Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 38. (Read 316632 times)

Hahah, respect for not deleting these posts. +1

I look like a moron right about now

edit: confirmed for moron OH WELL

I am quoting this so i can make fun of you in a few minutes when eagles win

WHAT DID I SAY FLOATES WHAT DID I TELL YOU

Does anyone happen to know when new user registration will be turned back on?

The problem, as has been mentioned, is issuers not doing what their contracts say they'll do. While greater transparency through accurate financial reporting wouldn't be a bad thing, it wouldn't solve the problems. Issuers that go rogue would just fudge numbers and then it would naturally be burnside's fault for not detecting it. Bitcoin is itself a currency that requires one to be responsible for their own actions. If you send 4BTC to purchase that solar powered clothes dryer, then tough cookies when you get a clothes line in the mail. Securities denominated in BTC should be no different, if investors are too dense or lazy to do any diligence then they're going to take on a lot of risk.

Though not perfect, the system in place now at btct.co is IMO the best currently available in the crypto investing world. Though the moderator system does not protect determined investors from their own inability or unwillingness to adequately assess risk, over time scores do tend to favor companies that follow their contracts. If there's an obvious failing in the current system I'd say it's in the stage prior to moderator voting. Many mods obviously keep their own council and have their own reasons for voting to approve contracts such as PETA-MINE's, but abominations such as that one never should have seen the light of day. Burnside can't possibly be expected to read through and police every contract, so perhaps someone else could read through these things and draw attention to obvious discrepancies/contradictions that can be brought to the attention of both the asset issuer and potential investors prior to moderator voting.

Not sure, what the problem is. Your Co is not the one listed, you listed a PT aka  Depository Receipt. It's like a ADR DR (PT) hast to show reports from underlying Co.
Hopefully you do not decide to DR junk, that can not keep their numbers straight
BTW, this was just an example. Your account structure can and probably is different but some stuff is always there.

If issuer asks for someone else money and is "too busy" (read: full of shit or juts clueless) to show how raised coin is used, just let's not list this crap.
Businesses in BTW lala-land are so simple, there can not be any excuses.

The practical problem (ignoring another issue already explained by Greg - that exchanges shouldn't be doing an SEC-type role) is that there's no "one size fits all" solution for accounting.

Traditional accounts - of the type pasted earlier by yourself - are only really relevant for some types of businesses.  Why, for example, should I provide them for things like pass-throughs?  All that matters on those is that:

a) I hold enough of the underlying asset to back the shares I issue myself.
b) I pass on any/all received dividends (minus any fee detailed in the contract).
c) I meet any other commitments defined in the contract (such as any provisions regarding redemption or exchanging for underlying assets).

The actual cash-flow is entirely irrelevant and not the business of investors in any event.

What matters is what Greg already stated - that the contract contain a commitment to provide the appropriate level of detail for the nature of the security.  And that they then provide it when operational or are delisted.  There's two, MAYBE three, points at which the assessment of what an appropriate level of detail is:

1.  By burnside when administratively unlocking the asset.
2.  By moderators when voting to approve.
3.  By every individual investor when choosing to invest.

I disagree with the apparent view that all responsibility is somehow shovelled onto #1.  If #2 exists then #1 has no need to be particularly rigorous - because if burnside is personally meant to ensure quality then there's no justification for #2 to exist as a stage at all.

I don't have a moderator vote - though I do hold some shares in the BTC-TC passthrough to LTC-Global shares.  Lack of any information about accounting is one of the reasons why I vote NO on a large number of its motions regarding securities - especially mining ones where there's no commitment to providing regular updated lists of assets.

EDIT:  Don't read the above as meaning that I believe the current moderator system is good or working as it should.  That is NOT my view.  But all the time that's the system the responsibility for quality in listings HAS to primarily rest with moderators.  And the responsibility for investiing wisely will ALWAYS lie with individual investors.

I completely agree but you have to understand also, that at this moment in BTC world evolution, only the exchanges have the power to turn this ship in right direction.

I recall when I asked someone to describe their business in simple structure of a business model. You are right, it was epic fail by the issuer. He had no idea what he was really offering, why was he offering this and whom was actually hes client.  This is where we are at the moment.

Yes, those are just tools to describe something. Idea is to have those descriptions organized (standardized, if you may) so it's easy to compare and evaluate. This also what fin. reports are for.

I still believe, exchanges like btct and bt can get this ball rolling and rest will follow.

This.

Weak or non-existent financial reporting is merely a symptom of a much bigger underlying problem which the exchange has created for itself. Tackling the syptom will do utterly nothing to address the real problem, which is the listing of assets with ludicrously weak, incoherent, factually erroneous, almost embarrassing contracts. (And not to put too fine a point on it, but taking an asset with a ludicrous contract and slapping on some financials is not going to make the asset any better whatsoever.)

First, about tackling the symptom rather than the problem...

It might sound easy just to "demand regular financial reporting from issuers", and on the face of it maybe it even seems "awesome to do an SEC style requirement" and start playing the role of a financial regulator. However, each move toward playing financial regulator on the part of an exchange arguably creates liability for the exchange in the form of shared responsibility when something goes wrong: to be worth anything, the exchange must either accept or reject every submission, indicating that it either satisfies or does not satisfy a thorough and relevant set of clearly delineated requirements.

And if the exchange did sincerely wish to disregard the learning that has occurred during the last century or so regarding how to create an effective exchange system and chose to begin playing at being the SEC in spite of it all, then it would be important to get it right: set the relevant standards for the different asset types (including the clearly distinct requirements for bonds, depositary receipts, loans, managed funds, so-called 'futures', PMBs, revenue share contracts, and real companies), and ensure that you retain sufficient legal and accounting staff to guarantee that when the exchange stands up to be counted and puts its stamp of approval on each submitted document to affirm that it satisfies the requirements which the exchange has set, it doesn't foul it up. (Oh, and be sure to understand why the SEC exempts huge swaths of businesses from this type of regulation in the first place.)

Note that this is never, never, never how it works out in the real world of fiat finance: an exchange never plays the role of the SEC, and for extremely good reasons. (I'll come back to this in a second, with a note on how this does work in the fiat world.)

Back to tackling the real problem rather than putting a Band-Aid over it by playing financial regulator...

The underlying problem which I think grates on so many people is not the absence of robust financial reporting per se; it is the failure of asset issuers to do what they've said they're going to do, the failure of asset issuers to provide the information they've said they're going to provide, and the willingness of asset issuers to start doing other things than what they've said they're going to do. In some cases, it's even the willingness of asset issuers to change the terms of their contracts in the middle of an IPO.

If you get the contracts right, the rest will take care of itself. If a contract does not indicate what financial detail will be reported and when, then it should not be approved in the first place. If a contract does indicate what will be reported, and the issuer does not deliver, then it should be suspended and if necessary delisted.

So if you want financial reporting, great: simply require every asset to set out, in detail, exactly what it's going to report and when. And if it fails to do so, issue a notice that the asset will be suspended. (You could announce this requirement tomorrow if you wanted: everyone has 30 days to add financial reporting plans to their contracts, or they're out.)

That's how it works in the real world: exchanges may suspend listings for failing to submit appropriate financial reports to government bodies such as the SEC, but it is not their job -- and it should never be their job -- to play the role of a financial regulator determining what those reports should look like. (There is a reason for the very clear separation of responsibility between government bodies such as the SEC and commercial bodies such as stock exchanges.)

IMHO, the exchange has come to be where it is now as a result of outsourcing the job of financial and contract review to anyone willing to cough up a few dozen BTC to become an LTC Global moderator. The current junk is listed because LTC Global/BTC Trading shareholders chose to list it. An exchange with an annual run rate of over 1 million BTC in trading volume should consider taking a more serious approach to quality control and put aside forever the populist approach of simply listing whatever its shareholders vote to list.

And don't get me started on the crazy conflicts of interest already baked into that system, let alone all the additional problems the exchange would create for itself if it decided it should play SEC, too...

when will it be possible again to register on your site???

Why bother with that?
Make a web form, where one can add rows to Assets or Liabilities side, if needed:
Start out with:

Quick example from http://www.accountingcoach.com/online-accounting-course/05Xpg04.html

And same for liabiliteis:


"+ - " add sub row,  delete row, you probably have better ideas than ASCI art allows

+1

@burnside. May I report a (maybe) bug of BTC-TC here? (or there's a better place?)

In the newly added trade analysis, the approx total is not the sum of transaction, but (transaction + fee). The transaction, however, has already included fee. So the fee is double computed. Is it a bug?

Another bug: if I put two sell orders with the same price and same amount, say 1000 @ 0.003, the cancel amount in sell wall only shows 1000. More importantly, later when these two orders are filled. only one of them is listed in the trade analysis. But two of them are both listed in the trade history.

if you look at the blockchain page: "Public hint: https://i.imgur.com/zAHjn.gif"

Yes, I've been following.

Don't read too much into my (lack of) comment.  I expressed my concerns about it fairly clearly in the thread - you can judge for yourself the extent to which those were addressed.

It's definitely a better prospect than most - unfortunately that doesn't, of itself, say anything particularly useful.  I can honestly say that I haven't yet decided whether or not I'll be buying into the IPO - but put simply if it looks heavily over-subscribed I'll buy with the intent of flipping, if it doesn't look oversubscribed then I'll pass (but reconsider if it gets near selling out with heavy momentum).  My decision to act like that has next to nothing to do with its quality - that's just what I do on most IPOs. You can, however, conclude that I don't believe it to be obviously profitable enough (or likely to sustain price well enough before it reaches dividend point - which matters more) to justify buying now with the intention to hold.  

Put simply, if I want some I think I can get them at same price or cheaper later on - so no need to pay the cost of tied up capital.  If my view on that changes (due to order deptht) then I'll buy - but flip as same principle will apply just at a higher price (i.e. I believe I can sell shortly after IPO and buy back later for the same or less).  Shares around here just don't hold price if there's no obvious growth/dividends - I may not agree with the reasoning why people think that way but it would still be stupid to ignore the reality that they do.

This is my top reason to read drunk Deprived posts!

If/when I make it out to the UK, I'm going to buy him a beer for the money I made off of SELLING. Then I'm going to get him hammered and get amazing BTC investing advice!

And football is football!

What they play with that egg thing across the pond it's american football, hehe!