Quote from: dust on September 29, 2012, 06:25:15 PM

This is a great idea. I too suspect that the GLBSE has overall been a huge transfer of wealth from investors to asset issuers and scammers.

18 months and counting!

Quote from: OgNasty on September 29, 2012, 06:56:47 PM

Quote from: Deprived on September 29, 2012, 06:13:38 PM

If OgNasty entered into either selling a short OR a PUT option then it would have no effect on number of outstanding shares.

Easiest way to think of it is that it's a bet (below is very simplified) -

OgNasty bets that NASTY shares hold their value, the other side bets that they lose value.
It's really nothing more than that.

This is a good explanation. Me willing to sell PUT options is only a bet that the share price is currently undervalued, and it's a bet I would be making with my own funds. The only effect it should have on shareholders, is to inspire confidence that I'm willing to bet the share price will go up.

The problem with your theory is: if you had the money available to cover this bet it would make sense for you to buy back your own shares (or, if your normal business allows, expend more capital to expand it at the same ROI level). If you aren't buying back your shares it's likely you don't have the money (it's also possible you're not thinking things through, obviously).

If you don't have the money available you'd be writing what are essentially naked options, which you (in spite of what you might think) aren't either qualified (intellectually) or prepared (financially) to do. I know, I know, it's easy to think you're a big kahuna in BTC finance based on forum circlejerking. So thought kludge, so thought Rosenfeld, so thought all sorts of people who are now selling their cars & wives to cover for their inept dealings.

As others, as well as I, have pointed out to you: buying puts from the underlying owner makes zero sense. If you default they're useless and if you don't default they're useless.