Lending flags

[Csmiami]

Recently, I've been giving some thought to flags and "disposable" accounts used in the lending board to try to scam by defaulting the loan. It is my understanding that flag type 1 can be used when, even if there has been not malicious act; the intentions may be, and the flag acts as a warning. So for that same reason, I've decided to create the thread; so that instead of creating a new one for each user that looks "suspicious enough", and taking into consideration that the reason would be the same for all the flags; I see no harm in using a single one to place all of the flags, and using the post rather than the thread as a reference.

I'll leave a couple of examples on the post below this one; and will use this one to display a table of all the flags created, linking each flagged profile to the post of reference. Anyone can create a post to flag here; this is not just for myself.

Will this stop people creating disposable accounts? I hope so, but believe it not. However, I do believe that if the account gets burnt fast enough, scamming is less likely to happen.

Edit: I am not saying that every user who gets flagged is a scammer; if any user believes that has been incorretly flagged, that can be discussed here (as it will be the reference thread) and the rest of the users will decide whether to keep supporting it, oppose it, join it or whatever they wish

Thanks to suchmoon and Darkstar_ for pointing me out that this was rather doable referencing me to this thread of Steamtyme


List of flagged users:

USER	FLAG LINK	REFERENCE POST	RANK	STATUS
Blink	here	here	Newbie	Active
Dummyticketxo	here	here	Newbie	Active
otcrypto	here	here	Newbie	Active
ecommercecenter	here	here	Newbie	Pending support
ccprassl	here	here	Newbie	Pending support

Table may be a bit sloppy; I hope it improves with time

[1714880354]

1714880354

[1714880354]

1714880354

[1714880354]

1714880354

[Csmiami]

Example 1

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5170230.0

Old newbie account, recently wakes up, changes email and heads almost straight on to ask for a loan.

Loan Amount: $8
Loan Purpose: To buy a domain for my dropshipping site.
Loan Repay Amount: $10
Loan Repay Date:  2 weeks after the loan date.
Type of Collateral: BIFI https://explorer.bitcoinfile.org/address/1Q39RkSApMe9wYk2kKDCvb7dVqzXoNofoW
Escrow profile Link: Any trusted member would do You can hold the bifi if you have a private key to your bitcoin address. No need to download a wallet.
Bitcoin Address:1MSwSEH1ecc3TLGRycbbvVGhWkHHSWMzqk

Does he provide collateral? Yes; but when a bit research is done...

I think you're going to have a hard time finding anyone willing to accept BIFI as collateral.  Their are only two exchanges that list the coin, I've never heard of either, and the trade volume is pretty darn low as well.

Would I consider this high risk? Yes.

Some more "evidence"

Add the fact that OP -snip- deleted his Chinese posts, posts generic spammy questions in threads, and has thousands of old Bitcoin private keys, it's pretty unlikely to be ever paid back.

So, based on that, and some other evidence provided by other users, I do now create a type 1 flag; as I believe that dealing with the user is high risk (yes, I'm pretty sure that you people here on Rep board already know that; but I want to leave nothing at random).



Link to the flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=557



Example 2

Newbie asking for a loan with an invalid collateral.

Hello,

Loan Amount: 0.7 eth or equivalent in ETH
Reason for Taking out a Loan: I start some new project and I don't have way to pay my developer except from ETH
Amount to be repaid: 1 ETH ( i GET MY VISA THIS DATE AND ABLE TO BUY ETH)
Repayment Date: 10/08/2019
Type of Collateral: All files of my sites (Paid more than $1200 for developing this sophisticated site) - dummyticket.flights
eth address: 0x423D4DA7149b720D5C4Dd5E2DAFfe749271cd21A

He is told that his collateral is not valid due to various factors, and he replies telling how much it did cost to develop, yada yada....

Type of Collateral: All files of my sites

That's not how collateral works. It needs to be something that you would forfeit if you default on the loan. Files can be easily copied so can't serve as a collateral.

It can be copied it's not just few files! there is an API and PDF tamplete this worth to develop in any US company at least $3000.

Why not just wait for your chance to buy ETH so you won't pay interest?

It's just a few more days to go so I think your developer can patiently wait for that.

Unless.....

I can't delay immediate gratification my boy.

Type of Collateral: All files of my sites

That's not how collateral works. It needs to be something that you would forfeit if you default on the loan. Files can be easily copied so can't serve as a collateral.

It can be in Flippa or any other site easily this not some jumk.  You guys don't have clue in developing and how much systems like that cost do you

After that reply, user stops answering on the thread, a couple of other users say how likely he is to scam.... and suddenly and out of the blue, the OP gets edited

30

So back on topic; would I consider dealing with this user as high-risk? Definately

Link to the flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=558

[Csmiami]

Hi,

Liquid.com have a loan feature that allows users to loan their USD for a fixed %. I am looking for up to $200k usd to borrow on their platform. The deal is I'll pay $500 to you in any crypto you wish if you can loan me the $200k usd on the platform, this would only for be 24 hours, after which you can recall the loan from the platform as per their terms of service.

There is no risk to you, its a risk free $500 for 1 day loaning out $200k, if you already have money on that exchange great, if not then I'll cover all expenses for transfering USD in/out of the exchange. This can become an ongoing partnership.

If interested PM me, theres no fuckery involved here, I just need to long a position and need USD for their margin platform to do so.

New user, requesting an exhorbitantly big loan, assuring "there are no risks involved". No collateral is ever mentioned.

Flag link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=579

[Theb]

I only have supported your flag against otcrypto since the collateral he is giving is way off compared to the loan he is asking, 500$ for a 200,000$ loan is just way too much to even consider that amount as a collateral. The loaner is simply risking a big amount for just a fraction of his collateral. On Blink's case even though his offering of BIFI is valid and it's on the loaners end if he/she accepts it as a collateral even though only a few exchange accepts it, and you should consider the value of what he is asking and that's only 8$. The same thing can be said on Dummyticketxo's case it would really depend on how the potential loaner view's his collateral in terms of its value. They might be newbies asking for loan but I think only otcrypto has the highest chance to scam you.

[Csmiami]

I only have supported your flag against otcrypto since the collateral he is giving is way off compared to the loan he is asking, 500$ for a 200,000$ loan is just way too much to even consider that amount as a collateral. The loaner is simply risking a big amount for just a fraction of his collateral. On Blink's case even though his offering of BIFI is valid and it's on the loaners end if he/she accepts it as a collateral even though only a few exchange accepts it, and you should consider the value of what he is asking and that's only 8$. The same thing can be said on Dummyticketxo's case it would really depend on how the potential loaner view's his collateral in terms of its value. They might be newbies asking for loan but I think only otcrypto has the highest chance to scam you.

Up to a point I do actually agree with you. But since the "incident" I had with a "likely scammer", and some neg trust+flag left behind, I'm well aware that it's not about the amount to be scammed, but actually about the scam itslef (the situation was a whole misunderstanding caused by some devil-ish beer I had had). That's why even if it's still up to the lender to take the risk, a type 1 flag is okay to me; because the action itself is high-risk.

PS: I dont see you are supporting the flag

[Csmiami]

Hello everybody!

I am new to the forum and come from Austria!

I am looking for a loan in the form of BTC for the term of 6 months.

Pay good interest. The identification of the identity is not a problem for me, gladly also by video chat with passport.

Required BTC:
... at least 3 BTC

For more information, please send me an email:

info [at] local-hero.at

MFG Andreas

Brand new user, and the first thing he decides to do is to ask for 3 BTC, providing ID as collateral and wanting to be contacted by email rather than the forum

Flag link:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=583

[Theb]

I only have supported your flag against otcrypto since the collateral he is giving is way off compared to the loan he is asking, 500$ for a 200,000$ loan is just way too much to even consider that amount as a collateral. The loaner is simply risking a big amount for just a fraction of his collateral. On Blink's case even though his offering of BIFI is valid and it's on the loaners end if he/she accepts it as a collateral even though only a few exchange accepts it, and you should consider the value of what he is asking and that's only 8$. The same thing can be said on Dummyticketxo's case it would really depend on how the potential loaner view's his collateral in terms of its value. They might be newbies asking for loan but I think only otcrypto has the highest chance to scam you.

Up to a point I do actually agree with you. But since the "incident" I had with a "likely scammer", and some neg trust+flag left behind, I'm well aware that it's not about the amount to be scammed, but actually about the scam itslef (the situation was a whole misunderstanding caused by some devil-ish beer I had had). That's why even if it's still up to the lender to take the risk, a type 1 flag is okay to me; because the action itself is high-risk.

PS: I dont see you are supporting the flag

One personal incident with one scammer does not simply make other members scammers as well. Going in with your assumption would simply make all the newbies even asking for a loan a scammer even if they have a collateral to do so. I won't simply jump on that kind of judgement simply because of their rank or the collateral they are offering, if I am the one covering the loan I would simply just negotiate the amounts or ask for an escrow just to keep the deal working on both of our sides.

P.S.
Supported the flag again, it seems like I have supported it when the flag wasn't still visible on his profile.

[Csmiami]

One personal incident with one scammer does not simply make other members scammers as well. Going in with your assumption would simply make all the newbies even asking for a loan a scammer even if they have a collateral to do so. I won't simply jump on that kind of judgement simply because of their rank or the collateral they are offering, if I am the one covering the loan I would simply just negotiate the amounts or ask for an escrow just to keep the deal working on both of our sides.

P.S.
Supported the flag again, it seems like I have supported it when the flag wasn't still visible on his profile.

The personal incident was just to point out that flags should be placed by the action, rather than the amount.

And I actually agree with you, it's not okay to assume all newbies are scammers. I have discouraged that same attitude in Meta some times. On the other hand, all those actions (valid collateral, escrow,....) are taken because lending to a newbie/brand new account is risky AF. If on the OP no collateral/escriw is mentioned, I consider a type 1 flag OK, since the action is high risk. If upon further discussion OP agrees to use escrow/provides valid collateral, I would stop supporting the flag

PS: support still not showing, I may PM theymos as this might be a bug?

[LoyceV]

PS: support still not showing, I may PM theymos as this might be a bug?

I've tested it from LoyceBot: I can support a flag and delete my opinion several times in a row.

[Csmiami]

I've tested it from LoyceBot: I can support a flag and delete my opinion several times in a row.

I believe that can be done, even manually, but since the user has stated twice that has supported the flag

I only have supported your flag against otcrypto ----

P.S.
Supported the flag again, it seems like I have supported it when the flag wasn't still visible on his profile.

and yet he has showed up in none of them, I don't think someone would say that is going to do/has done something twice and lie about it

[Csmiami]

Hello everybody!

Who could grant me a BTC loan? Search this way 0.1 BTC to 0.5 BTC for 2 months.

Offer the following:
• Passport verification and video chat
• Contract
• Repayment for 0.1 BTC = 0.2 BTC *
• Repayment for 0.5 BTC = 0.8 BTC *

* Value as of 06.08. = 10.471,95 EUR
• If the value at the time of repayment is higher, the 0,2 BTC or 0,8 BTC will be paid.
• If the price is lower than the price, the BTC will be filled by daily value.

The BTC are traded, have a guarantee on my side (also personally known) and can also guarantee the repayment!

Contact:
ccprassl@gmail.com

Another brand new asking for a loan offering ID as collateral, with "high guaranteed return". Very similar to the last flag

Flag link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=588

[Theb]

I only have supported your flag against otcrypto ----

P.S.
Supported the flag again, it seems like I have supported it when the flag wasn't still visible on his profile.

and yet he has showed up in none of them, I don't think someone would say that is going to do/has done something twice and lie about it

Well that's weird I already supported the flag two times already. The first one was through the link where the flag wasn't still visible to his profile and the second one was when the flag is visible to his profile and he already got tagged. This is already my third time now so I'll be providing a screenshot as a proof that I did supported the flag. Also I'm not deleting and withdrawing my support if you may ask.

[HCP]

I can confirm that you are showing up in the flag for otcrypto for me:


You are not showing in any of the other flags, so I'm assuming your original comment still stands?

I only have supported your flag against otcrypto