Quote from: MPOE-PR on September 24, 2013, 10:16:44 PM

Quote from: DrGregMulhauser on September 24, 2013, 08:59:15 AM

Merely having an exchange is quite a few light years away from actually offering a credible plan forward.

This is not the time or place to debate or advertise your own exchange, but if MP has plans for a land-grab in this space -- say, by introducing significant improvements in functionality and value proposition to coincide with the sudden availability of a large number of issuers currently evaluating the merits of potential new homes, then I'm all ears. PM me, and I'd be very happy to hear what he's offering.

A land-grab would imply that there's potentially valuable land to be had, and given attitudes like yours that presume it's the exchange, and not you, that needs to have a plan, there's no apparent reason for any such actions.

As to your vague dismissals: bring an argument if you have one, or else you can acknowledge that yes, indeed, you fucked up. Making unsubstantiated allusions to problems of another party is both unproductive and reprehensible. You picked a play pretend exchange built so shakily it couldn't stand for a year and have the gall to suggest that the actual exchange, which has stood on its own as the only correctly built, actually secure, lasting example has unnamed "functionality" issues?

That'd be part of the ignorance I pointed out to you, along with presuming that me taking the time to point this out has anything to do with "arguing" or "advertising".

MPOE-PR, surely you understand that longevity and functionality are not mutually inclusive? It is entirely possible for a platform with extensive functionality to exist only briefly, and perhaps even easier for a platform with no functionality to exist indefinitely.

As far as I can see, MPEX has never had a public fund traded on its platform before. I cannot understand why a fund which already HAS been exchange-traded in the past would need to be the party bearing a proposal here.