open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked Eroding Confidence in the secondary market
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic

Ebolak
Vengeance Asset Relocation
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2009.06.01 19:25:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Ebolak, most of your suggestions are asking us to protect people from their own stupidity. MD shouldn't be about that. Investment resource isn't under fire here, if anything there is too much of it.

People WANT to invest, most KNOW how to, they HAVE isk.

The only thing the secondary market (aargh, please stop referring to the primary market as such) needs is a stock of health offerings by some big names.

The only way to improve our market is too encourage, foster and promote the decent public offerings. Unless we do that people will always invest ISK in the bad offerings, no matter how much you try to protect them from such.

People just WANT to invest too much.




Ray I agree that my suggestions will protect some from thier own stupidity, and others will not pay any attention at all and get burned. My suggestions are more for the new person that is interested in investing and may need a nudge in the right direction in order to understand how to protect themselves.

I also agree that the way to improve the market is to have more available decent public offerings, but my original point was that the fake or test scam offerings can lead to an eroding of confidence in the legitimate ones.

Krathos Morpheus
Legion Infernal
Posted - 2009.06.01 19:29:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Krathos Morpheus on 01/06/2009 19:35:44
Edited by: Krathos Morpheus on 01/06/2009 19:30:30
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Ebolak, most of your suggestions are asking us to protect people from their own stupidity. MD shouldn't be about that. Investment resource isn't under fire here, if anything there is too much of it.

People WANT to invest, most KNOW how to, they HAVE isk.

The only thing the secondary market (aargh, please stop referring to the primary market as such) needs is a stock of health offerings by some big names.

The only way to improve our market is too encourage, foster and promote the decent public offerings. Unless we do that people will always invest ISK in the bad offerings, no matter how much you try to protect them from such.

People just WANT to invest too much.


What are the fake scams for then? Let the people who cares do it the right way and people who don't just ignore it. We are not discussing if teaching is strictly neccessary (anyone smart enough will find how to learn here), but how to do it without hurting the secondary market.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.06.01 19:42:00 - [33]
 

If you want to protect the newer investor you need to advocate the same advice tolled in real life. And while I'm the first to dismiss the one from the other, some aspects play a role in both.

1. Buy blue-chip, move to five.
a) You have ISK to invest, invest it in well-known, long-term shares. There are no costs involved with investing in EVE (minimal really).
b) Move to five different shares/bonds, spread your ISK amongst them. Note dividend yield is not everything, go for potential growth yield.
c) As an example, AATP is heavily under-bought, actual value is 22k and potential dividend yield at that price is 3.5% per month. You will see similar examples at these rates.
d) With capital gains, BMBE offers similar returns.
e) RESX gives good insight into this, check dividend history over more than 3 months to get a good indication of the blue chips.

2. Ignore the primary market, you're new, let the others invest and take the risk. Why would you want to loose all your money at first without going for the steady bet?

3. Never listen to that hot tip. It's wrong.

4. You cannot get rich quickly off the share market. If you know someone that has they are lying.

The most important lesson I have ever learned is that successful investing is done by committing capital only if there is a reasonable expectation of profit.

There is no reasonable expectation of profit in a new offering by an unknown; audit, lock-down or other.

Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
Posted - 2009.06.01 21:17:00 - [34]
 

BSAC has plenty of investments opportunities available. Right now, BSAMR is trading below 10 % NAV, and yet very few people are taking this opportunity.

I agree, for the past several months investor’s confidence has eroded, and I don’t believe audits are the answer. The main problem is ccp’s scamming policy.


Lui Kai
Better Than You
Posted - 2009.06.01 21:21:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Lui Kai on 01/06/2009 21:21:13
Originally by: Block Ukx
The main problem is ccp’s scamming policy.



I disagree very strongly here. Eve is a game of consequences, removing consequences is not the solution to any problem in Eve. It would, in fact, be a substantial detriment to the niche market slot eve manages to hold almost undisputed.

