Topic: glbse fees (Read 3366 times)

It would be nice if you included a quote so people would know who you are responding to.


You were stating an opinion, and the basis of your argument is "You're stupid", which is pretty much the definition of an ad hominem attack: an argument which does not address the argument but rather the person making it.


MPEx charges a registration fee, do you deny this? GLBSE does not. Therefore, a higher percentage of the MPEx income comes from new sign-ups than the GLBSE (some is higher than none). Therefore, my statement was correct.


I have been here longer than that, I opened *this account* in September 2011.


Mark Twain said many things. It would have been nice if you had made some reference to the quote you were thinking of, which I am guessing is something like "It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and prove you are a fool" (paraphrasing). Perhaps you should take that to heart and stop talking like an idiot, every time you open your mouth you turn more people away from you exchange.


HA! The leader of BTC finance? Nefario copies you? Who has been open longer? I am not claiming to be some super genius finance guy, but I am also not trying to sell a trading platform by insulting potential users.

Also a tip: you might want to work on your search engine optimization. When I google "GLBSE", the first result is the GLBSE website. When I try MPOE or MPEX I don't even see you on the first page.

Fine, let's educate the too-stupid-to-know-they're-ignorant yet again, on my time and dime.

First off, not any statement you dislike that happens to discuss your person is automatically an ad hominem attack. In this case, it was just stating a matter of fact.

Second off, you are ignorant enough to not have bothered to examine the income structure of MPEx/MPOE. In spite of the fact that it's freely available. Yet you discuss this. Why do you discuss things you haven't bothered to research? The account registering fees make up less than half the income of the past year. This alone reduces your poorly clobbered together "thought" to rubble, you're basically saying that someone's going to set fire to their house if their car breaks down.

Third off, you've been here since September 2011. MPOE has been trading options since August 2011. You've run out of intelligent things to say a while back and haven't shut up yet, why would MPOE be "abandoned"?

Fourthly, Mark Twain has plenty to do with idiots speaking "their mind"; he came up with the observation that in your case it's much better to stfu. If indeed you were teaching classes it'd be a sad comment on the state of that profession and an easy explanation as to why this forum is so completely filled with idiots.

Finally, you are talking with offensive ignorance about the absolute and indisputable leader in BTC finance. The people everyone else copies, from Meni Rosenfeld to that Nefario joker. The people that made sense of asset contracts, the people that actually do reporting, the people that actually do security, pretty much the only people that do everything right in a "market" where everybody does everything consistently wrong. You are talking about the one exchange which has not yet had an asset turn sour, when the standard is more like "everything goes to shit". Very simply put, how dare you? Who are you? What have you done?

So, in short: you don't like people noticing you're stupid? Research things first, opine second. That's all there's to it.

GLBSE fees have always made perfect sense to me; they're set up the way they are to encourage liquidity.

If you buy an asset at the 'ask' price, thus taking that ask order off the books, you pay a fee. If you sell an order at the 'bid' price, you pay a fee. If you put a limit order ON the books, increasing liquidity, you won't pay a fee even when someone matches your order.

I almost never pay fees.

I remember Huck Fin and Tom Sawyer being removed from our curriculum for racism. So we did The merchant of Venice... no racism there oh no.

The whitewashing the fence scene in Tom Sawyer, maybe?

Let you whitewash my fence for free? Are you kidding? No way, if you wanna whitewash my fence you gotta pay me...

-MarkM-

How about instead of resorting to ad hominem attack, you try to say something that makes sense? What was stupid about that statement? It seems pretty logical to me, perhaps it is just above your intellectual ability to understand?

You know, for an account with "PR" in the name, you really have a hard time with public relations, you know, stuff like not insulting people. I have been around here alot longer than you, you don't want to mess with me.

What does Mark Twain have to do with anything? The last few times I was in junior high I was teaching the classes, you could probably stand to learn something from a great writer like Mark Twain.

Actually on the strength of that stupidity chances are you're neither very smart nor very experienced. Why make a fool of yourself in a public forum? Did they discontinue Mark Twain in the junior high curricula?

Realpra, would the fee system used by Open Transactions work better for you, where there are no percentages involved just a straight charge in "usage tokens" per API call you make?

That includes of course all API calls, not only ones that move assets around but also things like asking whether any assets are for sale and so on...

-MarkM-

Fair enough; what are your costs then?

Normal exchanges have to deal with fiat transactions, you deal in easily transacted BTC.

I want to allow people to speculate on BTC price - daily if they want to. I need a low fee for that.

Well I guess it's like mtgox so maybe it is fine - still if I can, I will remove it somehow.

My bond would likely pay out the rate of euro inflation + 1% on top (in fiat, but transferred with BTC). So like a bank account with 4-7%. Its quite a safe low-risk investment too.
It would also be aimed at people that don't necessarily believe in BTC at all and would only invest using BTC for the sake of transacting globally.

Yes, that is what I am saying, GLBSE lists the wrong fees for their own service. Your example is correct, the buyer sometimes pays the fee. But GLBSE only lists fees for the seller, which is clearly wrong. The second bolded line is incorrect.

Not a clue where you're finding your information....

From: https://glbse.com/portfolio/fees

Fees
Basis Point(BP): 1/100th of 1% or 0.01%

New asset fee:   8.0 BTC
Dividends fee rate:   0 BP
Sell fee rate, paid by seller:   50 BP
Buy fee rate, paid by seller:   50 BP
Transfer fee rate, paid by seller:   20 BP
Trade fees are MAKER/TAKER, that is if you place an order, and it goes on the orderbook, then you pay 0% fee, if the order gets matched with another order then you pay the trade fee(buy OR sell fee, not both).

So, unless glbse.com lists the wrong fees for their own service, my example holds true.

Enigma

TL;DR: There are some very expensive things bundled into a full service exchange that maybe are easier to see if you think about breaking them out into distinct separate services...

When I decided that third party "market makers" would be useful to me, I also had to face the fact that it is what they do, not what the actual offer-matching engine does, the probably accounts for percentage-based fees.

If the hassles of constantly driving the armoured car to the vault to deposit real assets and driving the armoured car to the post office to ship real assets out from the vault are delegated away to a separate, distinct service, then indeed one does have to wonder what could justify charging for a data field update based on how many bits of the data field were toggled aka how many units of assets the transfer or exchange represents.

I suspect that it is because Open Transactions deals with the data about balances, rather than actually shipping the actual bars of gold or dollar bills or whatever that those balances represent, that it takes the "pay per API call" approach instead of the "take a percentage of the value of the actual numbers being moved around" approach to fees.

Then again though, such thinking has also lead me to wonder why most of the fees at exchanges aren't on the sending in and shipping out of assets instead of on the matching of offers / transfers of balance amounts between customer accounts.

Customer service department, maybe? I have to admit I like the idea of farming that out as a distinct separate service too. Keep actually using the matching engine / account balances system cheap for those who know how to use it and have links to online schools that teach how to use such systems for those who do not know how to use it or something like that maybe. Because having to read or listen to people is masively massively expensive compared even to maintaining and running software, and burdening people who know what they are doing with the massive overhead cost of handholding people who do not know what they are doing seems kind of unfair. I suspect the reason we see it so much around us is a kind of "tyranny by the majority" since the loud voices seem to be the ones claiming most people are idiots who need constant free handholding...

-MarkM-

Yes essentially, the experience so far is that anonymous operators, assets and everything that sells tend to disappear with peoples money (I made that point in my talk yesterday). This has happened again and again on GLBSE, and investors have lost out time and again.

It does matter when you make a deposit to GLBSE. That had me confused too and I ended up buying less stock.

I am not sure why people would even want to invest in something with such a small profit margin that the 0.5% fee is too much?

The trade fee is actually better for investors than the large signup fee, since it incentivises the market operators to continue providing a good service. There are only so many people who want an account to trade with, once the signups slow down the chances go up that MPEx either abandons the project or runs with everybody's money.

Really? You pay a lot more using a regular stock exchange. If we don't charge trade fees then we have to charge other fees, bills have to be paid, children have to be fed, nothing is free yadda yadda. The costs in running an exchange are not in moving bits around.


Good luck to your friend, but if they want to make any profit (which means they survive and grow) then they'll need to charge fees at the same level or more than we already do MPex has lower trade fees by having a 20BTC account fee.

Let me move these statements closer together:


In the fees explaination on GLBSE, the seller is the only one listed as paying a fee. But in your example you just cited a case where the BUYER pays the fee. So I think it is a typo on the GLBSE page.

You are just confused.  The transactor who takes an order off of the order book pays a fee.  The transactor who puts an order on the order book does not pay a fee.  I don't know how much more simple it could be made.  If a buyer puts a buy order on the order book, he pays no fee - when a seller places an order to sell at that price, the buy order comes off the book and the seller pays the fee.  Conversely, if a seller puts an ask order on the order book, he pays no fee - when a buyer places an order to buy at that price, the ask order comes off the book and the buyer pays the fee.

Enigma

It doesn't matter really:

If the seller pays the fee and you are the buyer, all that happens is that he gives YOU a higher price - in the end most users end up paying the fees equally.

Interesting info. Thanks.

But the way that goes, it looks like in any trade the seller is paying the fee, and I don't think that is right. I think it should say "buy fee rate, paid by buyer"

Unless I am just confused. :\