GLBSE IPO Handling and Interaccount Transfers Discussion Thread. - page 2.

Nefario

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 513

GLBSE Support [email protected]

Quote from: OgNasty on April 16, 2012, 10:58:23 PM

Quote from: Nefario on April 16, 2012, 10:37:40 PM

I wonder, should we change the name to Global Bitcoin Securities Exchange?

If GBSE.bit isn't taken, YES!

I think it already is, was taken shortly after namecoin started I think

Also the dot-bit.org site is down

If the person who actually has the glbse.bit domain under their control reads this, PM me cause I want it. Am willing to pay BTC very high in the single digits :p

But seriously contact me.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: OgNasty on April 16, 2012, 10:58:23 PM

Quote from: Nefario on April 16, 2012, 10:37:40 PM

I wonder, should we change the name to Global Bitcoin Securities Exchange?

If GBSE.bit isn't taken, YES!

Why would that be?

AFAIK GLBSE means Global Bitcoin Stock Exchange. Same acronym, only switch Stock for Securities Wink

OgNasty

donator

Activity: 4760

Merit: 4323

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Nefario on April 16, 2012, 10:37:40 PM

I wonder, should we change the name to Global Bitcoin Securities Exchange?

If GBSE.bit isn't taken, YES!

Nefario

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 513

GLBSE Support [email protected]

Quote from: galambo on April 16, 2012, 08:19:33 PM

I agree with what you have done.

Its a good idea to suspend the transfer of unregistered (restricted) securities to unaccredited investors, considering its against the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

Also note that the service you are providing is not a stock exchange. Your service is a weird hybrid put together by someone with very little knowledge of how capital markets actually work.

A stock exchange only facilitates the matching of buyers and sellers. These parties are brokers, not the beneficial owner of the security.

The buyers and sellers arrange the transfer outside of the exchange, typically through a clearinghouse. The records of ownership are taken down by the issuer or a transfer agent. Each of these parties are seperate and distinct for some very good reasons.

GLBSE in not a U.S. exchange or company.
The owners and managers of GLBSE are not American citizens nor do they live in the US.

I agree that GLBSE is not a stock exchange, it's an asset exchange (where the assets may be shares, bonds, futures or some other form of security), but GLBSE users like to call it that so that's what we do.

I wonder, should we change the name to Global Bitcoin Securities Exchange?

galambo

sr. member

Activity: 966

Merit: 311

I agree with what you have done.

Its a good idea to suspend the transfer of unregistered (restricted) securities to unaccredited investors, considering its against the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

Also note that the service you are providing is not a stock exchange. Your service is a weird hybrid put together by someone with very little knowledge of how capital markets actually work.

A stock exchange only facilitates the matching of buyers and sellers. These parties are brokers, not the beneficial owner of the security.

The buyers and sellers arrange the transfer outside of the exchange, typically through a clearinghouse. The records of ownership are taken down by the issuer or a transfer agent. Each of these parties are seperate and distinct for some very good reasons.

marked

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

Quote from: mila on April 15, 2012, 09:39:53 AM

I'm also waiting for the dev site to go live for some testing. ATM not known what the changes would be nor when it comes up.

I've seen it and played with "dev's dev" site a bit. I've given some feedback to nefario, mostly relating to layout and similar issues, some 18 hours or so ago. It looks much better, and has a couple of nice features.

There were a few quick tests, as it was only up for half an hour or so, so some still remained at the time such as pass/fail notification on finalised motions.

marked

Nefario

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 513

GLBSE Support [email protected]

dev.glbse.com will be up by the time I go to bed today, inter account transfer fees will be rolling out with the next GLBSE update at the end of the week.

mila

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Status update ?

I'm also waiting for the dev site to go live for some testing. ATM not known what the changes would be nor when it comes up.

mila

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I think small facelift to the gui would do for now (add spacing, check proportions of elements on the screen, move them around maybe)
then refine some reporting (show trade history, not just total volumes)
and add a few options to existing features to make the use less rocky

Nefario

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 513

GLBSE Support [email protected]

Quote from: brendio on April 09, 2012, 10:56:22 PM

Maybe we could ask Zhou Tong to create the Bitcoinica of GLBSE.

Shudder.

