anyone else concerned that BTCJam doesnt use 2fa? im not a programmer, is this difficult? Shouldn't all websites with user accounts implement 2fa? I'd be willing to let it slide for a little while, but this is quickly becoming a dealbreaker for me...
thoughts?
I would love to see 2fa added (since I don't have a Smartphone, my vote would be for Yubikey, or for the option of using either Yubikey or Google Authenticator).
Personally, though, I don't have many BTC in BTCJam at the moment, so my biggest concern at the moment isn't a hacker stealing the very small amount of BTC that I still have left in the site. Back in the fall (when BTC were around $10 each), I bought 30 BTC and invested them in the site, but a high default rate on my 'investments' month after month meant that by March 30 when they started requiring borrowers to agree to arbitration, I was already down to less than 2 BTC remaining in loans that were still good. (I have kicked myself many times for not having just kept my 30 BTC instead of trying to 'invest' them!) Since then, I have continued to reinvest bitcents as they have come in in the form of loan payments, but I am not putting new money into my account until it seems that the two biggest problems have been addressed: 1) nonresponsive customer service; and 2) users not paying back their loans.
This summer, I was hopeful that the announced binding arbitration meant that the collections issue was finally being addressed. But the euphoria began to wear off shortly after I got my first two binding arbitration awards on August 12. I got the email with the PDF showing that one guy owes me 0.009 bitcoins, and the other owes me 1.086 bitcoins. I didn't attempt to email customer service, because they have never responded to me before, but I posted here on August 19, asking Tulkas what the next step is in terms of collection, if BTCJam is going to submit the binding arbitration awards to a court on our behalf, or if we have the green light to use the binding arbitration awards to go ahead with our own collections (since BTCJam in their terms of service specifically prohibits lenders from making collections efforts themselves). It is now September 7 and I am still awaiting a response. It seems either they don't bother reponding, or they haven't worked out what the next steps should be themselves yet.
Worse, the 1.086 bitcoin debt was a secured loan, secured with shares of Asicminer-PT. At the time the binding arbitration award was issued, the loan was around 96% secured, meaning if they had sold the collateral then, I would have gotten most of my money back. Since then, Asicminer has crashed, and the loan is now only 54% secured. The question of when the collateral would be sold was my other question in my August 19 post that Tulkas has ignored; it seems that either they are very disorganized and not consistently promptly following up on selling the collateral on the defaulted secured loans, or they find it advantageous to earn as many dividends as possible on the collateral prior to selling it (dividends that should belong to investors, since it is our money that is being frozen in the bad secured loan). If they have some fixed policy of selling the collateral after x number of days, that's one thing, but the lack of transparency and responsiveness here concerns me. It doesn't seem like there has been a lot of planning; "você inventa" may be a nice theme for a Tom Zé song, but just dealing with things as they come up (or, worse, not dealing with them) doesn't work well in finance.
When I first started using BTCJam, I was thrilled with the concept. I still think it is a great concept, but it will not be successful until they improve their customer service, and put clear procedures in place to address the bad loans and collections. On the other hand, it seems that the majority of focus of the developers has been on the technology. I loved it when they added secured loans, MtGox-linked loans, and verification of borrowers' paypal and ebay accounts, as well as the 'invested' label so that I could clearly see which loans I had already invested in. I see the developers continuing to make continuing changes to the technology side of things, such as the new credit rating algorithm (which they announced, but didn't bother to explain how it works or how it is an improvement from the old one), or the profile pictures that now appear next to comments. I do think there is still some technology improvement that needs to be made (notably, adding 2fa, and adding a 'transaction history' so you can see in one display the deposits that were made to the account, withdrawals, investments, etc). But more and more, I think it is the lack of customer service and the problems with bad loans (including bad secured loans, since they aren't selling the collateral nor distributing the dividends it earns to investors in the bad loans) that are the site's biggest problem now.
Has anyone who invested in a secured loan that went into default and went through binding arbitration actually received any money back from sale of the collateral, or received any dividends earned by the collateral after the binding arbitration award was issued? (Presumably, that is the point after which the collateral, and its dividends, should be considered property of the investors.)(Although I think an argument could be made that if there were dividends earned by the collateral during the loan period that were not already forwarded to the borrower before the loan went into default, then after the arbitration award is issued, those accumulated dividends should be used for paying off the loan as well.)