Topic: Notice of fee change on GLBSE - page 3. (Read 5947 times)
Why would refunding a non-refundable fee be the right thing to do?
What threats? I said I would be forced to file a scammer complaint if you did not refund my 8BTC. You have not done so yet. Why? Your accusations are bordering on libel.
I also said I would be happy to only raise 500BTC to invest on the GLBSE but for some reason you are trying to paint me as something I am not. Shame on you.
I only wanted to do something fun and get a good grade in my class with my Bitcoin hobby. Nefario apparently wanted to make wild accusations and single me out for some reason. A shame. Adding insult to injury is that I contacted him prior to paying the non-refundable 8BTC fee and his only response was that he would be increasing fees soon. I guess he decided 8BTC is not enough for a listing and this thread was simply his way of pretending to run a transparent exchange. I hope people take notice of this. I for one have a different opinion of the GLBSE now. It looks more like the next Bitcoin Savings & Trust after this experience.
Why would Nefario refund a non-refundable fee?
Because it is the right thing to do?
What threats? I said I would be forced to file a scammer complaint if you did not refund my 8BTC. You have not done so yet. Why? Your accusations are bordering on libel.
I also said I would be happy to only raise 500BTC to invest on the GLBSE but for some reason you are trying to paint me as something I am not. Shame on you.
I only wanted to do something fun and get a good grade in my class with my Bitcoin hobby. Nefario apparently wanted to make wild accusations and single me out for some reason. A shame. Adding insult to injury is that I contacted him prior to paying the non-refundable 8BTC fee and his only response was that he would be increasing fees soon. I guess he decided 8BTC is not enough for a listing and this thread was simply his way of pretending to run a transparent exchange. I hope people take notice of this. I for one have a different opinion of the GLBSE now. It looks more like the next Bitcoin Savings & Trust after this experience.
Why would Nefario refund a non-refundable fee?
PPoweredP has already started making threats to me in PM's, despite me telling him that I would refund the 8BTC. I don't see any reason to take him for anything other than a scammer, what teacher tells a student to go out and start an anonymous fund worth $100,000USD on a bitcoin market?
What threats? I said I would be forced to file a scammer complaint if you did not refund my 8BTC. You have not done so yet. Why? Your accusations are bordering on libel.
I also said I would be happy to only raise 500BTC to invest on the GLBSE but for some reason you are trying to paint me as something I am not. Shame on you.
Actually I was wrong, you were actually looking for 10,000BTC not 1,000.
Would it make a difference if I was willing to reduce the amount to 500 BTC? I do not want to waste all the effort I have put into this project and it seems that you are unfairly controlling the market. That seems anti-Bitcoin to me.
It sounds like PPoweredP wants a KickStarter-like system. That way, investors are protected because a project will not fund unless it reaches the fundraising goals.
Not exactly protected. Sure if the funding goal isn't met then they get their funds back, but if it's a scam then it's a scam no matter.
PPoweredP has already started making threats to me in PM's, despite me telling him that I would refund the 8BTC. I don't see any reason to take him for anything other than a scammer, what teacher tells a student to go out and start an anonymous fund worth $100,000USD on a bitcoin market?
Besides, the only thing that I've required is that he get verified. His unwillingness to do so, along with his increasing hostility is a major red flag.
Actually I was wrong, you were actually looking for 10,000BTC not 1,000.
Would it make a difference if I was willing to reduce the amount to 500 BTC? I do not want to waste all the effort I have put into this project and it seems that you are unfairly controlling the market. That seems anti-Bitcoin to me.
It sounds like PPoweredP wants a KickStarter-like system. That way, investors are protected because a project will not fund unless it reaches the fundraising goals.
I only wanted to do something fun and get a good grade in my class with my Bitcoin hobby. Nefario apparently wanted to make wild accusations and single me out for some reason. A shame. Adding insult to injury is that I contacted him prior to paying the non-refundable 8BTC fee and his only response was that he would be increasing fees soon. I guess he decided 8BTC is not enough for a listing and this thread was simply his way of pretending to run a transparent exchange. I hope people take notice of this. I for one have a different opinion of the GLBSE now. It looks more like the next Bitcoin Savings & Trust after this experience.
Actually I was wrong, you were actually looking for 10,000BTC not 1,000.
Would it make a difference if I was willing to reduce the amount to 500 BTC? I do not want to waste all the effort I have put into this project and it seems that you are unfairly controlling the market. That seems anti-Bitcoin to me.
It sounds like PPoweredP wants a KickStarter-like system. That way, investors are protected because a project will not fund unless it reaches the fundraising goals.
Actually I was wrong, you were actually looking for 10,000BTC not 1,000.
Would it make a difference if I was willing to reduce the amount to 500 BTC? I do not want to waste all the effort I have put into this project and it seems that you are unfairly controlling the market. That seems anti-Bitcoin to me.
GLBSE is private property, generally private property is "controlled". There is a competing exchange and maybe you can start a third one. Not sure where you get the idea that Bitcoin doesn't support rights for private property owners.
Actually, 2 competing exchanges.
Actually I was wrong, you were actually looking for 10,000BTC not 1,000.
Would it make a difference if I was willing to reduce the amount to 500 BTC? I do not want to waste all the effort I have put into this project and it seems that you are unfairly controlling the market. That seems anti-Bitcoin to me.
At this stage I think not since your intent is clear.
What? My intent to get a good grade in school and raise Bitcoin awareness? What are you basing your accusation on? Not the fact that I have been 100% honest and open to everyone as well as providing my teacher's name and my school address to my lenders. I hope other people take notice of this. I spoke to you prior to submitting my 8BTC and listing my IPO. You never mentioned anything except pointing me towards your new fees. I think your intent is the one that is clear. A shame that you had to go this route. Actually I was wrong, you were actually looking for 10,000BTC not 1,000.
Would it make a difference if I was willing to reduce the amount to 500 BTC? I do not want to waste all the effort I have put into this project and it seems that you are unfairly controlling the market. That seems anti-Bitcoin to me.
GLBSE is private property, generally private property is "controlled". There is a competing exchange and maybe you can start a third one. Not sure where you get the idea that Bitcoin doesn't support rights for private property owners.
Actually I was wrong, you were actually looking for 10,000BTC not 1,000.
Would it make a difference if I was willing to reduce the amount to 500 BTC? I do not want to waste all the effort I have put into this project and it seems that you are unfairly controlling the market. That seems anti-Bitcoin to me.
At this stage I think not since your intent is clear.
Actually I was wrong, you were actually looking for 10,000BTC not 1,000.
Would it make a difference if I was willing to reduce the amount to 500 BTC? I do not want to waste all the effort I have put into this project and it seems that you are unfairly controlling the market. That seems anti-Bitcoin to me.
Actually I was wrong, you were actually looking for 10,000BTC not 1,000.
I paid the current fee and met all requirements to list my security of which there are others already doing the same thing. Nefario has threatened to not list my security unless I meet a new set of requirements. This seems quite unfair. Why bother implementing a fee change in a certain amount of days if you are going to change the rules effective immediately? I hope you change your mind Nefario. This is not the way to run a business and I cannot understand why you are choosing to single me out.
You have not been singled out, there have been very few new listings as of late for a reason.
I'm reluctant to approve another anonymous asset, especially one thats supposed to be a school project yet is raising over 1000BTC. Really the cost to GLBSE in having to clean up the mess of what will be a hit and run, as well as the damage to our reputation makes it not worth while.
The rules have not been changed, if you look at our terms of service we can require an issuer to verify, this is something you agreed to when creating an account on GLBSE.
I paid the current fee and met all requirements to list my security of which there are others already doing the same thing. Nefario has threatened to not list my security unless I meet a new set of requirements. This seems quite unfair. Why bother implementing a fee change in a certain amount of days if you are going to change the rules effective immediately? I hope you change your mind Nefario. This is not the way to run a business and I cannot understand why you are choosing to single me out.
Good question, to discourage people from submitting bad contracts, the application fee will cover a single application, so applicants had better get their stuff right if they don't want to waste funds.
I think somone has already offered to vet contracts on the forum.
I think somone has already offered to vet contracts on the forum.
I would be willing to look at people's contracts and rip them apart with brutal honesty. Maybe I could offer to look at a contract for 1 btc, refundable if the contract is not accepted by GLBSE?
I heartily endorse this service and/or product.
Good question, to discourage people from submitting bad contracts, the application fee will cover a single application, so applicants had better get their stuff right if they don't want to waste funds.
I think somone has already offered to vet contracts on the forum.
I think somone has already offered to vet contracts on the forum.
I would be willing to look at people's contracts and rip them apart with brutal honesty. Maybe I could offer to look at a contract for 1 btc, refundable if the contract is not accepted by GLBSE?
That sounds like a good idea.
Good question, to discourage people from submitting bad contracts, the application fee will cover a single application, so applicants had better get their stuff right if they don't want to waste funds.
I think somone has already offered to vet contracts on the forum.
I think somone has already offered to vet contracts on the forum.
I would be willing to look at people's contracts and rip them apart with brutal honesty. Maybe I could offer to look at a contract for 1 btc, refundable if the contract is not accepted by GLBSE?
We're making these changes because a lot of people have tried to create assets that we just can't approve, and most of the time it's just from terribly written contracts or schemes that don't really map onto a stock exchange.
So if somebody comes to you with a horribly written contract, will you take their deposit and tell them to try again, or will you have them rework the contract and continue without paying a second deposit?
Good question, to discourage people from submitting bad contracts, the application fee will cover a single application, so applicants had better get their stuff right if they don't want to waste funds.
I think somone has already offered to vet contracts on the forum.
Can't blame you for making this change. It's reasonable without making it unrealistic.
If it stops just a few junk assets from ending up there I'll see it as a good thing.
If it stops just a few junk assets from ending up there I'll see it as a good thing.
Jump to: