Topic: GLBSE - request for next features - page 6. (Read 27744 times)
I didn't think about it this way... maybe it's true
I completely agree with OgNasty.
From what I understand the current fee schema was introduced solely to add liquidity to the market.
If you split the fee, you would obviously make the order books much thinner and thus lower the liquidity at the markets.
From what I understand the current fee schema was introduced solely to add liquidity to the market.
If you split the fee, you would obviously make the order books much thinner and thus lower the liquidity at the markets.
A feature I think of is fees for both sides of a trade, instead of fees only for the initiator.
I think it would improve liquidity as we won't be tempted to wait for others to fill our order (and it would improve your revenue Nefario).
I think it would improve liquidity as we won't be tempted to wait for others to fill our order (and it would improve your revenue Nefario).
I think the exact opposite. Without encouraging people to have open orders there would be no liquidity because there would be no reason to leave an order open. Instead of paying fees, anyone buying or selling would have no order volume to buy or sell into, which would end up costing far more than the trading fee.
There would still be reason to leave open order, if we want to sell at a higher place or buy at a lower one.
A feature I think of is fees for both sides of a trade, instead of fees only for the initiator.
I think it would improve liquidity as we won't be tempted to wait for others to fill our order (and it would improve your revenue Nefario).
I think it would improve liquidity as we won't be tempted to wait for others to fill our order (and it would improve your revenue Nefario).
I think the exact opposite. Without encouraging people to have open orders there would be no liquidity because there would be no reason to leave an order open. Instead of paying fees, anyone buying or selling would have no order volume to buy or sell into, which would end up costing far more than the trading fee.
A feature I think of is fees for both sides of a trade, instead of fees of only the initiator.
I think it would improve liquidity as we won't be tempted to wait for others to fill their order (and your revenue Nefario).
I think it would improve liquidity as we won't be tempted to wait for others to fill their order (and your revenue Nefario).
+1
A feature I think of is fees for both sides of a trade, instead of fees only for the initiator.
I think it would improve liquidity as we won't be tempted to wait for others to fill our order (and it would improve your revenue Nefario).
I think it would improve liquidity as we won't be tempted to wait for others to fill our order (and it would improve your revenue Nefario).
The graph only shows bid/asks which are within 15% of the best bid/ask.
yep, it's perfectly fine, clear & useful - I wish that GLBSE would do this too.
I've asked for this feature before & others agreed that your charts without it are useless atm, can you implement it or state why not, thanks.
A good useful chart
A bad completely useless waste of space chart
PS - why don't you reply to my emails about releasing the 130 BTC from my balance that has been unavailable to me for about 2 weeks now!
Doesn't Nefario work with the Intersango folks? It seems like this should be pretty easy to implement, given that Intersango is already doing it.
It's important that the identity of the person who is selling this asset has been verified. We do however recognise that some users prefer for this not to be the case. As a result we provide users with the information about the asset sellers identity to make the appropriate decision.
Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.
Please, stop allowing unverified persons to release IPO's to the market.
I actually would disagree on that. I would put certain limits on unverified assets though.
I think the verification is a little lax. The most important thing is a photo ID, but even with all this information what is going to happen if someone scams? I agree that a better idea is to do limitations on unverified assets. Such as making a capitalization limit for unverified users, limit them to only 1 asset and so forth. Another measure is to add a asset issuer contract and an mediation clause such as with judge.me.
Cut the crap already, I don't think it should be the responsibility of the exchange to enforce identification of issuers. It's nice enough they offer the feature.
Be a man, do your own due diligence and don't come crying when you invested in the wrong asset.
Fuck regulation!
EDIT: stochastic: isnt this something you as a broker could offer?
I sense a little hostility, anyway I am not a broker, I only promote brokerages to form. I would love to make one but I don't have the time right now.
Yeah, sorry,.. had a bad moment. I'm usually friendly
. Maybe I miss the "old glbse" a bit.And you're right: there's nothing wrong with a private exchange enforcing regulations. I see it as slightly problematic though to change them fundamentally as has been done (ask Goat, he was not happy at one point).
Well, I shouldn't complain, but offer alternatives I like better myself...
*ponders making "black stock exchange" (BLASE == german for bubble, shit)*
GLBSE should have some ads on the site but as a novelty pay out ad income as interest depending on how many btc you have sitting in your account not devoted to shares/bonds.
or secretly invest bitcoins in users accounts into some bonds and financial products to leverage users trust and why not start offering credit from the coins not used and sitting in the accounts?srsly, no adds, please.