I honestly believe the problem is more rooted in a general social trend among the MD community than any one specific thing. Certain aspects have definitely played a larger or smaller role, but they've added together to create the current investment climate.

CCP Mitnal


C C P
Posted - 2009.06.01 22:33:00 - [36]
 

Cleaned.

Please stay on-topic and not be sidetracked by the posting styles of others.

Ricdics
Tleilex Developments
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.06.01 22:39:00 - [37]
 

Actually I will clarify.

I never ran a scam IPO. As stated about ten times now, I ran a poor business offering. The idea was to make it as poor as possible, making all the wrong decisions, cutting all the wrong corners.

The idea was to test the strength of the secondary market, to have people question the operational integrity, find flaws (as numerous as they were), and the likes. Plus, it was simply a bit of fun. I have spent the past 4 years in Market Discussions doing the right thing, making sure all my posts were politically correct and I thought it would be fun to do an offering against everything I believe in.

It was never going to be a scam. There was always a very clear trail pointing Yoko Kringe to Ricdic (checking eve-search I actually listed him as my alt a few weeks back), there was no character transfer as nothing was in character bazaar. Had I wanted to scam, don't people think I would have been able? Being able to secure trillions of isk from the public through solid business offerings. So if my intent was scam, why would I make all the wrong choices? Yoko Kringe is on a separate account to any Ricdic characters so audit would not have hurt me (except showing being in same corp as Ricdic).

Anyway, the reason I decided to troll instead was simply that people weren't listening. No matter how many times I repeated myself that it was never a scam, I had every intention of returning any money i recieved, I never actually said it was a scam ever, people still kept on going with the "OMG RICDIC SCAMMED" crap. I decided, "to hell with those morons" hence my trolling in return.

Look, I don't have anyones asses to kiss, I have nothing to prove. I do believe I (along with my team) have reached the highest peak in the Eve Financial Market with EBANK. The guys above are right, I am stepping down from EBANK CEO, too much other stuff going on and not enough time for Eve. All we are waiting on is a BoD vote to determine who the new CEO will be.

Finally, the only reason I called for closure on this thread was because I knew it would annoy people. Thanks for giving me the reaction I wanted Smile My family say I love to stir people, and I haven't been able to do it much with my wife of late (8.5 months pregnant) so maybe I used these forums as my outlet.

Ebolak
Vengeance Asset Relocation
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2009.06.01 23:34:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Ebolak on 01/06/2009 23:35:37
Edited by: Ebolak on 01/06/2009 23:35:10
Ricdics, the intent of this thread was not to call your integrity into question, only your judgement, hence my orignal point:

People that test the system, outside of a structured and sanctioned apparatus put in place to do so, will start to erode any feelings of trust that investors had in the system in the first place.


Any thoughts?


Edit: spelling

LarcatOfRens
Posted - 2009.06.01 23:53:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Ricdics
.........I never actually said it was a scam ever, people still kept on going with the "OMG RICDIC SCAMMED" crap. I decided, "to hell with those morons" hence my trolling in return..........

Finally, the only reason I called for closure on this thread was because I knew it would annoy people.


I think you misinterpreted peoples reaction in the first bit of that quote. What they were actually saying was "OMG RICDIC IS A DOUCHEBAG."

I'm not annoyed, just sad that the MD holds a self-admitted douchebag in the highest regard.

Cheers, homie.

HawkBlade
Posted - 2009.06.02 00:41:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Ricdics
I have spent the past 4 years in Market Discussions doing the right thing, making sure all my posts were politically correct...
Now you are being disingenuous. You love starting trouble and everyone knows it. I'm not saying that you have never contributed mate, that would be a dishonest thing for me (or anyone) to say, however don't try to obfuscate your history.

I'm an *******, you are a troll.
We all know who we are.
Originally by: Ricdics
My family say I love to stir people, and I haven't been able to do it much with my wife of late (8.5 months pregnant) so maybe I used these forums as my outlet.
Used? How about always used and continuing to use. Hypocritically you've joined in my calling out Stapler Kid for his using the EO Forums as a cheap alternative to actual therapy. My suggestion, go get real help for working out your frustrations.

Now, to the point, these mock scams could've been useful but were not well executed. These are the things that I would have done to attempt to execute it better:

1 - Gather some of the MD regulars together.

2 - Work out the common points to look for.

3 - Put the "scam" isk amount requested into escrow with a 3rd party.

4 - API Key disclosure to an auditor for monitoring.

Work out before hand who the "anti-shills" would be and communicate only with them. Make the actual exercise like a dinner theatre experience. Occasionally include someone from the audience but work as a team. Do not try too hard to succeed (i.e. accept reservations & buy ins but once they are in, let them know what is happening [perhaps]).

The key concept is transparency. While you may not be transparent to everyone but you need to have a group of "trustworthy" individuals you are transparent with.

As you can see I've thought about this myself however I've always nixed the idea simply because doing so, no matter how thoroughly and transparently, still provides troll ammunition. Once you cross certain lines, make certain jokes, you sully your credibility. In Kazzac's case, people are looking at him a little askance. In Ric's people are just further annoyed with him and his eccentricity.

For Kaz, it might hurt him as he needs very good public image for many things. For Ric, he couldn't give a rat's ass. He's already at the top of the food chain and could care less what, or how much, **** rolls downhill.

My only disappointment is in Kaz. Not for the attempt but for the tunnel vision with which he viewed the aftermath.

Kaz: Your experiment failed to deliver the point/lesson you wanted to give. You also failed to recognize that point.

Ric: I keep trying to tell you mate. Sometimes you need to say "Mea Culpa". Correction, mean it if you ever say it. Your confidence is, far too often, on an out of body trip.

Sola Veritas
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.06.02 01:06:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Sola Veritas on 02/06/2009 07:08:10
Originally by: Ebolak
Edited by: Ebolak on 01/06/2009 23:35:37

People that test the system, outside of a structured and sanctioned apparatus put in place to do so, will start to erode any feelings of trust that investors had in the system in the first place.


Any thoughts?



This makes no practical sense to me—partially because the current apparatuses are not structured ("reputation") nor sanctioned (by whom, the masses?). If you spot a weakness in a system, or a community, you use tests to determine the nature of the weakness, then patch the source of that weakness. Why should we blind ourselves to tools that are "sanctioned and structured"—what if the sanctioned tools themselves are ineffective, and we all go about none the wiser? Then you must explore alternate methods to gauge your tools.

Determining that there is a weakness is nothing special. Everyone should assume there is one in a given system anyway. Eroded confidence due to the possibility of weaknesses, confirmed or otherwise, only reveals how sandy the "confidence" was in the first place. Which may just be the nature of this particular game, and we can deal with it in no realistic or fool-proof way.

I am probably unfamiliar with the nature, relative to others here, as to the fake scams/purposefully poor IPO's that were run and all the details therein. But from what I've read so far on what happened, I pretty much agree with Kazzac:

Quote:
I'm both happy and glad by the reception it received. Happy that no one reserved anything outside of four people offering to invest up to half of it. Angry at the reception to someone who had a solid business plan, was not asking for that much capital, provided reasoned debate behind his requests, offered collateral and was still rebuffed except for one person (props to Bad Bobby), and also offered to scale the plan back so that it was 100% with collateral. Also angry that no one even bothered to look at something as simple as a posting history which spanned no more than 8 posts, all in MD and a few in CnP. Whats wrong with the secondary market if you ask me? The angry unrelenting tone of investors and the culture here.


What's the point of checks and balances if it's reputation that actually drives the primary and secondary markets? What is reputation—posting history (the aura of a "real" character), investing in current IPOs, having started a successful past IPO (a Catch-22)? These are sandy foundations. All one has to do is use the scaretactic of dropping words like "scam" in the IPO thread, which is like calling someone a Communist at an NRA rally (sorry for the non-Americans in the crowd). The same community consensus gets applied to auditors. It is not the merits of the business plan that make the IPO—it's the sheer luck of knowing someone who everyone will believe when he says, "well I don't think this guy will scam…"

The state of the primary market may be due to much of the snobbery that serious amateurs encounter here. And when other potentials see that, they shrug their shoulders, figuring there's no reason to bother. I have seen it happen in front of my eyes, as I'm sure many others have.

In a way the whole MD community is like a social experiment, trying to create honesty in a game that is designed with a purposeful lack of checks and balances. If you really want a secure apparatus, it probably has to be designed by CCP.

Sorry if that is a bit pessimistic. Honesty is noble, but with such a lack of it in EVE, or the lack of a need for it rather, is it any wonder that everyone is jumping at so many shadows to the point that the whole system collapses from within? And the fear to test the current system of checks and balances indiscriminately, like a horse with blinders on, only seems to confirm that.

EDIT: Terminology fixes, primary/secondary, etc.

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2009.06.02 01:11:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: HawkBlade

Kaz: Your experiment failed to deliver the point/lesson you wanted to give. You also failed to recognize that point.



Perhaps, but in the end it did further the discussion.

Oddly enough, I was on the fence about contacting you in advance and doing exactly what you proposed.

...but rum got the better of me.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.06.02 06:10:00 - [43]
 

Let's make this thread less about the ego-maniac and more about the secondary market. And I swear the next person that calls the primary market the secondary market is gonna get it, bad.

Packtu'sa
Nabaal Construction and Industrials Corp
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.06.02 06:41:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
I swear the next person that calls the primary market the secondary market is gonna get it, bad.
Thank you! How hard is it to look up primary market and secondary market and gain a solid understanding of the difference? I'm not sure why 'secondary market' ever became a widely-used term in EVE, since the secondary market here is really even worse than the primary market.

Anyway, to keep from derailing this thread: I believe skepticism is the biggest danger to the secondary primary market. People need to stop worrying so much about things, and just wait for the next offering to crop up. Not enough offerings out there? Make one yourself. I'm a little sick of the whining in absence of contribution.

In all honesty, I would have launched more bonds by now, but the public isn't willing to give me rates as low as I can get in private. Beat 4%/month, and I can start soaking up some ISK and paying returns on it. Razz

Benito M
Posted - 2009.06.02 10:15:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Benito M on 02/06/2009 10:17:06
Ok, this whole place is an elitist club...

Ive been here for just 24 hours and everything is pretty clear, its VERY obvious who is gaining the most here.

Ebank honors its old investers with a 3% rate and "the rest of us" get 1.5% regardless of the investment amount.

Am i the only one that sees whats wrong here?

Ricdic, sorry mate, your explanation only proved my instincts about your charcter are correct. No offence to anyone else at EBANK..

I really hope CCP impliments a system for proper investment, not a scam free one, just one that cuts out the whole forum elite and enables us to view logs and audit from ingame.

As for my post being moderated, the post was very relivent to the topic. You have only furthered my distrust of this whole primary/secondary market. (i dont know the diffrence and dont care to read it up, my days in this forum are done) sad. You may have been well informed and felt my post inapropriate, but not all of us a privy to all the information on this board and topic, so someones attitude who is so HEAVILY involed is dam important to new guys like me.





Ji Sama
Caldari
Tash-Murkon Prime Industries
Posted - 2009.06.02 10:23:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: HawkBlade

Kaz: Your experiment failed to deliver the point/lesson you wanted to give. You also failed to recognize that point.



Perhaps, but in the end it did further the discussion.




thats true!

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2009.06.02 11:58:00 - [47]
 

Quote:
I have spent the past 4 years in Market Discussions doing the right thing, making sure all my posts were politically correct


Quoting this for everybody to see.

I laughed. Sorry Ric Embarassed

Quote:
It was never going to be a scam.

You can't prove intention.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck... See where I'm going?

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2009.06.02 12:10:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Ray McCormack
Let's make this thread less about the ego-maniac and more about the secondary market. And I swear the next person that calls the primary market the secondary market is gonna get it, bad.



Shenanigans?

/gets pistal whipped by Ray

All funnies aside, the point remains. Yes its elitist, but it also needs to be to some degree for the entire damn thing to work seeing that its built on nothing but trust.

So how do we cultivate new players, without jeopardizing the entire thing?

Thoraemond
Minmatar
Far Ranger
Posted - 2009.06.02 12:14:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Lui Kai
Originally by: Block Ukx
The main problem is CCP’s scamming policy.



I disagree very strongly here. Eve is a game of consequences, removing consequences is not the solution to any problem in Eve. It would, in fact, be a substantial detriment to the niche market slot eve manages to hold almost undisputed.

While you are right that consequences are central to EVE's ethos, the problem that affects New Eden's securities market is that several key real-life consequences are wholly absent, given the proliferation of alts and other measures that distance people from the dealings of their pilots.

For example, a real life fraudster might be sent to prison, be fined large sums of money, and/or be prohibited from trading in the future (even if they operate with pseudonyms and their real identity was concealed from their victims). These measures don't prevent all financial crime, but they have a significant impact.

None of these consequences exists in New Eden, so perhaps the problem is that the roster of in-game consequences is insufficient for a universe that is purportedly all about consequences.

Thoraemond
Minmatar
Far Ranger
Posted - 2009.06.02 12:20:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Ricdic
It was never going to be a scam.

You can't prove intention.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck... See where I'm going?

... It's a clever robotic decoy? 'It's a trap!'

More seriously, intention could have been proved (not absolutely, but to a reasonable standard, perhaps 'beyond a reasonable doubt') if some of the steps that HawkBlade described had been taken before-hand.

Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
Posted - 2009.06.02 17:15:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Lui Kai
Edited by: Lui Kai on 01/06/2009 21:21:13
Originally by: Block Ukx
The main problem is ccp’s scamming policy.



I disagree very strongly here. Eve is a game of consequences, removing consequences is not the solution to any problem in Eve.



What are the penalties for someone running away with XX B ISK?





Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries
Posted - 2009.06.02 17:26:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Sola Veritas
What's the point of checks and balances if it's reputation that actually drives the primary and secondary markets? What is reputation—posting history (the aura of a "real" character), investing in current IPOs, having started a successful past IPO (a Catch-22)? These are sandy foundations . . .

In a way the whole MD community is like a social experiment, trying to create honesty in a game that is designed with a purposeful lack of checks and balances . . .


Good points. Reputation is such a fragile thing, but its essentially all we have - our character's good name. And that's why the annoyance at the recent 'tests', I believe. If we can't trust the ones we think of as trustworthy, than what's the whole point? We're building a house of cards here, anchored by a number of long time respected players. If our trust in their integrity folds, so does much of the investment market.

What we felt recently was an unsettling shiver through the pillars of the MD Community, reminding us how fragile all this is.

Kazzac and others have the right idea - we need more pillars.

Ray McCormack
Nordar Innovations.
Posted - 2009.06.02 17:34:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Sola Veritas
In a way the whole MD community is like a social experiment, trying to create honesty in a game that is designed with a purposeful lack of checks and balances . . .

Heck, that's EVE. And isn't that the true success story here then? Anyone can scam; building a solid, trusted reputation of honesty is the hardest thing to achieve. That's the ultimate accomplishment.

Lui Kai
Better Than You
Posted - 2009.06.02 18:12:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Block Ukx

What are the penalties for someone running away with XX B ISK?



The consequence for that is being XX B isk richer. The same way there's no negative consequence for winning a PVP fight, or selling high.

Gabriel Rosencrantz
Gods of Freight
Posted - 2009.06.02 19:19:00 - [55]
 

I'm pretty new to the trading side of EVE, but I've already figured one thing out: trust no one, for any reason. NOBODY.

This pretense of security provided by auditors and "neutral" third parties borders on the ridiculous.

There is no way to verify that any particular character is neutral or trustworthy. It seems foolish to rely on anyone to "verify" that a particular business venture is on the up and up. Who's to say that the business won't change everything the moment the auditors are finished? Or that the auditor doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome? Or that one is not the alt of the other? As noobs to this area of the game, what proof can be offered to players that couldn't be faked or manipulated?

