Quote from: furuknap on June 30, 2013, 06:38:05 PM

Quote from: Deprived on June 30, 2013, 06:27:07 PM

I'm not going to get into whether your asset should be approved or not (I've previously indicated that I'd have voted YES if I had a vote). But let's just say that I've yet to see someone who had problems getting votes come here and say "This time the voters were right and I'm cancelling my security as it wasn't up to scratch." ALL issuers who don't get votes as fast as they'd like are going to blame the voters - so when it happens (as is the case here) it doesn't actually shed any light on the situation - as you'd be saying it whether your asset should have been approved or not.

Quote from: Deprived on June 30, 2013, 06:27:07 PM

At root the problem is money. To have securities properly checked is potentially expensive - you need multiple people doing it (to avoid bias) and those capable of doing it properly aren't going to be cheap. If some panel of suitable people were to be paid to screen securities then the registration fee would need to rise significantly. And that's where the problem comes - because most issuers believe their contract is already fine. So why would they pay a large fee to BTC-TC to have some panel agree with them when they could list on Bitfunder much cheaper?

This is a valid point, but on the other hand, I would much rather pay 5 peole 1BTC (of three people 1.6BTC) to have a guaranteed outcome than to throw 5BTC to someone who doens't have to bother and still get my money. In fact, I would double my payment if I knew there was an outcome (even if it wasn't positive).

There's two problems with that :

1. If the 5 BTC fee gos to the people reviewing the contract then there's nothing left for the Exchange.
2. 1 BTC doesn't buy much time.

Expanding on point 2 - what would you expect for your 1 BTC? Say I was a reviewing your contract and I found a few things unclear or objectionable (but fixable) do I reject it? Or do you amend it pay another 1 BTC and try again?

Could anyone properly review, say, my DMS contract for 1 BTC? It's pretty complicated - and HAS to be to properly cover all the bases. Is the reviewer expected to write up a critique if they fail it? How long do you think it would take to review AMC's contract and point out all the problems with it.

As soon as the process gos beyond "Read it, approve it if it's perfect otherwise reject it" time taken rapidly escalates. Yours isn't actually a great example - as it's pretty straightforward. But some apparently simple contracts/IPO plans have issues that would take quite a lot of explaining just to get the issuer to understand what the problem was - things like exchange-rate exposure and why they can't have fixed price in BTC when their assets and revenue are all in USD.

The fee for reviewing either has to be high or it has to be variable. With small IPOs such as yours (no offence intended) the bulk of fees the exchange will EVER receive is the listing fee. Listing fee is 5 BTC. You're having 100K shares at .04 BTC each - so 400 BTC total value. The exchange makes 1.6 BTC if you sell them all via the market and they all need to change hands again more than 2 times each before trade fees would exceed the lsiting fee. That's why reviewers can't be paid from the current listing fee.

And without significantly raising the fee there's just no way to get a group of competent people to review IPOs/contracts with any complexity. About the only way to do it without raising the fee IS a "perfect or fail" approach - where ANY signficant defect in the contract causes a fail without any feedback provided other than that reason. So on AMC it would get failed immediately because the contract explicitly created a conflict of interest with Ken representing both AMC/VML. Then if that got fixed and he resubmitted again it may get failed because his projections showed him mining more bitcoins than the total netowrk could mine (which was in his original draft). That would minimise the time taken on reviews - as you could just stop reading as soon as you found a serious problem or a contradiction. And it would force people to get it right first time - either by being competent themself or by paying someone competent to avoid having to keep paying 5 BTC fees trying to list.

But of course then they'd just run over to Bitfunder instead - as there if the contract had one fairly minor flaw they wouldn't have to pay 2 fees. Competition between multiple exchanges is great on many levels - but because it's perceived as being on price it leads to a race to the bottom. Meaning on Bitfunder you just have to persuade Ukyo - why doesn't seem to pay attention to detail at all - and on BTC-TC you're at the mercy of a bunch of randoms voting on whatever criteria they want. And that means ones that should be rejected getting accepted and ones that should be accepted getting delayed or rejected - think we all agree on that, just maybe not so much on which ones fit in each category.