Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 46. (Read 316534 times)

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding at work here. Simply having more shares does not entitle one to advanced knowledge of the inner workings of a company, save in the case of companies that have board members or an advisory board. Company officers that provide such information are indeed benefiting one group of virtual shareholders and putting another group at a disadvantage, but there's no way to police this. The transaction that you've referenced with my company occurred at a share price of .61 and every investor that held shares at that time benefited as they were afforded an opportunity to sell their shares at a higher price and their shares then received higher dividends. As this transaction was necessarily preceded by a public shareholder vote due to bASIC-Mining's unchanging contract everything was done transparently in the light of day.

Cheers.

Hi! Please understand my example. Minors have not known information about dilution. Majors know more and sold shares before it, then buying. It's posible resolve only special offer for old shareholders or except float number of outstanding in stocks. Funds, futures will make it as many as they want. But stock (and same), loans must not did it.

[UPD] It's not solve only by announce to all. Becouse major make news (already sold then announce). They are insiders.

Hi ventolin. Burnside has never made any claims that he's going to police the exchange that I've seen. Doing so would be a full time job+ in and of itself and would open up a whole new can of worms. Instead he offers a minimal layer of protection by preventing issuers from altering their own contracts and ensuring that shareholder votes are conducted fairly. In addition he's made it very clear in every conceivable way that virtual investors are responsible for their own actions. Exchange moderators are responsible for rating assets and ensuring that issuers follow their contracts. Those that do not do so tend to draw the ire of exchange moderators who vote those virtual assets down over time.

I understand your concerns about shareholder dilution and I share them, but the only additional shares that have ever been issued by bASIC-Mining were issued for a special equipment purchase that was authorized by majority shareholder vote. All shareholders, regardless of the size of their holdings, have benefited from said purchase in the form of increased dividends and opportunities to sell holdings at higher prices. If there's a more fair way to conduct these procedures then I'm sure we'd all like to move in that direction.

There's any number of ways in which large shareholders of any asset can attempt to manipulate share prices and all virtual investors must remain vigilant and protect their own interests regardless of the size of their investment.

Cheers.

I understand you. And this is awful!
Btw DMS-MINING have hash power? Or you pay dividend from DMS-SELLING? Offtop, but I'm not trust you and you funds. Sorry man.

If Issuer need cash he must SELL REAL SHARES.

I'm not sure if there is a confussion here or not, but I'll give it a try.

When creating a security the issuer has to enter the amount of shares which can potentially be issued. This is a hard limit and can only be changed by BTC-TC's admin on request and with consensus of shareholders, depending on the type of the security. (ref) This is the number on the right. After creation the asset issuer has this amount of shares in his account and can sell them on the market. The number decreses, if shares are sent back to the asset issuer's account.

Outstanding shares are shares which are not hold by the asset issuer. That are those, which were sold and are traded on the market. This is the left number.

I'll give you two examples and an explaination, why it is how it is:

1. LABCOIN: Outstanding 10000000 / 10000000 Issued

Their goal was to issue 10M shares and they sold them (to be more precise, 3M are held as reserve in LAB developer accounts) during their IPO. They are unable to issue more shares or bound to the limitations stated above.


2. ASICMINER-PT: Outstanding 30707 / 400000 Issued

Right now there are 30707 AM-PT shares issued. In theory, burnside (the asset issuer) is able to release 400000 - 30707 = 369293 more shares. AM-PT is a pass-through of ASICMINER, a stock which is traded over the counter and not directly on BTC-TC. AM-PT was created as "representation"/replacement of ASICMINER, to offer an option to trade ASICMINER on BTC-TC. For each ASICMINER share burnside holds, he issues one ASICMINER-PT share on BTC-TC. People are able to transfer ASICMINER shares to burnside and he will send them an ASICMINER-PT share on BTC-TC. This works the other way around, too. If you'd like to exchange your ASICMINER-PT share to receive an ASICMINER direct share, that's possible. There are 400000 ASICMINER shares altogether and for the (very unlikely) case, that all ASICMINER shares were converted into the pass-through, he would be able to issue this amount. The amount of outstanding shares changes from time to time, because people are using this exchange option.


Same goes for ACTIVEMINING. The number changes, because people are transfering shares from BitFunder back to Ken Slaughter, who gives them an ACTIVEMINING share on BTC-TC in exchange. creativex explained why he issued an additional amount of 1625 shares a few posts above.

Another possible reason for a company to create a security, but not issue all shares would be if they intend to raise funds several times. ("We will sell 1M shares now and another batch of 1M shares in 6 months, thus we created this security with the option to release 2M shares in total.")

--

Edit:

Deprived, I assume you request a time filter for a single security, but if that's not the case, there is https://btct.co/api/tradeHistory, which returns all trades made on BTC-TC of the last 48 hours.

A possible workaround with some disadvantages could be to monitor https://btct.co/trades?tz=Europe/London, which returns the latest 75 (?) trades without delay.

Is it possible to have an API call that returns only last 24 hours/48 hours of trades?

At present the only request for transaction history give the entire transaction history - which uses up a ton of bandwith for no purpose when you're only after new trades.  I have a bot running that handles the exchanges for DMS.  Running it every 2 minutes uses up well over 1 GB of bandwidth per day - which totally scuppered my plan to run that on a seperate computer on a backup mobile bandwith connection (as it far exceeds the bandwith paid for on that connection).  And of course that's only going to get worse as time passes if entire history is sent every time (plus something similar will be running on 4 more of my accounts in the not too distant future).  And it's wasting bandwidth at the server end too.

I'm requesting a new API call - not a change to the existing one.

Is it possible to have the order id returned for immediate fills from the ask_submit/bid_submit api endpoints? Currently it returns something like:


I am having a hard time matching up orders and this type of fill.  I am pretty sure an order id is generated because i can later match up quantity/price and see the the order id number in the csv endpoints. It would just be nicer/less error prone to have the id available at order placement.

In the usual case where there is no immediate fill its not a problem since the order number is returned like this:

The situation isn't quite as bad as you think.

For example on BASIC-MINING the extra increase in shares was done by issuing new shares in return for a BFL mini-rig.  It was definitely a good deal for existing investors (and a horrible one for the guy with the mini-rig - as he took shares valued right at the top of a bubble) and was approved by shareholder vote that passed with over 80% YES votes.

Active-mining is really a pass-through to the main issue on Bitfunder (as it as launched on Bitfunder without there ever being a shareholder vote to convert it to a dual listing).  The maximum shares were set before a change in the structure of the company and should really be reduced to the current actual maximum.  Unfortunately AMC has been pretty terrible all along when it comes to clearly explaining, reporting and sticking to a plan on sale of shares.

I certainly agree with you that in a lot of BTC companies there is significant opportunity for a controlling interest to act against the interests of smaller investors (something which is illegal in nearly all countries).  But the most blatant ways of doing that don't involve issuing new shares at all.  And remember that what are reported as shares on securities aren't actually shares for the majority of securities : most are things like bonds or units where there doesn't need to be control of issuance/redemption provided the issuer doesn't do things which would break their obligation to investors (things such as buying back units above NAV/U or selling units below NAV/U in funds which have the ability to constantly issue new units).

The thing that most needs to be stamped out in my view is securities changing the contract mid-IPO.  Especially where they set targets that must be reached then remove them when it becomes apparent they won't be hit.  If a contract needs a change mid-IPO then the IPO should be aborted, all funds returned, the security delisted and moderator votes removed.  Then when they've changed the contract they should go through the approval process again.

A contract needs to be something that's fundamentally set in stone BEFORE shares are sold - not something that's changed randomly as the IPO progresses (or fails to progress).

OK! You answer about second type - it's just my mistake about COGNITIVE (may be).

Real danger for minor investor is fuzzy number of outstanding shares. bASIC-MINER for example. Outstanding 51625 / 1000000 Issued.
Market cap is shares price multiplay by outstanding shares. If Issuer increase it as bASIC-MINER from 50000 to 51625 shares price decrease in inverse ratio.

Nobody in stock market did same things. Evrytime when Issuer want to make new outstanding he must offer by special price new outstanding to old shareholder in extraordinary order. Otherwise major shareholder can make fraud in the law. Please look example above https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3085484

Sorry again for my english, but I see here easy ligal way how to fraud vs minor shareholder. In real life it is posible with weak statute where not provided with special offer issue of shares.

P.S.: In BTC-TC present only 2 clear company who define minors: LABCOIN (Outstanding 10000000 / 10000000 Issued), COGNITIVE ( Outstanding 10420 / 10420 Issued). Other is fraud in law. burnside, please, change the law!

This is why issuers must put the full contract into the contract section of the Details page, and why moderators must vote NO on those that don't.

Very valid concerns.  An issuer cannot issue new shares nor change their contract on their own.  I have to do it.

