As far as I know, currently HYIPs end up in the gambling subforum. There is some cross-over between securities and high-yield deposits, and there is a growing database of information related to "credit ratings" for product issuers. One of the additions to that system is business transparency, and I have been considering making a rating a requirement to be listed in the WPW thread to help separate some of the more reliable operators from some less reliable ones.
I'm not quite sure why gene is convinced everything is a scam, and it is pretty obvious that many are not. However, having been effectively labelled a scammer by gene I presume anything I contribute he will dismiss without reason.
I think it's fairly obvious that many of the deposit schemes on here are legit - I wouldn't have a deposit with you if I thought you were going to disappear
It's also pretty obvious that some of them aren't.
I like the idea of having ratings to separate out the lending offers, but obviously it needs to be transparent.
Personally the criteria I use when making BTC deposits are:
-Is publicly identifiable (is it known who this person really is?)
-Clear evidence of ongoing business.
-Viable balance sheet.
The way I'd do it is to, say, cap ratings for lenders that aren't identifiable at something like B-, then base the rest on balance sheet etc.
The other potential issue is conflict of interest.
If lenders are paying for these ratings there is that potential, but I think if balance sheets and such are made public then it's not such a big issue for now. Bitcoin accounts are normally pretty easy to understand, it's not like real-world finance where half the derivatives contracts are just intentionally as convoluted as possible...
