Quote from: burnside on June 30, 2013, 06:31:21 AM

What I really don't get is:

Why did people think 2 days ago that 0.0025 was a great deal?
And now, two days later, with minimal changes to the underlying issue, think it's not a great deal?
On an asset that per stated plans, will take months to deliver?

The market really doesn't make any sense to me sometimes and trying to make sense of it really hurts my brain.

As an exchange operator, these are questions you should never ask except in cases where you suspect foul play in the free trade of assets. In fact, you're putting people in more danger by offloading their responsibility and risk.

What the vote system allows, but sadly doesn't, is a peer review of the contract, the terms, the seriousness of the issuer, whether the important questions investors need answered are properly answered, and so on.

Right now, and with your questions even related to the valuation of a company, the vote system is a vote about whether someone thinks they could make money off an asset.

Some voters take their responsibility seriously and judge listings based on merits that will put responsibility, risk, and reward solely on investors, as a free market should. However, apparently the majority would only vote on listings they find interesting, profitable, or something to that effect. The result is that new or radically different types of assets would have a hard time being listed.

There is no accountability for voters, as they can vote anonymously. There's no transparency because their interests are not disclosed (think voters that do not want assets competing with their own held assets). In fact, we don't even know the usernames, much less the names of half of the voters. Asset issuers have no way to reach the voters directly, except to post to their own discussion threads and hope voters are interested enough to monitor that, post in the News thread on the site (polluting that even further), or similar, which is public and could disclose confidential information.

For example, and specific to my pending listing, I am working on a new plan as a backup in case LTC Global voters can't be bothered to do what I pay them to do. That plan contains sensitive information about the asset that I do not want publicized until the plan has come together. Still, voters may need to know about this information and I have no way of reaching them.

The result is that voters based their votes on valuation, not on the asset. For new assets, this makes it virtually impossible to get an asset listed, as it turns into a speculation game from voters, not a factual review that would give the market the ability to decide valuation of a company. Voters take away investor's ability to invest in whatever they wish and basically say "wee don't think you'll make money on this so we're going to prevent you from having the chance".

Finally, why on earth would there be a clause about voter participation being above a certain level? Do you US types postpone the election of a new president until at least X have voted? No! You set a date, and at that date, you tally the votes. Whoever has the most votes is said to win. There would be riot in the streets if you included a clause saying that the democratic candidate needs at least X votes to win.

The way the system works now, only one type of vote is counted. The rest are at best guidelines for investors who happen to buy through that particular website. Only Yes votes matter and you need 5 of them. You could have 3000 No votes; as long as you get 5 Yes votes, you win the election. It's not even half of the voters; according to your 20+ voter comment, 25% of the voters need to somehow be encouraged to vote favorably. If the rest scream their lungs out about real problems in the contract, who cares? You get listed if you can bribe, threaten, over-promise, or otherwise get 5 people to supprt you.

It's actually even worse because you can even buy one vote yourself and that seems somehow to be quite OK.

Quote from: burnside on June 30, 2013, 06:31:21 AM

If there are changes to be made it's going to require more manpower to help filter better and to help the issuers plan their IPO's better. I've been discussing getting more people involved lately, I will continue to pursue those avenues.

The exchange needs to either dispose of the voting system or it needs clear, transparent guidelines for voters to follow, guidelines that are enforced by you or a team of yous. You don't need more people to keep a system that's already broken.

.b