Topic: Lending Etiquette (Read 221 times)

Had you ever praised my work in the past then I might be offended.

---

---

For warned is for armed.

From a quick look at the addresses you've posted, both have sent USDT directly to Binance's hot wallet before. Unless cabalism and crwth both like donating their money to Binance (Tron doesn't use memos, so any deposits directly to the hot wallet would not be attributed to their accounts), it's very likely that both are Binance deposit addresses. Binance is liquid enough to not need to immediately sweep the USDT to their address, so they're probably waiting for the right timing before moving funds over.

Trust building loans are definitely an issue, but it's not obvious that both of those were to build trust. For someone who used to do a lot of blockchain analysis, you've really dropped the ball here 

See also this cryptic post from zazarb ten hours ago re mnightwaffle's loan from them.

---

---

In the same vein, I can show you multiple users who take out then repay loans without ever seeming to need them - the only real purpose of the loan appears to be building trust to then ?? ?? mount an exit scam at a later date.

For example, two days apart, @DarkStar_ loans to two ^{(of the disgraced members of a three-way abuse of donated funds)}

cabalism13 was lent $200 USDT HERE and crwth was lent $500 USDT HERE

cabalism13 it should be noted had been off line since before Christmas when concerns were raised about their participation in a so-called charity, but instead of addressing those concerns when they returned has instead attempted to join multiple campaigns and now taken out a loan - all the while bragging that they have an alt on the forum they use to log in regularly (and then going dark for the following week after the loan was funded)

Surely such claims as having an alts should be disclosed to any lender when considering facilitating a loan?

As to the two loans,

"Clarence" cabalism13 was lent $200 USDT to wallet address https://usdt.tokenview.com/en/address/TNwxxkjsDv54wXgM4R2zWvfuFW6nw2fjNf on the 03-19-2022 03:59:15 "to support my Physical Therapy" while
crwth was lent $500 USDT to wallet address https://usdt.tokenview.com/en/address/TR12gbXWhQ5oXMjiRG5CYSMRNDYLYfP5hL on the 03-21-2022 04:37:21

Nearly two weeks later, neither funds have been touched and are supposed to be repaid at the end of the month / two months respectively.

As I stated at the start of this post, there are many lenders who seem to be taking out meaning less loans to simply build trust - motive?

Earlier he took loan from multiple person too and also it was on his own thread and on that time all the active loan information was present on his link but this time he has taken loan from multiple person and also nothing showing on his profile. Also, probably took loan on same wallet but this time taking loan on various site. I cant see anything different except this.

When there are only one or two things that seem slightly off it would be more likely that it's a coincidence, but I can point to half a dozen reasons why this user is in an increasingly volatile situation that they themselves describe as "high risk".

There are no plans to go "hard-line", but questioning the ethics of this user is not a scapegoat if they decide to default.
If a weatherman told you it was going to rain, you wouldn't think it's their fault when it does, would you?

You are right but we also should not go hard-line as there was multiple active loan and if we go hard-line then there is a chance that those loans will be defaulted. So, we should wait for the repayment and also be ware sothat he cant take anymore loan before previous loans. I have sent him loans for many times but this time it seems to me something different.

---

Regarding proofing ownership it may happen for exchange wallet or something like that.

This is where my thoughts are on the matter, but I am still stuck on what an appropriate solution would be - outside of the neutral trust I've already left.


So, on top of all of the red-flags that I've already laid out this user was also unable to verify ownership of the addresses that previous loans were sent to, is that right?

If I do not forget then I always give neutral feedback at the time of accepting any loan request and it is very important for both lender who have already let money and who wants to lend money. Anyone me not scam for 50$ but the person may scam for 1000$. We cant measure a person in which amount the person will make a scam. In many cases I have seen who has taken loan from multiple person at a time or before repaying the previous loan are a scammer.

I'd say it's unethical not to mention you have open loans when requesting a new loan. But lenders have a responsibility too by checking and leaving neutral feedback for each open loan.

My first thought in such cases is always that it could be an exit scam.

I wanted to give him 3rd loan which he was asked to me for first time. I asked for verification or receive bitcoin on previous wallet. But he could not sign a message from old address and also could not take the fund to the old address that's he took loan from another person. And without giving previous 3rd loan asked another loan which is very much suspicious. And more important thing is that after taking a loan from me the borrower cant take any loan before completing the repayment of mine.

I've been that person and I've borrowed BTC myself from here when that was the case.
It is not my intention to disparage anybody for needing to be lent money.

Just can't wrap my head around why he needs multiple loans, instead of one consolidated loan; especially when shasan seemed to be willing to give him the larger loan he needed.


To be clear, I am not accusing this user of anything - I see some signs that are red-flags to me, but I'm not the arbiter of what is right and wrong.
I'm mostly just trying to get a feel for how the community feels about the concept(s), rather than trying to go on a brigade against this particular user.


I agree with you that it is the lender's responsibility to vet their potential clients.

I left a neutral feedback to provide convenient caution to potential lenders, and I believe that's an appropriate solution.

@bill gator

It could also be that the person really needs to borrow money and it can happen to everyone to be in need. He tries to borrow money from reputed members maybe because it is only what is valuable to him and the other members do not want to lend money.

I've been looking at his feedback for loans, I find that they are quite spaced out in time (I've seen some from 2016 (I think)
If the goal of the person is to collect feedback, he would do it in a short period of time.

Also, shouldn't it be the lender's job to figure out that the borrower already has loans in progress, and that it could also be about collecting feedback? That's a part of the due diligence.

As I said above, the person may really need to borrow money, and bitcointalk is a place where people can easily manage to get by. I mean, don't see hell everywhere and all the time.

I wouldn't dream of trying to stop the flow of the free market, but there is definitely a lot that can be done to prevent behavior that we don't approve of, even in the spirit of the free market.
We have negative feedback, trust-flags and guidelines that most users will respect.
If we agree as a community that this behavior is frowned upon then normal users wouldn't engage in it.

For example, account purchasing/trading used to be somewhat acceptable and was regularly performed out in the open market by reputable members/escrows. Then, we decided as community that it is no longer something that is acceptable, and now account purchasing is nearly non-existent relative to where it was.

Any lender can choose to loan their money to anybody, but if we decide as a community that it's unacceptable then we can enforce actions on the lendee acting in bad faith by requesting multiple simultaneous no collateral loans.

I think this now comes to the lenders who accept giving out loans to such people, and there is nothing much that can be done to stop this vice since it's a free market with lots of competition. It's a risk they feel they are willing to take, and you can't stop them from doing it.

It's more like Ponzi schemes that you see getting advertised in the Investor-based games board. Many people know that they are scam, but some people will still send the money to them anyway with hope that by the time they shut down, they have made enough money.

Tell me if you disagree with me, but I don't believe that it is appropriate for a user to take out multiple no collateral loans simultaneously from different lenders.

This offers an opportunity to farm positive feedback from reputable lenders by using the new loan(s) to repay the old loan(s).

I thought this was something that was already frowned upon, but I've come across the user mnightwaffle: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/mnightwaffle-71414, who has multiple active loans from multiple lenders worth around $500 and has now created a new loan request: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2-weeks-want-80-btc-0001694-40-5391524 for $10-$250.

All of these things are red-flags to me, please tell me if I'm being crazy

• Multiple simultaneous no collateral loans from different lenders
• Requesting a new loan
• Requesting loans of such a variable amount - "Ill take $10 or $250" sounds like somebody feeding an addiction.
• Offering high % interest, for a short term - 40% for 2-weeks
• Constantly seeking a New Lender that hasn't given them feedback yet.
• Requesting Extensions on Current Active Loans

I'm looking for some input on whether I'm being paranoid or if this is an extremely volatile situation that is going to end poorly.