Most people aren't in your situation. They give the collateral as something that is worth alot, but don't want to sell it.
If you don't have this item, you'll have to find someone who accepts no collateral.
Topic: What is the point of collateral? (Read 1531 times)
In financial world things are a little diferent.
For example if i buy bitcoins with my own money for 100$ after a week i sell it for 120$ (profit= 120-100=20)
but if you do the same with a loan you can buy 1000$ and after a week you sell it for 1200$ (profit=1200-(1000+week interest)
i think it is about scale
For example if i buy bitcoins with my own money for 100$ after a week i sell it for 120$ (profit= 120-100=20)
but if you do the same with a loan you can buy 1000$ and after a week you sell it for 1200$ (profit=1200-(1000+week interest)
i think it is about scale
Exactly you have nicely described the point about how it works in financial world now things are changing because it's the matter of credit risk because people are not ready to give out loan like they used to do earlier to gain profit because there is no surety or security that the person who take loan will be able to repay it back because of ongoing market crisis I am talking about Middle eastern market. Soon there will be Bitcoin loaners I think there are already few out there in the market.
In financial world things are a little diferent.
For example if i buy bitcoins with my own money for 100$ after a week i sell it for 120$ (profit= 120-100=20)
but if you do the same with a loan you can buy 1000$ and after a week you sell it for 1200$ (profit=1200-(1000+week interest)
i think it is about scale
For example if i buy bitcoins with my own money for 100$ after a week i sell it for 120$ (profit= 120-100=20)
but if you do the same with a loan you can buy 1000$ and after a week you sell it for 1200$ (profit=1200-(1000+week interest)
i think it is about scale
here an example why, you need money to pay somethign urgent like a portion of the money that is needed to buy your new house, but you don't have the money
now you burrow them and inexchange you give them your car as a collateral, you can not sell your car because it's still a new machine and you would lose money in this way also you need your car to move the things in your new house
now you burrow them and inexchange you give them your car as a collateral, you can not sell your car because it's still a new machine and you would lose money in this way also you need your car to move the things in your new house
I know I will recieve a lot of criticism for this post, maybe even a few neg reps.
But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
Because a) It provides security to the loaner and b) The loanee might not want to sell the collateral because he either needs it or he believes the value of the collateral is going to go up significantly after he repays the loan.
If you have a good bticontalk account, but you want to keep on using it for long term. You need some bitcoin to spend now, you can borrow with the account. When you have the funds to return the borrow, you still keep the account.
Well said, in most cases you don't want to liquidate your assets for a small loan so you offer some security for the lender in return. Nothing wrong with borrowing money to finance short term expenses. Having said that, I won't take a loan..
Yes, I agree but the thing is it is not worth too much. The most a BTCtalk account would be worth is probably like 2BTC.
Loans like that do not really funnel ideas, businesses and innovation. Loans like that are just a quick fix for a spending desire.
Also I could sell my account and rebuy another one UNLESS I have a good reputation among the forum peers and post a lot.
If it's just another average sr.member i might as well sell it.
Maybe you don't want to sell your collateral because you believe it will go higher (if it's a coin). Also, person who lends you his money will be safer.
Would you borrow without collateral to anyone?
Would you borrow without collateral to anyone?
May be there are not so many account buyers around, so collateral sale in fact can not be so easy. But lenders may be accept to take your account easy 
I know I will recieve a lot of criticism for this post, maybe even a few neg reps.
But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
Actually I will say for lenders, its an entirely different story and There are a number of reasons why lenders need to be cautious when considering taking bitcoin as collateral. For example bitcoin volatility means that their value can drop sharply and this is a real risk for lenders seeking to ensure the stability of their collateral. But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
If you have a good bticontalk account, but you want to keep on using it for long term. You need some bitcoin to spend now, you can borrow with the account. When you have the funds to return the borrow, you still keep the account.
Well said, in most cases you don't want to liquidate your assets for a small loan so you offer some security for the lender in return. Nothing wrong with borrowing money to finance short term expenses. Having said that, I won't take a loan..
If you have a good bticontalk account, but you want to keep on using it for long term. You need some bitcoin to spend now, you can borrow with the account. When you have the funds to return the borrow, you still keep the account.
The collateral is normally worth more so the buyer will return.
Collateral works better in the real world for things like title loans and such, and it's what pawn shops are based on. You give your wedding ring as collateral for a $100 loan and if you default, the pawn shop has way more than $100 to sell. Here online it's not so useful, as most collateral has to be digital. And then there's the issue of borrowers overvaluing what they've got.
i'm not really in agreement with this, i find that account are a very good collateral, to use online, other form of collateral can be more dangerous, but account hold their value quite well
I know I will recieve a lot of criticism for this post, maybe even a few neg reps.
But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
The way I read your post is you think that are the Borrower, but try to put yourself in the lenders Shoes. how are you going to protect your investment or money that you mend to a borrower, how are you going to make him/her pay you back. If the collateral is just 50% of the loaned value then if the Borrower did not pay you, you only have an item that you can liquidate at 50% value of the money you loaned to the borrower.
There is lot to understand, if you can get money and use it, repay after you get money from elsewhere rather than selling those collateral. And it is not always easy to find buyer for some of the collateral items. So if you know you will be getting some money later but need money right now, than getting loan using collateral is wise decision.
There is a big difference between using collateral hold for some period of time till paying back the loan, and selling your collateral. You try to explain like its the same thing, but it's in fact not. Collateral is not sold nor lost, you get back your collateral once you pay back your loan, so no problem at all about using it
Collateral works better in the real world for things like title loans and such, and it's what pawn shops are based on. You give your wedding ring as collateral for a $100 loan and if you default, the pawn shop has way more than $100 to sell. Here online it's not so useful, as most collateral has to be digital. And then there's the issue of borrowers overvaluing what they've got.
I do not really agree with that idea either. Read the above comment.
Well, you would not really take that kinda loan unless you were REALLY REALLY poor.
Anyways read the above comment.
I think collateral makes more sense for lenders and that's why it is required, but the ones asking for the loans are always better off saving the money or actually putting that collateral to good use. Loans should always be avoided but that's not the point of the discussion, so collateral is a necessity.
you can use it for margin trading.
eg you have XRP and want to go long.
you borrow btc and give xrp as colleteral.
you buy more xrp with that btc.
if xrp goes up: you win. if xrp goes down: well... hopefully you got out soon enough ;-)
the lender should factor this in when accepting alts as colleteral
eg you have XRP and want to go long.
you borrow btc and give xrp as colleteral.
you buy more xrp with that btc.
if xrp goes up: you win. if xrp goes down: well... hopefully you got out soon enough ;-)
the lender should factor this in when accepting alts as colleteral
Collateral works better in the real world for things like title loans and such, and it's what pawn shops are based on. You give your wedding ring as collateral for a $100 loan and if you default, the pawn shop has way more than $100 to sell. Here online it's not so useful, as most collateral has to be digital. And then there's the issue of borrowers overvaluing what they've got.
I do not really agree with that idea either. Read the above comment.
Well, you would not really take that kinda loan unless you were REALLY REALLY poor.
Anyways read the above comment.
Collateral works better in the real world for things like title loans and such, and it's what pawn shops are based on. You give your wedding ring as collateral for a $100 loan and if you default, the pawn shop has way more than $100 to sell. Here online it's not so useful, as most collateral has to be digital. And then there's the issue of borrowers overvaluing what they've got.
Most of loan requests are a short term period. Would you sell you iPad if you know you are in need of money only for 1-2 days ?
You don't make any sense.
I could sell the iPad and make the money back in the same time, it would take me to pay back the loan.
So if I needed the loan for 1-2 days I would sell the iPad and make the money back in 20 days. 20 days is the same amount of time it would take for me to pay back the loan and get my iPad back.
As for security, I would say it's a ripoff.
The whole idea of 110-125% collateral does not make sense.
It's stupid no matter which way you argue it.
I think you are wrong with this. IRL pawnshop gives money but needs a collateral in case of default, that makes sense.
If you need money on a short term period, better put something to a pawnshop, get your things done and repay the loan back in order to get your collateral back.
In the case of a bitcoin loan, it's the same thing. Loaners need security in order to avoid getting scammed so they ask for collateral. Most of loan requests are a short term period. Would you sell you iPad if you know you are in need of money only for 1-2 days ?
The fact that many scammers operating in the bitcoin community have clearly an important impact on the whole collateral thing. Since you cannot trust everyone on the internet, it seems normal, in my honest opinion, to ask for a security in order to avoid getting scammed.
If you need money on a short term period, better put something to a pawnshop, get your things done and repay the loan back in order to get your collateral back.
In the case of a bitcoin loan, it's the same thing. Loaners need security in order to avoid getting scammed so they ask for collateral. Most of loan requests are a short term period. Would you sell you iPad if you know you are in need of money only for 1-2 days ?
The fact that many scammers operating in the bitcoin community have clearly an important impact on the whole collateral thing. Since you cannot trust everyone on the internet, it seems normal, in my honest opinion, to ask for a security in order to avoid getting scammed.
I know I will recieve a lot of criticism for this post, maybe even a few neg reps.
But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
.But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
Well people need money it`s true, but people also dont wish to renounce of their belonging. Its simple and very logical to me. No matter wich example u take u fill find that logic, after using that money they wish back what they give for collateral. Of course many people after some times decide to not take back, so for that u always ask bigger collateral then loan. I dont know why are u confused with this simple thing.
I'm not confused.
Its just stupid how people take a loan instead of selling their collateral.
People can just sell their iPads and use it for whatever pourpose they want, and they would earn back the money they sold that iPad for relatively quickly.
I don't think you understand the point of my post please reread.
Let me emphasize.
It's stupid how people take a loan instead of selling their collateral.
I know I will recieve a lot of criticism for this post, maybe even a few neg reps.
But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
.But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
Well people need money it`s true, but people also dont wish to renounce of their belonging. Its simple and very logical to me. No matter wich example u take u fill find that logic, after using that money they wish back what they give for collateral. Of course many people after some times decide to not take back, so for that u always ask bigger collateral then loan. I dont know why are u confused with this simple thing.
I know I will recieve a lot of criticism for this post, maybe even a few neg reps.
But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
But I believe I have a valid argument here.
Why borrow money when you could just sell the collateral in the first place?
The point of the collateral breaks down here, no matter what you say.
The reason why people borrow money is because they need/want that money. They do not want to sell what they have for the money the need/want.
It does not make sense and might even be a bit stupid to think something like,
"Oh, I need $500 to pay my bills…I have an iPad lying around let me just send that to a guy online and he will give me a LOAN, when he gets the iPad. If I pay him back he will send my iPad back to me!"
It does not make any logical sense whatsoever.
It's like buying $20 for $25.
I think the "no collateral no loan" sticky should be replaced by this post because it just makes more sense.
Maybe, just maybe it would make a bit more sense if the lender asked for <50% collateral but the 110%-115% is just plain ridiculous.
Not trolling here, I am being very serious.
Jump to: