Topic: Collateral scam? (Read 1481 times)
trust is a condom
I recently tagged a user for trying to use collateral he was actually trying to sell. To me, this means the user has no interest to pay back the loan, as they don't want the collateral.
What do you think? Is negative trust justified in this case?
What do you think? Is negative trust justified in this case?
For me, I think I would give him the benefit of doubt because at a point of desperation one can be willing to sell or use as collateral which ever comes first but where I would support a Red Trust is if the same goods is sold or ownership has transferred but the loan request is still active, then that an intention to scam which is frown against at any point in time. Opening both threads does not necessarily means to defraud, it could mean waiting for the first one to happen.
I recently tagged a user for trying to use collateral he was actually trying to sell. To me, this means the user has no interest to pay back the loan, as they don't want the collateral.
What do you think? Is negative trust justified in this case?
Yes it would assume that the user was probably trying to sell his "collateral" to an unsuspecting lender but I don't think that you should convict someone purely on an assumption. What do you think? Is negative trust justified in this case?
It's really up to the lender to do his homework anyway and any good lender would have found this in his post history.
I would be more inclined to say tag the account if you want but do it with a neutral feedback, leave red for proven scammers, but that's just my opinion.
If you put an item up for auction, it means you have no attachment to that item, and would rather have bitcoin. Just because you put an end date on that auction, doesn't mean your attachment to the item automatically comes back. You still would rather have bitcoin. When it comes time for you to trade your bitcoin for the the collateral you have no attachment to, you could just abandon the account.
this assumption can literally be made with every user here.
Im sorry to say this but no,it can't.
Vod is right as he describe it because indeed someone that after a sale put the same item as collateral,doesnt seem quite right.
Still in this occasion of yours, i think red is a bit harse. For all the other occasions i have seen here though,i am strongly in favor of red.
If you put an item up for auction, it means you have no attachment to that item, and would rather have bitcoin. Just because you put an end date on that auction, doesn't mean your attachment to the item automatically comes back. You still would rather have bitcoin. When it comes time for you to trade your bitcoin for the the collateral you have no attachment to, you could just abandon the account.
this assumption can literally be made with every user here.
Wish ya included quotes, but thanks for the links.
From what I see he ended this auction because of no interest in it on 7/15 and says it is closed.
On 7/23 the loan request is posted and offering that item as collateral.
IF the above is true and I'm not missing anything? THEN
NO I can't see how it's a collateral scam or NEG is warranted
A collateral should be a liquidable good that is easy to sell or is able to fetch at least that value.From what I see he ended this auction because of no interest in it on 7/15 and says it is closed.
On 7/23 the loan request is posted and offering that item as collateral.
IF the above is true and I'm not missing anything? THEN
NO I can't see how it's a collateral scam or NEG is warranted
If there is no interest, there should likely be no market for it here. Unless the lender is able to at least guarantee a substantial amount more than the loan amount, I don't see what is the point of even offering it as a collateral. It's way easier to lend it as collateral than to sell it.
I know what collateral is. But IF the above dates are true, I can't call it a collateral scam.
IDC if the guy wants 1000 loan request on 1 dollar collateral value, the lender and he would decide.
But again, if those dates are correct. The sale ended. It was no longer being offered. THEN the loan request was made. I can't see this being a collateral scam warranting neg, because of the above.
thanks for that momma, it's reassuring to see someone here still possesses logic and common sense, and is also capable of looking at the facts, regardless, however i have lost the battle
I feel I am being logical.
If you put an item up for auction, it means you have no attachment to that item, and would rather have bitcoin. Just because you put an end date on that auction, doesn't mean your attachment to the item automatically comes back. You still would rather have bitcoin. When it comes time for you to trade your bitcoin for the the collateral you have no attachment to, you could just abandon the account.
And to you both I will say:
Yes the dates matter. Let's say if the loan is (being loose here w numbers) 100 and the collateral value 250 and its default lender gets their $ back. Ya lil hassle but least he don't lose. Lenders know what the value is and hey at least it's cards not an account.
Edit: your lucky Vod is kinder than I am. At least he gives a chance I don't
Wish ya included quotes, but thanks for the links.
From what I see he ended this auction because of no interest in it on 7/15 and says it is closed.
On 7/23 the loan request is posted and offering that item as collateral.
IF the above is true and I'm not missing anything? THEN
NO I can't see how it's a collateral scam or NEG is warranted
A collateral should be a liquidable good that is easy to sell or is able to fetch at least that value.From what I see he ended this auction because of no interest in it on 7/15 and says it is closed.
On 7/23 the loan request is posted and offering that item as collateral.
IF the above is true and I'm not missing anything? THEN
NO I can't see how it's a collateral scam or NEG is warranted
If there is no interest, there should likely be no market for it here. Unless the lender is able to at least guarantee a substantial amount more than the loan amount, I don't see what is the point of even offering it as a collateral. It's way easier to lend it as collateral than to sell it.
I know what collateral is. But IF the above dates are true, I can't call it a collateral scam.
IDC if the guy wants 1000 loan request on 1 dollar collateral value, the lender and he would decide.
But again, if those dates are correct. The sale ended. It was no longer being offered. THEN the loan request was made. I can't see this being a collateral scam warranting neg, because of the above.
thanks for that momma, it's reassuring to see someone here still possesses logic and common sense, and is also capable of looking at the facts, regardless, however i have lost the battle
I feel I am being logical.
If you put an item up for auction, it means you have no attachment to that item, and would rather have bitcoin. Just because you put an end date on that auction, doesn't mean your attachment to the item automatically comes back. You still would rather have bitcoin. When it comes time for you to trade your bitcoin for the the collateral you have no attachment to, you could just abandon the account.
Wish ya included quotes, but thanks for the links.
From what I see he ended this auction because of no interest in it on 7/15 and says it is closed.
On 7/23 the loan request is posted and offering that item as collateral.
IF the above is true and I'm not missing anything? THEN
NO I can't see how it's a collateral scam or NEG is warranted
A collateral should be a liquidable good that is easy to sell or is able to fetch at least that value.From what I see he ended this auction because of no interest in it on 7/15 and says it is closed.
On 7/23 the loan request is posted and offering that item as collateral.
IF the above is true and I'm not missing anything? THEN
NO I can't see how it's a collateral scam or NEG is warranted
If there is no interest, there should likely be no market for it here. Unless the lender is able to at least guarantee a substantial amount more than the loan amount, I don't see what is the point of even offering it as a collateral. It's way easier to lend it as collateral than to sell it.
I know what collateral is. But IF the above dates are true, I can't call it a collateral scam.
IDC if the guy wants 1000 loan request on 1 dollar collateral value, the lender and he would decide.
But again, if those dates are correct. The sale ended. It was no longer being offered. THEN the loan request was made. I can't see this being a collateral scam warranting neg, because of the above.
thanks for that momma, it's reassuring to see someone here still possesses logic and common sense, and is also capable of looking at the facts, regardless, however i have lost the battle
Wish ya included quotes, but thanks for the links.
From what I see he ended this auction because of no interest in it on 7/15 and says it is closed.
On 7/23 the loan request is posted and offering that item as collateral.
IF the above is true and I'm not missing anything? THEN
NO I can't see how it's a collateral scam or NEG is warranted
A collateral should be a liquidable good that is easy to sell or is able to fetch at least that value.From what I see he ended this auction because of no interest in it on 7/15 and says it is closed.
On 7/23 the loan request is posted and offering that item as collateral.
IF the above is true and I'm not missing anything? THEN
NO I can't see how it's a collateral scam or NEG is warranted
If there is no interest, there should likely be no market for it here. Unless the lender is able to at least guarantee a substantial amount more than the loan amount, I don't see what is the point of even offering it as a collateral. It's way easier to lend it as collateral than to sell it.
I know what collateral is. But IF the above dates are true, I can't call it a collateral scam.
IDC if the guy wants 1000 loan request on 1 dollar collateral value, the lender and he would decide.
