Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets
-
@iKnow0 I wish I had released an Asset, because I could then point at it as an example of how it should be done. I have in the past attempted to question and criticise some Asset releases, but usually with a big kickback from the Asset issuer telling me to mind my own business. Unfortunately a lot of issuers seem very happy to release with very little or no information, and often no Asset and even more unfortunately Buyers seem happy to buy.
-
Let's get this out of the way first. I think that they should be over a certain age (18, 21?) Not because Age ought to be a barrier, but just because we should not be seen to be allowing a minor to take on board the responsibilities and pressure necessary to successfully manage an Asset through good and bad times.
-
There should actually be an asset, with some sort of backup to that, documentation or photographs. People are still releasing Assets where the Asset sale is being used as the initial funding.
-
There should be a clear path laid out for the Asset with growth plans, likely returns and plans for if the Asset become nonviable at some point.
-
And for me this is in some ways more important than all of the above and should be mandatory. There should be a short biography detailing knowledge and experience that qualifies the person to responsibly release and manage the Asset.
-
You should only be allowed an Asset Promotion and Progress thread if you first put up a Pre-Release thread, with no Asset ID raised or Listed. There should then be a period of time during which questions should be asked and answers given.
After that if all is well then an Asset Release thread should be allowed. Who decides this I am uncertain? Perhaps current Asset issuers could have a vote?
If they can' be bothered to do the above, then Tough....
Rich
-
-
Re:Proof of life,
A screen shot of funds in trading accounts,
A photo of a miner with a time reference ( some newspaper )
The idea being that the investor is (sure/fairly sure) what they are investing in is real and that they are not investing in a ponzi scheme.Re: Escrow, reasonable would be asset specific. No reason why they cant start small and put a portion of profits towards the escrow until it reaches a certain percentage. The point being the more the asset issuer is looking for the more that should be put towards escrow.
The goal of the code of practice is clarity and transparency for the investor, no system is perfect but the more transparency the better for investors and Burst in the long run. It's better to have some form of standard as to have no standard at all.
-
@iKnow0 I agree with that, and i now see what you mean by proof of life and i agree too... Although regarding the escrow i still vote for it to be optional and not mandatory even if i prefer to invest in assets with an escrow ofc, but let's see what others have to say and made the decision as the communitty we are ;D
-
@RichBC said in Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets:
@iKnow0 I wish I had released an Asset, because I could then point at it as an example of how it
should be done. I have in the past attempted to question and criticise some Asset releases, but usually
with a big kickback from the Asset issuer telling me to mind my own business. Unfortunately a lot of
issuers seem very happy to release with very little or no information, and often no Asset and even more
unfortunately Buyers seem happy to buy.
- There should actually be an asset, with some sort of backup to that, documentation or photographs.
People are still releasing Assets where the Asset sale is being used as the initial funding.
- There should be a clear path laid out for the Asset with growth plans, likely returns and plans for
if the Asset become nonviable at some point.
- And for me this is in some ways more important than all of the above and should be mandatory. There
should be a short biography detailing knowledge and experience that qualifies the person to responsibly
release and manage the Asset.
@RichBC said in Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets:@iKnow0 I wish I had released an Asset, because I could then point at it as an example of how it
should be done. I have in the past attempted to question and criticise some Asset releases, but usually
with a big kickback from the Asset issuer telling me to mind my own business. Unfortunately a lot of
issuers seem very happy to release with very little or no information, and often no Asset and even more
unfortunately Buyers seem happy to buy.
-
There should actually be an asset, with some sort of backup to that, documentation or photographs.
People are still releasing Assets where the Asset sale is being used as the initial funding. -
There should be a clear path laid out for the Asset with growth plans, likely returns and plans for
if the Asset become nonviable at some point. -
And for me this is in some ways more important than all of the above and should be mandatory. There should be a short biography detailing knowledge and experience that qualifies the person to responsibly release and manage the Asset.
-
You should only be allowed an Asset Promotion and Progress thread if you first put up a Pre-Release thread, with no Asset ID raised or Listed. There should then be a period of time during which questions should be asked and answers given.
Rich
In an ideal world I would agree 100%, so lets see if we can find some sort of compromise.
Re: 1) Let's get this out of the way first. I think that they should be over a certain age (18, 21?)
Not because Age ought to be a barrier, but just because we should not be seen to be allowing a minor to take on board the responsibilities and pressure necessary to successfully manage an Asset through good and bad times.They will already be revealing their age, so it would be up to the individual investor to invest or not
given the age of the asset issuer. If we were to impose an age restriction by which culture should we
judge it and why?Re: 2. There should actually be an asset, with some sort of backup to that, documentation or photographs. People are still releasing Assets where the Asset sale is being used as the initial
funding.I agree sort of, How about "The asset issuer should show proof of what they themselves are putting
towards the asset, be it funds, hardware or other."Re: 3 There should be a clear path laid out for the Asset with growth plans, likely returns and plans for if the Asset become nonviable at some point.
