Topic: . - page 2. (Read 5431 times)
The following should be added to the scam list:
SDM
SDM.LEVA
Possibly also BITARB.APR and anything else shakaru is involved in.
For the SDM shares he did the IPO, took the money and spent it on drinks at the bar. He did not buy any mining equipment for the money. He might very well have done the same with this new BITARB.APR offering.
All SDM/SDM.LEVA shareholders should make a claim in the other shakaru thread.
For more info see here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/shades-minoco-shakaru-collections-debt-65989
SDM
SDM.LEVA
Possibly also BITARB.APR and anything else shakaru is involved in.
For the SDM shares he did the IPO, took the money and spent it on drinks at the bar. He did not buy any mining equipment for the money. He might very well have done the same with this new BITARB.APR offering.
All SDM/SDM.LEVA shareholders should make a claim in the other shakaru thread.
For more info see here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/shades-minoco-shakaru-collections-debt-65989
I've locked his account, he's got 4 assets on GLBSE.
Someone talked about this before and I suggested that people not vote but instead speculate with money. It would be basically a bet on if the company defaults and/or goes under. People that own shares or are customers of the company and are taking risk by using the company can hedge that the company will fail. Meanwhile, speculators can take the other side of the bet that the company will stay solvent in the time period set by the contract. With enough volume, companies that meet many of the solvency tests would be indicating in the price of this bet.
Ah so we're talking about a prediction market, this idea has worth.
How would people who predict that an asset is good cashout?
The following should be added to the scam list:
SDM
SDM.LEVA
Possibly also BITARB.APR and anything else shakaru is involved in.
For the SDM shares he did the IPO, took the money and spent it on drinks at the bar. He did not buy any mining equipment for the money. He might very well have done the same with this new BITARB.APR offering.
All SDM/SDM.LEVA shareholders should make a claim in the other shakaru thread.
For more info see here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/shades-minoco-shakaru-collections-debt-65989
SDM
SDM.LEVA
Possibly also BITARB.APR and anything else shakaru is involved in.
For the SDM shares he did the IPO, took the money and spent it on drinks at the bar. He did not buy any mining equipment for the money. He might very well have done the same with this new BITARB.APR offering.
All SDM/SDM.LEVA shareholders should make a claim in the other shakaru thread.
For more info see here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/shades-minoco-shakaru-collections-debt-65989
Perhaps the GLBSE could allow companies to put up money to be bonded, similar to how companies are "bonded and insured" to protect against losses. In the event the company disappears, the money in the bond would be distributed to shareholders.
The bond could be rated as a % of total funds raised, to keep the massive companies from raising 1,000 BTC and appearing "bonded" by putting up 1 BTC.
My offline business is required to carry a very large bond, and it tends to discourage 'fly by night' companies from getting licensed and bonded to provide bad work.
The bond could be rated as a % of total funds raised, to keep the massive companies from raising 1,000 BTC and appearing "bonded" by putting up 1 BTC.
My offline business is required to carry a very large bond, and it tends to discourage 'fly by night' companies from getting licensed and bonded to provide bad work.
As I mentioned before, GLBSE won't actually BE ABLE to rate these (we don't have the time or resources, or indeed the understanding).
What I'm proposing is that GLBSE build and run a rating system (but we don't do the actual rating)
Who should?
I don't think it should be like a public vote, we're not a democracy here. If users are just allowed to vote for the one they think is good it just becomes a popularity contest, which doesn't help anyone(and certainly doesn't make share ratings better either).
I do think however that the community should be involved, so what we might do is have a board of raters, several people who are allowed to rate assets. I think it would be fair to have GLBSE shareholders (that is, all shareholders on GLBSE itself, not shareholders of the GLBSE asset) should be able to vote for who they want to be a rater.
How they rate assets I have no idea, I think we'll need some sort of auditing. How would we implement this, I don't know.
What I'm proposing is that GLBSE build and run a rating system (but we don't do the actual rating)
Who should?
I don't think it should be like a public vote, we're not a democracy here. If users are just allowed to vote for the one they think is good it just becomes a popularity contest, which doesn't help anyone(and certainly doesn't make share ratings better either).
I do think however that the community should be involved, so what we might do is have a board of raters, several people who are allowed to rate assets. I think it would be fair to have GLBSE shareholders (that is, all shareholders on GLBSE itself, not shareholders of the GLBSE asset) should be able to vote for who they want to be a rater.
How they rate assets I have no idea, I think we'll need some sort of auditing. How would we implement this, I don't know.
Someone talked about this before and I suggested that people not vote but instead speculate with money. It would be basically a bet on if the company defaults and/or goes under. People that own shares or are customers of the company and are taking risk by using the company can hedge that the company will fail. Meanwhile, speculators can take the other side of the bet that the company will stay solvent in the time period set by the contract. With enough volume, companies that meet many of the solvency tests would be indicating in the price of this bet.