On bonds, mining contracts, futures, funds, passthru's, and managed portfolios I adjust share counts by request of the issuer.  On revenue shares and 'stocks' I only do it if a motion has passed.

That said, there are definitely ways majority holders and issuers can game the system, just like in the real world.  Don't put you coins into the site unless you have read up on an asset and you are confident it is something you want to be involved with.

Cheers.

Hi,

Anyone has any experience with a Google Authenticator running on windows 7 in stead of on a smart phone ?
And yes I know it kind of defeats the purpose.

/AlexC

Take a look at #1881. Maybe (I hope) it does help... Good luck!


By the way, burnside. Are you still alive?

HI,I‘m a chinese user of BTC-TC.
Today I update my GOOGLE AUTHRESET  app on my iphone.
But unfortunately the password in this app all disappear.
I'm so said and anxiety,I was application for reset GOOGLE AUTHRESET,but it will take 30 days.That is too long to wait.
Maybe I will lose a lot of bitcoins while I'm waitting for 30 days.
So I appreciate that if you could reset my account GOOGLE AUTHRESET immediately.
Thank you very very very very much!!

It's lawlessness. "If you don't feel you trust" - I have don't feel trust this schema.

Easy way to cheat with minor shareholders. We (major) want to make new 1000 outstanding shares (total 10 000). Enviroment is permanent. Now price is 1 BTC, market cap = 10 000 BTC. After outstanding market cap will not change 10 000 BTC and new price will 0.9090 BTC per shares.

We doing easy thing: sell for cash untill price not fall by 10% or lower. Then announce and approve new outstanding and sell one lot it in market. Minor look at market and see new real price 0.9090 BTC. We (major) look the same thing, but we prepare cash for buying new discount shares and we usualy buy it all.

Now we have cheap profit in cash and our part will increased. Old minor shareholder just lost 10%.

Full lawlessness accorded by BTC-TC vs minor shareholders.

There's nothing stopping anyone from acquiring 51% of an asset that's offered for sale on the open market, but a shareholder vote to issue new shares or make any other contractual change can only be initiated by the asset issuer. If you don't feel you can trust any particular asset issuer then the rest is moot, simply don't invest in that person's securities.

Cheers.

Feature Request: Automatic withdrawal of dividends to an external address

50%+1 in one hands can permanent vote and majority approval and drop into market new shares. Without special reglament it's deadly for minor shareholder.
For example I had 20% of pie, then awake and now have 10% of pie. And my part's price decrease in twice.
Common practice: new outstanding offering by special price to old shareholders.



Ok, I can't remeber and will check COGNITIVE in future.

[UPD] Split is OK!

bASIC-Mining was originally set up that way by me last year to avoid requesting the issuance of additional shares if needed in the future. At the time it was not at all unusual to do it that way. Not one share has ever left the asset issuer account without a shareholder vote and majority approval. Not. One. Ever. Not even for a millisecond. This is easily checked by anyone at any time by simply checking the number of shares outstanding.

Originally 5000 shares authorized >>> 10x stock split authorized >>> +1625 authorized for equipment purchase = 51,625 shares outstanding.

Cheers.

Edit: Asset issuers cannot change their contracts on btct.co w/o site admin approval, which is only granted upon a successful shareholder vote.

Who can explain me? Why any Issuer can easy increase number of shares?

It had 2 type of issuers.

First type. Look for example in history data:
1. https://btct.co/security/ACTIVEMINING 2924534->3069481->3071989->3074084, Outstanding 3074084 / 25000000 Issued.
2. https://btct.co/security/BASIC-MINING ...50000->51625, Outstanding 51625 / 1000000 Issued.
3. and other...

How I understand market cap of ACTIVEMINING is 0.005497*25000000 = 137425 BTC, it's looking huge.
Or BASIC-MINING is 0.149*1000000 = 149000 BTC, it's actualy huge for 1435 Gh or 103 per 1 Gh.

It's ability give issuer to sell evrytime and price can fall 200 times as BASIC-MINING until normal gigahash price.

Second type a bit worse.

1. https://btct.co/security/COGNITIVE 8619->9032->8619>8620->8629->8809->9709->10420, Outstanding 10420 / 10420 Issued.

This issuer just change Details in Contract & Prospectus and drop new shares into market.
Issuer made it without preffered offer to old shareholder by special price. Is it correct?

May be BTC-TC is big scum? Explain me please!

And sorry for my english.