Topic: GLBSE IPO Handling and Interaccount Transfers Discussion Thread. (Read 5841 times)

Was there ever a post that states the final details on how these are treated?

 

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

This would mean assets that haven't traded pay no fee.

I agree with copumpkin, in that part of the fee for GLBSE trades is to pay for the market to match it, and if transferring then only 1/2 that fee would be applicable.

So if the trade fee is 0.5% then the transfer fee is 0.25%

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).

For these reasons, and more, I recommend the immediate closure of GLBSE and any other issuers of counterfeit securities.

such as this guy.

For these reasons, and more, I recommend the immediate closure of GLBSE and any other issuers of counterfeit securities.

did any of you had a look at:
http://www.slcapex.com/

and asked the question if the second life capital exchange is regulated?

my opinion is similar to trading imaginary money for virtual stock and if you want to regulate that, please remember to take your meds.

Article I: Capital Exchange Disclosure Statement

Capital Exchange (CapEx) is a fictional stock market simulation game operating for entertainment and educational purposes only, and currently exists solely in support of Second Life®, a feature-rich online 3-D virtual world including an "economy" and a "currency" ($Linden) operated and supported by Linden Research, Inc. Capital Exchange (http://www.SLCapEx.com) is not affiliated with Linden Research, Inc. For more information regarding Second Life® please visit (http://www.secondlife.com).

To be very clear, Capital Exchange is not a real-world stock exchange and does not offer opportunity for direct real-world investment or profit. Shares purchased on this stock exchange simulation game do not entitle you to any legal real-world rights to a listed virtual company. Please play accordingly!

CapEx operates within the Second Life® environment, and beyond its boundaries via our website which acts as a clearinghouse for the trading of CapEx-listed "Stocks" and "$Lindens". The underlying companies are fictitious and none of the companies offer "registered" investment quality securities for sale in any form whatsoever via our website. Lindens used to purchase virtual stock here are in essence being transferred to the ownership of the person you are buying the virtual shares from, and not Capital Exchange. All stock and shares purchased are for purely entertainment only, and not considered part/whole ownership in any legal entity or real life company.

The terms "profit" and "earnings" as used within the context of the CapEx.com website, and any claim of monetary value therein, relates solely and specifically to the valuation of $Lindens as specified in the Linden Lab Terms of Service, Section 1.4 (http://secondlife.com/corporate/tos.php).

The $Linden "currency" is a limited license right available for purchase or free distribution at Linden Lab's sole discretion, and is not redeemable for monetary value from Linden Labor from CapEx.com.

CapEx offers no direct opportunity for conversion of ($Lindens) to legal tender currencies including $US Dollars. Linden Lab does offer an Exchange, called LindeX™, for the trading of $Lindens. Please refer to the Linden Lab Terms of Service, Section 1.5 for information regarding LindeX™ transactions.

Notwithstanding the warnings herein, CapEx as designed and offered is a serious stock simulation game. The participants here “play for keeps” and their time and $Linden-based holdings represent a considerable investment in our community.

Your participation here is not without risk. You could lose some or all of your $Lindens invested here. Only invest here what you can afford to lose.

There are additional policies, rules and Terms of Service for participation as published and amended from time-to-time. Please review and fully understand them before playing.

Finally, the operators of CapEx.com make no representation of any kind regarding the accuracy, fitness for purpose, or use of the software residing at (http://www.SLCapEx.com). Your use of the software in any manner whatsoever shall constitute an understanding and acceptance of this Disclosure Statement in its entirety. The individuals who operate the software residing at (http://www.SLCapEx.com) offer no warranty and offer no remedies whatsoever for its use or consequence. You play this stock simulation game at your own risk.

Bitcoin is not a regulated area in the UK.

So on receipt of information that what you are doing is not legal, your announcement is that upon presentation of an interim injunction by FSA your intent is to flee to another jurisdiction and continue to operate?

That must make the holders of "unlimited duration bonds," and other assets for which GLBSE is the nominal custodian, feel very secure.

Although we don't have a hot swap system ready and waiting GLBSE is prepared for the unlikely event of the  server being shut down, we would be offline for a maximum of 3 days.

I can assure you that the FSA sees bitcoin as monopoly money and simply doesn't care.

Just because I happen to live in the UK doesn't mean that this is where GLBSE is operating from. The fact is it would be very difficult for any country to shut down GLBSE (being as we have no bank accounts to be frozen or physical assets to seize).

Although we don't have a hot swap system ready and waiting GLBSE is prepared for the unlikely event of the  server being shut down, we would be offline for a maximum of 3 days.

I can assure you that the FSA sees bitcoin as monopoly money and simply doesn't care.

Just because I happen to live in the UK doesn't mean that this is where GLBSE is operating from. The fact is it would be very difficult for any country to shut down GLBSE (being as we have no bank accounts to be frozen or physical assets to seize).

Unlike the U.S. the British government (if they could ever care) would find it very difficult to prosecute a British citizen for running a virtual stock exchange, not even based in the UK, priced in (what they classify as) imaginary money.

We're not out there on the streets pushing for 20 year old single mothers to invest their life savings. We offer this service as is, and don't even advertise it, it's almost exclusively used by members of this forum.

This doesn't even start to become an issue until the volume of trade on GLBSE starts going into the millions, when the tax man starts to take an interest.

But as was mentioned we could always move to Tor if we wanted to, for the time being GLBSE is fine.

Nefario,

The regulators are smelling blood in the water.

Time to move your server to tonga.

Or even better, to a .onion address.

Or both.

1st argument is in box 1 - not carrying out a business.  BTC is not recognised as currency or security, so trading with them exempts GLBSE.

I've dealt with tax officials on the definition of "carry on a business" with respect to value added taxes, and the intention is basically to create taxable income.  GLBSE is not aiming to create taxable income in the UK (or probably anywhere else).

(the S could be for "stuff")

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?

If GBSE.bit isn't taken, YES!

If GBSE.bit isn't taken, YES!

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

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.

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.

Status update ?

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

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

I was thinking of putting out an offer to borrow shares to short them. I wouldn't be able to without transfers.

Also, the business model of Oz.AUD (not yet migrated to 2.0) requires transfers to function.

Sounds ok. Though I think the fee for transfer should be less than for a trade.

On that note, I think the fee for trades can be increased. The weak point of GLBSE isn't the fees, it's development/support. If raising the fees can help getting more work done (which I hope it will), I doubt anyone will object. So maybe 1% for trades, 0.5% for transfers?

If everyone is OK with this option, then this is how we'll go about it.
A transfer fee for asset/share transfers, 0.5% of a 5 day average trade price

Is this acceptable?

This may be radical, but I think that it might be time to move away from the "discrete" shares/bonds model. It's mostly a historical artifact arising from the fact that there were paper certificates representing ownership of a security, anyway. There could be a few book-keeping gotchas with allowing fractional shares, but not only would it allow a meaningful fee on asset transfers, but it'd also allow us to get rid of the weird asymmetry on trading fees that we see right now.

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.

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.

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

You're absolutely right.
Why foster competition between trading platforms ?
Why fight centralization of the market ?
Why not ensure that everything is controlled by a few folks ?
Are you out of your effing mind ?

Because asset transferring has many, many use cases. It's not just a way to trade assets for bitcoins outside the exchange. rdponticelli has given one great example; another one is borrowing assets (useful for shorting) or gifting them; I have an asset I plan which will simply be impossible to issue at all without transfers (I'm keeping it under wraps for now); many other uses which nobody has yet thought of, and mundane stuff like internal bookkeeping.

Personally I don't see any reason why asset transfers would be wanted by anyone doing legitimate business.  The exchange exists for a reason and all trades/transfers should be made publicly on the exchange.  Allowing these asset transfers goes against transparency and seems to contradict the principles of Bitcoin.

As a significant shareholder, Mr. Popescu would prefer you skip the glbse listing altogether, never deliver any shares there and just keep spreadsheets.
You have probably a couple dozen people invested, how hard can it be to make a couple dozen payments once a month? Surely less hassle than dealing with this sort of thing on a continuing basis.

1) Learn from your mistakes
2) Don't be jerks - by that I mean don't be such knee jerks
3) Develop a process for changes to the ToS, I suggest:

a) Someone finds an issues
b) You all get together and discuss it, think about what you want to change, think of the impact on users
c) You privately contact some of the larger users that would be affected - get their feedback, discuss it with them
d) Float the idea in a post but instead of "We have taken this totally knee jerk reactionary measure to totally fuck with you, what do you think" instead try something like "We are considering doing X, how would this affect you all?  What do you think?  Should we do this?  Why and Why not? etc."
e) Make the changes to the ToS
f) Post the changes, get more feedback
g) If the feedback is negative go back to b)
h) NOW: Make the actual changes to the web site.

The above process would have averted both the Goat shit storm and this one.

Any individual investing in the company may, at their discretion, transfer 200 BFLS shares to the operator in exchange for a physical BFL Single being shipped (CONUS only. Additional charge for international shipping.) to the individual. When a BFLS is redeemed, a new unit will replace the redeemed unit, and 170 BFLS shares will be offered at current market rate.

which of the principles of bitcoin is preventing transfers of bitcoins between addresses?

Personally I don't see any reason why asset transfers would be wanted by anyone doing legitimate business.  The exchange exists for a reason and all trades/transfers should be made publicly on the exchange.  Allowing these asset transfers goes against transparency and seems to contradict the principles of Bitcoin.

Any individual investing in the company may, at their discretion, transfer 200 BFLS shares to the operator in exchange for a physical BFL Single being shipped (CONUS only. Additional charge for international shipping.) to the individual. When a BFLS is redeemed, a new unit will replace the redeemed unit, and 170 BFLS shares will be offered at current market rate.

Personally I don't see any reason why asset transfers would be wanted by anyone doing legitimate business.  The exchange exists for a reason and all trades/transfers should be made publicly on the exchange.  Allowing these asset transfers goes against transparency and seems to contradict the principles of Bitcoin.

Personally I don't see any reason why asset transfers would be wanted by anyone doing legitimate business.  The exchange exists for a reason and all trades/transfers should be made publicly on the exchange.  Allowing these asset transfers goes against transparency and seems to contradict the principles of Bitcoin.

I agree with Meni. I will be more than happy to pay the normal fee on the pre-sale transfers.

Asset transfers between accounts have multiple use cases and need to be allowed. I can't stress that enough.

The simplest solution would probably be to charge a fee on transferring assets between users (within a user should be free) based on the last traded price, or the lowest ask.

After more critical issues are fixed, you can develop better ways to handle this.