Topic: [GLBSE] Request for input re: asset holder complaints about issuers. (Read 3020 times)

It is appreciated.

You know ways of doing things tend to evolve, from first ideas which may or may not have been good, to whatever the current system in place is.

I'm not a prophet who gets everything right first time, I'm just a guy trying my best.

Before long the various ratings systems could be incorporated by someone into a bitcoin version of judiciary. Something bitcoin businesses like GLBSE could tap into. Willing persons whom no body knows the real identity of - but everyone trusts - could effectively act as judges here. A new set financial vocabulary free of old connotations and loaded double meanings is entirely possible too. It's all kind of exciting!  

Overpaying is not breaking a contract, the contract is being met, when overpaying the contract is being exceeded. Nothing has been broken.

Also, with a single exception, contracts have been updated after the change in behavior (i.e. the amounts paid), but only to the advantage of the weaker party, the shareholder. And usually a little later the contract has been changed. Once again in these cases the contract terms have not been broken, they have been met, often exceeded.

Currently the method of changing a contract is sending the new version to [email protected] and a link to the motion approving it if needed.

For a large part the legal system(as it currently stands) is complex and cumbersome because it has evolved to deal with and cover near enough every possibility. All our modern legal systems (U.S., U.K. and French based) seem to be partly based on a lot of Roman law, hows that for historical baggage.

I would favor something simple and cheap to implement that doesn't take an army of people with 10 year degrees to interpret it.

Really we're asking because this is pretty much new to us, having to deal with this. We could go the traditional, standing legal route but as you all know this simply doesn't suit bitcoin related business. We're noobs at this to an extent, but at the same time we're in an advantageous position to be able to look back at all of history and instead of adding patch after patch, we can design a simple, efficient and just system.

Btc4Domains, regarding contract updates on GLBSE, if you need votes to get approval then run a motion(if not, skip to step 2), just send me the updated contract and Ill update it([email protected]).

Regarding GLBSE shares, they are valid as shares but it's not a publicly traded asset, at least not yet.

Thanks for the input so far, it's been really helpful.

Nefario.

In my experience the 'law' or so called 'legal system' is little more than a system based on previous injustices that prostitutes itself to the highest bidder. The whole 'legal' issue as it relates to Bitcoin needs to be kept in perspective. Part of the reason Bitcoin is a reality is because the 'financial system' is rigged, and someone came up with a better one. The legal system is not so different, only it has no Satoshi.

A beautiful feature of bitcoin is it exists in a semi unknown, or not yet fully defined space. It is not labouring under the same 'laws' and red tape that honest businesses around the world are. I understand the need for better transparency and a mechanism to be decisive when it comes to new Assets, Assets that have gone bad etc - but it shouldn't need to become some cumbersome apparatus sitting around everyone's neck. judge.me seems like it could be useful for individuals fighting out their claims against one and other - but it's not free. Personally I'd be comfortable with a small group of trusted forum members (like suggested by usagi) looking over new proposed assets, contract violations etc, and what should be done about it (if anything). It would be helpful if we could at least submit a contract update for approval - currently this issuer can't make any changes at all, not even admin related like updating the Forum thread address or email.

Speaking of contracts - what is the status of the GLBSE Asset? One day I would really like to start earning back some of the fees I'm paying. I bought 6 of those puppies and paid up to 10.00 BTC each - the shares are sitting in my account, but I don't remember seeing or receiving any form of notice that the shares were no longer going to be traded - they're not in some sort of contractual breach I should know about are they 

You are true it is a free market. That is why I exercise my freedom to have a sum total of 0 BTC invested in your (or any other) assets with meaningless contracts. The deal I made with you for BIB.GOAT had a doubly GPG-signed contract clearly detailing the terms, plus I had enough info on you to pursue legal action if I needed too. Of course, it wouldn't have been worth it, but I knew I was planning to stop by near Thailand soon and so could pop in and visit to collect my GPU cards if needed. Evidently, not all investors are as cautious as I am.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Recognition_and_Enforcement_of_Foreign_Arbitral_Awards#Parties_to_the_New_York_Convention

While they may not be able to enforce the judgement themselves, you can go to court with that arbitration and it is recognized as valid in all such countries, apparently.

Judge.me do not claim to have the ability to enforce their rulings, but they do adjudicate disputes and both parties agree beforehand to be bound by Judge.me's ruling. Judge.me's ruling can then be used as evidence in court or to pursue legal claims should the other party fail to abide by the ruling. With respect to GLBSE and Judge.me, GLBSE could state that if a Judge.me clause is inserted in a contract they will abide by any rulings Judge.me makes, including, for example, releasing the verification info to other parties to pursue legal redress.

I think it is wrong for an issuer of high-value GLBSE assets to think they can't be held accountable to a GLBSE contract in court is absurd. I'm not saying legal action to enforce a GLBSE contract would not be costly, but if large sums are involved, someone might give it a go.

So what you're saying is noone should trust Goat to honour his contracts and that he will change them on a whim? Just because someone speeds and is not caught by police does not mean that the speed limit does not exist or is not enforceable. Similarly, just because you don't follow your contracts does not mean they are meaningless or non-enforceable.

I agree that it is not GLBSE's role to adjudicate disputes. I don't think the NYSE gets involved in disputes between listed companies and shareholders either. These are legal matters. I take considerable time in drafting my contracts in the knowledge that I am bound by what I promise. Even though the market currently places little value in on a well-written contract, I think it is still worth in the long run to avoid the hassle of disputes with asset holders.

Many have brought up judge.me as a possible solution for adjudication. I haven't seen any test cases of it, but on the surface it looks promising as a last resort. I will consider it for future asset issuances. I think the forum is as good a place as any for grievances to be discussed, assuming that the parties have first tried to settle the dispute in private. Of course, any discussion on the forum does not preclude parties pursuing other avenues of recourse, such as through the legal system, although in most cases this would likely prove uneconomic.

In summary, GLBSE should not take the role of contract enforcement, other than cooperating with other agencies where necessary (e.g. providing information to judge.me or following a court order). People buying an asset with a contract that reads "test" really have little recourse against an issuer in the case of disputes. Hopefully, investors will take more time doing due diligence of what they are investing in.

There's a problem with issuers being (or controlling) share holders of large portions of an asset.

I agree with 0 outstanding shares (and NO sell orders of shares!) == contract editable
I'm unsure about voting on changing contracts.

I think there should be a vote whether the terms can change and then let people change it if the shareholders agree. If they do then the contract is editable for 24 hours after the vote.

Wouldn't hurt to just make the contracts editable if there are no outstanding shares.

Issuers wanting to change their contracts could buy back all the outstanding shares at the terms of their existing contract, change the contract, and re-issue.

Otherwise, I don't think the contracts should be editable without a 100% asset holder vote, which should be fairly rare and not too hard for GLBSE to deal with via support requests, no need for new code.

Seems like anything [else] is just asking for abuse?

[ ] = fixed.

I think contracts should be able to be changed, but only by following the previous contract and not if there is still outstanding contracts still in the market.  For example, a contract that says it will buy back shares/bonds/whatever at the 5 day average wants to change their contract.  First they can buy back the contracts as they say they will, then change the contract, and then rerelease the new contract for sale.

I think there will be a lot more disputes if a contract was changed midway without the above process I mentioned.  That is more like a bait and switch, especially when the only way to keep a contract from changing is to vote against the motion.  The only other way is to sell it at a loss and that does not benefit the asset holders.

I am with you, I don't think GLBSE should be involved with this.  Let the emerging insurance industry take care of disputed contracts or judge.me or a combination of both.

You can have it in the terms that if a asset holder takes an issuer to 'court' via judge me that you will follow the settlement that jude.me recommendation.  I think 3rd party insurance would be better as they would be doing the investigation and determination of contract violations.

Of course, this is exactly what surety contract bonds are for.  A third party insures that the contractual obligations will be done.

Just fix BTCMC's contract.

Thats an easy way to do it and makes it easy to edit contracts. Otherwise you need the wiki model to know what has changed.

Well then judge.me should be in every contract and part of the verification process. I dont know about you but if I went to buy an assett and saw they were refusing to go to arbitration I would avoid their assett like the plague.

http://www.judge.me/api/v1  they have an API so it could be built into glbse.

I would note, that in the course of compiling some data on fixed rate payments, that there are contracts on GLBSE that are not being followed and the terms are changed elsewhere.  I also note that with unforeseen changes in technology, there are people wanting issuers to disregard their contracts (Gigamining in particular).

The initial point was that there are complaints against issuers not following the terms of their contracts, not about auditing issuers themselves.  If there needs to be a market surveillance committee or similar, then having that separate from the exchange might be a good idea.

(And for disclosure, I hold/trade several assets on GLBSE and am an issuer via PPT.)

Differences between versions is kind of a burdensome way to go about it. Upload a PDF, have it send a message to all holder's mail account in GLBSE and vote on a motion to accept the latest PDF which then becomes the binding contract and supersedes all others.