote.


Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!