Topic: [GLBSE] MergedMining BTC/NMC Mining Company - page 3. (Read 43941 times)

That information is strictly classified.

Whats the search term you use to find these pics in Google?

On a slightly related note, GLBSE 1.0 will be going down in about an hour, staying down for another hour and coming back up as 2.0 launches.

Nefario.

A dividend of 6.22 BTC has been paid.

I can see that you can clearly not withhold x% of the shares from the buyer, but why withhold 0.5% from the money passed to the seller (as you plan to do now) and simply deduct the other 0.5% from the buyers balance? Of course this would mean having to check the buyers balance for sufficient funds for the fee and that might complicate things a lot.

On another note I think it really doesn't matter who pays the fee. Prices will just reflect that: as a seller, I know I pay 1% fee so I can make my price a little higher to adjust for that and "make the buyer pay the fee" (or half the fee or whatever, the market will do that for us). So my suggestion to nefario is: do it as planned, have the seller pay the full fee.

I agree with this, it seems like a smarter and better solution to make the liquidity taker pay the fee instead of the liquidity provider. I also like the idea with reduced fees for larger volume traders. Btw really good job so far Nefario and I don't think anyone meant to gang up one you more give feedback and try to reach the best solution

//DeaDTerra

I don't want to get too far off the topic of MergedMining, but my personal opinion on this (I really don't care much either way) is that the fee should only be charged to 1 party, but not limited to 1 side of the trade.  The person providing the liquidity should be able to make their trade for free.  For example, if I put up a buy order at .15 and a sell order at .16, but the stock is actively trading at .155, I should not have to pay fees when my orders are filled.  The person who chooses to fill the order (buy at .16 or sell at .15) should pay the fee.  This would encourage more open orders and improve liquidity.  Just placing the fee on one side or the other seems to encourage holding or discourage trading, while free trades for providing liquidity would encourage more people to list orders, thereby encouraging more trading.  It would also allow companies to list their IPO without being victim to double dipping (charging to create the asset and then charging to sell the asset).

As I said before, the main reason was simple to ensure my accounts were balanced, dealing with the network fee is actually an annoying thing about bitcoin, it's not that it's a lot it's just that I'd like my accounts to say exactly what should be in the wallet.

Actually in the very first version of GLBSE, running all the way up until July I think accounts would throw an error if what they said and what the bitcoin wallet said was supposed to be there was different. And every time this happened it locked a users account, so doing something like sending BTC to the same deposit address twice resulted in the books no balancing (because it's only meant to be one deposit per address) , it would throw an error and lock the account, wasted a terribly large amount of my time dealing with that :p

Thanks Nefario for getting rid of the dividend fee.

I think a withdrawal fee is fine, if you're paying it there's no reason you should eat that.

As mentioned in the other thread, the only withdrawal fee was a tiny 0.005btc(I think) to cover the network charge for processing the transaction (so I could keep my books balanced). I did have a minimum withdrawal amount of 1BTC.

As was also mentioned in the other thread I will be dropping the withdrawal fee and minimum amount.

Coola boola, could you explain to this chap why split fees wont really work on a stock exchange (or explain to me why they will).

I apologize.  I was merely acting to protect the income I have promised my shareholders.  Thank you Nefario, for your continued efforts.  We all appreciate it.

Feels like you're ganging up on me, anyway I'll drop the dividend fee for the time being, if at a later time I want to reintroduce it we'll have a discussion first.

On the trade fee, it was asked by someone (can't remember where) that 1% is pretty steep for one side to pay (i.e. the seller) and why not split the fee across seller and buyer.

This can be done with a currency exchange(where you can take some from both currencies) but doesn't work with shares.

Also of note regarding the trade fee will be that high volume traders will get lower fees.

Nefario.

For those of you who have been following the GLBSE, you are aware that GLBSE 2.0 is set to launch on Monday.  In addition to many great improvements, there is also the potential introduction of a few new fees.

GLBSE 2.0 Proposed Fees:

• 1% Trade Fee (paid by seller)
• 8 BTC Asset Creation Fee
• 0.5% Dividend Fee

I understand the need for fees to keep the site alive and hopefully they will one day provide nefario with great wealth for what he has created.  However, implementing a dividend fee doesn't sit well with me.  I do not feel that my shareholders should have to pay what is effectively a brokerage, for allowing them to collect income from their investments.  No brokerage has a fee like this in place and it will directly effect the earnings of your investment in MergedMining.  Granted it is only 0.5%, but I feel like we still have time to influence nefario's decision to implement this type of fee.  I have posted my opinion here, on the GLBSE 2.0 Development Thread.  Please take the time to make your opinion on the subject known, whether you support the proposed fees or not.

A dividend of 6.223 BTC has been paid.

thanks for the update.
looks like the most predictable earning available : )
... and I will do my homework and fetch at least one peace from each asset I watch

for the BTCSYN there was a short lived rumor to pay out an early dividend to celebrate ipo but otherwise they seem to stick to the by laws and monthly frequency (they're reasonable and might change that in the future but since they plan to keep 80% of income for new hw purchases, weekly dividend might look to small in comparison to MergedMining and other stock that prefers higher payout than reinvesting and more pays dividends more frequently)

Confirmed - (5 shares)

0.0050000 BTC   dividend   N/A   MergedMining   10/03/2012-17:50

marked

the dividend was 0.00100000 BTC/share if my records are straight.

yesterday they were trading at ask 0.18, bid 0.16, now they are at

Max Bid   0.1430000 BTC
Min Ask   0.1620000 BTC
Last Price   0.1620000 BTC

My belief is that there is substantial trading after OgNasty pays divs each week on Saturday [15:30-17:30UTC], stabilising the following Thursday/Friday. These are immediately sold uying other assets to follow for divs, immediate selling, rinse-repeat for other assets. All assets have generally paid by Tuesday evening UTC.

MergedMining pays Saturday and is first in line, then

JLP-BMD can be anywhere over from 12:00UTC Sat through to Tuesday, so is too random.
FPGA.contract is usually Sunday 18:00UTC- Monday 12:00UTC
BTCSYN too early to tell after it's IPO has only "just" finished.
PureMining is a law unto itself at the moment, another couple of weeks to settle down particularly following dividend overpayment bugs.

I don't track the following, so don't know whether they fall into my speculation
RSM - no divs as IPO concludes
BMMO - (paid Sunday - according to JL421 analysis)
TyGrr - Tuesday? - GLBSE generally stable

All of this completely knocks informed trading out as there seems to be substantial swings out of the blue without anything to substantiate it. I don't have any trading history of this or other assets to confirm or refute this belief, beyond having watched over the last two to three weeks.

JL421's recent comparison may have done something to price correct every asset to a similar div/MH/W of 0.5-1% weekly ROI but maybe one or two weeks early to tell. There is the additional factor of the Butterfly Singles being bought online for some assets as well that should be considered in price movements.

Maybe though there could be a visible fund that always buys one of each asset so that performance can be evaluated with visibly published data?

marked

let me speculate that there are 6000 shares now publicly trading.
the bitcoin held is constantly rising thus no purchase took place yet.
if I only bought 1 share yesterday to get the payout per share info ...

I liquidated my 5% share in MergedMining to hop on the syndicate IPO train.
thus i did not receive any dividends lately from this company.
I observe glbse since a month or so and noticed in the previous weeks that the MergedMining dividend was stable at .001 per share and rising payout means more and more shares reach circulation (public trading). not all of the 10.000 shares were sold initially. OgNasty sells them slowly to raise capital for new mining hardware and the only method to find out how many there are is to get the dividend payout data and do a little math.