The bigger improvement however... Issuers can now reply to posted comments.
Oh, this is a great step forward, gg!
Topic: [BTC-TC] Virtual Community Exchange [CLOSED] - page 79. (Read 316534 times)
Asking the "community" is not a solution though. Real written standards and guidance need to be posted publicly and provided to all voters. Then you will have means to moderate according to that script.
I am asking for input that will be used to form policy.
Current draft in dev:
Quote
Please observe the following rules when voting:
Comments of a personal nature are not allowed.
False statements are not allowed. (Be truthful!)
The following guidelines may also be helpful:
Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this contract or shareholder agreement is complete and clear.
Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this prospectus, where applicable, is complete and clear.
Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this issuer has the experience necessary to operate an issue.
Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this issuer can be trusted.
Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this issue is good for the exchange LONG TERM.
Try to be constructive.
Comments of a personal nature are not allowed.
False statements are not allowed. (Be truthful!)
The following guidelines may also be helpful:
Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this contract or shareholder agreement is complete and clear.
Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this prospectus, where applicable, is complete and clear.
Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this issuer has the experience necessary to operate an issue.
Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this issuer can be trusted.
Try to evaluate based on whether you feel like this issue is good for the exchange LONG TERM.
Try to be constructive.
I'm also going to work on an input field where issuers can respond to the moderators comments with a sentence or two.
Cheers.
The following moderation policies went into the production moderation interface this evening:
Quote
Please observe the following rules when voting:
Comments of a personal nature are not allowed.
False statements are not allowed. (Be truthful!)
The following guidelines may also be helpful:
Do you feel like this contract or shareholder agreement is complete and clear.
Do you feel like this prospectus, where applicable, is complete and clear.
Do you feel like this issuer has the experience necessary to operate an issue.
Do you feel like this issuer can be trusted.
Do you feel like this issue is good for the exchange LONG TERM.
Try to be constructive.
Comments of a personal nature are not allowed.
False statements are not allowed. (Be truthful!)
The following guidelines may also be helpful:
Do you feel like this contract or shareholder agreement is complete and clear.
Do you feel like this prospectus, where applicable, is complete and clear.
Do you feel like this issuer has the experience necessary to operate an issue.
Do you feel like this issuer can be trusted.
Do you feel like this issue is good for the exchange LONG TERM.
Try to be constructive.
The bigger improvement however... Issuers can now reply to posted comments. When an issuer replies the moderator that made the comment will receive an email notification including the content of your reply.
Cheers.
Three questions:
1. Are the options on the exchange European style or American style? Meaning can I exercise them at any point in time up to the expiration date, or only on the expiration date?
2. Also, if I buy put options from someone, is it guaranteed that the user can fulfill his obligations in case the asset goes to 0 (worst case scenario for him)? Ie., for someone who writes put options, is the full amount of BTC required to fulfill the obligation locked in his account?
3. Is there a secondary market for options, or can I only buy options from issuers, and exercise them, but not sell them to someone else?
1. Are the options on the exchange European style or American style? Meaning can I exercise them at any point in time up to the expiration date, or only on the expiration date?
2. Also, if I buy put options from someone, is it guaranteed that the user can fulfill his obligations in case the asset goes to 0 (worst case scenario for him)? Ie., for someone who writes put options, is the full amount of BTC required to fulfill the obligation locked in his account?
3. Is there a secondary market for options, or can I only buy options from issuers, and exercise them, but not sell them to someone else?
1) American
2) The exchange reserves all coins/shares required in the accounts of the options writers.
3) They can be resold at whatever premium you want to relist them for.
Hope that helps.
Three questions:
1. Are the options on the exchange European style or American style? Meaning can I exercise them at any point in time up to the expiration date, or only on the expiration date?
2. Also, if I buy put options from someone, is it guaranteed that the user can fulfill his obligations in case the asset goes to 0 (worst case scenario for him)? Ie., for someone who writes put options, is the full amount of BTC required to fulfill the obligation locked in his account?
