^^ thank you for clearing that for me, PPT-PR
is redemption going to be automatic or bonds need to be put up for sale manually?
Topic: . - page 22. (Read 67479 times)
GLBSE has had a lot of performance enhancements over the last week and is able to handle the current load without issue(this includes the PPT auction).
us.glbse.com and glbse.com are the same now, having a browser open on each won't make any difference.
Further performance improvements are on the way.
Long story short I expect this auction to go smoothly without any issues or downtime.
us.glbse.com and glbse.com are the same now, having a browser open on each won't make any difference.
Further performance improvements are on the way.
Long story short I expect this auction to go smoothly without any issues or downtime.
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).
I had to wait for a few days before the order was filled, so I was the market maker. So, perhaps the fees are always paid by the buyer, regardless of whether or not the are a market taker/maker? At least the previous message implies that the buyback at 1.28 will not incur a fee for bondholders. I supposed I'll see when my bonds are redeemed Friday.
Fee structure hasn't changed, this is a new feature (that has been heavily requested), and this is probably the first asset that will be making use of it, I've not gotten the communities input on the fee.
I actually need to talk about this with OP, so don't consider it (fee) set in stone, it's just what I've been using in my tests.
Sorry, my previous post wasn't meant to be an announcement on new fees, just in reply to how the bonds would be bought back (not via a market order).
The point to take from this is that you won't need to put your bonds up for sale or look out for an orderwall, it will just be taken care of, at the appropriate time you will find that your bonds have gone and been replaced by bitcoin.
Don't worry about fees, there will be no new ones on you're end.
I actually need to talk about this with OP, so don't consider it (fee) set in stone, it's just what I've been using in my tests.
Sorry, my previous post wasn't meant to be an announcement on new fees, just in reply to how the bonds would be bought back (not via a market order).
The point to take from this is that you won't need to put your bonds up for sale or look out for an orderwall, it will just be taken care of, at the appropriate time you will find that your bonds have gone and been replaced by bitcoin.
Don't worry about fees, there will be no new ones on you're end.
I wasn't aware of this, so we get 1.28 less 0.5% fee = 1.216 so the shares are never worth more than this in effect & don't actually return 1.28 net - maybe I missed something in the OP offer or the fee structure has changed since then, or I'm mistaken, but would like to know for sure, thanks
I think your numbers are a little wrong but I completely agree.1.28 less 0.5% fee = 1.2736. I think you dropped a zero when doing the math by mistake.
yep, sry - you beat me to it
I wasn't aware of this, so we get 1.28 less 0.5% fee = 1.216 so the shares are never worth more than this in effect & don't actually return 1.28 net - maybe I missed something in the OP offer or the fee structure has changed since then, or I'm mistaken, but would like to know for sure, thanks
I think your numbers are a little off but I completely agree.1.28 less 0.5% fee = 1.2736. I think you dropped a zero when doing the math by mistake.
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).
so everybody should list all their shares in each issue for sale at 1.28 before the 4 weeks are up which is when you put up the buy offer for them all, because otherwise we will incur the fee as taker of your market maker buy offer, is that correct?
No, the asset issuer will be using buyback functionality which will allow them to buy back all outstanding bonds (whether they have been put up on the market or not) and the sellers will pay the 0.5% trade fee.
I wasn't aware of this, so we get 1.28 less 0.5% fee = 1.2736 so the shares are never worth more than this in effect & don't actually return 1.28 net - maybe I missed something in the OP offer or the fee structure has changed since then, or I'm mistaken, but would like to know for sure, thanks
(edited for my maths typo)
No, the asset issuer will be using buyback functionality which will allow them to buy back all outstanding bonds (whether they have been put up on the market or not) and the sellers will pay the 0.5% trade fee.
why would the sellers(bond owner) get the 0.5% fee? Actually I was hoping for no fee on a forced by back especially to the seller especially if we put the bonds up for sale at 1.28? the seller would then be within the maker/taker rule. 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).
so everybody should list all their shares in each issue for sale at 1.28 before the 4 weeks are up which is when you put up the buy offer for them all, because otherwise we will incur the fee as taker of your market maker buy offer, is that correct?
No, the asset issuer will be using buyback functionality which will allow them to buy back all outstanding bonds (whether they have been put up on the market or not) and the sellers will pay the 0.5% trade fee.
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).
so everybody should list all their shares in each issue for sale at 1.28 before the 4 weeks are up which is when you put up the buy offer for them all, because otherwise we will incur the fee as taker of your market maker buy offer, is that correct?
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).
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
Actually, just saw this post from GLBSE: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-glbse-has-a-new-look-78744
Quote
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jump to: