It’s time for share restriction. Isn’t it?



  • We’re all acutely aware of the additional risk recent changes on the platform attribute to traders.
    I’m sure it’s been mentioned/debated, surely now is the time for FI to restrict the issuing of new shares. This would leave more upside for traders who execute, well, a good trade and hold a player of high demand. An upside that I feel is necessary given there’s no longer a safety net.
    Personally I think shares should be restricted at say 500,000 per player which would on average allow a newly ipo’d player to reach £5/6/7 (depending on ipo price) based on 900 shares to a penny. Then if a player exceeds that price whatever it may be it leaves an open market to holders with easier potential for upwards price movement.
    Several players do already have a significantly higher number of shares in circulation which creates a disparity but it’s not the end of the world provided they’re instantly capped. The problem with these players is that they have very limited growth available to them regardless of yields, particularly the £10+ club. It’ll take around £900,000 to move Sancho up another £1!
    So basically imo this must become an open order book market once X amount of shares have been issued in a given player otherwise up side is too restricted against downside.
    Big problem? Yes. FI would be sacrificing fortunes by issue of new shares which ensures this will probably never happen.
    Interested to hear the thoughts of you chaps/chapettes!



  • Not sure I see the logic. Surely we want / need the potential of exponential growth for any given player?



  • @FI-Hornet-Joe If we have an open order book with shares capped you could potentially own a player worth £6 in the morning, they could play, score win media and somebody could pay you £8/9 without FI selling a zillion shares in between.



  • Not sure I fully get it, but sounds like it could easily become a pyramid scheme? Once a player hits his price cap, then people load onto the next players hoping they rise to the price cap etc. Sure I get someone might buy it off you, but reckon it would make the market even less driven by divs



  • He is suggesting it's purely demand and order book driven.

    So if Player A is 7 quid and the max number of futures and that player is reached and you want to buy him then instead of FI issuing a new bet, you have to put an offer in for someone else's bet. So you may stick an offer in for 8 quid.

    It would be interesting but a complete no no as it means Football Index can only issue a fixed number of bets which doesn't make sense from their perspective. They will want to issue asany bets as they possibly can.



  • @Mr-Atouba said in It’s time for share restriction. Isn’t it?:

    @FI-Hornet-Joe If we have an open order book with shares capped you could potentially own a player worth £6 in the morning, they could play, score win media and somebody could pay you £8/9 without FI selling a zillion shares in between.

    Problem is you would flip the index on its head. Instead of it being the more shares in circulation the higher the price, you could potentially have it being the less shares in existence the higher the price in some cases



  • @Dr-Jan-Itor It's a pyramid scheme now. The removal of IS means you can only take your money out if new money comes in. The share cap is an interesting idea but it would be a completely different platform. I can't see it happening here though.



  • @GDS said in It’s time for share restriction. Isn’t it?:

    @Dr-Jan-Itor It's a pyramid scheme now. The removal of IS means you can only take your money out if new money comes in. The share cap is an interesting idea but it would be a completely different platform. I can't see it happening here though.

    That's not true. You can take your money out by selling shares. That may come from new money or existing money already in the platform



  • @Mr-Atouba

    This is topic I have debated in my head and on the the forum for a while... Personally I'd be more in favour of keeping a market buy option - but that is more just due to a preference for relative price stability. Plenty of people also seem to be in favour of a full order book supply/demand only system, which may well end up being the outcome longer term (or even short term)...

    One thought I did have about the imbalance of shares for a full OB system - this LP1 thing could actually be taking shares out of the system completely to prepare for imbalances..

    It is a bit of a guessing game to see what we end up with - for now I expect them still to want to mint new shares, but also the longer term model may well be to remove FI from the market and they just take commission...



  • @Baydog The existing money in the platform can only be freed up if new money comes in. Ok so the person who buys your bets might be using existing money but at some point in the chain new money has to come in for existing money to go out.



  • @GDS said in It’s time for share restriction. Isn’t it?:

    @Baydog The existing money in the platform can only be freed up if new money comes in. Ok so the person who buys your bets might be using existing money but at some point in the chain new money has to come in for existing money to go out.

    Do you extend the definition of new money to money from dividends?



  • @GDS said in It’s time for share restriction. Isn’t it?:

    @Baydog The existing money in the platform can only be freed up if new money comes in. Ok so the person who buys your bets might be using existing money but at some point in the chain new money has to come in for existing money to go out.

    That's just not true. I have placed bids on 3 player today with my div wins from last night. Whoever accepts those bids will have a cash balance that they are free to withdraw. No new money has entered the system via someone depositing in this situation



  • @Baydog Fair point, money from dividends can be withdrawn or enters the system. I wouldn't want to have to rely on just that and the MM's to sell though.



  • @GDS said in It’s time for share restriction. Isn’t it?:

    @Dr-Jan-Itor It's a pyramid scheme now. The removal of IS means you can only take your money out if new money comes in. The share cap is an interesting idea but it would be a completely different platform. I can't see it happening here though.

    I am assuming you literally have no idea whatsoever what a pyramid scheme is.

    FI has always been a gambling website except you can sell those bets on to other people. In the past FI was one of the people that would buy those bets off you but they don't any longer. Its basically a variant of betfair which doesn't buy the bets off you either.

    Over time FI did acquire some traits of a pyramid scheme but this wasn't any real fault of FI, the prices of some players overshot the value of the bet by a massive margin.

    The real problem was people believed that relative value was actually value when relative value is pretty meaningless. The forum is largely to blame for a lot of this. Remember arguing with people who believed joe Allen was good value at 30p because of relative value whereas in reality, he may have been worth a punt at 1p but anything over.....



  • @mike778

    I know exactly what a pyramid scheme is thanks. The reason FI now has the traits of a pyramid scheme is that it now relies on new money coming in to allow existing investors to withdraw their money. As soon as that dries up it becomes very difficult to withdraw (not impossible, as Baydog and Yellow correctly picked me up on Dividends allow new money to enter the market without coming from an external source).

    Referring to it as a pyramid scheme isn't entirely correct as the incoming money only needs to be on a 1:1 ratio, it would be more accurate to call it a Ponzi Scheme (again not entirely correct but a close approximation), however I felt that the term Pyramid Scheme was better known and was a close enough description to get my point across.



  • @GDS said in It’s time for share restriction. Isn’t it?:

    @mike778

    I know exactly what a pyramid scheme is thanks. The reason FI now has the traits of a pyramid scheme is that it now relies on new money coming in to allow existing investors to withdraw their money. As soon as that dries up it becomes very difficult to withdraw (not impossible, as Baydog and Yellow correctly picked me up on Dividends allow new money to enter the market without coming from an external source).

    Referring to it as a pyramid scheme isn't entirely correct as the incoming money only needs to be on a 1:1 ratio, it would be more accurate to call it a Ponzi Scheme (again not entirely correct but a close approximation), however I felt that the term Pyramid Scheme was better known and was a close enough description to get my point across.

    If you're so convinced that it is a pyramid or ponzi then just sell up and leave. The more you convince yourself and others that it is a massive con then the less chance you have of getting out 👍

    I am not convinced it is a con. Maybe I am wrongly reassured by the fact it is being advertised on the shirts of Nottingham Forest and around pitch side sponsor boards and on talk sport and and sky sports etc, Or perhaps I am lured into a false sense of security by their impending Nasdaq partnership - who would trust someone like Nasdaq?!

    The fact of the matter is making capital appreciation has always relied on new investment coming in. How can it not? I'm pretty sure you said you have been here a few years, you have seen the levels of capital appreciation and associated dividend increases that have come in line with market growth? The only thing that has changed is the way you need to assess your purchases.

    If you don't believe that anyone else is going to join football index any more, and that it has maxed out on members at around 100,000, then follow your instinct and leave quietly whilst you still can. If you believe that people will see good reason to want to join The Dex then stay.

    Just don't come on here and try to cause fear when it is completely ill founded. It makes no sense to create fear if you want to leave and it makes no sense to create fear if you want to stay. It only makes sense to create fear if you have sold up and now want to make yourself a self-fulfilling prophecy and/or try to recruit people to alternative platforms....



  • @Baydog I've said in multiple posts that I'm reducing the amount of money I have in FI as a result of the increased risk I now see in having money in here, I've cashed out £4.5K since the change. I've also said however that I still think it's a decent platform and I'm going to leave some money in here. Just not as much as before. I'm not rushing to leave and I'm not ISing anyone, but yes I have around £10K of my portfolio currently listed.

    The thing about Pyramid Schemes and the like are, they can actually be profitable for the people who get in early, it's the last people in who suffer. I don't think we're near the top yet, but we will be someday.

    I don't think it's correct to say my fears are completely ill founded, it's impossible for a product to grow indefinitely and when growth stalls it will be very difficult for users to withdraw their money. That's a completely different scenario to a month ago when, if growth stalled then CA would stop but you could still take your money out.

    I do however accept that you're right that there's probably not much more point going on about it, the rules have been changed by FI to the detriment of users and the benefit of FI. Some people are worried about that, others aren't. At this point people are probably pretty firmly in one camp or the other and aren't going to change their minds, so I will shut up about it.

    I genuinely hope FI continues to be a success for many years to come and nothing would please me more than to be wrong about the damage done by the withdrawal of IS, not least because I'll still have money in here.



  • @GDS

    I appreciate your tone and sentiments, but the impression I really get is that you are in a huff because you cannot make easy money any more. Why were you not calling it out as a pyramid scheme that requires new investment to maintain CA in the past 3 years? Is it because that was easy money and now it is not? The principle is exactly the same. The risk has increased but there are also new opportunities to make money that did not exist before (I am not even talking about TOTM or keeoers, I am talking the matching engine / buy orders / sell orders. It will be a significant opportunity to make money that does not require one penny of new investment coming in - you can trade on sentiment within the spreads and it is all done on the existing money in the system - that aspect was not possible before - but it is very significant on the pyramid theory. It is actually less of a pyramid scheme now because I don't see money making opportunities only from new money coming in. I can buy low sell high with this new buying / selling mechanism that does not rely on CA like the old system did



  • @Baydog That's genuinely not the reason. It's not the loss of the ability to benefit from CA which is the issue as I don't feel that has changed. It's still the case that if the product continues to grow you'll benefit from CA and if it doesn't you won't. That was the case before the change and it's the case now.

    The reason I'd never called it out before was because the values were always backed by FI by way of the IS option, you could get out whenever you wanted, yes you took a hit but the option was guaranteed to be there.

    I agree the new system allows for some exciting possibilities and I'd be delighted with the new system if it remained backed by FI being the buyer of last resort.



  • @Baydog I’ve decided not to engage with this guy, come out of nowhere talking down the platform; whilst he can articulate his posts better than most I just think he’s full of shit and not worth the effort. Hopefully LP001 will buy his holds and he can leave with out the fuss many make when leaving.


Log in to reply