Topic: The last few days on GLBSE (Read 3117 times)

I think a little bit more could be done to make sure people aren't falsely associating GLBSE with the projects/funds listed. Seeing a "Caviat emptor" blurb in the asset area seems like a good idea to me.

I see too much conflicting attitudes, like the one guruvan expressed here. Don't want regulation or government but then suggest you insure against loss, hehe. Not that I want to pick on guruvan. It's one of those traits we humans have to want conflicting things.

Hope you stick it out with GLBSE, Nefario.

The problem is, what makes for example me (without publicly exposing myself a LOT) more trustworthy than anyone else? Writing a couple hundred posts in a niche forum about a niche currency? You'd need a lawyer for this probably and even then people might only trust lawyers from the US/Western Europe...

If on the other hand you have this information, people anyways need to trust you with their money if they want to trade on your platform, so it might be easier for them to also trust that you have verified these IDs.

the part bold is in my opinion at least questionable (read BS). just look at the user that complained about his own actions costing him money. he has sold assets at glbse before getting dividends and also sold cheaper then he bought  ... he would be crying even louder if an asset he owned would turned out be completely worthless.


i don't know where to draw the line either. maybe small step to enable asset issuers to promote themselves. let them edit part of the asset description that could be url to a thread/forum, account on facebook, you name it. let people verify for them self and the asset issuer to provide a link. (i see also possible flaws - links edited, removed, pointing to foreign/not-authentic resources; welcome feedback on this)

i think it's impossible to please everyone. keep doing as you think is best, it's you who has to live with the consequences of your actions (and it's your project/server/idea to begin with). if you'd follow external advice against your own accord, you'd be just more disturbed and disappointed.

I don't know if you read the OP, I apologised, this means it won't be happening again.

We will attempt to automate user verification as much as possible so that assets that wish to provide this for their shareholders (ID information held by GLBSE on their behalf) as we have currently been doing.

We actually don't want to do this as it's a waste of our time and effort but there ARE NO THIRD PARTIES OFFERING THIS. If there were we would stop immediately and leave it to them.

Business idea, a trusted member of the community starts a ID verification company that does what we have been doing so far, they could get capital for the project by listing on GLBSE, depending on who does it I would even wave the fee.

We will not be creating a rating agency.

We will be creating a prediction market and building it right into GLBSE for all assets issued on GLBSE (and allow the prediction of things outside GLBSE also).

+1 to this.

Nefario, you have generally been both professional and responsive, and I have no quarrel with you, but please don't try to put yourself into the role of regulator. It (a) won't work and (b) will destroy GLBSE. More to the point, attempting to regulate Bitcoin goes against the very principles that made Bitcoin what it is.

I agree that Goat's response and behavior were inappropriate, and I understand your desire to protect your shareholders, but protecting against bad investments should not and cannot be your responsibility. Users make the decision to invest, weigh the risk versus reward, and collect the windfall if they pick right and lose a lot if they pick wrong. At GLBSE's beginning both investors and companies were playing rashly, promising things they could not deliver in the case of companies and investing in users who had not demonstrated responsibility in the case of investors. While this resulted in a good amount of pain for everyone involved, it also taught them not to make the same mistakes again. Those who invested in Goat made the choice consciously. They had the necessary information to calculate the potentials of risk and reward. Their investment is their choice and their risk.

I don't feel that you necessarily have to restrict your commenting, nor do I feel that GLBSE has to integrally change. You made what I think you agree was a mistake, took action on that mistake that caused annoyance but no permanent damage, realized you were in the wrong and relented. Goat can hold his grudge if he so desires, but I think the community should and will forgive you on this one, as long as it doesn't happen again.

Charge a fee or deposit if you wish, but don't make it exorbitantly large. One of the great things about GLBSE is how easily a committed entrepreneur with limited capital can launch a company. Ruining that by requiring excessive fees or deposits would make it impossible for many of the companies currently listed on the exchange to exist.

A third party can screen for scammers, but I think having the stock exchange perform that function is a recipe for disaster, as has been seemingly demonstrated in this case. No one should enforce scamming rules, that goes against the point of a distributed system. If a third party screened and provided results to the public, shareholders would have that information in hand when making the decision of whether or not to invest, a decision that should always be theirs.

I'm rather tired and I've been rather long-winded; I hope my points weren't totally obscured. I'd be glad to clarify if necessary. In summary:

(1) Goat's behavior was ridiculous, but...
(2) You cannot and should not regulate this; doing so goes against the very ideal of Bitcoin.
(3) Shareholders reap rewards and should also take the risks.
(4) Don't let this ruin the good parts of GLBSE, notably the ease of launching an IPO.
(5) A third party and not the exchange should screen for scammers.
(6) We (the community) should cut you a little slack as long as this is a one-time occurrence.

That has always been our intention. To provide a platform for raising capital. We hoped that a 3rd party would step into the role of verifying/evaluating/rating issuers, but that just doesn't seem to have happened. It really doesn't make much sense for the exchange to do it at all from an objective impartiality point of view. The NYSE doesn't run Moodys or S&P.



That's right in our terms and conditions, and has been for almost a year.



That would be great. As I said I don't think it really _can_ be the same entity as the market operator for any such rating to have true credibility.


That is a step that has been implemented. Originally listing was free, but that really didn't work as it made the barrier to entry for running a scam asset too low. Even sale of 1 share and then running was profitable for a scammer in that model, so it had to go.

It seems to me that GLBSE or similar can offer real value without verifying companies in any way whatsoever. Let the companies figure out how to build reputations. It might be by levering forum reputation, already running other longstanding business, meeting people in meatspace and pitching your ideas then telling them that they can invest via GLBSE, etc.

As long as the market is clear that they make no promise except that they will care for funds in their control and provide usable software continuously it seems fine too me.

Now if someone found a way to filter for 'non scams' that would be great, but it doesn't have to be the same entity as the market.

To avoid what is essentially spam the exchange could charge a largish fee or deposit for companies before they can make an offering.

So what do people suggest as a solution. I see people complaining that GLBSE isn't doing enough, and other people complaining that it is trying to do too much. What's the balance? What needs to happen to make people comfortable? I'd love to hear what people think.

for peter lambert, operator of the horribly failed lif funds all personal information is available. yet it helps nothing.

Isn’t this what verification is trying to combat, so they cannot stay anonymous? If they say their wallet was stolen, it’s their fault for lax security and have to cover it obviously.

That’s why people should invest only with operators they actually trust.

I still think the interest rate are too high, means risks are too high.

what is all that security worth if any company can default at will without getting into any trouble? there is not much you can do against somebody saying their wallet has been stolen.

it is just not the time for serious money on glbse yet.

it is fun to play but you can easily be burned (the lif.b fiasco clearly showed that to me).

LOL. You're pretty funny too.

I have no concern about the security of the GLBSE website. I'm not concerned at all that Nefario will lose the money.

This isn't about technology. It's about relationships in business, and how they're handled. I'm not ok with losing my money because two people have to have a pissing match in public, with no regard to the investors. I'll take my chances with thieves, thanks. I know what to expect from them.

EDIT: For that matter, I haven't heard of zhoutong going to mtgox to see if he could have a customer's account locked - If he has, correct me, show me the evidence, and I'll probably find that reason to bail.

So, you trust Bitcoinica, which offers 10:1 leverage for anonymous accounts (guarantee to go in big BTC debt eventually) and had multiple break-ins, but will not trust GLBSE which was never broken in before and which has been running for longer?

If GLBSE gets hacked and covers its losses once, then you will begin to trust it?

What do you think do E-Wallets have that GLBSE is missing? Please tell me more. Your risk evaluation has certainly been comedic so far.

Well now I know who not to do business with.

I'd certainly recommend it. The exchange I'm using covered the losses from a large enough robbery to satisfy my  deposit concerns there. Appears plenty solvent. And, yeah, the exchanges are also more regulated, and have to answer to someone about the money.

I'm not the least bit concerned about some bullshit getting out of hand between and exchange owner and his customer, and tanking the price of BTC either. That's a big difference.

I'm not encouraging government regulation at all, but I think if we want to play like big boys, we need to act like them - and part of that is making sure that your liabilities are covered when you're responsible for other people's money.

EDIT: and in general, have you seen that most e-wallets are secure enough to trust in the first place? Money to trade is risked money in the first place.

Interesting.

I wonder if you demand the same from exchanges such as MtGox, or perhaps E-Wallets? Do they have to have insurance on their hundreds of thousands of BTC as well for you to use them?

no, my point isn't to be hard. It's to point out that words don't cover losses, and unless Nefario (or anyone) wants to show they can cover the losses in a disaster, they should seek additional coverage.

nothing personal AT ALL on Nefario.

You shouldn't be holding other people's money without some protection in case of loss. period.

is it that much?  only the balance available for buying shares is held by them.  if i only hold in there as much as i plan to need for trading i can limit my exposure.