rafamadeira bitsimple was the very first person to respond to you and responded in the affirmative, all other responses were less inviting yet you ignored the immediate and positive response to focus your attention on everyone else.
When I see things like that I think it's a backhanded marketing plan, I love to see those.
It actually was no reverse marketing. However, the dialog does illustrate that it is often difficult for people to think outside the box. It also means that BitSimple needs to do a better job of explaining how we are more secure and why users don't need to settle for the status quo. The first couple exchanges operated on a "
deposit, wait 6 confirmations, then trade against other users" model. This is one way of doing business but it has created a perception that it is the "only" way. The box has been defined and now it is hard for people to look beyond it. It just so happens that "this way" is the one that transfers all the risk from the exchange on to the depositors (who become unsecured creditors). If the exchange is holding user funds and is unsecured and minimally capitalized (relative to the value of the deposits) who loses in the event of fraud, theft or loss? The user of course. The depositors in effect become uncompensated investors in the exchange. If the exchange does well, the owners profit, if the exchange does bad, the depositors lose. I mean it is a win-win situation for the exchange operator but not a good deal for the end user.
We may be biased but BitSimple is a better way; you keep your coins, secure in your wallet, where they belong and still have instant liquidity. Until now that would mean a loss of liquidity as you would have to deposit and wait 6 confirmations in a potentially very volatile market. The end result is as we was in MtGox collapse a large number of users just used MtGox as form of long term storage. They did so because it gave them instant liquidity. We are one option where the user can have absolute security and instant liquidity. If BitSimple has coins stolen, lost, or defrauded it is the owners who lose, and not surprisingly that makes us very motivated to ensure that doesn't happen.
Bitcoin is stronger when individual users take direct control and responsibility for their own wealth. Bitcoin was suppose to remove the need for "banks" and the first the community did is build new "banks". The sad irony is that these "bitcoin banks" have historically been a far worse security risk than existing fiat banks. That has to stop and while many may take this as pure marketing spin, I hope other companies look outside the box and come up with solutions which don't rely on centralized institutions holding massive amounts of user funds for extended periods of time.