[GLBSE] CLOSED THREAD

[ciuciu]

Hello,

As you may know, I submitted ASIC.COOP for IPO on Friday, requesting to go public after the minimum time allowed of three days. It got published only yesterday, to be live on Thursday.

Today, Inaba posted his company BFL.RIGS to go live tomorrow, without the need for 3 days as all the other companies. I know that my offering is an inconvenience for him, and I think GLBSE is giving him an unfair advantage.

Thank you.

[1714893583]

1714893583

[1714893583]

1714893583

[Gladamas]

Whoa, what's Nefario doing now? *Conspiracy theory*

[Garr255]

I think if you already have a reputable asset and you ask, he will be a bit more lenient with you.

I've never asked for this, and yes it could be considered an unfair policy.

[Serge]

Inaba couldn't have possibly thought of it 2 days ago, no way.  since he announced it today it could only mean that he applied for security ticker today as well

[DeaDTerra]

Inaba is issuing a sub asset of the already existing BFL, so I guess that might remove the already existing time limit of 3 days. Just a guess
//DeaDTerra

[Nefario]

There are a couple of issues to this.

Firstly, I do tend to approve new assets from existing asset issuers who write clear, easy to understand contracts. Frequently someone who is just starting out submits an asset and I have to ask them to revise the contract because it's either unclear or lacking, sometimes this happens numerous times with going back and forth and so on. There are a number of issuers (Inaba is one) who tend to write very clear contracts.

The best thing to do when creating a new asset is to make sure that the contract is as simple and clear as possible.

Secondly, all assets must wait the minimum time period of at least 3 days before their asset can IPO. Usually this is 3 days from submission, but if enough time has passed then I add more. Not to delay the IPO for the sake of delaying but to allow enough time for them to be on the IPO page for people to see.

Usually an asset that IPO's almost right away doesn't do well, and it's in my AND GLBSE's best interest for as many IPO's to be successful as possible.

Third I don't favor any assets on GLBSE, as a policy I don't trade ANY assets on GLBSE, I don't buy or sell shares (unless testing the system, like earlier today, and then it's only one or two cheap ones). There are a large number of competing assets on GLBSE, I and GLBSE has no stake in any of them either personally or professionally. Our interest is in all assets succeeding as we make money from fees.

Fourth, sometimes I don't get around to approving assets in the best time. I like to try and have them out on the IPO page ASAP but sometimes I'm just tied up.

Finally, I/GLBSE was not contacted by Inaba about this asset prior to it being created, we were not warned nor were any special favors asked. Apart from his use of GLBSE as an asset issuer I don't have any relationship with Inaba.

Besides, the bitcoin economy is growing so quickly there is plenty of room for competing operations in certain areas. A rising tide floats all boats.

Nefario

[ciuciu]

There are a couple of issues to this.

Firstly, I do tend to approve new assets from existing asset issuers who write clear, easy to understand contracts. Frequently someone who is just starting out submits an asset and I have to ask them to revise the contract because it's either unclear or lacking, sometimes this happens numerous times with going back and forth and so on. There are a number of issuers (Inaba is one) who tend to write very clear contracts.

The best thing to do when creating a new asset is to make sure that the contract is as simple and clear as possible.

Secondly, all assets must wait the minimum time period of at least 3 days before their asset can IPO. Usually this is 3 days from submission, but if enough time has passed then I add more. Not to delay the IPO for the sake of delaying but to allow enough time for them to be on the IPO page for people to see.

Usually an asset that IPO's almost right away doesn't do well, and it's in my AND GLBSE's best interest for as many IPO's to be successful as possible.

Third I don't favor any assets on GLBSE, as a policy I don't trade ANY assets on GLBSE, I don't buy or sell shares (unless testing the system, like earlier today, and then it's only one or two cheap ones). There are a large number of competing assets on GLBSE, I and GLBSE has no stake in any of them either personally or professionally. Our interest is in all assets succeeding as we make money from fees.

Fourth, sometimes I don't get around to approving assets in the best time. I like to try and have them out on the IPO page ASAP but sometimes I'm just tied up.

Finally, I/GLBSE was not contacted by Inaba about this asset prior to it being created, we were not warned nor were any special favors asked. Apart from his use of GLBSE as an asset issuer I don't have any relationship with Inaba.

Besides, the bitcoin economy is growing so quickly there is plenty of room for competing operations in certain areas. A rising tide floats all boats.

Nefario

Nefario, with all due respect you are not answering the question. The form on your GLBSE website doesn't allow listings earlier than 3 days after. How was it possible for Inaba, without manually overriding the website settings?

[Nefario]

Nefario, with all due respect you are not answering the question. The form on your GLBSE website doesn't allow listings earlier than 3 days after. How was it possible for Inaba, without manually overriding the website settings?

Simple, his IPO was submitted over 3 days prior to the IPO date.

[ciuciu]

Nefario, with all due respect you are not answering the question. The form on your GLBSE website doesn't allow listings earlier than 3 days after. How was it possible for Inaba, without manually overriding the website settings?

Simple, his IPO was submitted over 3 days prior to the IPO date.

Mine was submitted 6 days before, and I requested the trading to start today. My IPO description is very simple and clear, everybody can read it.

[ciuciu]

Nefario, with all due respect you are not answering the question. The form on your GLBSE website doesn't allow listings earlier than 3 days after. How was it possible for Inaba, without manually overriding the website settings?

Simple, his IPO was submitted over 3 days prior to the IPO date.

Mine was submitted 6 days before, and I requested the trading to start today. My IPO description is very simple and clear, everybody can read it.

As a matter of fairness, can you please set my ASIC.COOP ticker live right now?

[Nefario]

You know, you could have just asked for that in an email, there wasn't any need to start a thread over it.

[brendio]

Nefario, with all due respect you are not answering the question. The form on your GLBSE website doesn't allow listings earlier than 3 days after. How was it possible for Inaba, without manually overriding the website settings?

Ciuciu, with all due respect, your OP doesn't actually contain a question, notwithstanding the thread title.

Hello,

As you may know, I submitted ASIC.COOP for IPO on Friday, requesting to go public after the minimum time allowed of three days. It got published only yesterday, to be live on Thursday.

Today, Inaba posted his company BFL.RIGS to go live tomorrow, without the need for 3 days as all the other companies. I know that my offering is an inconvenience for him, and I think GLBSE is giving him an unfair advantage.

Thank you.

[ciuciu]

You know, you could have just asked for that in an email, there wasn't any need to start a thread over it.

I'm sorry Nefario, my last email took 5 days for you to answer. I did not have the time in this circumstances.

[pekv2]

Seems like a game of chess and ciuciu had to play his pieces like so.

[Nefario]

Asset has been launched.

[ciuciu]

Asset has been launched.

Thank you Nefario, now I have my fair chance. I really appreciate it.

Best Regards.