It seems that the OP somehow knew that BitcoinBoss666 was an alt of the person who took out the loan, so he gave him negative trust ~a week ago. Then BitcoinBoss666 saw the trust and didn't like it so he left a negative on the OP saying that even though he defaulted the collateral was worth much more then the loan amount so he should not be labeled a scammer. (The fact that you cannot give any kind of trust rebuttal or response is a flaw in the trust system).
I don't think anyone got scammed here. The OP gave a loan for .1 but got .3 worth of collateral. He profits regardless if the loan is repaid. BitcoinBoss666 consented to giving his account as collateral for the .1 loan and when his gambling strategy didn't work out he lost his account (this is pretty clearly a gambling loan).
I don't think the trust given to the OP was calling him a scammer but was rather giving a rebuttal to the rating that was left on his trust profile.
IMO, if a rebuttal or a response could be left then we would probably see less retaliatory feedback left and would probably see less drama regarding the trust system (but maybe not very much less).
I shouldnt gave him a Neg trust so that he can SCAM Others too?
I never scam nobody. You earn +200% on this loan and you call it scam? What is wrong with you?
You defaulted a loan. Isn't that a scam? When you took the loan, the value of the account was somewhat same but after it became Sr. Member, the value increased and you aren't scammer and you want the account back?
Senior account worth 0.1 ? you really joke. This account is worth min 0.3BTC. You earn 0.2BTC on this loan and call me scammer? What the hell is wrong with you?
You are a scammer because you didn't repay the loan. Not difficult to understand.
This is interesting. In an extreme case, if someone hypothetically provided 10x collateral on a loan and defaulted, you would label them a scammer?
I would've assumed the collateral is part of the "deal" such that, whether or not the original loan amount is repaid, the lender is satisfied (else the conditions of collateral wouldn't be agreed to).
The defaulted borrower deceived irfan_pak10 for his financial gain. So he is a scammer.
This was pretty clear that this was a gambling loan (there is no other reason to borrow such a small amount lol). I don't think it is his fault that he lost/busted/ect. The OP still profited from the deal. In order to be a scammer you need to either steal property from someone or try to steal property from someone. Who did he steal from? Please note that the OP ended up with more property then he started with.
But... When he took the loan, the value of the account was somewhat same but after it became Sr. Member, the value increased. Then telling he isn't a scammer because Irfan got more than he gave doesn't make sense. Scam doesn't mean "stealing", it means deceiving a person for financial/personal gain
Okay so say the value is the same. The lender would still profit.
When altcoins are used as collateral a standard condition is that if the value of the altcoins falls below a certain threshold then they can be sold to cover the amount of the loan. I would say that often the borrower would not technically pay back the loan in those cases however they would not be a scammer.
There is not even a case of deception here. I assume the loan agreement to be something along the lines of the borrows will repay a certain amount by a certain date, and if this does not happen then the collateral will become the property of the lender.
I would restate my offer to make the OP "whole" by reimbursing the amount he was "scammed" aka the repayment amount if he is willing to give me the account (assuming he has a signed message).
