Quote from: usagi on January 10, 2013, 06:29:23 PM

Quote from: burnside on January 08, 2013, 08:43:36 AM

Quote from: btcbids on January 08, 2013, 05:45:51 AM

you rarely sale? are not selling off shares currently?
letting the price work itself up over demand to be able to vote with the less than 1000 shares you do not own
no plans to publicly sell and stagger any more shares to the community like s.dice?
only people who pay extreme prices for the ability to vote get to vote?
If not then is that community supportive? rich people get to be voters.

I do have a few shares for sale right now. Looking at my account history I've sold less than 150 shares in the last month and a half, 100 of which was to help jumpstart the BTC-TRADING-PT asset.

I haven't seen the details of the s.dice long term plan, so I can't really comment on that. I outlined the BTC-TC long term plan above.

Yes, only people willing to invest in the platform are allowed to determine the direction the platform will take. That's the general idea anyway.

I'm generally open to good ideas for improvement in the platform, but things are getting to where they're pretty well established now, which makes big changes a bit harder.

Cheers.

Please consider limiting the top end of the price by offering more shares for sale. Voting demand is pushing it too fast in my opinion. But in any case, what's going to happen when dozens of people have the ability to vote? Won't getting 5 votes be trivial at that point? Will you raise the number of votes required, or raise the number of shares required to vote?

I've considered it, and I think it's better to just let the price die down on it's own a bit. I don't think it's voting demand so much that is driving it up. When I issued the dividend at the end of December which included the revenue from btct.co there was a big jump in price from 200 LTC to 300 LTC. So it seems like the price is more based on company performance than voting.

Regarding the numbers of voters, we've discussed in the past and I think the conclusion was that it wouldn't be fair to change the number of shares required to vote. Instead what I think we'll do is we'll set it up to require a percentage of the total voting pool to approve in order to pass. (eg, if we set a 25% approval requirement and there's 100 voters, we would 25 yes votes for approval.) To deal with people that hold their shares and do not log in or vote, we could remove "non-voting shareholders" from the equation used to determine the percentages required. Shouldn't be too hard.

Cheers.