Topic: [POLL] Question for Lenders concerning loans to enable Ponzi/HYPI etc to occur: (Read 1121 times)

They're not "using the same wallet." As is labeled as such and as I've shown you a couple times already, the "wallet" you think is theirs is owned by an exchange. Its a hot wallet. Its not their wallet. Funds flow in and out of there from what appears to be hundreds of customers on a daily basis. The fact that it has been used to process Ponzi payouts does not mean the forum member you are accusing was involved with a Ponzi.


OK, feel free to delete my posts if you'd like, I'm prepared to open my own thread about the situation.

That you for confirming that I stated the two users used the same wallet address, nothing more.

You are attempting to introduce uncertainty and doubt (otherwise known as FUD) where there is none.

Explain why the two users are using the same wallet (give examples by all means) unless of course you are denying they used the same wallet?

---

---

This other post of yours might explain your (ir)rationale:


But you're not?

First warning.

You literally claimed it was their address.




Furthermore, your Ponzi evidence comes from someone labeling the hot wallet address as a scammer address, which has made over 47.6 million transactions. To use this as evidence against a forum member, make assumptions about alt accounts, give them red trust and open flags against them is ridiculous.

For years you've gone out of your way to harass forum members by fudging connections that aren't there. You should work harder to assure your facts are straight before you blast someone next time.

Defaulting on a loan would be reason to tag somebody. Scrutinizing their blockchain activity to make baseless assumptions about their off-forum activity is not.

No, you did.

Except that's not what happened and I proved that.

Please, before anyone else chimes in on their views on Ponzis I implore you to actually look at the evidence Timelord provided. Take a good, objective look at the claims he made and determine whether or not there's any truth to them based on the evidence he provided.

Also Timelord I'd like an answer to this question:


Because that's what you are inferring.

Nice to have you join the conversation concerning what should be done about loans that are (unknowingly) used to facilitate loans to participate in Ponzi's.  What happens when the borrower takes out a loan and never pays it back?  The lender waits.  Then waits. Then waits some more.  They'll probably contact the borrower and wait some more.  Then eventually, they create a scam accusation concerning the default of their funds.  Collectively negative trust feedback and or DT negative trust is dispensed and the borrower moves onto their next alt.  Rinse and repeat.


In my examples I've shown that the borrower doesn't actually need the loan adding the funds to a much larger pot they have gathered which was then sent to an address identified as participating in Ponzis.  (both of the "three days later" examples) - The loans occur to give the illusion they are trustworthy borrowers and by taking out loans from other lenders it gives credence to their alt's lending service as "just another payday lender"


I appreciate you are at least considering that they are alts and are considering what the ramifications of random borrowers borrowing funds that have been derived from Ponzi activities.


I've found people usually take "this trust feedback is counter X feedback" not just with a grain of salt but with mirth and merriment as the persons later on who stumble upon it will know the author has had a clash with the one they are countering and makes the author look foolish.

Go right ahead and be "that guy" and leave a *cough* counter trust feedback to mine.  Or, we could just discuss this in a rational manor.

Reconfirm they are alts, or, prove me wrong.

---

---

.

In the last week I have read a totally different thread concerning the ramifications of funds that were paid out to signature campaigners that came from a mixing site that has been seized and it's owner arrested.  

Shouldn't we be mature enough to have a conversation about the harm Ponzis cause in people's lives?  In that other thread it was confirmed to me that admin/mods of the Forum are banned from participating in Mixer campaigns - if the Forum is at least willing to take a small step, let's actually take a stand on Ponzi's (and no, I've never participated in a ponzi, thanks for asking).

If the lenders don't report a problem with loan repayment, I don't see what exactly is the problem here. Is it a smart investment? Certainly not, but as long as these users bear the eventual losses. I don't see the difference between this kind of investment and gambling as a reason for a loan.
A participant in any HYIP scheme is just a naive person who thinks he will make a lot of money in a short time. Most often, he is not a fraudster.

I haven't tracked everything, but it seems that there is a possibility that the accounts are connected. Certainly, this can be important information for lenders, and it is up to them how they will manage loans according to these user/s.

edit: Timelord2067, I just saw that you left negative feedback on these accounts. I invite you to double-check the matter, the fact where someone spends their money should certainly not be the subject of trust assessment. Tagging them only complicates the issue of currently active loaners and discourages them from maintaining their reputation on this forum.
I am opposed to your flags, I hope I won't have to leave positive feedback as a counter to yours.

Both loans are overdue. The borrower has a history of paying late with silence as the days go by.

Plus, the lender was advised by me of this investigation *prior* to them facilitating the last loan, so the lender knew the risks.

Is there a rule that says you are not allowed to participate in an HYIP or Ponzi? Running 1 and participating are 2 totally different thing IMO. These guys or this guy wants to risk his money, then so be it. Would be better if you warned the person of the risks of participating vs tagging and running them off. Maybe they are aware, maybe not but gotta hear their side IMO before tagging. If they are running the Ponzi then yes tag them, but are you sure here?

When a person borrows, the lender likely doesn't care what they do with the money as long as it's repaid. You have likely put the current loans(if there are any) at risk of being repaid.

Pretty obvious they both use Okex

Hard to say how much money has been lost to Ponzi scams, but the sorrow it causes is very damaging.

What's your alternative explanation for the borrower using the same wallet to repay funds the lender sent from?

The wallet you think is "theirs" is actually another Okex hot wallet, its even labeled as such on the explorer you've been using.

https://tronscan.org/#/address/TM1zzNDZD2DPASbKcgdVoTYhfmYgtfwx9R


So I'm saying this is not proof they are alts.

Do you really think they have $94 million worth of assets?

Are you saying they are not alts even though they both used the same wallet?

It really doesn't matter one way or the other because there is no connection between the accused and the crimes you are accusing them of.

The funds got deposited to Okex. The actual Ponzi coordinator withdrew them from Okex to pay out Ponzi participants.

It would appear you accused somebody of a crime they didn't commit. You even red tagged them for it 

Should have waited to see if they defaulted on the loan.

Ponzi participant's wallet address still makes it a Ponzi address (one of the subtleties of the English language)

Odd that you would split hairs on grammar

That's not what that says... it says that funds were sent as a HYIP payment to that address... It's not the HYIP itself.

Meanwhile TWGZbjofbTLY3UCjCV4yiLkRg89zLqwRgi is the Okex hot wallet:



Every single USDT deposit to TFqN1GmbXtQNZu1BsuhrExzpKLszXBfQ4U was sent to the Okex hot wallet, which means its rational to conclude it is a Okex deposit wallet.

Of course I am opposing these flags, you should probably withdraw them as they are based on faulty assumptions.

I have no intentions of investigating lenders (or borrowers for that matter) nore do I expect lenders to scrutinise those seeking loans.


I found the proof in seconds using standard search engines.

These are too demanding investigations for a lender to do.
Unless there was a fast service where the lender enters the address of a wallet and this database immediately responds indicating whether it is a reported wallet or not.

TL;DR:

Lenders @shasan, @DarkStar_ and @alterra57 have all loaned HedgeFx USDT TRC20 funds to wallet TFqN1GmbXtQNZu1BsuhrExzpKLszXBfQ4U.  The funds are then sent to HYIP/PONZI sites.  

example:

[TTd9qHyjqiUkfTxe3gotbuTMpjU8LEbpkN] is identified as wallet "Kraken" and on the 2022-12-25 sends $51.39 to wallet TFqN1GmbXtQNZu1BsuhrExzpKLszXBfQ4U via TX ca69c04cff39219ea9d873c4ecbb278d12c8359e3c4e60212a2a48d13b04d28e those funds are sent three days later to wallet TWGZbjofbTLY3UCjCV4yiLkRg89zLqwRgi via TX bb12c485cac56c0b5bca5ea0910ab1eeffe5594b2b49c427fa725349a20b469d

Conclusion:  HedgeFx is borrowing funds to participate in Ponzi/HYIP.

---

---

I am not suggesting any lender is aware of what HedgeFx is doing with the funds that are provided in good faith.

---

---

Proof:

2023-03-08 HedgeFx u=2221175 attempted to obtain a $600 USDT trc20 loan to wallet address [TFqN1GmbXtQNZu1BsuhrExzpKLszXBfQ4U] [here].  

Not long afterwards: After their previous loans were found to be repaid predominantly late, they locked that thread and started a second loan application the next day asking for $400 USDT TRC20 which was funded by @shasan [here]

---

---

Example of a loan that has been facilitated From shasan to HedgeFx


25 minutes later, those funds ( 299 USDT Trc20) are moved to wallet TJbHp48Shg4tTD5x6fKkU7PodggL5mjcJP via TX cc9649e5f27218d646369b4f04bca34db123d265c6e716fa471112a715787640

TJbHp48Shg4tTD5x6fKkU7PodggL5mjcJP is identified as a ponzi/hyip address on this page: https://e-investars.com/details/lid/483/p/2/ - archive [1] [2]

---

---

Example of a loan that has been facilitated From @DarkStar_ to HedgeFx


24 minutes later, those funds are transferred to wallet TWGZbjofbTLY3UCjCV4yiLkRg89zLqwRgi via TX 123e978a8b7b83f98ed6506c0b83157b58d1d53a6b03ca21d1f125e71644793c

TWGZbjofbTLY3UCjCV4yiLkRg89zLqwRgi is mentioned on this PONZI/HYIP site: https://www.sqmonitor.com/?a=details&lid=8238&menu=vote - Archive [1] [2]

---

---

Example of a loan that has been facilitated From @alterra57 to HedgeFx


Loan was funded 2022-08-06 10:36:06 (Local).  The first outbound transfer of USDT TRC20 after the loan was funded was from TFqN1GmbXtQNZu1BsuhrExzpKLszXBfQ4U (2022-08-09 04:05:36 (Local)) a transfer of 4,571.357321 Tether USD USDT to TM1zzNDZD2DPASbKcgdVoTYhfmYgtfwx9R via TX e2e88111b9e12ef650a42f6c3fdbc2bbb36008e08013a060dc6ccdff898740fc

(As in the first example above - a delay of three days)

TM1zzNDZD2DPASbKcgdVoTYhfmYgtfwx9R is mentioned on this scam reporting page: https://cryptscam.com/en/detail/TM1zzNDZD2DPASbKcgdVoTYhfmYgtfwx9R - archive [1] [2]

In case you didn't pick up on it - alterra57 sends funds to HedgeFx from a wallet address that is identified as a Ponzi/Hyip address - alterra57 is facilitating loans with the profits from Ponzis.

HedgeFx makes the classic mistake all scammers make of getting their repayment TX wrong:


Transaction 589e9e8f1d812c463c4f529068eca34c96279d6712fb586a33ea39dfa271558b

Here is a screen shot of that transaction:



TM1zzNDZD2DPASbKcgdVoTYhfmYgtfwx9R transferred 500 Tether USD USDT to TPVwtc2ZEo35QE9MCUciKUqbSfCLUhWT6G

TM1zzNDZD2DPASbKcgdVoTYhfmYgtfwx9R is used by both alterra57 and HedgeFx

Conclusion:

2 Accounts Connected: (Note: Banned shown in red / Inactive in Blue / Active profile (in ordinary link colour))

HedgeFx, alterra57,

Miscellaneous:

alterra57 (and by extension their alt HedgeFx) are facilitating loans with funds acquired through their activities in Ponzis.

---

---

Related Addresses:


Three wallets created minutes apart.

---

---

HedgeFx currently has two loans with Shasan - the second is now overdue (and it would appear so is the first)

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.62287441

---

---

Flag HedgeFx: - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3171
Flag alterra57: - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=3172

Yeh, that's true. I've handed out negative trust feedback and DT distrust to those engaged in Ponzi activities.

Hopefully others will also do so to warn others of the perils of engaging in such manipulative behaviour.

You may use it as a reference to avoid being banned by those who want to promote Ponzi but you can't prevent them to get negative trust. As you know there might have rules but all those are not matched with our senses. Eg: a Forum account can be sold but it is discouraged according to forum rules but a lot of users are here to provide negative trust to those who are buying/selling accounts for now. Though we have avoided negative trusts for early buyers/sellers.

I think I'm going to quote the above in case it needs to be referenced in future.

Unless they're spamming, I don't think this is a reason to ban users. There's even a board for it:

Thanks to everyone who has replied so far.  I'll try to answer everyone's questions, plus I have a couple of more of my own.

[1] My responses do not address issues of collateral or lack thereof which have been covered in other threads.
[2] If there are multiple occurrences of TX's occurring under the example given, then I feel that further confirms ownership of a wallet address?

---

---

As I see it, there are only two ways a borrower can obtain loans^[1] by disclosing the intended purpose e.g. "car's engine blows-up", or, they withhold their reason e.g. "personal".

In either case, a lender "Alice" can facilitate a loan where a borrower "Bob" has provided a wallet address publicly, or privately where the borrower "Mike" sends a private message with their wallet details.  In the first case, perusing the TX's or wallet address' posted can confirm Alice has sent funds to Bob.  

In the second example, an "educated guess" can be made if the lender, Alice uses the same wallet address to facilitate a loan to Mike.  We can look at Alice's wallet address and discern a TX took place around the time the loan request were made - if a TX did in fact happen _plus_ the value of the TX is close to, or matches a loan request, then surely that would prove the recipient wallet address is "owned" by the borrower?  [2]

From there, if we then see where those funds are sent, we can make an educated guess as to whether or not the secondary recipient is a Ponzi/HYIP participant and by extension, the borrower is engaging in a Ponzi/HYIP etc.

---

---

Brick and mortar lenders will always ask you what your loan is for.  They have a responsibility to the board of directors and shareholders.  On the other hand, a sole operator has to rely on their own advice and can sometimes be tripped up - especially by gamblers whose addiction is consuming them.

---

---

How so?  


