Topic: [GLBSE] Request for input re: asset holder complaints about issuers. - page 2. (Read 3019 times)

What usefulness could there possibly be from 'shareholders' making comments on the assets page? They can start a website, make comments on forums, etc. There is no need for GLBSE to provide a platform and it would needlessly raise GLBSE's costs.

Why have a panel review the contracts? Just provide an adjudication mechanism and enforcement method. Then the market can sort it out. Why raise GLBSE's costs? The shareholders should bear the contract review expenses.

I heard Nef is planning on implementing a nifty feature to handle contract changes where they can be editable, but changes between versions uploaded are highlighted. Being able to attach documents would be great, too. Without turning this into a feature request thread -- it's currently near-impossible to update investors except through the forum, which not everyone checks. Allowing the Issuer to able to email all security-holders would be excellent, partially so they aren't suddenly being hit with big changes to the security if they aren't constantly monitoring the security's thread on the forum, or keeping in contact with the Issuer.

I would let shareholders make comments on the assett page. But you can only make those if you own shares.

I also agree a panel reviewing contracts is a good idea.

These are the two main issues for disputes: adjudication and enforcement.

For adjudication I think judge.me is a great and cheap alternative and there is plenty of evidence for an arbitrator to sift through like the contract terms, forum threads, etc.

For enforcement I think the issuer should deposit bitcoins into escrow held by GLBSE. The amount of bitcoins in escrow should always be viewable and part of the ticker page just like the contract terms, etc.

Also, the contract page should be 'editable' but all previous versions should always be viewable. Issuers should be able to upload new PDFs that become part of the contract. These PDFs could be monthly or quarterly financial statements, material statements, etc., pretty much like 8K and 10K functionality, and not necessarily changes to the contract.

I personally wouldn't mind if all withdrawals/deposits & transfers in/out & BTC/Shares/Bonds owned on an issuer's account were simply publicly viewable. Or at least if it was an option for security issuers to enable.

I also wouldn't mind if we had a readily available area to write info/news to investors.

You know those 3 links

Well I'd recommend they get switched to a single line at the top with the tab growing/shortening if you switch/close tabs. With contract on a unique tab and company infos on another with an editable area for security issuers:

I think that placement would be clearer and easier to use as all important infos and active motions would be visible right away, yet they would take only about 60px if unexpanded.

As someone who has had several conversations with you on this subject in the past, I disagree with your statement that you do not have the ability/power to do anything. I think you have an obligation to do something!

In the event that you have the report of a violation of the terms of an offering (the contract which you are hosting through your exchange) you have been served notice that there is potentially a violation of that contract. At the very least you should freeze trading on that asset until such time as the owner of the asset has an opportunity to address the claims. This communication should be open and transparent from both the accuser and the accused. Set a fixed amount of time for the issue to be addressed, and then, based on the results of the presentations by both sides, decide which party has the greater merit, and act. That action might be to liquidate the security bond posted by the asset creator, code the asset as one that is now longer trusted, and eventually de-list it, while banning the asset creator from creating new assets, or if the claim is found to have no merit- liquidating the assets of the claimant in that issue, and banning their participation in the market for a period commiserate with the level of disruption they have cause.

If you do not have the time or desire to conduct these investigations, appoint a panel of worthy reviewers (and yes, I volunteer to be on the panel) charge the claimant a bond of 25% of his holdings in any disputed asset, which will be returned if he prevails in the matter, or forfeited to the panel if the claim is found inaccurate. Similarly, if the asset is found to be in violation, the security is forfeit to the Dispute Review Panel, and the asset is required to now post double the security bond to have trading in the asset opened up again. If an asset goes a year without a claim, refund one half of their bond, after the second year a further refund of half of the balance. This way both sides have some skin in the game, everyone has to put up to participate in the market, and spurious claims will be avoided. Any claimant found to be doing so as a means of disrupting business for another asset with groundless claims would be subject to stronger consequences.

As host for the exchange you have the absolute right to require and enforce ethical and honest behavior from users of your exchange, on both sides of the sales counter. It would be a very strong statement in favor of integrity and maturity for the GLBSE to take the lead in providing a honest trading floor.

I, incidentally, sell torches and pitchforks for bitcoin.

If someone's acting fraudulently, and they become aware of complaints which may lead to the security being frozen or punitive damages awarded, what incentive does that Issuer have to not take off and give investors absolutely nothing, given that Issuer has no qualms with defrauding investors? The IPO would be the important event for the unsavory Issuer. Once he has IPO investment money, he withdraws and disappears if GLBSE restrictions are too great. If that happens enough, the market will decide Issuers and their contracts need to be more closely examined, and it is indeed the investors' duty to perform this task, anyway - and a task they will perform otherwise if they get burned by jerk Issuers, but not a tast of GLBSE acting as the Bitcoin SEC - at least not while GLBSE lacks any serious competition (<- disclosure: not intended as threatening language. Hermes is not in development. Don't freeze me, bro!). Though creating barriers to entry prevent the petty thief, the major assholes will scam, take the next tram, and scram (sorry) until investors start raising the standard for what they invest in, and perhaps talk even more harshly/skeptically than many already do. But -- what I am ignoring are the Issuers who've made simple mistakes or oversights, who perhaps need to be reminded to be more mindful of their contract with a penalty. Are there complaints along those lines, or are they all "this dude's stealing my money, he's probably a scammer because he should quintuple my mining bond's MH/s value since others are doing it, and you should ban him from the Internet so my securities will be worthlesss."?

Funds could be audited by GLBSE staff, but funds make up a fairly small percentage of GLBSE trade volume. I don't think it's a bad idea, though. I'd volunteer for that.

+10

You could consider using judge.me.

I can't vouch for their services (having never used it), but their site looks very upstanding, and they advertise that they accept bitcoin as payment.

I mentioned this previously to the founder of the CPA insurance firm and it is being integrated into their contracts as the dispute resolution mechanism.

I can really see four ways of this becoming adopted as a dispute resolution mechanism on GLBSE:

(1) Both parties volunteer to accept the judgement of judge.me. (This would apply to disputes that exist now.)

(2) In the future, asset issuers voluntarily include judge.me as part of their contract.

(3) In the future, GLBSE requires asset issuers to accept arbitrartion from judge.me as part of the terms of issuing on GLBSE.

(4) There may be something in the GLBSE Terms of Service that allows this to be retroactively mandated (e.g. for the disputes occuring as of now), but it would surprise me.

Over the last week or so we have received a few messages from asset holders who believe that an issuer is in some way in violation of their asset contract. We have no interest in adjudicating these kind of disputes, nor do we believe it is our role/responsibility to do so.

However, it does seem like there should be some mechanism where asset holders can raise grievances they may have.

To that end we thought it would be good to start a discussion here to see what the community thinks would be an appropriate way of handling this type of situation.