What about you? Do you value your credit scores?
Sorry for the necro thread post but I thought this was relevant.
Americans In Debt: 35 Percent Have Unpaid Bills Reported To Collection Agencies -
http://huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/29/americans-in-debt_n_5629137.htmlPoverty Is Profitable: 1 out of 3 US Consumers in Debt Collection -
http://huffingtonpost.com/peter-van-buren/poverty-is-profitable-1-debt_b_5630444.htmlOftentimes the debtor gets reported, but then the next time they go to the bank to get a car loan or something like they they are told they need to pay off the debt owed before the bank could even consider lending to them. So this "leverage" that the lenders have seems to do a decent job of recovering a fair amount of previously bad-debt. When even that doesn't get the debtor to pay up, once in collections there are often threats of it going to court to get a judgement (which can result in "enforced judgement" that includes garnished wages, attachment of assets, liens on property and bank levys).
Does Bitcoin provide a relief from this for many? A freelancer receiving Bitcoin income probably isn't worried about garnishment of wages or a bank levy even.
Also, a borrower with bad credit in the fiat world might still find lenders on BTCjam or BitLendingClub. It's like a second identity since the fiat world uses one trust system and the peer-to-peer economy uses another.
Thoughts?
Debt collection generally isn't as harsh as the media reports it. Rarely, it involves phone calls, but almost never anything beyond that. Generally, it's just a letter sent every month or few.
I think it was earlier in this thread I may've gone on a rant about 0% credit cards. I ended up getting myself in a bit of trouble with some of them because they approve someone and have them sign a contract BEFORE they give the credit limit. In a lot of instances, I was getting garbage cards with $400 or so limits which weren't worth my time to keep up with, so I'd throw them in a drawer and never activate them. I ended up with a couple cards in "default" because they charged me some membership fee after a year I refused to pay, which then accumulated interest and late fees on monthly, which ended up with derogatory remarks on my score. A quick physical letter explaining the situation and why it's a fat load of nonsense solved it.
In many cases, where the debt's under ~$300, a credit card company or other lender will actually completely wipe the debt (even if it's legitimately accumulated), sometimes even without customer input. It's simply too small to be worth hassling the person over and burning bridges. The media sometimes does these goofy stories on someone forgetting what their co-pay was and coming up $20 short at the dentist's office, where the debt gets handed over to some obnoxious assholes who call the person up all hours of the day and at work - and it just doesn't normally happen, if at all.
I'm straying far from your question, though. BTCJam and others do generally completely overlook all this relatively great (compared to some guy giving his story and an OTC trust link) data, and when I did lending, I did, for a very short span of time, try pushing credit checks through the agencies. It can actually be done where the potential BTC lender doesn't need any government ID (SSN, home address, etc), but where the loan applicant can give that information to a trusted, major (corporate) third party which basically pulls the credit report and then sends it to the potential lender, where all the lender sees is the credit report rather than any really identifying information. I think I really put people off when I pushed it because I didn't know about these third-party agencies... people didn't seem too enthusiastic about handing their SSN over to me, so I don't have much practical experience to share on that.
-But I don't see any reason not to allow potential lendees this option if they don't have collateral or in-community reputation. Lending is basically just discovering information, compiling it, then assessing it, so any information's good information from the lender's point of view (and hopefully from the lendee's point of view).
I'm kind of torn on this because some people should be given another chance (or maybe they were wronged, or just didn't want to bother with these credit agencies if something negative's on their score), but at the same time, there's really no reason for lenders to be passing up on this kind of information, especially when the lendee and lender are often so far away from each other with really minimal information available. The BTC lending market's kind of "data isolated" right now because most neither push or pull data from existing credit agencies. Idunno what all's involved, but I suppose there's nothing preventing a fourth major credit agency from popping up which deals more in peer-to-peer issues, maybe specializing in crypto lending, and there may not be laws preventing it from doing something radical like pulling trust data from Bitcointalk or BTCJam to factor into its score.