Yes, that's my point above that a single person facilitating loans can on occasion be misled as to who (i.e. alts) or what (e.g. personal) they are lending money for.


You don't - a lender can stipulate terms such as the 33/7 lender who says "No gambling" - other terms can be stipulated as part of an application, especially if the lender is receiving applications from a newbies who don't offer collateral.


I'm not actually sure whether or not PONZI/HYIP activities will get a person the total ban hammer, however, there are a number of users who are prepared to distrust those who do participate in such activities.  This comes back to what I said in my response just above.

---

---

Perhaps if @theymos or @LoyceV were reading, they could answer the question of (( PONZI/HYIP = Perma-Ban )) ??

That's why the @OP write this below, this mean you're actually not supporting Ponzi or HYIP, the borrower can lie to you, but you can't do anything except give a neutral tag since the borrower lie about his personal reason.

Some lender ask about the reason, some aren't, but they can just mention if the purpose of the loan is to support Ponzi/HYIP they wouldn't lend and tell the consequence if the borrower is lying.

i'm wondering if the borrower doesn't need to tell the lender the exact reason as to what the money is for ?   is this obligated ?   or is this private?

I have never borrowed from members of this forum. What I usually see is that the borrower only submits general reasons in the proposal (eg personal interests, trade).
Ponzi are quite despised in this forum, so I'm not sure someone would take the initiative to provide reasons for this kind of specific purpose hoping a loan proposal would be approved favorably.

how can you know that the "reason" as to why people loan money is a legit reason and is 100 %  risk free

nothing is 100 % risk free just as much as you don't know  for what purpose the borrower will use your money you have lend him  

there is always some kind of uncertainty/risk involved when lending people money  even when they are trusted (or even family)

From my point of view for the loans I have made they are all unsecured personal loans for smaller amounts. So, I look at it as no different then them going to a friend or coworker or whoever and borrowing a couple of hundred dollars till payday. What they do with it is more or less their own business. For the amounts I have given out you really could not do a HYIP kind of thing.

If they came to me and asked for a couple of thousand to setup a Ponzi the answer would be no, because more or less you are supporting one at that point.

If they did not tell me and I did not ask, well that's on me. But, would we ever know the truth anyway? If you @Timelord2067 came to me here and asked for a few thousand because the engine in your car just detonated and you need to get something to go to work till you can buy a new one. I would probably give it to you since I really doubt you would blow a decade old legendary account and it's alts for a few grand. BUT if was to start the TimeWarp2067 HYIP how would I ever know if it never got traced back to you?

We are all kind of anonymous here.....

-Dave

Excluding obvious scam situations, it can sometimes happen that the ponzi scheme is difficult to detect.
It would be enough to think about what happened with Bitconnect, which developed over a very long time and then turned out to be a scam.
It is difficult for an inexperienced person to easily distinguish a scam from a good investment opportunity, and being able to borrow money further diminishes prudence!
In general I think that prudence is always the right way to achieve a goal. If I were a lender I would avoid lending sums for a long time, unless they are secured by a strong collateral.

It is not that easy to know if borrowed funds are going to be used to enable a PONZI/HYIP or any other cause you  may dislike, most of the reasons given (that I see in lending thread) are just "personal", which I think it is fine since privacy it is very important, so If I were to lend, I would not ask too much questions either.

But it is obvious that if funds were going to be used for something that I dislike, like a Ponzi, I would not lend.

Providing loans to a borrower who invest on Ponzi, promotes Ponzi, the owner of Ponzi means I am supporting Ponzi. As I do not support Ponzi I will not give a loan to a borrower who is a Ponzi scammer. Hope my point of view is enough clear. My vote goes to "NO! - even with collateral"

Question for the lenders concerning loans to enable Ponzi / HYPI etc to occur:

Do you condone borrowers taking out loans (regardless of with or without collateral) to enable PONZI / HYIP etc to occur?

• Yes - With collateral      This means you would loan funds even if it were uncovered at a later date the lender was engaging in PONZI / HYIP etc
• NO - With collateral      This means you would *NOT* loan funds even if it were uncovered at a later date the lender was engaging in PONZI / HYIP etc or the borrower fully disclosed the loan was for such purposes prior to the loan being facilitated
• Yes - Without collateral   This means you would loan funds even if it were uncovered at a later date the lender was engaging in PONZI / HYIP etc
• NO - Without collateral      This means you would *NOT* loan funds even if it were uncovered at a later date the lender was engaging in PONZI / HYIP etc or the borrower fully disclosed the loan was for such purposes prior to the loan being facilitated

Anyone is welcome to vote - Lenders and borrowers alike.

You can vote for up to two choices, but cannot change you vote once you have made it.  The Poll is open ended and is self moderated to prevent endless spamming by those who would seek to derail the thread.