3. Is there a secondary market for options, or can I only buy options from issuers, and exercise them, but not sell them to someone else?
1. Are the options on the exchange European style or American style? Meaning can I exercise them at any point in time up to the expiration date, or only on the expiration date?
2. Also, if I buy put options from someone, is it guaranteed that the user can fulfill his obligations in case the asset goes to 0 (worst case scenario for him)? Ie., for someone who writes put options, is the full amount of BTC required to fulfill the obligation locked in his account?
3. Is there a secondary market for options, or can I only buy options from issuers, and exercise them, but not sell them to someone else?
I have a sizeable amount of coins spread out over my portfolio on your exchange, but moving them with is slow which in turn inhibits my ability to trade. Could you add support for Inputs.io as I have many coins stored there and that would greatly increase trading productivity.
It's being looked at as a way to enable quicker deposits.
I do not think it would speed up withdrawals much, given our manual processing requirement.
Cheers.
...one more thing. If you want to make those models and plans comparable and easier for evaluation, chop them up to a web form and do not allow mixing stuff up and writing it in what ever order they please.
BTW, money has never made anyone smart. So, there has to be a better way to organize this approval process - letting the money vote (own shares) is obviously not working.
BTW, money has never made anyone smart. So, there has to be a better way to organize this approval process - letting the money vote (own shares) is obviously not working.
The main thought behind the shareholders being the ones voting is because in theory they're the ones that own the exchange. I agree though that we need to enlist (maybe even hire) some mods as well to provide guidance.
...one more thing. If you want to make those models and plans comparable and easier for evaluation, chop them up to a web form and do not allow mixing stuff up and writing it in what ever order they please.
BTW, money has never made anyone smart. So, there has to be a better way to organize this approval process - letting the money vote (own shares) is obviously not working.
BTW, money has never made anyone smart. So, there has to be a better way to organize this approval process - letting the money vote (own shares) is obviously not working.
Voting sure is an interesting idea but there has always been one small problem - information (application, contract) submitted by issuer.
So far we can see some business model/plan hybrids. This is not good enough.
Lets start with the model.
Description of ones business model can be written down using a very simple form. If issuer is not competent enough (usually to lazy) to describe their "product" ... wtf are you even voting on?
If they have already started and want to grow, but can not produce a financial statements, why do you think they can do it in the future.
Having an IPO without proper financial statements is beyond retarded.
Let's start with business model.
Definition of 'Business Model' - The plan implemented by a company to generate revenue and make a profit from operations. The model includes the components and functions of the business, as well as the revenues it generates and the expenses it incurs.
In short: what is offered and why (not how)
Form:
(before filling this out, you need to understand, what goes where. Start by reading this: http://www.businessmodelgeneration.com/downloads/businessmodelgeneration_preview.pdf)
* Key activities
(you write your stuff here)
* Key partners
(you write your stuff here)
* Your Key resources
(you write your stuff here)
* What your Cost Structure looks like
(you write your stuff here)
* Revenue stream
(you write your stuff here)
* Your Customer Segments
(you write your stuff here)
* Customer Relationships
(you write your stuff here)
* and Channels (communication obviously)
(you write your stuff here)
* Value proposition
(you write your stuff here)
Evaluating business model (what is offered to a client) is a good start. If they can not write down "what", they probably have no idea "how" to execute it. "I'll buy mining rig" will not be enough.
Business plan
When they have the model, they can write up the. Business plan is basically a description of HOW they are going to execute the model (what) described.
Financial statements
You also need numbers like how much is invested as of today and how much is needed to continue. Any liabilities? Assetes (and fixed assets)? Expense and income structure etc. What happens, if IPO fails?
Now you have something to evaluate.
All the perpetual fixed mh/s crap has to go. This stuff only hurts investors. Real (mining) bonds? Sure, why not. Even with floating rate (but only if part of the coupon is fixed!) are OK too.
So far we can see some business model/plan hybrids. This is not good enough.
Lets start with the model.
Description of ones business model can be written down using a very simple form. If issuer is not competent enough (usually to lazy) to describe their "product" ... wtf are you even voting on?
If they have already started and want to grow, but can not produce a financial statements, why do you think they can do it in the future.
Having an IPO without proper financial statements is beyond retarded.
Let's start with business model.
Definition of 'Business Model' - The plan implemented by a company to generate revenue and make a profit from operations. The model includes the components and functions of the business, as well as the revenues it generates and the expenses it incurs.
In short: what is offered and why (not how)
Form:
(before filling this out, you need to understand, what goes where. Start by reading this: http://www.businessmodelgeneration.com/downloads/businessmodelgeneration_preview.pdf)
* Key activities
(you write your stuff here)
* Key partners
(you write your stuff here)
* Your Key resources
(you write your stuff here)
* What your Cost Structure looks like
(you write your stuff here)
* Revenue stream
(you write your stuff here)
* Your Customer Segments
(you write your stuff here)
* Customer Relationships
(you write your stuff here)
* and Channels (communication obviously)
(you write your stuff here)
* Value proposition
(you write your stuff here)
Evaluating business model (what is offered to a client) is a good start. If they can not write down "what", they probably have no idea "how" to execute it. "I'll buy mining rig" will not be enough.
Business plan
When they have the model, they can write up the. Business plan is basically a description of HOW they are going to execute the model (what) described.
Financial statements
You also need numbers like how much is invested as of today and how much is needed to continue. Any liabilities? Assetes (and fixed assets)? Expense and income structure etc. What happens, if IPO fails?
Now you have something to evaluate.
All the perpetual fixed mh/s crap has to go. This stuff only hurts investors. Real (mining) bonds? Sure, why not. Even with floating rate (but only if part of the coupon is fixed!) are OK too.
I'm not really familiar with the listing process and I don't know how it looks like from a moderator's perspective, but personal bias seems to play a role. To reduce this factor, a multi-step voting process could be used in which voters first solely vote on an asset's contract, but without knowing anything about the asset's issuer. If the contract is approved, the next step could focus on the issuer himself. Each step should give both voters and issuer the chance to discuss any remarks. I don't see a reason to make anything of this available to the public. A final public announcement with "asset x has been approved/disapproved" is sufficient in my opinion.
I agree that multi-step would be great in principal, but it would not work well in practice. Part of drafting a complete contract and hashing out the business details is in public discussion prior to submission for approval. It'd be really hard to have that discussion without giving away the potential issuer.
It's not just a matter of person bias; if someone doesn't think that a business plan will give returns, they can effectively block anyone else from thinking that it will (or at least betting on it).
.b
.b
Hopefully being able to respond to the comments will help this somewhat, however on this one I'm also going to have to point at the guideline I wrote about "doing what you think is best for the exchange long term". Like it or not, if it has the perception of not being profitable for the voter, it's going to have that same perception to others as well. Multiply that out across the multitudes and you end up with a situation where assets with such perceptions could kill the reputation of the exchange and drag down alternate assets in the process.
(Put simply, I think we have enough PMB's for the time being. Certainly plenty for anyone wanting to hedge against a difficulty drop and I'd like to see more variety.)
Hmmm. Community thoughts on this?
I'm standing by my original opinion on the voting system, and frankly, I don't see why a comment is required at all.
However, how about just having an arbitration over comments? If an issuer gets an unwarranted vote with a comment, they can question the comment and have it appealed to you. There are something like 30 assets listed and at most perhaps 2-3 no-votes per asset, so I'm sure the workload wouldn't kill you.
If you insist on the community involvement, pick three random voters and ask them to review the comment instead.
.b
Comments are required on "NO" votes because it helps the issuer improve their issue if they know why someone is downvoting them. It's supposed to be a way to provide constructive criticism. Constructive to potential investors, or constructive to the issuer, either way, the comments are valuable.
There definitely has to be a super-mod / arbitration process however I do not want it to be a black box. I want it to be policy driven, so that everyone knows what is expected, and does not end up feeling like they've been treated unfairly. I know it's impossible to keep everyone happy, but it IS important that everyone knows the rules and the rules are applied evenly and consistently.
One possible bodged solution would be to allow asset issuers to check a box whereby no public comments from moderators would be displayed - just the tally of votes.
Probably won't do this because the comments are there for potential investors too. Even something as simple as "check bitcointalk before buying this one" could save some investors potential heartache.
Anyone have any improvements to add to my draft of the voting policy? There are two sections, the first is things you are not allowed to post (or presumably your comment would be removed.) the second is things to keep in mind while evaluating an issue.
Cheers.
With all respect and I really want you to know this isn't personal, because I don't know you, your assets or anything related to this case, but (a) didn't you know about the listing process and it's implications before creating the security? (b) If someone would face me with false allegations, I'd ask myself: "What is the reason, that someone has this impression of me?". If I'd come up with any reasonable reason, I could adjust my behavior. If not, I would like discuss the matter in a way, that this false impression which lead to a false allegation changes. This could be more complicated though, if it comes to personal dislikes or something else which isn't solvable by rational logic. I think threatening with a lawsuite nor attacking the moderators will yield a satisfying result for any side.
I'm not really familiar with the listing process and I don't know how it looks like from a moderator's perspective, but personal bias seems to play a role. To reduce this factor, a multi-step voting process could be used in which voters first solely vote on an asset's contract, but without knowing anything about the asset's issuer. If the contract is approved, the next step could focus on the issuer himself. Each step should give both voters and issuer the chance to discuss any remarks. I don't see a reason to make anything of this available to the public. A final public announcement with "asset x has been approved/disapproved" is sufficient in my opinion.
I'm not really familiar with the listing process and I don't know how it looks like from a moderator's perspective, but personal bias seems to play a role. To reduce this factor, a multi-step voting process could be used in which voters first solely vote on an asset's contract, but without knowing anything about the asset's issuer. If the contract is approved, the next step could focus on the issuer himself. Each step should give both voters and issuer the chance to discuss any remarks. I don't see a reason to make anything of this available to the public. A final public announcement with "asset x has been approved/disapproved" is sufficient in my opinion.
It's not just a matter of person bias; if someone doesn't think that a business plan will give returns, they can effectively block anyone else from thinking that it will (or at least betting on it).
.b
You guys are rehashing basic human rights.
I demand the right to face my accusers in an appropriate court -- consisting of qualified judges -- at the very least, a jury of my peers. An anonymous set of unqualified moderators, there because they paid to be there, is not sufficient and can not work.
I demand the right to face my accusers in an appropriate court -- consisting of qualified judges -- at the very least, a jury of my peers. An anonymous set of unqualified moderators, there because they paid to be there, is not sufficient and can not work.
With all respect and I really want you to know this isn't personal, because I don't know you, your assets or anything related to this case, but (a) didn't you know about the listing process and it's implications before creating the security? (b) If someone would face me with false allegations, I'd ask myself: "What is the reason, that someone has this impression of me?". If I'd come up with any reasonable reason, I could adjust my behavior. If not, I would like discuss the matter in a way, that this false impression which lead to a false allegation changes. This could be more complicated though, if it comes to personal dislikes or something else which isn't solvable by rational logic. I think threatening with a lawsuite nor attacking the moderators will yield a satisfying result for any side.
I'm not really familiar with the listing process and I don't know how it looks like from a moderator's perspective, but personal bias seems to play a role. To reduce this factor, a multi-step voting process could be used in which voters first solely vote on an asset's contract, but without knowing anything about the asset's issuer. If the contract is approved, the next step could focus on the issuer himself. Each step should give both voters and issuer the chance to discuss any remarks. I don't see a reason to make anything of this available to the public. A final public announcement with "asset x has been approved/disapproved" is sufficient in my opinion.
A nice feature would be if there was a withdraw max BTC button, instead of having to do that math and type it in every time.
And so what have you achieved? People who hate the asset issuer will say that instead of accusing of fraud. Still a no vote.
Sure; the entire premise for a community-based voting system, however, is that the community will pass a fair judgement, not that assholes will reign. An appeals system won't cure assholes but it will allow for unreasonable or irrelevant votes to be removed.
.b
And so what have you achieved? People who hate the asset issuer will say that instead of accusing of fraud. Still a no vote.
Then people will say "I vote no because I do not think the owner is reputable enough".
Now how are you going to define reputable? Will you have burnside define a reputation criteria?
Now how are you going to define reputable? Will you have burnside define a reputation criteria?
No, I would say burnside is perfectly in his right to say "That would be relevant and not unreasonable: vote stands"
.b
Then people will say "I vote no because I do not think the owner is reputable enough". This can apply to everyone, even say friedcat or burnside or John K, because you can argue that nobody in the BTC world is trustworthy / reputable enough.
Pointless. If someone hates the asset issuer, they will make up a bullshit reason that cannot be proven false.
Pointless. If someone hates the asset issuer, they will make up a bullshit reason that cannot be proven false.
However, how about just having an arbitration over comments? If an issuer gets an unwarranted vote with a comment, they can question the comment and have it appealed to you.
I assume when you said "unwarranted vote with a comment" you actually meant "vote with an unwarranted comment" - as it would clearly be rather silly to have a voting system if burnside already knew which VOTES were warranted.
I meant unwarranted vote.
"I vote no because I don't like Mondays" is an unwarranted No vote; it has no relevance for the asset, investors, or the exchange.
Say I'm a moderator (I'm not) and I vote with the comment "Asset isn't fit to be listed" or "Contract is unfair to investors". If burnside is going to determine whether the comment is fair or not then he may as well just approve or delete the asset in the first place as he can't rule on the fitness of the comment without (largely) determining the thing that the listing process is supposed to do. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with ruling on comments - that the effort to determine whether comments are fair could be as much as, or even exceed, that to determine whether an asset should be listed without bothering with moderators at all.
Why? First of all, you skipped the 'question' part of my argument. Appealing with no process would be a waste, but for a question, such as "What exactly is the relevance between your hate of Mondays and the evaluation of the suitability of this asset?", a response could be posted, to which the issuer could agree or choose to appeal on basis of being irrelevant or unreasonable.
.b
I have a sizeable amount of coins spread out over my portfolio on your exchange, but moving them with is slow which in turn inhibits my ability to trade. Could you add support for Inputs.io as I have many coins stored there and that would greatly increase trading productivity.
I don't think there is a good decentralized consensus-based solution. I think the most effective solution is for the exchange to moderate the moderators. A list of guidelines is good, but someone still needs to enforce it. If the issuer doesn't like a comment, he can appeal to the super-moderator who has the final say.
The determination could be on the relevance and effectiveness and perhaps the truth of the comment rather than the fairness of the comment.
Say I'm a moderator (I'm not) and I vote with the comment "Asset isn't fit to be listed" or "Contract is unfair to investors". If burnside is going to determine whether the comment is fair or not then he may as well just approve or delete the asset in the first place as he can't rule on the fitness of the comment without (largely) determining the thing that the listing process is supposed to do.
The determination could be on the relevance and effectiveness and perhaps the truth of the comment rather than the fairness of the comment.
However, how about just having an arbitration over comments? If an issuer gets an unwarranted vote with a comment, they can question the comment and have it appealed to you.
I assume when you said "unwarranted vote with a comment" you actually meant "vote with an unwarranted comment" - as it would clearly be rather silly to have a voting system if burnside already knew which VOTES were warranted.
Think the suggestion fails on logical grounds anyway.
Say I'm a moderator (I'm not) and I vote with the comment "Asset isn't fit to be listed" or "Contract is unfair to investors". If burnside is going to determine whether the comment is fair or not then he may as well just approve or delete the asset in the first place as he can't rule on the fitness of the comment without (largely) determining the thing that the listing process is supposed to do. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with ruling on comments - that the effort to determine whether comments are fair could be as much as, or even exceed, that to determine whether an asset should be listed without bothering with moderators at all.
Jump to: