Thank You for Your interest In our Project: holydarkness
In regards to lenders, borrowers, and default, yes, lenders can take a lawsuit which would initiate law enforcement to seize the collaterals (if priorly agreed, otherwise, not). But these collateral will need time to be liquidated, not to mention bills occured to file the lawsuit. Bottomline: a risk. And above all, filing lawsuit and seizing collateral is definitely an effort. Thus, your claim that "owner of wealth" gets return without any effort is a true misconception. Either they poses a risk of loss by default, or taking a huge effort of lawsuit to cover the amount lent on collateral.
This is why we made IDF to discourage the interest based investments which includes lending, borrowing, staking and farming and it is clearly mentioned in the very first paragraph of About section above.
In regards to lenders, borrowers, and default, yes, lenders can take a lawsuit which would initiate law enforcement to seize the collaterals (if priorly agreed, otherwise, not). But these collateral will need time to be liquidated, not to mention bills occured to file the lawsuit. Bottomline: a risk. And above all, filing lawsuit and seizing collateral is definitely an effort. Thus, your claim that "owner of wealth" gets return without any effort is a true misconception. Either they poses a risk of loss by default, or taking a huge effort of lawsuit to cover the amount lent on collateral.
This is why we made IDF to discourage the interest based investments which includes lending, borrowing, staking and farming and it is clearly mentioned in the very first paragraph of About section above.
You're evading the context. What's being discussed on that sub-coversation was how you bring a misconception that lender didn't face any risk, or doing any efforts, for the reasons I said above.
About Staking this exactly what we told you in our last reply to you that staking means that you are holding your coins in a third party wallet or you are running a node in case of IDF you can hold it in hardware wallet and still be able to receive distribution amount.
Again, evasion. And I see how you conveniently "redact" the question to blur the obvious. What I raised on this topic was clear. I even helped by providing a nice image of definition of staking from binance.
Do you read them? Staking is not limited to having to hold coins in a third party wallet (i.e. the native wallet of the project). People who hold tokens in private wallet are still eligible for staking program provided by some projects. In other word, your project is also a staking project.
I can guess why you try to evade this question by playing dumb, you probably realized what I'll ask next: if your project discourage any staking activity, while the benefit of your token itself is defined as a staking activity, where exactly do you stand on this situation?
As it seems you can't handle too many topic at once, I'll focus on these two questions first until you can give clear answers, and then I'll pick up from what we leave.
To make it easier to understand, here is the summary of my question:
1. What is the basis of your claim that lending activity is without effort and risk, while clearly they poses risk of loan default and have to take effort on seizing collateral on such case? If I may add, on the very least, they still have to do a background check on the borrower. That counts as an effort.
2. What's the difference between your project and a staking program? If there's any, kindly give a breakdown. If there were none (i.e. they're the same) there is a conflict of interest that you offered a program that you strongly oppose.
I wonder how you'll maintain the price after the sale end, you can't control people in the exchange.