Any idea when BTC-e reserves will be refilled?

Sorry for not replying earlier, I previously missed your post...  Yes, I would consider a payout but there would be a fairly large markup (fee) - around 7% if you deposited through me or 10% if not.

Let me know if interested,
Thaddeus

Thank you. 

Someone (not me) is soaked on interest and asks you to fix the root cause (admitting it was their own fault in part) and you respond that they are "too lazy" to reserve funds like they "should have."

The same question comes up over and over again and respond that you are "tired" of it.  Then proceed me accuse me purposely distorting the issue when I am only trying to help.

You complain that people only post when things go wrong.

You ignore posts/large parts of posts you don't like.

And all of this is just from the last week.

Telling people that everything is their fault and insisting you can't change anything because the system works perfectly and it is just the users who don't understand it is not being helpful by anyone's definition and is being rude by most people's.  I have previously defended you against criticism saying you "have no clue what you are doing and act like a child."  Unfortunately, I now understand where that criticism was coming from.  I still LOVE the system and I still think you and Raphael are very honest people, but I am starting to lose confidence in your abilities to actually run the business.

I don't know why you feel it necessary to be rude to your customers.  I personally don't even care about this issue, because it doesn't affect me.  However, I noticed many people making the same complaint and every time you just tell them they don't understand how the system works with varying degrees of rudeness.  If you don't like answering customer complaints you should either change the way the system works (several viable solutions have been offered by those who complained) or get out of business.  I was trying to help you out and you treat me like an annoying idiot and act like you can't be bothered to improve things? Geez.


You say that a buffer would violate a "contact" (of which there is none to begin with), but clearly there must be a buffer of some sort or you couldn't have used the funds even one second later as 23:59:59 remaining on a loan is not sufficient for a 24:00:00 loan.  By your logic, you are already violating the "contract"...  Maybe the existing buffer is only 1 minute, who knows.  Whatever it is, it certainly doesn't seem to be long enough based on the frequent complaints. 

You either don't understand the issue, you don't understand how your own system works, or you are purposely making up non-issues to justify your stubbornness.  With or without a buffer, the borrower pays interest for the amount of time they use funds, just like always.  No one "pays" for the extra time unless it is used.  If a person reserves a 7 day loan and opens a 7 day position 5 minutes later, they pay (at maximum) 7 days and 5 minutes of interest.  If they close it after precisely 27 hours, they pay 27:05 of interest.  This is exactly the same as if the person reserves a 8 day loan and opens a 7 day position 5 minutes later.

All I am saying is that you could avoid the frequent misunderstandings by making a "7 day max" offer really "7 days and 3 hours".  I guarantee no lender would ever and I mean ever complain because their "7 day" offer was held for 7 days and 3 hours, while receiving 7 days and 3 hours worth of interest. 

Yes, it is quite clear that if someone understands how your system works they can avoid the issue by selecting 8 days instead of 7.  That assumes the lenders are offering 8 days instead of 7, which rarely is the case.  It is also quite clear that few borrowers and few lenders expect the system to work the way you have it set up.  That is why borrowers complain and non 1/7/14/30/60 day lending offers are rare.  You can either fix the system to do what people expect it to, or you can keep explaining the every new user who encounters it and complains (other might just get frustrated and never tell you about it.)  From your demeanor, you obviously do not enjoy responding to the same question over and over again.  Thus I suggest you change the way things work.

For crying out loud, I think everyone understands *why* you can't reserve funds for 7 days and then use them on a 7-day position, etc.  The thing is people do not *expect* it to work that way and would be easy to fix.  I don't know why you insist the half dozen (or more) people who've complained about this are wrong to expect the system to work one way.  Wouldn't it be a lot easier just to fix the system to match what people expect rather than constantly having to explain to your customer why it doesn't do what they expect/want it to?

And incidentally, it is actually impossible for anyone to use my 1-day 10% loan.  If you try to open a 1-day position you will get the VIR even though it is close to 60%.  There is literally no way for anyone to use a 1-day fixed rate loan, and yet you insist this is not a problem.    Previously you complained that people were "too lazy" to go to the lending screen, but if they do they might not be able to get the loan length they want because they (basically) will lose a day off the loan length the second they accept it.  

The problem is that if you reserve a one day loan, it is impossible to use it.  If you reserve a 7 day loan, you can't use it on a 7 day position, and so on.  Intuitively, if you reserve a 7 day loan, you expect it to be usable for a 7 day position.  I realize by the time you go to open the position there are only 6 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes left so you can't, but this is not what one would expect to happen.  Sukrim is asking you to make the software go by calendar days such that if I reserve some funds for 7 days at noon I can use them up until midnight to open a 7 day position.  I offered that it would be easier (i.e. less new programming) to make the software secretly add a few hours so that one has time to act on the loan.  Thus, if I reserve funds for 7 days, I am really reserving them for 7 days and X hours.  This way I could then use the reserved funds to open a position of same length as the loan, as one would intuitively expect.


To make things more clear, I have added a $10 10% 1 day loan offer to the market.  Go to the lending page and reserve it, then go to the trading page.  You will find you have no reserves to open a 1 day position.  This is the problem that Sukrim (and several other people recently) have complained about.

How is "works after 2.5h but not 4h" worse than "fails to work 1 minute after borrowing"?  A 24 hour buffer would also work, as would any other number.  The only thing that completely fails is a 0 second buffer, which is what we have now.

This is a common complaint.  If a user requests a loan for 7 days (as an example) and then goes to use it 1 minute later, they can't select 7 days on the trading screen.  While technically correct, this defies common sense.  The simpliest solution would be just to covertly add a few hours to the loan length on loan offers such that a lender offer of 7 days is technically 7 days and 3 hours, a borrower request of 1 day is really 27 hours, and so on.  I think doing so would end most of these complaints with very minimal programming changes.

  What is on what list?


On a side note, it occurs to me that since VIR is no longer equal to the average rate of loan in use that it can no longer be (directly) looked up.  Is that correct?

From the OP:


Simply put, you are getting a loan based on the value of USD (or whatever currency) but paying in BTC.  If you borrow $300 of BTC at 10% you pay back in $330 of BTC.  Instead of the number of BTC at payback being determined, the value of the BTC is.  If BTC rises significantly durign the loan period, you may end up owing less BTC than you borrowed.  OTOH, if it falls a lot you may owe 2x or 3x as much BTC.  

Whatever one wants to call it, such a loan is exactly equivalent to a USD loan, but with the funds delivered and returned in BTC.

Right, which means the loan is actually a USD (or Euro or whatever) loan however you want to spin it.  The value of BTC never enters into it; is just payable in BTC.  This is not a hedge.  A hedge is a position that protects against the risk in another position.  A true hedge would be to lend 10 BTC and then go sell short 10 BTC at $X, or more likely to buy an option to sell 10 BTC at $X.  Posting a link to the Wikipedia article on hedge doesn't make what you are offering a hedge. (Incidentally, from the very first line of said article: "A hedge is an investment position intended to offset potential losses/gains that may be incurred by a companion investment."  There is no companion investment in what you are doing.)

But whether you are offering is properly called a hedge or not is not really important.  However, you failed to answer actual question in my post, so I went to the site and did it myself: it appears that the buyer decides payback calculation when they create a loan.

I don't think this is actually hedging at all, but rather allowing loans denominated in other currencies but settled in BTC...

Who decides on the "hedge"? The borrower when creating the listing or the lender when funding?

If VIR is always chosen first (i.e. even when higher than the lowest fixed rate), over time nearly all lenders will switch to VIR.  In fact, this is what already has happened apparently, and is what caused the huge surge in interest charged when a few traders (accidentally or otherwise) accepted very high fixed rates.

Yes, I meant by manually borrowing.  It did not even occur to me automatic buy orders were occurring.  Automatic buy order+unknown interest rate is potential suicide, so a feature to pick maximum loan rate would seem essential.  (Or maybe system should block, or at least warn, about to use of "stop" orders to open positions... They really are intended for closing a position, hence the name stop as in "stop losses".)


I agree it is stupid that VIR loans get preference.  For example, I noticed that a 200%/year 60 day offer was just sitting there while a 1000+% VIR offer was being bought up at some point.  At minimum, the fixed rate should be preferred if it is lower than the VIR (which in turn would lower the VIR for later buyers.)  I am shocked that is not the case - I assumed it was a technical glitch, not a feature, when I saw it happen.

There has got to be some sort of problem with the way the variable rate is calculated (unless maybe 90% of all loans are variable) as the rate has now dropped to 712% on a <$2000USD loaned difference... 

If there is truly nothing wrong with the calculation, I strongly suggest traders stop using variable rate loans as you can really get screwed by small amount of USD lent at very high rates it seems.

I meant the scammer goofing up and revealing himself.

Darn.  I was hoping this was the result of some new security feature(s).  Guess it was just someone goofing up then.  On a side note, I see that the multi-account scam I turned in a couple weeks ago hasn't had the accounts linked...

I see that some multi-account scammers are being joined into one account now. It's a move in the right direction, but it sure would have been nice if BTCJam had caught these people BEFORE they ran away with investors money under 5 or 10 different accounts.  Obviously, you have evidence tying these accounts together, so its pretty disappointing that you haven't acted on it until now.

Except they won't really become "well known" if BTC Jam shields all their info from the public.  Just saying...