There are two concerns here "Growth plans" and "Exit Strategy" I agree both should be provided as it
shows planning and business acumen."Provide an asset plan as to how they see the asset will grow over time in value"
"Provide an "Exit Strategy" should the asset become nonviable."Re: 4 And for me this is in some ways more important than all of the above and should be mandatory.
There should be a short biography detailing knowledge and experience that qualifies the person to responsibly release and manage the Asset.I agree "Asset issuers should declare in detail relevant experience that qualifies them to responsibly
release and manage the Asset".Re: 5 "You should only be allowed an Asset Promotion and Progress thread if you first put up a Pre-
Release thread, with no Asset ID raised or Listed. There should then be a period of time during which
questions should be asked and answers given."I agree "Asset issuers should pre-announce an asset one month before releasing the asset" this will give time to investors to ask questions and to raise funds for the initial share offering. Asset issuers will
also benefit in that feedback from the investors may highlight unseen pitfalls or unexplored pportunities.
-
@RichBC hmmm you can scrutinize my asset ;) i welcome comments/questions as long they are productive :D
-
@iKnow0 said in Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets:
Asset issuers should pre-announce an asset one month before releasing the asset
I think 1 month is too much, and would go for 2 weeks but if others prefer 1 month, it's something i can live with it ;P
-
assets live proof like pictures and video etc should be added to check anytime whats going on, id verification should be done by live communication with isuuer and whole record should kept in safe hands of some clear history legit trustworthy person.
-
@iKnow0 i think you are definitely onto something here..couple points i would like to add..
-
entire policy should be an option.. once one big asset does it everyone will compare new assets to that. It is a strong selling point for any new issuer.. if issuer cannot be bothered with some sort of template they will lose interest and sales easily. It should definitely be considered by serious issuers
-
simplify it to a small amount of points to complete policy template..then it could have a cool name like the 8 pillars of trust or something.. if its too many it will be harder to track and will take longer to complete and become adopted.
-
country isnt needed. .. people are biased for starters and many other points to not want this.. if they are also verified by haitch he has their info.
-
age same as country. maybe haitch considers small revisions to his seal if he feels any are needed.
-
time frame for said pre-releases forum sections ( i am unclear if this was your idea and too tired to read back atm) etc. - 2 weeks very short time frame to release anything worth taking seriously. As a miner i find it grueling to stay updated and read the asset forum sections. descriptions are long old an full of payment screenshots and always changing.. I think 2 weeks can upset some whales who want to get in early. Sometimes I take two weeks before checking email.
5a) I think with any crypto we can easily lose perception that the most active forum readers cannot be the entire market or it will fail. in any industry 99 percent of the market place doesnt use facebook to buy their products or be persuaded by a saavy marketing agent.. what i mean is that even if it is only marketed here i think 2 weeks is short and once you get into the swing of things it is easy to ignore any forum for a week or two. I would vote 1 month.
Disclaimer
The man may keep me down but my opinions are my own and I have not been persuaded by any entity person or framework.
-
-
@dvndr007 Covered in 8 & 6 respectively.
-
@gpedro The reasons for one month are the following
Forum members can be away for weeks at a time.
It gives investors time to raise funds.
It gives investors time to carefully investigate the asset proposal.
It gives investors time to carefully investigate the asset issuer.
It will allow time to build hype for the asset.
It gives investors time to ask questions and for the asset issuer to respond.
-
@iKnow0 sorry i didnt see you already were leaning 1 month i saw 2 weeks somewhere its all becoming a blurr.. need sleep
-
@darindarin said in Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets:
@iKnow0 i think you are definitely onto something here..couple points i would like to add..
-
entire policy should be an option.. once one big asset does it everyone will compare new assets to that. It is a strong selling point for any new issuer.. if issuer cannot be bothered with some sort of template they will lose interest and sales easily. It should definitely be considered by serious issuers
-
simplify it to a small amount of points to complete policy template..then it could have a cool name like the 8 pillars of trust or something.. if its too many it will be harder to track and will take longer to complete and become adopted.
-
country isnt needed. .. people are biased for starters and many other points to not want this.. if they are also verified by haitch he has their info.
-
age same as country. maybe haitch considers small revisions to his seal if he feels any are needed.
-
time frame for said pre-releases forum sections ( i am unclear if this was your idea and too tired to read back atm) etc. - 2 weeks very short time frame to release anything worth taking seriously. As a miner i find it grueling to stay updated and read the asset forum sections. descriptions are long old an full of payment screenshots and always changing.. I think 2 weeks can upset some whales who want to get in early. Sometimes I take two weeks before checking email.
5a) I think with any crypto we can easily lose perception that the most active forum readers cannot be the entire market or it will fail. in any industry 99 percent of the market place doesnt use facebook to buy their products or be persuaded by a saavy marketing agent.. what i mean is that even if it is only marketed here i think 2 weeks is short and once you get into the swing of things it is easy to ignore any forum for a week or two. I would vote 1 month.
Disclaimer
The man may keep me down but my opinions are my own and I have not been persuaded by any entity person or framework.
Re: 1, My thinking is that there will be two asset categories, those adopting the "Code of Practice" and those that do not. By defining a standard we set an achievable goal for asset issuers. Those that achieve it will be held in higher regard by investors and less so by scammers.
Re: 2. Simplify... If it is made too simple then it loses its value.
Re: 3. Country requirement gone.
Re: 4. I think this is important, investors need to know this. Being young should not stop one from issuing an asset, however transparency and honesty is. If a young person can comply with all of the other requirements then it shows maturity beyond their years and even I would be willing to invest.
Re: 5. I agree, one month seems reasonable as most here are part-time crypto.
Thanks for your feedback.
-
-
@iKnow0 I am uncertain about the Month before the Asset can be formally released? Although I agree with the logic 1 Month is a very long time in Crypto. Suppose I have a brilliant idea for an Asset and have it fully formed and ready for release.
If I then post details of the Asset it gives others a Month to come up with a similar or competing idea and release on BN where the approval process can be completed in a Day.
I think we should consider 1 Week max otherwise everything will just be released over on BN.
Rich
-
@RichBC Good point, i had not considered that. A week it is then.
-
I think the escrow fund should be optional as stated above (but still recommended).
One thing to add maybe is that the issuer should regularly update the OP with every change, news, or relevant information that happens after the release. I see quite a lot of assets that have information that is not always up to date in the OP, and new investors can be mislead when there are 10+ pages in the thread, "hiding" important updates. Maybe provide a changelog at the bottom of the original post or something like that.
-
@Gadrah_ Change log, i like this one a time saver too. :-)
Merci Bien
-
Enough with assets too many. Very easy to swindle people into buying them. These people don't understand how long it will take to recoup the money invested on such small dividends. Before anyone invests take a look at the past payouts. 60 shares that might cost you 18,000 burst and your dividend is 25 coins. 18,000-25=17,975. How easy for me to take my 1 million burst create an asset and sell to you for 10 coins a share. Then start mining (reward now 2036) to pay you back a dividend. For what. It just as easy for the next guy to start selling back that share to the next poor soul who thinks that they will get large dividends each week and will pay 20 for that share. How will each asset continue to be funded as the rewards dwindle? I own so many assets and only one questionable one at that has doubled my invested money. Surprisingly the winning asset will end in a month.
-
@Burstde I think you are on the wrong thread...
-
Ask yourself does it matter that a teenager will control an asset or that a teenager could buy any alt-coin/burst.
Do what emails,layers and casinos do by just having text written statements at the bottom.
Seriously too many assets like Dunkin Dougnuts.
I went through some more assets another stands out from 1.5 years ago. Pitiful to find out first it was created by a grown man smarter and craftier. 1700 share investment costing me 18,000 coins, My dividend total to date 533. The sad part is the owner decided to invest more hardware into other new inventive assets and should of increased this current one 3-fold. It was bought on false promises. What type of penalties with the code have for an adult too.
I will also state that a restriction should be put on an asset owner for not owning more than 2 assets because frankly it means they abandon the first one which is another sneaky way of scamming the investors .Who will incur the expense to do background checks? What guarantee the the person doing background checks will also adhere to European Privacy laws and USA Hippo Laws. I have seen a lot of angry threads that threaten in in some case have exposed the privacy of others in the Virtual Arena.
-
@Burstde said in Draft: Code of Practice for Issuing Assets:
Ask yourself does it matter that a teenager will control an asset or that a teenager could buy any alt-coin/burst.
No, however for the sake of transparency and honesty it is good that investors know this first before investing.
Do what emails,layers and casinos do by just having text written statements at the bottom.
Disclaimer? What has that to do with a Code of Practice for the issuance of assets?
Seriously too many assets like Dunkin Dougnuts.
This is just a colloquial referenced statement of your opinion, what has this to do with a Code of Practice for the issuance of assets?
I went through some more assets another stands out from 1.5 years ago. Pitiful to find out first it was created by a grown man smarter and craftier. 1700 share investment costing me 18,000 coins, My dividend total to date 533. The sad part is the owner decided to invest more hardware into other new inventive assets and should of increased this current one 3-fold. It was bought on false promises. What type of penalties with the code have for an adult too.
This is exactly why a Code of Practice would be useful. (Proof of Life)
If you read the earlier posts, a "Code of Practice" is a standard nothing more.I will also state that a restriction should be put on an asset owner for not owning more than 2 assets because frankly it means they abandon the first one which is another sneaky way of scamming the investors .
An asset holder issuing multiple assets is not what is being discussed here.
I see no issue with an asset holder issuing multiple assets once they adopt the Code of Practice.for each asset.Who will incur the expense to do background checks?
Where is that mentioned in the Code of Practice?What guarantee the the person doing background checks will also adhere to European Privacy laws and USA Hippo Laws.
Where is that mentioned in the Code of Practice?I have seen a lot of angry threads that threaten in in some case have exposed the privacy of others in the Virtual Arena.
Again here you are stating your opinion, good for you but not relevant to what we are trying to achieve here.
If you do not understand what a Code of Practice is, please feel free ask questions and I will be happy to explain.Thanks for you feedback.



