Topic: [LTC-GLOBAL] The Litecoin Global Virtual Stock Exchange - Public Beta - page 8. (Read 21380 times)

Well. Do you know that public companies are required to notify investors about long-term risks to their business? (Particularly, in fillings... Form 10-K or something like that.)

For example, Microsoft mentioned that Linux is a potential threat to their OS business.

What I'm saying is that decentralized exchanges might be a threat to your business. This is in fact very relevant to LTC-GLOBAL the stock long term price target...

Or did you expect that people would only give your company praises? That's not how it works.

The problem is when two securities invest in each other.

I agree, the text needs re-worded.  But when two securities invest in each other they effectively prop up each other.  Then when one fails, both fail.  Add about 10 more into the mix, all failing at once, and you get the GLBSE.

We'll fix the wording so that it prevents what it is intended to prevent.

Open transactions will not prevent what we are trying to prevent.  I would respectfully ask that if you're not going to contribute in a positive way you find somewhere else to waste your time.

The motion system is now live.  Please note that you'll want to make sure you have your account timezone set properly when scheduling votes. 

I built it pretty fast.  Please let me know if you run into any issues!

Cheers.

Good.

With each such arbitrary restriction we are closer to decentralized exchanges. Centralized ones shot themselves in the foot: they inhibit survival of the fittest. Eventually they'll turn to the ghettos...

At the same time decentralized ones will effectively decouple trading itself from services like verification/rating agencies/audit, thus enabling competition in that sphere. Thus decentralized exchanges will be ones which will end up with fittest companies and fittest verification/rating/audit services.

That's how evolution works.

there's been more discussion on it on the litecoin forums:

http://forum.litecoin.net/index.php/topic,551.0.html

towards end of that thread.

Its a much needed change, gblse has turned into a real shitstorm because of it.

What happens to LTCI? It was going to invest into LTC-ATF according to contract.

I see nothing wrong with it as long as there is no contract violation (i.e. if fund said it won't invest into other funds it shouldn't).

I'm hoping this new addition to the ToS won't be too controversial, given the unbelievable web of deceit that is being unravelled as the GLBSE implodes:

    * Funds will not be allowed to invest in other funds.  If a fund is caught investing in another fund your
      asset will be frozen until the issue is rectified.  In extreme cases assets will be subject to delisting.

Very good point with the need for animosity anonymity.

I'll make a motion system a priority.


Edit: did not mean what I meant it to mean. 

I didn't address this in my earlier post.

The notification system works far from OK for motions.

It DOES allow the asset issuer to see the results of a vote but noone else can confirm that unless the asset issuer posts a list of all email addresses and votes cast by that address.  This is bad because:

The asset lister posting such a list is (I would hope) obviously not a good idea - as it exposes the email addresses and number of shares held of people who may have just wanted to invest anonymously without their email addresses being published.

Without such a list, there's zero way to tell if the asset issuer is honestly passing on the results.  If we're going to assume that asset issuers will always act in good faith then we may as well not bother with motions and just let them change their contracts however and whenever they want.

It also means that noone can vote anonymously - there are circumstances where this can cause someone to vote other than they otherwise would have (or not vote) because of unrelated issues linking them with the asset issuer.

I'm an asset issuer myself AND an investor.  In both roles I want transparency on any motions without revealing who voted which way.  As an investor I want confidence that my vote was counted the way I actually voted.  As an asset issuer I want investors to be able to vote honestly without trying to suck up to me or being unduly influenced by others who would see how they voted were their email address (which is often traceable to a forum identity) exposed.

I am IN FAVOUR, however, of an addition - that in any motion the number of shares the asset issuer voted with (and how they voted) should be exposed.  This would ideally include any shares they voted with on their personal account.

I like this in theory (I'm an asset issuer on LTC_GLOBAL) myself.

What I'd like to see is that asset issuers either include in their contract (if an IPO) or modify their contract (via motion) if it's already in the wild to include a statement of how they'll apply that change.

In the case of my fund (which day trades across a range of assets and is very exposed to the LTC/BTC exchange rate) I wouldn't foresee needing to halt trading other than in some VERY extreme circumstance (e.g. GLBSE getting hacked or shutdown).  Even in those circumstances I'd likely only halt trading very briefly - just to clear orders and post an update here/ in the ltctalk thread.  Thereafter investors all have the same information before they trade (except any idiots who trade without bothering to work out why their orders were cancelled) and can do what they want on the market.

But my situation is a bit different to most - as my fund buys/sells units and so is effectively the market-maker for the asset and I would expect it to usually form the bulk of orders itself (as the trading range moves up/down during the day as profits/losses are made and the exchange-rate varies).

The real argument on is between two competing points of view:

1.  That if something unexpected occurs, those with oustanding market orders should be prevented from loss.
2.  That anyone placing orders and leaving them unattended is already accepting the risk that the pricing of their orders may become severely wrong in some situations.

I don't have a strong belief on either side of those arguments - but I'd certainly like to know what an asset's policy was.  I'll sort my own policy on it out tomorrow - then see about passing it as a motion to amend the contract: not becasue I NEED it in the contract (I don't) but because i believe any investor reading the contract deserves to know my stance on it.

My policy will also definitely include that in the event something occurs which would cause me to impose a freeze the neither the asset itself or my personal LTC-GLOBAL account will trade my units before I press the freeze button: i.e. I won't exploit the situation myself before preventing anyone else doing so.

BTW, that cracked me up!

I think the problem with that argument is that a scammer/fraudster wouldn't bother to notify the exchange and wait for us to halt trading anyway.  On the other hand, we save investors a significant amount in the case of the honest asset manager that has just defaulted due to some outside publicly known influence and can't wait for us.  Eg: a fund manager that has 50% of the fund in a certain company.  The company declares bankruptcy without prior warning.  To save his investors from significant loss, that fund manager would need to log in ASAP to clear the order book and stop trading.

Plus... being brutally honest... I have a day job, family, etc.  I go on vacations where there is no internet access.  LTC-GLOBAL is a long way from being able to afford to man the outpost 24/7.  I have to build it so that 99% of it can function without me.  I truly hope that that changes down the road, but for now my goal is to give the honest asset issuers all the tools they need to operate.

I agree that we need a delisting plan and policy.  Yet another weakness that GLBSE has exposed.  I have already laid out the qualifications for listing.  It can't be illegal, you cannot lie, etc.  (in the create asset ToS)  It warns that if you violate the ToS your assets will be frozen and you will be delisted.  So in that situation, what do you think would be the best delisting course of action?  Of course first thing you do is wipe the order book, but then do you stop trading immediately?  Do you give people a week of trading?  A month?

The scammers and fraudsters... that's the hardest thing to figure out...  I don't want people to lose their money but in the real world it's the SEC that deals with that, not the NYSE.  I don't know that I'm going to have the resources to be both.  I'll happily build integration for anyone wanting to setup a business as the C-SEC!  (Crypto-SEC   You could definitely make money doing it, not just for LTC assets, but for BTC ones on the three exchanges as well.

It doesn't seem to me that an asset issuer should have the ability to, in their sole discretion, halt trading on their issue. This seems like a recipe for disaster, fraud, and significant investor losses

The exchange should have a set policy on what will halt trading of an issue.

The issuer should be able to notify the exchange of a condition that will exist that should halt trading in the future (non-emergency halt) If the exchange deems that the halt request meets requirements, trading will be halted (and notice posted on the assets page)

If a condition should arise that meets the emergency halt requirements, trading should be halted by the exchange without the issuer's involvement

The exchange should further have a set policy for delisting assets, and once and issue no longer meets the qualifications for listing, notice is posted that trading will cease at some point in the future.

Just my 2 cobs

(cobs are the ltc equivalent of satoshis)

Probably not super exciting nor glamorous news, but reading through various threads about GLBSE this morning I realized that a very important tool they do not have is the ability for an asset issuer to freeze trading on their assets for big announcements.  Those that have watched their investment in an asset go poof because an asset has declared some bad news while they were sleeping know what I am talking about.

  - Now in the interface an asset issuer can stop trading on their asset.  When they do all existing orders are wiped out.
  - Then the asset issuer can craft a notification to all shareholders explaining their actions.
  - After things are sorted out and everyone has been notified then the asset issuer can start trading again.

Implementing this (and the related admin override tools) was fairly in-depth in the trading code.  Please let me know if you get any unexpected "trading has been frozen" messages.   

Cheers.

We have prettier URL's now. 

eg: https://www.litecoinglobal.com/security/LTC-GLOBAL

Announcing -- Google Authenticator 2-Factor Authentication Support!

- You can now turn on and manage Google Authenticator support on the account page.
- I have also added the ability to edit your email address on the account page.

Be careful not to lock yourself out!  However, if you do, you can get back in by going through the lost password process, which will also reset your Google Authenticator settings.