Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.
-
@MikeMike Let's continue with this thread main topic.
@haitch So how are the votes? Will it be a two separated categories or just one for verified ?
-
@Zeus said in Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.:
@MikeMike Let's continue with this thread main topic ^_^
It is a concern closely related to "Approved Assets" that is clearly a concern so lets not let this die.
It could be very beneficial.
-
PM me in chat
-
Could a rating system be applied to the unverified assets so people dont think ALL unverified assets are a scam.
-
I'm with ID verification, somehow it feels more safe to invest with those who would take extra measures than those who prefer to stay anonymous.
Even better I'll invest with those who pay escrow for their assets and take part of the risk.
To make it a MUST requirement to issue an asset, no!
A warning on the asset that its not verified or paid an insurance to protect its investors might help a lot.
-
Guys we need to understand that decentralization doesn't necessarily means the "Law of the Jungle"! We need to go smart if you want people adopting this currency. I will go for the option to know the potential risks, investors will know if they want to invest with someone issuing an asset that the very next day may just disappear with all the investment funds and without the possibility of at least initiate a fight back in order to get back their investments. Why the heck should I trust someone that definitely -and proven to be the case in the past- might just do that!? Anyway asset issuers may also have the option to go with what they feel comfortable. I am not an asset issuer at the moment, but I wouldn't mind to unveil my identity to a trusted member of this forum who in exchange unveils his to me as well. But write in stone that personally I won't invest a penny in an asset from someone who can just evaporate the very next day without even say "bye, I fu*** up you all!"
-
@FrilledShark said in Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.:
If what someone is doing with your asset, like trading, running a casino or something else, will punish them if they did it in real life, the chance of getting him/her verified is low. Asset issuers from countries with negativ politics on Cryptocurrency would also suffer.
If the document somehow got stolen or hacked, they will suffer a lot.
@Haitch might say that the documents are stored securely, but that is not when you factor in someone breaking into his house. If they are stored encrypted as files, they will also be at risk. Decrypting gets stronger everyday and quantum computers are just about to be a reality. Many predict quantum computers will break most exciting encryption metodes, if not all.
I don't believe it is gonna happen, but you can't say getting verified is without risks.Startups like @Zeus's Casino won't happen as often as well. He is unable to register his casino, and is therefore risking a lot if his identity suddenly got revealed. The same goes for all other verified asset issuers. Did they remember to pay taxes? If they come from Denmark, asset issuers got to pay tax on the investment as well.
@RichBC. I'm an asset issuer. I can't risk getting verified and something happens. My asset Margin would be dead, if it weren't for my anonymity.
I don't think creating a sub-category would be great. I don't think eliminating non-verified assets would be great. But in the end, it is entirely up to @haitch. This is my opinion and I might be the only one with the concerns.
Edit: If we are going to discuss escrow as well. You are literally asking the asset issuer to cut the dividends by half. The investor could also do it himself by only investing 50% of what he originally planned.
This is a very good point folks!
I'm vote NO for the mandatory verification!
I took (and currently taking) a risk by reveal my identity, so that's why I ask @haitch to reveal his identity as well. I hope he will not share it with anybody and I'm really sure he will not, but because here we are laking about, "what if you die or go to jail", I can not say that I'm sure 100% that in case of issue he will not tell to whom he will ask who I am!
-
@all, as part of the ID Verification, I reveal to the person getting verified my name and address, for those who have requested I've provided proof of my identity and address with my drivers license and green card - so it's not a one way trust, I'm trusting the people I reveal my ID to to keep it confidential. If you chose to get verified, I'm the only one that knows your ID, everyone that gets verified knows mine. So by doing the verification, more people already know who I am than will ever know who you are.
Revelation of the ID of someone who has been verified, will not be done on a whim. If a verified asset owner disappears for 6 months, does not respond to DM's, emails, a letter to their confirmed address, then I'll consider releasing it. If they're offline for two weeks I'm not going to freak out and assume they're scamming and broadcast their details. I'll take every practical step I can to contact them before even considering it.
-
@rnahlawi said in Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.:
I'm with ID verification, somehow it feels more safe to invest with those who would take extra measures than those who prefer to stay anonymous.
Even better I'll invest with those who pay escrow for their assets and take part of the risk.
To make it a MUST requirement to issue an asset, no!
A warning on the asset that its not verified or paid an insurance to protect its investors might help a lot.Another approach than issuing a "warning" on assets could go over better and show the reasonableness that
there are many assets that are unverified with a great history and by trusted members.
As for a "General Warning" I think @haitch is having those put in both categories. But to have to force a warning
on every asset if I am understanding correctly might be too much.Perhaps a bullet list of options and some are checked and some are not? I am sure something could be figured out to consider all.
-
@haitch Maybe a Kill switch would be a smart contract that sees no payouts within 3 months and shuts down the asset?
I like the verification since the Crypto is Decentralized but the Help forum can not be Decentralized. By requiring an attempt at Verification of ID then it absolves the Forum of any complicity to the scammer. If they want to advertise elsewhere anyone can double check for their safety on the Help tab to know about Verification at least. Then there is a safety net.
The only question is about Advertising on the Forum. Assets can be made and not Verified and still be great assets. It is just the liability of Advertising a possible scam asset. Most investors would assume the risk knowing this.
-
@CryptoNick How do you shutdown an asset ? It can't be removed from the AE, once an asset is created it exists as long as the Blockchain exists, and as such can be held, transferred, traded. If the asset is automatically accumulating Burst in the asset account, then a custom SC per asset could be set to do the dividend distribution, but if the funds for the asset are not going into the asset account - eg GPU mining, coin trading, staking then the SC has no access to those funds and nothing to distribute.
-
@all The OP has been updated with a poll on this subject, please vote and express your opinion. The results of the poll won't determine the direction I take, but it will be taken into consideration.
Thanks.
H.
-
@haitch I guess I meant dissolve the Asset and Block it. Like an alert? If there was an Escrow or predetermined arrangements then that asset would flourish because it was bound by them. It would be another level of Asset Grading. This would have to be done prior to the creation of the Asset.
Say an Asset grants 1 Million Shares at 10 Burst per share. The asset would be liable for 10 Million Burst. If the Asset holder could use a holdings address linked to the Asset which can only be withdrawn by the Smart Contract it could start at 1 Million Burst there is a 90% risk to the asset. If you want a better grading, then the asset can do 5 million in holdings which is 50%.
Then the asset can also pay into the Escrow as time goes on and create a 100% rating. It would be fully funded. As soon as funds stop going into the Payment address the Asset is dissolved. This will also tie up more Burst. This is kind of like a CD and the Asset issuer could be the Principle so they have stake. Maybe they own the 50% and sell shares on the market. If the Issuer ever wanted to close the asset they could buy up the outstanding shares and get their deposit back as the single holder when the Asset expires and pays to the remaining holders.
-
@CryptoNick i could not understand anything. Do you suggest tying up invested BURST? Why the hell then even create the asset?
-
@LithStud Only if you wanted a good rating for your Asset. It is like you are willing to back your word and pay into the Asset as a Holdings company would.
This would alleviate the need for Verification and you could Advertise on the Forums etc.
-
@CryptoNick The way I'm doing it with Socal's asset works like this:
Socal created an asset, 1,000,000 shares. All of them get sent to the escrow account I run for him.
The escrow account puts the asset up for sale on his schedule - 50K at a time currently.
When each tranche of the asset sells out, 50% of the funds go to Socal, 50% go to another Escrow holding account.So at any given time, Socal has 50% of the funds, I have the other 50% escrowed.
Once the asset has performed for the agreed time (minimum of 1 year), the escrowed funds and remaining shares are returned to Socal.
If Socal disappears, after I've verified he's gone, then I can return the escrowed funds to the investors, and take all the other shares off the market.
-
I propose a list of trust of with e.g. 10 points:
- ID Verification (true/false)
- Pictures of Proof (true /false)
- High reputation in the forums (true/false)
- Other accounts linked: e.g. eBay, Facebook (true/false)
...
....
... and so on.
The Asset issuer or the users can rate the asset with a trust score of 7 of 10 points for example.
We have to discuss the points on the list then. Asset issuers can use the scoring to advertise their asset but they don't have to.
-
If users are able to vote/rate the asset could there be a requirement for them to post their nic and a reason
and once approved the rating/vote would be made.
Or something like that...
This could keep unscrupulous ratings to a minimum.
-
@haitch Excellent! AAA Rated!
-
@MikeMike Also what if people rate the Asset great so other people buy them out? Meaning it wasn't really that great of an Asset but all holders rate it great and then dump on unsuspecting buyers.