More seriously though I think we're too small for him to be interested.

brendio

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: Nefario on April 09, 2012, 12:25:52 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on April 09, 2012, 11:44:51 AM

Quote from: Nefario on April 09, 2012, 06:19:43 AM

We can always add the option to short shares, and offer your own shares to be lent out for shorting, and get a small payment.

If you are going to implement the shorting of shares on the exchange, please allow asset issuers enough time to raise funds in order to combat short attacks by traders looking to profit from crashing assets. Any asset without a healthy amount of buy orders would be open to an immediate plunge in value by manipulators looking to make a quick Bitcoin. I would also like to see high fees on open shorts (at least in the beginning, of something like 0.5% per 24 hours) to encourage shorts to cover their positions at some point & balance the market. In addition to that, I would like to see a limit on the short % of an asset's floating shares and healthy margin requirements.

*Being an asset issuer, my opinion is obviously biased. My goal is to protect shareholders on the GLBSE and lend my opinion to be taken into consideration in molding the exchange for everyone's benefit. Please do not attack me for this.

I certainly won't be adding this functionality this week. Maybe next week but no guarantee.

What I was actually thinking is users who have shares would be allowed to lend them out for shorting, and they would be able to specify the rate they want to charge for this service. People who want to short would then be able to take their pick from whats available.

What you think?

That makes sense to let the market determine the rental rate for assets.

Shorting can help provide liquidity and helps with price discovery.

It's probably not your highest priority for GLBSE, but as long as asset transfers are allowed, and if there is an API, a third party could develop something. Maybe we could ask Zhou Tong to create the Bitcoinica of GLBSE.

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

You also have this...
http://tygrr.com/tygrr-tech/

Quote

I will be willing to send physical stock certificates to large long term investors. These certificates will only be valid if traded back to TyGrr Tech. I will also sell stock over the counter and move it to your GLBSE account if you would like to set a price and an amount before hand.

PatrickHarnett

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Having had a couple of days to reflect on the recent activity, I would like to point out that there are actually two functions being combined here.

1: Asset Registry - most companies employ a registry service separate from the exchange to track asset holders (shareholders).
2: Trading/Exchange platform - to facilitate liquidity.

GLBSE is combining these two, while in many jurisdictions and operations they run separately. Bearing in mind the differences in functions clarifies the duties and obligations of the two component parts.

Nefario

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 513

GLBSE Support [email protected]

To ensure there is no confusion regarding the transfer fee, any assets that have not traded will have no fee, neither will assets that have a trade volume of less than 20BTC a week(7 days).

The fee will be on the average trade price over 5 days(or less if the asset has not traded for 5 days).

Nefario.

Coinoisseur

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Going to agree you should have a fee on transfers. The issue cropped up because you were trying to be nice to people with multiple accounts. I think this is a case where you have to be some what neutral and figure out a fair rate on manual transfers, which as someone else mentioned should be a decent discount from matched trades.

Nefario

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 513

GLBSE Support [email protected]

Quote from: copumpkin on April 09, 2012, 01:23:09 PM

Rather than adding new features for things we can already handle ourselves over the counter, I'd much prefer to see you spend your limited time on getting the existing site polished up a bit.

Lol, sure thing.

copumpkin

donator

Activity: 266

Merit: 252

I'm actually a pineapple

Quote from: Nefario on April 09, 2012, 12:25:52 PM

Quote from: OgNasty on April 09, 2012, 11:44:51 AM

Quote from: Nefario on April 09, 2012, 06:19:43 AM

We can always add the option to short shares, and offer your own shares to be lent out for shorting, and get a small payment.

If you are going to implement the shorting of shares on the exchange, please allow asset issuers enough time to raise funds in order to combat short attacks by traders looking to profit from crashing assets. Any asset without a healthy amount of buy orders would be open to an immediate plunge in value by manipulators looking to make a quick Bitcoin. I would also like to see high fees on open shorts (at least in the beginning, of something like 0.5% per 24 hours) to encourage shorts to cover their positions at some point & balance the market. In addition to that, I would like to see a limit on the short % of an asset's floating shares and healthy margin requirements.

*Being an asset issuer, my opinion is obviously biased. My goal is to protect shareholders on the GLBSE and lend my opinion to be taken into consideration in molding the exchange for everyone's benefit. Please do not attack me for this.

I certainly won't be adding this functionality this week. Maybe next week but no guarantee.

What I was actually thinking is users who have shares would be allowed to lend them out for shorting, and they would be able to specify the rate they want to charge for this service. People who want to short would then be able to take their pick from whats available.

What you think?

Rather than adding new features for things we can already handle ourselves over the counter, I'd much prefer to see you spend your limited time on getting the existing site polished up a bit.

splatster

full member

Activity: 176

Merit: 100

Quote from: jamesg on April 08, 2012, 01:11:06 PM

Quote from: Nefario on April 08, 2012, 01:00:10 PM

How do we implement asset transfers (transfers, not trades, trades work just fine) in a way that is fair to all?

Transfers should have a fee.

The fee should be based on the last trading price or initial offering price and should be the normal .5%.

This would solve all of the problems (any sales outside the system) and still getting you guys paid for host the trading and IPO.

I feel this is the simplest solution and accounts for most if not all transfers.

What about the situation of S²CM? Smickles controls the asset so his account is the one that holds any shares when they are first issued. I also run S²CM, so some shares were transfered to my account. Should we be forced to pay a fee for having 2 people run the asset?

Meni Rosenfeld

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1054

Quote from: OgNasty on April 09, 2012, 11:44:51 AM

Quote from: Nefario on April 09, 2012, 06:19:43 AM

We can always add the option to short shares, and offer your own shares to be lent out for shorting, and get a small payment.

If you are going to implement the shorting of shares on the exchange, please allow asset issuers enough time to raise funds in order to combat short attacks by traders looking to profit from crashing assets. Any asset without a healthy amount of buy orders would be open to an immediate plunge in value by manipulators looking to make a quick Bitcoin. I would also like to see high fees on open shorts (at least in the beginning, of something like 0.5% per 24 hours) to encourage shorts to cover their positions at some point & balance the market. In addition to that, I would like to see a limit on the short % of an asset's floating shares and healthy margin requirements.

*Being an asset issuer, my opinion is obviously biased. My goal is to protect shareholders on the GLBSE and lend my opinion to be taken into consideration in molding the exchange for everyone's benefit. Please do not attack me for this.

Being an asset issuer, I look forward for the day short selling on GLBSE is possible and easy. The possibility to short is a large part of my long-term vision for this asset.

Quote from: Nefario on April 09, 2012, 12:25:52 PM

I certainly won't be adding this functionality this week. Maybe next week but no guarantee.

What I was actually thinking is users who have shares would be allowed to lend them out for shorting, and they would be able to specify the rate they want to charge for this service. People who want to short would then be able to take their pick from whats available.

What you think?

I don't like this at all. Not because there's anything wrong with it, but because you have much better things to do, and because whatever you can do along these lines will not have the same flexibility as direct negotiations between lenders and borrowers.

Just make it possible to buy and sell on margin (and as great as that would be, I don't expect it to happen next week, or next month).

Quote from: Nefario on April 08, 2012, 03:24:30 PM

It would be a fee, % of the average (over 5 days) trade price of an asset.

Fees should apply only to transfers between users, not between accounts of the same user.

Nefario

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 513

GLBSE Support [email protected]

Quote from: OgNasty on April 09, 2012, 11:44:51 AM

Quote from: Nefario on April 09, 2012, 06:19:43 AM

We can always add the option to short shares, and offer your own shares to be lent out for shorting, and get a small payment.

If you are going to implement the shorting of shares on the exchange, please allow asset issuers enough time to raise funds in order to combat short attacks by traders looking to profit from crashing assets. Any asset without a healthy amount of buy orders would be open to an immediate plunge in value by manipulators looking to make a quick Bitcoin. I would also like to see high fees on open shorts (at least in the beginning, of something like 0.5% per 24 hours) to encourage shorts to cover their positions at some point & balance the market. In addition to that, I would like to see a limit on the short % of an asset's floating shares and healthy margin requirements.

*Being an asset issuer, my opinion is obviously biased. My goal is to protect shareholders on the GLBSE and lend my opinion to be taken into consideration in molding the exchange for everyone's benefit. Please do not attack me for this.

I certainly won't be adding this functionality this week. Maybe next week but no guarantee.

What I was actually thinking is users who have shares would be allowed to lend them out for shorting, and they would be able to specify the rate they want to charge for this service. People who want to short would then be able to take their pick from whats available.

What you think?

Topic: GLBSE IPO Handling and Interaccount Transfers Discussion Thread. - page 2. (Read 5845 times)