Urgently wanted loan to pay Education Fees

[Csmiami]

Every lender has the right to put his/her/their terms. It's up to them if the no collateral loan is worth the risk of getting scammed, rather than trust-farming (what I believe you are suggesting here).

Right, lenders have the right to lend on their own terms as they wish.

The point I was making is that the OPs loan request is not automatically a scam attempt on its face. If someone lends to him, the OP may not repay the loan. But it is not a foregone conclusion that he will run away with whatever money he receives.

Thought you were talking about Darkstar there for given no collateral loans :/

Potential lenders can choose to ignore my neg. As a DT member it’s my job to warn others about potentially shady users. This loan request is imo untrustworthy.
I haven’t done a flag.

Agreed, potential lenders can ignore the whole trading/trust history, but I don't think being part of DT forces you to go around the forum as a "vigilante" tagging possible scams. Examples:


This is 99.9% scam and should be tagged as so:

Hello, and sorry for bothering you all.

I need money to make a surgery I don't know what should I do, I believe that maybe no one will believing me but I am honest and will return the money
in time with profit if this is not urgently I will not ask. I will work to give the money back  this is the last place I can go to get a loan because no one

will give me money.

Thanks

This may be a scam, but it's reasonable enough to consider it.

Request For a No Collateral Loan

Required BTC Amount: 0.05btc
Reason: Education Loan
Estimated Loan Duration: 15 days
BTC Address: 1Jx7LFDLnehLiZKux1wHEhgWDdtAEzmE2q

Signed Message:

---Address---
1Jx7LFDLnehLiZKux1wHEhgWDdtAEzmE2q

---Message---
This is susila_bai from bitcointalk, applying for a 0.05 BTC loan.Today is 18th of June 2019

---Signature---
IHFZpBvZgleeByCAR6zo5t9EHa4SpkMDVUEcFSU+VT4Ie1T9UrKzlgzLSfvAib93iX/U60UrD31TlOmAveBlGBQ=

In the event of tagging it, a neutral tag stating your thought would be more appropriate here (in my opinion), because like Darkstar says, this is rather "borderline"


This thread should be locked, as it's starting to derail and go off-topic

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Potential lenders can choose to ignore my neg. As a DT member it’s my job to warn others about potentially shady users. This loan request is imo untrustworthy.

I haven’t done a flag.

No, it's your job to leave accurate trust ratings and add people with accurate trust ratings/good judgement onto your trust list.
I left a counter. I think negative trust should be used when the request is entirely unreasonable, and 0.05BTC is *maybe* borderline.

I believe that a no collateral loan request leaves a high % chance of a loan default hence my negative trust rating.
This guy has no trade history & I definitely wouldn’t trust him.

You’ve left a positive rating, even if it is a counter I don’t agree with it, sorry.

Edited -

Legit neg imo -

[DarkStar_]

Potential lenders can choose to ignore my neg. As a DT member it’s my job to warn others about potentially shady users. This loan request is imo untrustworthy.

I haven’t done a flag.

No, it's your job to leave accurate trust ratings and add people with accurate trust ratings/good judgement onto your trust list.
I left a counter. I think negative trust should be used when the request is entirely unreasonable, and 0.05BTC is *maybe* borderline.

I believe that a no collateral loan request leaves a high % chance of a loan default hence my negative trust rating.
This guy has no trade history & I definitely wouldn’t trust him.

I could see why you’d leave him a neutral rating but you’ve left a positive rating, even if it is a counter I don’t agree with it, sorry.

I think your negative is unfair so thus it's a positive to cancel out the negative. I personally wouldn't lend to him either, but I don't think that it's such an outlandish amount so that it immediately screams 'scam'. You're free to believe what you want to believe, and I'm free to believe what I want to believe.

[Vod]

This is not fair I just decently asking loan and nothing and I am getting negative tag.

Life is not fair.

It won't be removed simply because you complain.   Try being proactive.

For the next month or so, engage other members asking for no collateral loans, and explain why it's usually a scam.  If you can be remorseful, you may get a second chance. 

[Csmiami]

Edited -

Legit neg imo -

Not sure at all it can be seen as "High-Risk"

I believe the positive trust left here is both counter--productive and a bit childish, it simply makes no sense and makes less sense after this

I personally wouldn't lend to him either

[DarkStar_]

Not sure at all it can be seen as "High-Risk"

I believe the positive trust left here is both counter--productive and a bit childish, it simply makes no sense and makes less sense after this

I personally wouldn't lend to him either

lemipawa borrowed 0.05BTC from shasan a while back. I wouldn't have lent to them either, but I'm not going to leave a negative trust for that.

[Csmiami]

lemipawa borrowed 0.05BTC from shasan a while back. I wouldn't have lent to them either, but I'm not going to leave a negative trust for that.

I'm not saying you would, I'm just saying that the positive trust here is completely absurd, and that the negative trust is a bit overkill.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Not sure at all it can be seen as "High-Risk"

I believe the positive trust left here is both counter--productive and a bit childish, it simply makes no sense and makes less sense after this

I personally wouldn't lend to him either

lemipawa borrowed 0.05BTC from shasan a while back. I wouldn't have lent to them either, but I'm not going to leave a negative trust for that.

Hypothetically, how many out of 10, 0.05BTC no collateral loans from accounts without positive trust & trading history would probably get paid back?
I’d say there’s a high % some wouldn’t so my reasoning for the neg is to warn potential lenders.

This has been done to death now though, I’m not posting in this thread again now.

[DarkStar_]

Ehh, I deleted my counter. I still think LFC_Bitcoin's trust feedback is overkill though.

edit: I would consider this moderate risk - not enough for a 'high risk' tag, but not enough for me a leave a 'this user is not a scammer' tag.

[Csmiami]

Ehh, I deleted my counter. I still think LFC_Bitcoin's trust feedback is overkill though.

And so do I, but he is the only one who can change that. From the 3 of us he is (I believe) the least active in the Lending board, so I'd ask him again to reconsider leaving a neutral trust rather than neg, but again, that is only up to him.

Now, let's let this thread die (OP please lock it to prevent further damage).

[DireWolfM14]

Ehh, I deleted my counter. I still think LFC_Bitcoin's trust feedback is overkill though.

edit: I would consider this moderate risk - not enough for a 'high risk' tag, but not enough for me a leave a 'this user is not a scammer' tag.

I can't help but agree with DarkStar and  LFC in this case.  LFC is entitled to leave feedback as he sees fit, and I agree this seems like a higher risk loan than I would feel comfortable with.  Having said that, the feedback is a bit over the top, and I would not have left it. 

I think most lenders accepting no collateral loans here understand the inherent risk, and just like anything else in the crypto world risk only what you can afford to lose.

[marlboroza]

Not sure at all it can be seen as "High-Risk"

I believe the positive trust left here is both counter--productive and a bit childish, it simply makes no sense and makes less sense after this

I personally wouldn't lend to him either

lemipawa borrowed 0.05BTC from shasan a while back. I wouldn't have lent to them either, but I'm not going to leave a negative trust for that.

Shasan has been scammed several times already. For example, this hero member scammed him for 3+ times lower amount, or, 0.015BTC. It was also no collateral loan so I wouldn't say 0.05BTC is "borderline".

Difference between lemipawa and OP here is that lemipawa has trading experience and they signed message which they used in 2015, in my opinion risk is a way lower but still exist.

edited link.