But again, if those dates are correct. The sale ended. It was no longer being offered. THEN the loan request was made. I can't see this being a collateral scam warranting neg, because of the above.
Wish ya included quotes, but thanks for the links.
From what I see he ended this auction because of no interest in it on 7/15 and says it is closed.
On 7/23 the loan request is posted and offering that item as collateral.
IF the above is true and I'm not missing anything? THEN
NO I can't see how it's a collateral scam or NEG is warranted
A collateral should be a liquidable good that is easy to sell or is able to fetch at least that value.From what I see he ended this auction because of no interest in it on 7/15 and says it is closed.
On 7/23 the loan request is posted and offering that item as collateral.
IF the above is true and I'm not missing anything? THEN
NO I can't see how it's a collateral scam or NEG is warranted
If there is no interest, there should likely be no market for it here. Unless the lender is able to at least guarantee a substantial amount more than the loan amount, I don't see what is the point of even offering it as a collateral. It's way easier to lend it as collateral than to sell it.
Offering collateral for a loan and a sale for said collateral at the same time does deserve Red. It should be self explanatory.
the collateral, was https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pokemon-card-2011641 the loan request using previously said collateral is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2041156.0days
Wish ya included quotes, but thanks for the links.
From what I see he ended this auction because of no interest in it on 7/15 and says it is closed.
On 7/23 the loan request is posted and offering that item as collateral.
IF the above is true and I'm not missing anything? THEN
NO I can't see how it's a collateral scam or NEG is warranted
I recently tagged a user for trying to use collateral he was actually trying to sell. To me, this means the user has no interest to pay back the loan, as they don't want the collateral.
What do you think? Is negative trust justified in this case?
Simple Logic : If you're selling it,either you want to get rid off it or even taken loan on that collateral you'd most likely not repay the loan as you were selling it anyway way.What do you think? Is negative trust justified in this case?
Yes,if you have your sale thread opened or even have the item for sale when asking loan through the same collateral,negative is a must.
It deserves negative trust if there's a clear intention to defraud. If it's obvious the borrower doesn't have intentions to repay the loan to get the collateral back then it definitely deserves negative trust.
However I can think of a scenario where it doesn't:
However I can think of a scenario where it doesn't:
- A person needs 0.5 BTC
- He has a good worth 1 BTC which he could sell if required
- He posts 2 threads: one trying to sell it for 1 BTC and another one asking for a 0.5-BTC loan, offering his good as collateral
- Whatever happens first, he closes the other thread
I totally agree with this post but i'm more than sure that Vod,doesnt referr to this "special" kind of scenarios. Besides we dont see a lot of these.
Instead we see a lot of members to try to get the max that they can get,in any way they can. Imo this is one of them.
Everybody knows (or can ask at least) what someone have to do to get a loan and to "protect" any possible lender from defaulting aka loosing his money.
To sell the collateral that you offer (?) and without telling/justify it from the beggining for all to know,its at least shady. Thus a red.
lol i was not actively selling my collateral
If the intention is to sell the collateral and try to disguise it as a loan, that this definetly deserve red trust, regardless of the value of the collateral, the end result of the transaction or any other things.
The bottom line is that you lied so you can't be trusted.
Discalimer: I'm not reffering to anyone in particular, I'm just expressing my oppinion in a theoretical situation.
The bottom line is that you lied so you can't be trusted.
Discalimer: I'm not reffering to anyone in particular, I'm just expressing my oppinion in a theoretical situation.
It deserves negative trust if there's a clear intention to defraud. If it's obvious the borrower doesn't have intentions to repay the loan to get the collateral back then it definitely deserves negative trust.
However I can think of a scenario where it doesn't:
However I can think of a scenario where it doesn't:
- A person needs 0.5 BTC
- He has a good worth 1 BTC which he could sell if required
- He posts 2 threads: one trying to sell it for 1 BTC and another one asking for a 0.5-BTC loan, offering his good as collateral
- Whatever happens first, he closes the other thread
I totally agree with this post but i'm more than sure that Vod,doesnt referr to this "special" kind of scenarios. Besides we dont see a lot of these.
Instead we see a lot of members to try to get the max that they can get,in any way they can. Imo this is one of them.
Everybody knows (or can ask at least) what someone have to do to get a loan and to "protect" any possible lender from defaulting aka loosing his money.
To sell the collateral that you offer (?) and without telling/justify it from the beggining for all to know,its at least shady. Thus a red.
I think the negative feedback is fully justified, considering that he was trying to sell it.
I personally would not accept such things as collateral if i was lending, because those can easily be fake, as well as the price is hard to determine.
It would be different if it was something like electronics, that actually have value rather than the cards do.
I personally would not accept such things as collateral if i was lending, because those can easily be fake, as well as the price is hard to determine.
It would be different if it was something like electronics, that actually have value rather than the cards do.
Thank you everyone for your votes and your input. I will use this thread as a reference the next time someone gets tagged for trying to sell their collateral.
I would have done the pokemon card loan(and I am sure everyone else would have) if the value of the cards exceeded the loan by 200% but that was not the case.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17483711
^
there was never even a chance to establish the worth of collateral
never got to a point where a potential lender asked for ex. $800 in collateral
but with everything else about this, its all being based on assumption and alternate scenarios...instead of facts
I recently tagged a user for trying to use collateral he was actually trying to sell. To me, this means the user has no interest to pay back the loan, as they don't want the collateral.
What do you think? Is negative trust justified in this case?
What do you think? Is negative trust justified in this case?
everyone sees this, and is making their voice heard based off of this alone, instead of doing their due diligence before
providing their opinion on the matter
From what I see on the thread you asked for at least a $400 loan and than posted cards you said where worth around $150. I don't think adding junk cards worth under $10 would have made it any better, because than if you dont pay the loan the funder is stuck trying to sell pokemon cards where most of them are crap and priority shipping is more than the card it self
I would have done the pokemon card loan(and I am sure everyone else would have) if the value of the cards exceeded the loan by 200% but that was not the case.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17483711
^
there was never even a chance to establish the worth of collateral
never got to a point where a potential lender asked for ex. $800 in collateral
but with everything else about this, its all being based on assumption and alternate scenarios...instead of facts
I recently tagged a user for trying to use collateral he was actually trying to sell. To me, this means the user has no interest to pay back the loan, as they don't want the collateral.
What do you think? Is negative trust justified in this case?
What do you think? Is negative trust justified in this case?
everyone sees this, and is making their voice heard based off of this alone, instead of doing their due diligence before
providing their opinion on the matter
It deserves negative trust if there's a clear intention to defraud. If it's obvious the borrower doesn't have intentions to repay the loan to get the collateral back then it definitely deserves negative trust.
However I can think of a scenario where it doesn't:
However I can think of a scenario where it doesn't:
- A person needs 0.5 BTC
- He has a good worth 1 BTC which he could sell if required
- He posts 2 threads: one trying to sell it for 1 BTC and another one asking for a 0.5-BTC loan, offering his good as collateral
- Whatever happens first, he closes the other thread
I would have to agree with this, but I think if the user has been trying a good "worth" X amount for over 1month, I wouldn't consider it valid collateral because it doesn't meet the criteria of being easy to sell.
I think every alt coin as collateral that is worth 1 sat with almost no volume should be marked negative because that is clear to be scammish.
I would have done the pokemon card loan(and I am sure everyone else would have) if the value of the cards exceeded the loan by 200% but that was not the case.
However, I requested a loan where I did not want the collateral back per say because my issue was selling the collateral for cash in the first place, but the collateral was BTC, so does that make it different?
I will secure the loan with .28 BTC but I need $200 sent to me via bank deposit (if this is not possible than W2W/MG). It will be for 30 days max, 5%.
I can pay back the loan either with cash or BTC. But I require that I receive USD
I can pay back the loan either with cash or BTC. But I require that I receive USD
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17483711
^
Jump to: