[BitFunder] Asset Exchange Marketplace + Rewritable Options Trading - page 58.

Ukyo

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: ianbakewell on February 06, 2013, 11:59:56 AM

Random suggestion:

Asset transfers currently only show up in the transaction history. I would like to see them in the My Assets -> Trade History section.
Could you create a yellow button for and place transfers into the Type column titled "transfer" and allow us to insert the Price Per ?

Wonderful idea, I will look into adding it in.

Ukyo

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

I am glad to say that thanks to Usagi's help the reserves issue has now been corrected.

Only 3 people have incorrect reserves balances at the moment, and they are the per-asset reserve testers.

To be able to place more orders again, they will need to cancel orders below their current balance.

If these users have not opted to cancel the bids on their own within 3 days, I will cancel them starting with the highest costs until the are at or below balance.

Ukyo

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Peter Lambert on February 03, 2013, 07:24:23 AM

When placing an order, currently it says "Trade complete", even when no trade happens. When an order is put onto the book, it should say something like "Order placed successfully", I keep seeing that "trade complete" message and saying to myself "oh, crap, I didn't want to sell at the current prices, what did my fat fingers do?"

Ahh, actually this is my fault because I had fixed this. But for only one type of trade.
It should say "Trade completed and/or posted!". Which I have put up now.

In the future I will have it display a box that tells you What was immediately purchased/sold, and what was posted.

Thanks for letting me know!

Peter Lambert

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye

When placing an order, currently it says "Trade complete", even when no trade happens. When an order is put onto the book, it should say something like "Order placed successfully", I keep seeing that "trade complete" message and saying to myself "oh, crap, I didn't want to sell at the current prices, what did my fat fingers do?"

EskimoBob

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quality Printing Services by Federal Reserve Bank

Any plans to clear up this mess?

How many "Price" can you have there?

I think that this is one of the most annoying "features" of bitfunder. This can be fixed by using "standard" terminology. You got about 3 "price" labels to many in that box.

After you have fixed that, can you please drop this cross eyed BS - having Buy and Sell boxes, above "wrong" columns - or to be more precise, you show Ask price in "buy" window above Bid column. Your Sell is above Ask column, but uses prices form Bid column.
It looks and feels wrong and is counter intuitive - aka bad usability

Ukyo

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: ianbakewell on February 01, 2013, 09:55:17 AM

I cancelled some orders and the funds are stuck in reserve, help please.

This was corrected earlier.

Ukyo

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

You should be good now Peter.

I am going to be adding a full range of debugs on the 3 places in the code where reserves are handled tonight to track it down easier.

Thanks

Ukyo

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Ukyo on January 29, 2013, 05:48:38 PM

Quote from: Deprived on January 29, 2013, 04:21:47 PM

Quote from: Deprived on January 27, 2013, 09:50:16 PM

Reserved amounts are now totally wrong.

It shows a reserved amount of ฿0.5186460 for me on all assets - whether I have zero bids on them or a lot more than .5 BTC in bids.

This problem still exists.

It nows shows a reserved amount of ฿6.46497350 for me on all assets - whether or not I have any bids at all on them.

I'd guess that it's displaying the reserved amount I have on some security - whether or not it's the one I'm actually looking at. It's entirely likely I DO have that exact amount in bids on some security.

Unfortunately it's also now rejecting bids at the server based on that amount.

This is correct.
I had picked a few accounts to allow them to reserve on a per asset basis to test with, yours being one of them since you asked for the feature.
As stated in irc and another thread, I have decided against the per-asset reserve funding reserves.
It does not add any real liquidity to the system in my and many others opinions, it just offers a false pretense of that liquidity.

Once you bring your total reserve under your balance you will be able to place more orders on the books once again.
This goes for the other few users who are in the same situation.

There may be a reserves bug, and if someone notices the system adding/removing incorrect reserves based on their orders please let me know.
I have not been able to duplicate such thing on the sandbox which uses the exact same code at this time.

I have cancelled all my buy orders, but it still says I have some reserved, I think this is a bug?

Ah hah! Let me take a look at the debug.

Ukyo

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Deprived on January 29, 2013, 04:21:47 PM

Quote from: Deprived on January 27, 2013, 09:50:16 PM

Reserved amounts are now totally wrong.

It shows a reserved amount of ฿0.5186460 for me on all assets - whether I have zero bids on them or a lot more than .5 BTC in bids.

This problem still exists.

It nows shows a reserved amount of ฿6.46497350 for me on all assets - whether or not I have any bids at all on them.

I'd guess that it's displaying the reserved amount I have on some security - whether or not it's the one I'm actually looking at. It's entirely likely I DO have that exact amount in bids on some security.

Unfortunately it's also now rejecting bids at the server based on that amount.

This is correct.
I had picked a few accounts to allow them to reserve on a per asset basis to test with, yours being one of them since you asked for the feature.
As stated in irc and another thread, I have decided against the per-asset reserve funding reserves.
It does not add any real liquidity to the system in my and many others opinions, it just offers a false pretense of that liquidity.

Once you bring your total reserve under your balance you will be able to place more orders on the books once again.
This goes for the other few users who are in the same situation.

There may be a reserves bug, and if someone notices the system adding/removing incorrect reserves based on their orders please let me know.
I have not been able to duplicate such thing on the sandbox which uses the exact same code at this time.

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: Deprived on January 27, 2013, 09:50:16 PM

Reserved amounts are now totally wrong.

It shows a reserved amount of ฿0.5186460 for me on all assets - whether I have zero bids on them or a lot more than .5 BTC in bids.

This problem still exists.

It nows shows a reserved amount of ฿6.46497350 for me on all assets - whether or not I have any bids at all on them.

I'd guess that it's displaying the reserved amount I have on some security - whether or not it's the one I'm actually looking at. It's entirely likely I DO have that exact amount in bids on some security.

Unfortunately it's also now rejecting bids at the server based on that amount.

Peter Lambert

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye

I am not sure where to put this, but I just noticed that WeExchange has on their withdrawal page a tab for using Ripple. I find the idea of Ripple exciting, I think it will couple nicely with the bitcoin economy. Hopefully they get out of beta soon so we can all try it out.

MPOE-PR

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 522

Quote from: Monster Tent on January 28, 2013, 09:47:11 PM

The policy of listing this sort of crap is what destroyed glbse, and it seems to be destroying cryptostocks in the same fashion. The same policy on btcjam means "investors" overall have lost 23% to scams and caused negative returns mostly.

Unless there is a zero tolerance to hyips schemes and rules for listing on the exchange it will most certainly lead to glbse debacles happening again. Just because something pays dividends for awhile doesnt mean squat.

Mr. Peckerhead does have a point.

Peter Lambert

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye

Quote from: Monster Tent on January 28, 2013, 09:47:11 PM

The policy of listing this sort of crap is what destroyed glbse, and it seems to be destroying cryptostocks in the same fashion. The same policy on btcjam means "investors" overall have lost 23% to scams and caused negative returns mostly.

Unless there is a zero tolerance to hyips schemes and rules for listing on the exchange it will most certainly lead to glbse debacles happening again. Just because something pays dividends for awhile doesnt mean squat.

And just because there are requirements for listings does not ensure that no scams make it onto an exchange. The investors still need to do due diligence, as we have all learned.

Monster Tent

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Peter Lambert

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 500

It's all fun and games until somebody loses an eye

Quote from: MPOE-PR on January 28, 2013, 08:22:16 AM

The stuff I'm reading in this thread...

... is all in the posts above this.

🏰 TradeFortress 🏰

vip

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1043

👻

Quote from: MPOE-PR on January 28, 2013, 08:22:16 AM

The stuff I'm reading in this thread...

Yawn. Yet another low effort post.

MPOE-PR

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 522

The stuff I'm reading in this thread...

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Reserved amounts are now totally wrong.

It shows a reserved amount of ฿0.5186460 for me on all assets - whether I have zero bids on them or a lot more than .5 BTC in bids.

Ukyo

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: Deprived on January 27, 2013, 08:49:57 PM

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on January 27, 2013, 08:31:05 PM

There is one explanation for the first dividends - the asset issuer might have gambled the funds (however many shares they sold) and sold at the $19 peak to rebuy at $16.

But the fact that shares are traded not at face value but on a *massive* tiered system makes it very likely that it is a ponzi / scam asset.

Well there's plenty of ways he COULD have made that profit - but not from doing what his contract says he'd do.

And what's face value? I can't even see a mention of it anywhere (as it's a fund it shouldn't have a face value - but a unit valuation of some kind). You know something's wrong when the big Ask wall is at 1.0 but nearly all shares actually sold changed hands at .5 or less. Looks like he's just gonna try to hit and run on a small volume - which he's already made if either of the 50 unit sales was to anyone other than himself.

Which is why there needs to be SOME quality control on what gets listed - or after he runs with his proceeds this time he can come back, provide a new disposable email address as his only form of identification/history and repeat with a slightly different but equally vague, unsubstantiated and unbelievable proposition.

To be honest, I had instructed him to put up more details.
If he doesn't comply I may freeze trading.

Also, I have actually turned away about 7 people who wanted to do funds and no real details. This one was an unexpected.

I am trying to get the profiles live so people can see which issuers are WeexVerified.

Deprived

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: 🏰 TradeFortress 🏰 on January 27, 2013, 08:31:05 PM

There is one explanation for the first dividends - the asset issuer might have gambled the funds (however many shares they sold) and sold at the $19 peak to rebuy at $16.

But the fact that shares are traded not at face value but on a *massive* tiered system makes it very likely that it is a ponzi / scam asset.

Well there's plenty of ways he COULD have made that profit - but not from doing what his contract says he'd do.

And what's face value? I can't even see a mention of it anywhere (as it's a fund it shouldn't have a face value - but a unit valuation of some kind). You know something's wrong when the big Ask wall is at 1.0 but nearly all shares actually sold changed hands at .5 or less. Looks like he's just gonna try to hit and run on a small volume - which he's already made if either of the 50 unit sales was to anyone other than himself.

Which is why there needs to be SOME quality control on what gets listed - or after he runs with his proceeds this time he can come back, provide a new disposable email address as his only form of identification/history and repeat with a slightly different but equally vague, unsubstantiated and unbelievable proposition.

Topic: [BitFunder] Asset Exchange Marketplace + Rewritable Options Trading - page 58. (Read 129419 times)