The secondary market appears to be all smoke and mirrors. You might succeed, you might not. But the security of your investment is absolutely impossible to verify under the circumstances. Clearly, even the most "prestigious" financial institutions are subject to scams... like closing the bank and taking all the money.

Until there is some sort of ingame mechanic for dealing with this sort of thing, stop talking about trust. There isn't any and only the most daring should invest. No one's credibility has been damaged by recent postings... they never had any. Don't you all know the first rule of the long con? Be kind, courteous, helpful, honest, and charitable... right up until you steal everything. All cons rely on trust and greed; what makes you think that having some ad hoc trust system is any kind of security? You need something that doesn't rely on trust. And good luck finding it.

Drab Cane
Carbenadium Industries
Posted - 2009.06.02 19:46:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz
I'm pretty new to the trading side of EVE, but I've already figured one thing out: trust no one, for any reason. NOBODY.

Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz
Until there is some sort of ingame mechanic for dealing with this sort of thing, stop talking about trust. . . You need something that doesn't rely on trust. And good luck finding it.

"To trust every man would be folly..to trust no man is even worse."
- John Quincy Adams

Its been said many times - investors shouldn't invest any ISK that they can't afford to lose. And agreed, there is little here to base any trust upon, when trusting another player with our investment.

On the other hand, there are some trustworthy people in the world, and some of them play EVE.

HawkBlade
Posted - 2009.06.02 20:06:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz
Don't you all know the first rule of the long con? Be kind, courteous, helpful, honest, and charitable... right up until you steal everything.
I've been figured out. That's right folks, only been honest and trustworthy since beta because I'm waiting to rip you all off. Rolling Eyes
Originally by: Gabriel Rosencrantz
All cons rely on trust and greed;
I've also found that scams are fostered in an environment where trust has been properly eroded as well. Discrediting, or driving away, voices of reason and caution has often been used to help foster scam-ability in the community.

The ironic thing is that Eve is art simulating life. Much of the negative being said is ultimately true in real life as well. Credit, banking, etc., etc. is all built upon "trust" and "reputation". Just because people have dedicated PHD's to the math of such things doesn't change the quicksand foundation of it all. (And you silly people want some developed solution from a game company?!?) The only difference is the kind of consequences. Good planning can eliminate many of those well!

Of course, alternately, these people who are saying "trust no one" and "I'll never invest" sure spend alot of time with their noses in investment threads. Guess even ignorant dogs need some place to rear back on their haunches and howl at their betters.


PS: I dare you to demonstrate the worthless of my reputation or "trustworthiness". Got 1 billion isk that is yours if you can do so.

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.06.02 20:20:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: HawkBlade
Of course, alternately, these people who are saying "trust no one" and "I'll never invest" sure spend alot of time with their noses in investment threads.


Or we are trying to learn from here.

I know I'm speaking for myself , but not investing (I've stated my reasons elsewhere) and not being useful can be quite different.

I like to think I add some value.

HawkBlade
Posted - 2009.06.02 20:25:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Kalrand
I like to think I add some value.
Well said.

Forum fu sometimes leads to bombastic and inflammatory statements. Especially on my part. My apologies if my statement caused you any pause. Please consider such statements as nothing more than the obligatory jab, not a specific attack.

Dzil
Caldari
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
The Fourth District
Posted - 2009.06.02 20:30:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Packtu'sa
Originally by: Ray McCormack
I swear the next person that calls the primary market the secondary market is gonna get it, bad.
Thank you! How hard is it to look up primary market and secondary market and gain a solid understanding of the difference? I'm not sure why 'secondary market' ever became a widely-used term in EVE, since the secondary market here is really even worse than the primary market.




Thank you. To be honest, I and probably a lot of others just picked the terms up from previous discussions, and adopted that usage for EVE, which was to include the scope of both initiate offerings and publicly traded securities.

I'll go forth a bit more informed :)


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only