No
GLBSE should have some ads on the site but as a novelty pay out ad income as interest depending on how many btc you have sitting in your account not devoted to shares/bonds.
I really don't see that happening.
GLBSE should have some ads on the site but as a novelty pay out ad income as interest depending on how many btc you have sitting in your account not devoted to shares/bonds.
or secretly invest bitcoins in users accounts into some bonds and financial products to leverage users trust and why not start offering credit from the coins not used and sitting in the accounts?srsly, no adds, please.
GLBSE should have some ads on the site but as a novelty pay out ad income as interest depending on how many btc you have sitting in your account not devoted to shares/bonds.
for your astuteness I hereby do appoint you citizen & honorary consul of Bitcoinia & our ambassador to Bitcoinastan, your passport & posting docs will be sent in the next diplomatic bag.
Thank you - I'm honored! But I don't have to give up my current citizenship & passport first, do I? 
if the bribes & backhanders get to much in Bitcoinistan then you may wish to ditch any US citizenship but purly for tax avoidance purposes like that guy from the Facebook IPO. Cool, that'll be $1M arrangement fee upfront then, pse to remit in coins to the address in my sig
Enjoy your posting
for your astuteness I hereby do appoint you citizen & honorary consul of Bitcoinia & our ambassador to Bitcoinastan, your passport & posting docs will be sent in the next diplomatic bag.
Thank you - I'm honored! But I don't have to give up my current citizenship & passport first, do I? if the bribes & backhanders get to much in Bitcoinistan then you may wish to ditch any US citizenship but purly for tax avoidance purposes like that guy from the Facebook IPO. for your astuteness I hereby do appoint you citizen & honorary consul of Bitcoinia & our ambassador to Bitcoinastan, your passport & posting docs will be sent in the next diplomatic bag.
Thank you - I'm honored! But I don't have to give up my current citizenship & passport first, do I? Thank you for accepting & absolutely not - the more PP you hold the better
if the incoming bribes & backhanders get to much in Bitcoinistan then you may wish to ditch any US citizenship but purely for tax avoidance purposes like that Brazilian/for your astuteness I hereby do appoint you citizen & honorary consul of Bitcoinia & our ambassador to Bitcoinastan, your passport & posting docs will be sent in the next diplomatic bag.
Thank you - I'm honored! But I don't have to give up my current citizenship & passport first, do I? TYGRR is 100% unverified and yet he seems to be a fair guy - IMO more trustworthy than some others, verified ones.
So I vote against a requirement to verify!
As Otoh has pointed out, the verification process can be cheated - such a requirement would only create an illusion of safety, without actually making GLBSE a safer place.
So I vote against a requirement to verify!
As Otoh has pointed out, the verification process can be cheated - such a requirement would only create an illusion of safety, without actually making GLBSE a safer place.
+1 & for your astuteness I hereby do appoint you citizen & honorary consul of Bitcoinia & our ambassador to Bitcoinistan (no relation to Bitcoinica - well maybe some
), your passport & posting docs will be sent in the next diplomatic bag.btw: On GLBSE I have shares/bonds with Giga, Bitbond, BTC-MC & Goat, in the past with PPTs too including a lot of the last E issue, I pay very little attention to verified or not.
TYGRR is 100% unverified and yet he seems to be a fair guy - IMO more trustworthy than some others, verified ones.
So I vote against a requirement to verify!
As Otoh has pointed out, the verification process can be cheated - such a requirement would only create an illusion of safety, without actually making GLBSE a safer place.
I agree that it would be a nice feature if a user could choose in his settings whether he wants to have the unverified stuff listed, or not.
Though, personally I would have it set to "yes"
So I vote against a requirement to verify!
As Otoh has pointed out, the verification process can be cheated - such a requirement would only create an illusion of safety, without actually making GLBSE a safer place.
I agree that it would be a nice feature if a user could choose in his settings whether he wants to have the unverified stuff listed, or not.
Though, personally I would have it set to "yes"
How about extra points for verification with a diplomatic passport, photo driving license, ID card & utility bills package
I'm just surprised that they don't take bitcoins, though I expect someone on TSR probably does if only as acting as a pass through.
I'm just surprised that they don't take bitcoins, though I expect someone on TSR probably does if only as acting as a pass through.
Due diligence is due. For example, I've invested in Goat's bonds, and he's not verified at all. I let his reputation be the collateral. There are some other securities, however, which I refuse to invest in because there's no verification, and the issuer is not well-known within the community.
TLDR freedom please
TLDR freedom please
Jump to: