Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.
-
@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 If the Asset holder could use a holdings address linked to the Asset which can only be withdrawn by the Smart Contract it could start at 1 Million Burst there is a 90% risk to the asset.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.
-
@CryptoNick said in Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.:
@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.
Yea that could be a problem and setting up the ratings so they need approval is one way but that puts alot of time and pressure on @haitch to constantly be qualifying those ratings. I was thinking any who rated them
would be required to include their nic and and explanation so at least you could research who they were and how long they have been around etc.
I know @goodplanets wanted to setup an asset evaluation/rating system, that could help.
If any systems are adopted for sure it is not as easy as it seems, trust is one of the main considerations.
I guess we can only try to do our best to create checks and balances and the rest is trust.
-
Decentralized platform, we shouldn't do anything to take away from this at all. People like @haitch can give their seal of verification, but not as a forum feature.
-
@haitch I'm still deciding how to handle this, so for now consider it to be no change in policy ( posting open to all ) until I decide the best path.
-
@irontiga said in Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.:
Decentralized platform, we shouldn't do anything to take away from this at all. People like @haitch can give their seal of verification, but not as a forum feature.
I'm all for decentralization. Since it will be awhile yet for BURST tech and other developments on hold to get up to speed it is not critical for mass adoption right now. For sure though it will be son enough and having some
guidelines will be welcomed by those new to crypto.
-
I don't think we should have verified only, I think we should leave the option, but not make it MANDATORY...
It's a good option to have, but if people want to make an asset without verification and promote it here, it is okay IMO...
We should just keep an eye out for scams as we always do and make people aware.
I don't think getting sued is a possibility because a forum owner isn't responsible for everything that is put on the forum, they are only responsible for giving as much info to the authorities as possible if they ask for it.
-
@haitch I agree, I lost over 50 btc scammed by anon devs lol, no more..and when I do an asset, I will make sure everyone can see my ugly muggins rofl because investors need to be protected. I had to start from scratch 3 months ago because 2 anon devs fleeced me and I don't want to see others burnt because of being naive like me. I like to see the face behind the investment I putting my hard earned BURST in..I have been scammed too many times... ANON doesn't sit with me nicely at all anymore.
-
When I worked with the Real Estate Investors we had to go through a lot more than just verify who we were. It was a gauntlet of different tests, paperwork, and discussions. I understand the assets are not dealing with millions of dollars but I would like to see as if they are.
Another way to look at this is, what if a massive investor discovers Burst and would like to invest into and also run an asset. I doubt s/he would take Burst seriously if it's a den of past known scams. I'm not implying that we are there yet; but if unchecked then we might be there soon.
Maybe create a tier system to reflect the level of trust??
-
Copper
- You have made more than five posts on the forum.
- You have contacted any of the admins or mods to let them know of your intentions.
- Asset will be labeled as high risk and unverified by the admins or mods of the forum.
Your post will be removed if you have not created five upvote worthy posts.
-
Iridium
- You have made more than 10 upvote worthy posts.
- You have more than 10 rep points on the forum.
- You have contacted Haitch to let him know of your intentions.
- You are allowed to post an asset on the forum.
- You have been verified by Haitch.
-
Gold
- You have made more than 20 upvote worthy posts.
- You have more than 20 rep points on the forum.
- You have contacted Haitch to let him know of your intentions.
- You are allowed to post an asset on the forum.
- You have been verified by Haitch.
- You have insurance for your asset through Haitch
Folks that are serious about their asset and contributing to the community will have no problem getting to the Iridium and or Gold level.
Existing assets will be grandfathered in at the approval of Haitch.
-
-
My view is: Either have mandatory ID verification or split it into 2 as suggeted by others. Without verification there is no accountability and as stated, people have been scammed already. If you do nothing people are going to be scammed again and again and again until it gets to the point where people will stop investing completely and that will be the end of the asset exchange.
-
@TrickyHunter Mandatory ID Verification was my original idea, but it's problematic.
- Well established assets are being run by people with valid reasons they don't wish to give out their ID.
- ID Verified people have made mistakes with their assets.
- Some people think that because the word "court" is in the name of my colo provider that I'm actually working for the Feds and intend to round you all up. The whole future of the ID Verified scheme is under question.
I'm totally in favor of a two tier system, but one where there is no prejudice against non-verified assets, and I haven't figured out how to do that yet.
-
Did I miss the line to pick up my tinfoil hat?
I've been a part of a lot of forums in my life. Some of the more popular ones revolved around online poker and gambling. People would 'stake' players much like they do here and with a lot more money than we are dealing with here... As you can imagine there were plenty of scams, plenty of internet detectives to try and track them down, and plenty of people who made their own decisions based on reputation around the forums.
Fact is, no matter what decision is made here, people will always find a way to game the system. Not that I would, but it wouldn't take me much effort to completely make up an identity with a legit looking drivers license, work with someone off craigslist to use their address and scam the entire community... "but he is verified he couldn't scam" Silly mentality.
Much like I could have no reputation, come up with a brilliant idea for an asset, sell out of it, and make everyone thousands upon thousands of dollars without ever being verified.
@haitch long story short, you need to decide what is best for you and your forums. If legal troubles is what you are worried about, have a free consultation with a lawyer about your liabilities. If doing what is best for the community is your worry, then just make it optional and let the ones that do get verified profit from it.
Overall though people just need to use their heads, ask questions before investing, and if you get a bad feeling about it or something doesn't add up then don't invest.
-
@DougLife Legal repercussion is a concern, but a small one. Doing what's best for the community is where my headache lies. When I announced the requirement I was contacted by the operators of a number of established, trusted, assets that they wouldn't do it, and would stop promoting their assets here. So do I chase off trusted assets in favor of ID Verified - which as you say can be dubious, but it's the best solution I have for now assets?
ID Verification is not a 100% guarantee, the system can be gamed - but I'm open to better ideas.
I'm considering a multi tier structure, but am struggling to figure out one that doesn't prejudice non-verified owners while promoting possibly gamed verified owners.