As I mentioned before, GLBSE won't actually BE ABLE to rate these (we don't have the time or resources, or indeed the understanding).
What I'm proposing is that GLBSE build and run a rating system (but we don't do the actual rating)
Who should?
I don't think it should be like a public vote, we're not a democracy here. If users are just allowed to vote for the one they think is good it just becomes a popularity contest, which doesn't help anyone(and certainly doesn't make share ratings better either).
I do think however that the community should be involved, so what we might do is have a board of raters, several people who are allowed to rate assets. I think it would be fair to have GLBSE shareholders (that is, all shareholders on GLBSE itself, not shareholders of the GLBSE asset) should be able to vote for who they want to be a rater.
How they rate assets I have no idea, I think we'll need some sort of auditing. How would we implement this, I don't know.
What I'm proposing is that GLBSE build and run a rating system (but we don't do the actual rating)
Who should?
I don't think it should be like a public vote, we're not a democracy here. If users are just allowed to vote for the one they think is good it just becomes a popularity contest, which doesn't help anyone(and certainly doesn't make share ratings better either).
I do think however that the community should be involved, so what we might do is have a board of raters, several people who are allowed to rate assets. I think it would be fair to have GLBSE shareholders (that is, all shareholders on GLBSE itself, not shareholders of the GLBSE asset) should be able to vote for who they want to be a rater.
How they rate assets I have no idea, I think we'll need some sort of auditing. How would we implement this, I don't know.
Assets should be rated by the GLBSE community, whether they are shareholders of the asset or not (some sort of controls could be put in place, must be an active member for 90 days and have a certain number of assets, etc). That should assist in pointing out the Ponzi schemes. A third party rating system didn't work for Madoff, and they had a lot more educated and wealthy people behind that 3rd party.
I'm not saying that GLBSE rate them, and I agree that Nefario should NOT be the one doing the rating. I simply think that having a rating system would be a good idea and those items I listed would at least be a starting point. I did also combine a suggesting for a GLBSE feature I'd like to see added.
Would you guys like me to add a rating system for assets?
Ala mood, S&P etc.
How/who would rate them because even if I build it, I won't have the time to do the actual rating, I'm struggling with getting everything else done as it is.
Idea's welcome.
Ala mood, S&P etc.
How/who would rate them because even if I build it, I won't have the time to do the actual rating, I'm struggling with getting everything else done as it is.
Idea's welcome.
Awesome idea.
some of the things I'd like to see implemented into this rating are:
does the asset have a clear definition of what goes into dividends (x% profits from mining/arb bot/other, x% to growth, x% to CEO, etc)
does the asset have a clear definition of when dividends get paid
paid last x dividends on time
does the asset have an open book to allow open audits (mining asset with statistics site, investment co that publishes last months trades, etc)
clear definition of what happens to assets if/when the company goes offline (hardware sold and funds dispersed, existing capital distributed, shares/bonds purchased back by company, etc)
contingency plan on file with GLBSE in case asset creator gets hit by a bus/meteor/alien abduction
has other online verification (facebook, ebay, otc, linked-in, etc)
has meatspace verification (photo with ID and shoe on head, verified physical address, etc)
Most of this is usually covered by the contract, or on the assets forum post, but having it more standardized would be great. If GLBSE doesn't yet hold contingency plans, then this would be a great new addition I think.
I don't think it is a good idea. If a contract crashes and GLBSE says it is investment grade then it will be GLBSE that may be held responsible by investors. Also, how could GLBSE take money for listing a contract on the exchange and then rate them as below investment grade?
I say a third party should do it and it should not be centralized but instead allow individuals to rate the assets themselves.
Would you guys like me to add a rating system for assets?
Ala mood, S&P etc.
How/who would rate them because even if I build it, I won't have the time to do the actual rating, I'm struggling with getting everything else done as it is.
Idea's welcome.
Ala mood, S&P etc.
How/who would rate them because even if I build it, I won't have the time to do the actual rating, I'm struggling with getting everything else done as it is.
Idea's welcome.
Awesome idea.
some of the things I'd like to see implemented into this rating are:
does the asset have a clear definition of what goes into dividends (x% profits from mining/arb bot/other, x% to growth, x% to CEO, etc)
does the asset have a clear definition of when dividends get paid
paid last x dividends on time
does the asset have an open book to allow open audits (mining asset with statistics site, investment co that publishes last months trades, etc)
clear definition of what happens to assets if/when the company goes offline (hardware sold and funds dispersed, existing capital distributed, shares/bonds purchased back by company, etc)
contingency plan on file with GLBSE in case asset creator gets hit by a bus/meteor/alien abduction
has other online verification (facebook, ebay, otc, linked-in, etc)
has meatspace verification (photo with ID and shoe on head, verified physical address, etc)
Most of this is usually covered by the contract, or on the assets forum post, but having it more standardized would be great. If GLBSE doesn't yet hold contingency plans, then this would be a great new addition I think.
Jump to: