Definatenly a market need. But I doubt the market is large enough currently to make it very profitable. Plus, most of your potential customers at this time probably have the skill to do this themselves and already are when considering material investments.
I think the creation of a whole credit system would be a more feasible route. Something that mixes peer to peer lending, like Prosper, with a reputation system, etc. to spit out a credit score. Could even integrate the current credit score system.
Topic: Credit Ratings - page 2. (Read 2386 times)
*bookmarks & waves to Starfish*
I was reading Daily Anarchist's post and thinking about several others that have been made recently about credit ratings. I've done some work in this area before, certainly around credit scores run by Dun and Bradstreet, and also having looked at the approach used by S&P. It doesn't directly convert to bitcoin because it is still very new, and some people like to still use psuedo-anonymity. However, there are some metrics that I would use (and borrow) to assess a credit rating. From something I have lurking on my computer, business scores can be done on a 12 point basis:
Fairly obviously A, B, D and probably F would not apply, but others would such as:
- Time in bitcoin or time in business.
- Identity (ie, a real one, probably including location).
- Paid up capital (equity)
- Surplus real assets (is someone debt funding their business or do they actually have real money)
- Use of funds/business (is it transparent and verifiable, or hidden)
As an example, BS&T would score poorly on the use of funds/transparency/identity, but has not (yet) defaulted on any payments and has been around for quite a while.
Similarly, a new lender/bank or GLBSE asset would be scored down on the basis of newness, but might counter that by other factors.
Presumably there is an interest in this kind of service/function. What would it be worth? Would security issuers want to advertise such a score?
(and from the point of self interest, what would a sensibly charge be? and from a conflict of interest point of view, I wouldn't rate Starfish BCB)
Code:
Key Area Score Weight Weighted Score
A Payment Severity 0 20.0% -
B Employees 0 5.0% -
C Legal Structure 0 15.0% -
D Public Record 0 5.0% -
E Length of Operation 0 10.0% -
F Overdraft 0 5.0% -
G Principal's Antecedents 0 5.0% -
H Net Profit Growth 0 2.5% -
I Net Worth Growth 0 2.5% -
J Working Capital 0 2.5% -
K Current Ratio 0 12.5% -
L Net Worth 0 15.0% -
A Payment Severity 0 20.0% -
B Employees 0 5.0% -
C Legal Structure 0 15.0% -
D Public Record 0 5.0% -
E Length of Operation 0 10.0% -
F Overdraft 0 5.0% -
G Principal's Antecedents 0 5.0% -
H Net Profit Growth 0 2.5% -
I Net Worth Growth 0 2.5% -
J Working Capital 0 2.5% -
K Current Ratio 0 12.5% -
L Net Worth 0 15.0% -
Fairly obviously A, B, D and probably F would not apply, but others would such as:
- Time in bitcoin or time in business.
- Identity (ie, a real one, probably including location).
- Paid up capital (equity)
- Surplus real assets (is someone debt funding their business or do they actually have real money)
- Use of funds/business (is it transparent and verifiable, or hidden)
As an example, BS&T would score poorly on the use of funds/transparency/identity, but has not (yet) defaulted on any payments and has been around for quite a while.
Similarly, a new lender/bank or GLBSE asset would be scored down on the basis of newness, but might counter that by other factors.
Presumably there is an interest in this kind of service/function. What would it be worth? Would security issuers want to advertise such a score?
(and from the point of self interest, what would a sensibly charge be? and from a conflict of interest point of view, I wouldn't rate Starfish BCB)
Jump to: