Sorry suchmoon, I read your post wrong earlier.
No problem, that's what I figured. Gleb Gamow account is still in my control until I say otherwise
Topic: Gleb Gamow account was sold Proof - page 3. (Read 2853 times)
No problem, that's what I figured. Gleb Gamow account is still in my control until I say otherwise
but this is exactly the issue because the same would still apply after the account changes hands and why it could have easily been abused.
If you can sell an account for $600 but can only borrow $400 against it's reputation, it would be irrational for the buyer to buy the account and subsequently take out a loan he has no intent on repaying. A healthy and transparent market would make it easier for lenders to judge how much it would be safe to trust an account with via a no-collateral loan.
Other lenders may not come to the same conclusions as you have, and may not have sufficient information to be comfortable lending any amount without collateral.
I am fairly confident that accounts are still being traded, it is only that they are being done in a blackmarket type setting and prices are not public. Making this information public would give lenders additional data points when deciding to make a loan.
What if one of the staff gets fired and the business hires someone else to handle whatever the account was handling?
The identities of owners are generally private information (although they are sometimes voluntarily made public for a variety of reasons). If I am understanding you correctly, you believe this should be made public?
The identities of owners are generally private information (although they are sometimes voluntarily made public for a variety of reasons). If I am understanding you correctly, you believe this should be made public?
If I make an account and make a PLC, LLC or LTD company, I have to list myself as the owner of the company. My account can then be traced back to that company and therefore someone can find all the shareholders/owners/directors of that company. That information is already public knowledge so you may as well link it to the account.
Before you spend too much time looking, I will start by telling you this information is not public, although some companies may choose to make some of it public.
And NO, if the primary account holder (the CEO) changes, then it should be stated publicly somewhere - even if just a way to advertise the company as there's another thread with your company's name on it.
Much of the time, the company account will not be used by the CEO. If you look at NitrogenSports's account, you will see it is clearly run by a team of customer service reps. Often times, business accounts are run by fairly low level employees, and their employment status is similarly often not public information. The CEO will be keeping an eye on how the employees use the account though.
The owner of primedice afaik is stunna, I'm not sure whether primedice is an incorporated entity and by business, I meant Incorporated entity. If you could find the documents to state this?
And I think I am pricing them a bit low but that makes the loan more secure. I also base my predicted amount on how much I know a user, for example, I increased my limit for a member of this forum a while back and he repayed me back - with a bit of a delay though but I still got everything back.
Sorry suchmoon, I read your post wrong earlier.
but this is exactly the issue because the same would still apply after the account changes hands and why it could have easily been abused.
If you can sell an account for $600 but can only borrow $400 against it's reputation, it would be irrational for the buyer to buy the account and subsequently take out a loan he has no intent on repaying. A healthy and transparent market would make it easier for lenders to judge how much it would be safe to trust an account with via a no-collateral loan.
Other lenders may not come to the same conclusions as you have, and may not have sufficient information to be comfortable lending any amount without collateral.
I am fairly confident that accounts are still being traded, it is only that they are being done in a blackmarket type setting and prices are not public. Making this information public would give lenders additional data points when deciding to make a loan.
What if one of the staff gets fired and the business hires someone else to handle whatever the account was handling?
The identities of owners are generally private information (although they are sometimes voluntarily made public for a variety of reasons). If I am understanding you correctly, you believe this should be made public?
The identities of owners are generally private information (although they are sometimes voluntarily made public for a variety of reasons). If I am understanding you correctly, you believe this should be made public?
If I make an account and make a PLC, LLC or LTD company, I have to list myself as the owner of the company. My account can then be traced back to that company and therefore someone can find all the shareholders/owners/directors of that company. That information is already public knowledge so you may as well link it to the account.
Before you spend too much time looking, I will start by telling you this information is not public, although some companies may choose to make some of it public.
And NO, if the primary account holder (the CEO) changes, then it should be stated publicly somewhere - even if just a way to advertise the company as there's another thread with your company's name on it.
Much of the time, the company account will not be used by the CEO. If you look at NitrogenSports's account, you will see it is clearly run by a team of customer service reps. Often times, business accounts are run by fairly low level employees, and their employment status is similarly often not public information. Gleb clearly doesn't care about his accounts that much because he has a history of taking loans out on them and also not paying them back. The fact that he would try sell or borrow based on them and for so little says a lot about him to be honest and that's behaviour that I can't trust.
I can't speak to Bruno's situation specifically, as I do not know the underlying facts that caused him to sell his account. However, hypothetically speaking, if someone lost their job and is in need of money to pay rent, and to buy food, what would you suggest they do? Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a job, and government welfare programs will generally not cover the bills of someone who is unemployed, and especially will not do so indefinitely. Amazingly, all this started because I attempted to sell an account but changed my mind opting to go another route. Madness!
I guess people are afraid of trusted accounts getting into the wrong hands and we can't blame them. If your account got sold without anyone knowing about it, it could cause huge mess. Especially since nowadays painting someone red equals instant loss of payment and campaign spot if a person involved in paid posting.
Amazingly, all this started because I attempted to sell an account but changed my mind opting to go another route. Madness!
He could have just asked for a loan if he needed money and someone would have likely given him it,
I think it is pretty clear Bruno is not interested in repaying the $600 he was trying to get for his account, hence he listed it for sale. The notion that someone should take out a loan they have no interest in repaying should be condemned. The same is true for those who lack the ability to repay a loan.
No he hasn't, I already replied to you on that subject, not sure why you keep repeating that?
Quicksy can't miss an opportunity to shill for account sales LOL.
He could have just asked for a loan if he needed money and someone would have likely given him it,
I think it is pretty clear Bruno is not interested in repaying the $600 he was trying to get for his account, hence he listed it for sale. The notion that someone should take out a loan they have no interest in repaying should be condemned. The same is true for those who lack the ability to repay a loan.
He hasn't paid Darkstar back yet and I think QS is right on this one. Gleb clearly doesn't care about his accounts that much because he has a history of taking loans out on them and also not paying them back. The fact that he would try sell or borrow based on them and for so little says a lot about him to be honest and that's behaviour that I can't trust.
He could have just asked for a loan if he needed money and someone would have likely given him it,
I think it is pretty clear Bruno is not interested in repaying the $600 he was trying to get for his account, hence he listed it for sale. The notion that someone should take out a loan they have no interest in repaying should be condemned. The same is true for those who lack the ability to repay a loan.
but this is exactly the issue because the same would still apply after the account changes hands and why it could have easily been abused.
If you can sell an account for $600 but can only borrow $400 against it's reputation, it would be irrational for the buyer to buy the account and subsequently take out a loan he has no intent on repaying. A healthy and transparent market would make it easier for lenders to judge how much it would be safe to trust an account with via a no-collateral loan.
You should already be able to predict the value for youself and set limits on what you'd lend to specific lenders based on their reputation(I have mine).
What if one of the staff gets fired and the business hires someone else to handle whatever the account was handling?
The identities of owners are generally private information (although they are sometimes voluntarily made public for a variety of reasons). If I am understanding you correctly, you believe this should be made public?
The identities of owners are generally private information (although they are sometimes voluntarily made public for a variety of reasons). If I am understanding you correctly, you believe this should be made public?
If I make an account and make a PLC, LLC or LTD company, I have to list myself as the owner of the company. My account can then be traced back to that company and therefore someone can find all the shareholders/owners/directors of that company. That information is already public knowledge so you may as well link it to the account.
And NO, if the primary account holder (the CEO) changes, then it should be stated publicly somewhere - even if just a way to advertise the company as there's another thread with your company's name on it.
He could have just asked for a loan if he needed money and someone would have likely given him it,
I think it is pretty clear Bruno is not interested in repaying the $600 he was trying to get for his account, hence he listed it for sale. The notion that someone should take out a loan they have no interest in repaying should be condemned. The same is true for those who lack the ability to repay a loan.
but this is exactly the issue because the same would still apply after the account changes hands and why it could have easily been abused.
If you can sell an account for $600 but can only borrow $400 against it's reputation, it would be irrational for the buyer to buy the account and subsequently take out a loan he has no intent on repaying. A healthy and transparent market would make it easier for lenders to judge how much it would be safe to trust an account with via a no-collateral loan.
This also raises the issue of business accounts. What happens if the business is sold, but the account remains within the business? Maybe that should be announced in reputation.
The whole point of tagging purchased accounts is that the new owner is pretending to be someone they are not. Not just any trust ratings the account has but its whole posting history is someone else's.
In the case of a business changing hands, this doesn't apply as the account would still be the official voice of the company. As long as the fact that the business is under new ownership is public then there is no deception.
I'm not entirely sure about the business thing. If some of the staff/people with acces to it, remains the same then I don't think anything has changed too much. If the company get sold outright and the entire staff is changed then the account and business arguably should have their trust and history removed.
Otherwise it looks a lot like it's one rule for one and one rule for another...
Although, the same legal entity do technically own the account - a link to their business probile showing the change of the shareholders would be helpful in fully clarifying all of the information about the account.
The identities of owners are generally private information (although they are sometimes voluntarily made public for a variety of reasons). If I am understanding you correctly, you believe this should be made public?
Suchmoon did the right thing in my opinion and I think it goes to show the trustworthiness that Gleb shown to give it to suchmoon.
I have made only one post from that account to confirm that I control it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40211133
And have not used it since, nor will I. It has not gone back to Bruno.
Ok that's good. I was considering you controlled it still and then checked back somewhere else and thought it went back to him but wasn't sure.
$600 was quite a small amount compared to the value of his account (though it already had negative trust so)... Quite fast to raise it also so that's good.
I do not see why the amount received or quoted has any factor in any of this. If it was sold for $1 or $10000 it would not matter.
@Suchmoon, stop using Gleb's account if you want to keep his posts true to him there is no point in posting with it.
I'm very slow, has the account gone back to Bruno?
I'm very slow, has the account gone back to Bruno?
I have made only one post from that account to confirm that I control it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40211133
And have not used it since, nor will I. It has not gone back to Bruno.
Ok that's good. I was considering you controlled it still and then checked back somewhere else and thought it went back to him but wasn't sure.
$600 was quite a small amount compared to the value of his account (though it already had negative trust so)... Quite fast to raise it also so that's good.
This whole situation doesn't make any sense to me but it's clear that Gleb tried to sell the account or at the very least loan it out to someone, and my guess is someone gave him money to borrow it so they could try join Chipmixer.
I can speculate and maybe add something here:
Bruno seems to be trying hard to move forward his yutucoin idea.
I think he has figured out it isn't going very far with it with him at the helm flying solo. I believe he thought bringing in an ICO consultant would be the best way to move the project forward.
ICO consultant cost money and maybe Bruno is unable to fund it himself. He decides to run a pre-ICO to get enough funding to hire the ICO consultant and run an ICO for yutucoin.
Based on the traffic in the pre-ICO thread and the wallets listed I had not seen much support for his project other than myself and another unnamed user. I think he didn't get the response he wanted and so decided another option to raise funds would be to join sig campaigns.
He applied to chipmixer and iirc he even mentioned he was raising funds for a project. His ap was declined and he then applied for bitcloak (iirc) which again iirc was full so he didn't get in. I didn't follow any other sig apps the gleb account made but I thought he was in another one at least before all this went down.
If I am correct Bruno is now not getting much support from his pre-ICO nor able to monetize his sig space and is still wanting (needing?) to raise money.
The next decision is to sell the gleb account. This is where he gets fucking stupid IMO. You can't argue Bruno didn't try to sell the gleb account, the facts are there. Selling a DT account privately has way to much abuse potential, that's a fact.
I am not sure at this point it the account passed hands or not (before Suchmoon stepped in and helped diffuse the situation). I am also not sure if he is "protecting" the buyer and those 2 points still trouble me a bit personally.
Now I will fully admit and have wondered if Bruno made up the whole yutucoin pre-ICO to just make some money to live? I made up my mind that wasn't the case I actually think he believes in his idea and I sent him a couple hundreds bucks, I'm ok with the gamble! IF I've been scammed well lesson learned!
"He could have just asked for a loan if he needed money and someone would have likely given him it
Perhaps (I say perhaps because I can't speak for Bruno obviously) he didn't want to ask for another loan (he had at least one outstanding to DS) and perhaps he wanted to ask for support in his own way ie launching his pre-ICO instead of asking loan? If he actually believes in yutucoin he may have thought offering an early bonus for supporting him may be better for everyone than another loan? Perhaps the sig campaign joining and gleb account sale was another alternative to taking another loan.
On the flip side perhaps Bruno had much more nefarious intentions after all. Perhaps he is tired of the community or in personal trouble we don't know about. Maybe he thought he could leverage his notoriety here and whip up a pre-ICO and grab XXX money because he's desperate. When that didn't go so well he needed money and went to rent or sell his gleb account.
I think it's clear which way I think it went but I will also admit that I would not be comfortable risking anymore than I already have at this point and time. I'm not in any way arguing what he did (ie trying to sell his gleb account, especially secretly) was smart or right. I think it was stupid.
I really don't want to try to speak for Bruno nor am I defending what he did but perhaps I have presented something else to consider in this mess!
I am very happy Suchmoon stepped in and provided at least some temporary situational grounding!
It makes me wonder if I should monetise my accouint. I own the .com to go with it, so maybe I should start a new coin, or a fast exchange system.
@Suchmoon, stop using Gleb's account if you want to keep his posts true to him there is no point in posting with it.
I'm very slow, has the account gone back to Bruno?
I'm very slow, has the account gone back to Bruno?
I have made only one post from that account to confirm that I control it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40211133
And have not used it since, nor will I. It has not gone back to Bruno.
Ok that's good. I was considering you controlled it still and then checked back somewhere else and thought it went back to him but wasn't sure.
$600 was quite a small amount compared to the value of his account (though it already had negative trust so)... Quite fast to raise it also so that's good.
@Suchmoon, stop using Gleb's account if you want to keep his posts true to him there is no point in posting with it.
I'm very slow, has the account gone back to Bruno?
I'm very slow, has the account gone back to Bruno?
I have made only one post from that account to confirm that I control it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.40211133
And have not used it since, nor will I. It has not gone back to Bruno.
As much as I appreciate his consistency, I would argue there's a difference between a green trusted Legendary selling an account and a Newbie selling his dozens of farmed accounts. The latter is less likely to cause massive spam, although I think the account should have a neutral tag stating the date of the sale. But tagging sold accounts won't be possible as long as sellers are being tagged, and sales are an undergrounnd market.
If accounts sales would be public, the buyer would know his account will be scrutinized, and he'll have to be very careful not to spam from his "investment".
I never considered this and I think thats a real good way of looking at it. Though should the seller release the information about the account they are selling? Otherwise they are protecting a sold account. If that is the case there is no difference between tagging sold accounts and the seller. If accounts sales would be public, the buyer would know his account will be scrutinized, and he'll have to be very careful not to spam from his "investment".
arguably should have their trust and history removed.
I semi agree on this bit. I'd say that the people that left that trust should review it and decide if they still feel it is valid under the new owners.
What I was trying to get at is that it shouldn't be the default position that if a business gets sold that it should be tagged red simply because of that in the same way that a personal account would.
This also raises the issue of business accounts. What happens if the business is sold, but the account remains within the business? Maybe that should be announced in reputation.
The whole point of tagging purchased accounts is that the new owner is pretending to be someone they are not. Not just any trust ratings the account has but its whole posting history is someone else's.
In the case of a business changing hands, this doesn't apply as the account would still be the official voice of the company. As long as the fact that the business is under new ownership is public then there is no deception.
I'm not entirely sure about the business thing. If some of the staff/people with acces to it, remains the same then I don't think anything has changed too much. If the company get sold outright and the entire staff is changed then the account and business arguably should have their trust and history removed.
Otherwise it looks a lot like it's one rule for one and one rule for another...
Although, the same legal entity do technically own the account - a link to their business probile showing the change of the shareholders would be helpful in fully clarifying all of the information about the account.
That won't always work, as the accounts that left the positive trust may not even be active anymore.
Buying an account is like cheating the Activity and Merit systems, which were introduced to restrict the spamming capacity for new users.
Apart from the farmed spam accounts, I can think of arguments for both sides. Therefore I won't tag account sales myself, but I'll present evidence if I find it.
I think it would be nice to see that if an account is inactive for say a year and gets locked by the forum maybe due to it's inactivity, it should be moved down to DT4 so that there isn't a potential for any scams from the account (the history should remain and the trust level should be regained if the ownership of the account can be proven). I have seen a lot of users here that have positive ratings that have gone on to do immense scams and have retained that positive because the user who gave them a positive has not been online since just before they scammed. Buying an account is like cheating the Activity and Merit systems, which were introduced to restrict the spamming capacity for new users.
Apart from the farmed spam accounts, I can think of arguments for both sides. Therefore I won't tag account sales myself, but I'll present evidence if I find it.
@Suchmoon, stop using Gleb's account if you want to keep his posts true to him there is no point in posting with it.
I'm very slow, has the account gone back to Bruno?
Everyone saying that every account selling accounts get tagged is wrong there is currently a legendary member trying to sell an account in the auction board but not one really cares about that because it's not someone who is as well known as Gleb.
The seller is known, the account to be sold is still unidentified.I'm not sure that an account should be red tagged just because it has been purchased. I think some sort of alert stating that the acoount had changed hands might be more useful. Of course if the new owner abuses the account, then red tagging may be necessary. Also., I believe that positive trust should be reset to zero, as the trust referred to the previous owner.
That won't always work, as the accounts that left the positive trust may not even be active anymore.Buying an account is like cheating the Activity and Merit systems, which were introduced to restrict the spamming capacity for new users.
Apart from the farmed spam accounts, I can think of arguments for both sides. Therefore I won't tag account sales myself, but I'll present evidence if I find it.
This also raises the issue of business accounts. What happens if the business is sold, but the account remains within the business? Maybe that should be announced in reputation.
The whole point of tagging purchased accounts is that the new owner is pretending to be someone they are not. Not just any trust ratings the account has but its whole posting history is someone else's.
In the case of a business changing hands, this doesn't apply as the account would still be the official voice of the company. As long as the fact that the business is under new ownership is public then there is no deception.
Jump to: