WITHDRAWN

[Lauda]

personal matter between the two persons (knightkon & lauda)

It is most certainly not a person matter. I had no idea who this person is, nor what their business is/was.

What I could say in this case is that the accounts served as collateral do not belong to scammer or spammer but to Knightkon Who paid them with his own money And who have changed ownership with a signed message; So the feedback sent to these accounts was not received by the people who deserved it But by this innocent person who is Knightkon With whom I have no relationship from far or near.

This makes the discussion a global thing, and not localized: If an account that has been neg. rated changes hands, does that invalidate all previous negative ratings? I will strongly say no. If we start doing this, this will open a lot of windows for potential abuse. The most simple solution to this problem is to not take accounts as collateral, period. 2 Hypothetical scenarios:
1) You give out a loan to account X without validating whether they're a scammer, spammer, etc. Sometime between loan begin date, and loan ending date (or even after) the user get at least 1 negative rating. User defaults on loan. Did the person leaving the rating scam you?
2) You give out a loan to account X which is part of a group of farmed accounts. Some moderator/admin bans that account sometime after loan default. Did the staff scam you? [2]

All my respect for you @Lauda but you should review this situation because it is the busenesse of an innocent pesone who is at risk.

I have, several times now. At least I am not aggressively orientated towards the other side.

And I apologize if I am wrong.

No need to apologize for making your point in a constructive and non aggressive matter, regardless of whether it is right or wrong.
[2] - This is actually a somewhat dangerous situation. You could implicate yourself into a web of farmed accounts/spammers which could end up getting you permanently banned as well.
Tl;dr: Taking accounts as collateral is a bad idea.

[1714193278]

1714193278

[1714193278]

1714193278

[1714193278]

1714193278

[1714193278]

1714193278

[Gunthar]

I didnt want to get involved in this thread as well but at this point, since i'm a lender, there is something i'm interested about

Taking accounts as collateral is a bad idea.

I have some points:

• My very personal opinion is that Lauda is right and OP is wrong: he didnt tag those accounts because collateral ready to be sold, but for other reasons and i'm sorry OP but it is the risk of our business and you should be aware of it. When you take an account as collateral you do it with a public signed message so: how would you ever think to hide it and be able to sell it without expecting a tag soon or later? Shield docet...
• As i said many times, i run my business as a "mature" person: when you decide to lend out your money you must know the risks. One of the risks to take accounts as collateral is being tagged as account farmer/encouraging accounts trading. This is a fact. So the "maturity" of my business is the attempt to use an account as collateral only from people that would not ruin their reputation for a few bucks we are para-lending here. The final goal of a lending business is to have positive earnings > defaulted loans.
  More explained here:
  

  Do as i do: dont sell the accounts. Put a signature of your service in defaulted loans accounts: you will get more customers by that advertising and will stop supporting account farmers.
  Think on long terms about your business...
  References:
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674878.msg16818586#msg16818586
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1674878.msg16818509#msg16818509
  ~Gun
  

So my question (based on the list above):
Taking accounts as collateral is a bad idea if you are going to feed the account market selling all yoru defaults. If you look at it like i said, yiou dont need to sell those accounts for multiple reasons:

• As long as you gain experience in that, you will get less defaulters in your business
• You can use those few defaulted accounts with your signature advertising your service and so spreading the voice about yoru business

I'd like to underline the concept once more: if i was a DT and i would see you run yoru lending busines with the only purpose to acquire collateral accounts and then sell them, i woudnt only tag your "bought" accounts: i would tag you as well.
~Gun

[Quickseller]

In my opinion, the only reason the accounts have value is because of the signature campaigns.  If someone purchases an account so they can earn more in a signature campaign, it would be a good investment, which is the only reason I would think one would want to purchase an account.  Lets work together and prevent the accounts from being sold for scamming purposes by all loaners agreeing to neutral tag every account the day it is sold as being sold on this day.  This tag would ideally have something stating in it that the account was sold and that no previous trust should be considered.  To give it purpose, I suggest that all ligament tags should have a reference back to the collateral loan where the account was lost.  I understand how account sales give scammers the opportunity to get over on people, but this would warn people which accounts have been purchased and which accounts were not.   

What most are not understanding, no offence high ranking members; however, anything can have a value to someone else.  It does not matter if it has a value to you or if it does not, if someone else has a purpose for it, then it has a value.   How many people throw away their plastic milk jugs after they are done being used?  Better yet, how many people send them to recycling?  Why do you do it?  Most people will answer because it is garbage.  Now if someone told you how you could come across 100,000 of those a day with very little effort and each one of them are worth $.012 USD, would throw them all away?  Most people would answer no.  The same goes with the accounts, they will always have value as long as someone else has a use for them. 

Lenders beware - if you accept an account as collateral, it might get neg feedback due to the actions of a previous owner.

This is not the case of someone scamming then selling their account via taking out a loan with their account as collateral. This is a case of the OP accepting accounts as collateral the borrower defaulting on the loan then Lauda leaving negative trust for said accounts. There was no scam nor scam attempt.

If someone has an account, and needs money, why shouldn't they be able to sell their account? (Which is what giving it up as collateral is doing). What do you think will happen if someone in need of money is unable to sell their account and is desperate?

I think KWH's policy is the most fair, although it does cause some issues.

[Heutenamos]

Selectively punishing people who take it as collateral is like kicking a man when he is down - pretty dirty. Just ban it altogether and far fewer accounts will be traded in this way.

Did you read what was written in this thread? I had no idea that these accounts were collateral at the time, ergo it is not selectively punishing anyone.

Don't accept accounts as collateral, simple fix.

Indeed.

wow , just wow .

[Lone Shark]

Sayonara lending market.

From what has been said here, this would be a dangerous precedent that would result in an implied restriction and discouragement to the lenders not to accept Bitcointalk accounts as collateral. From what I understood from reading everything in the lending section stickies, loan threads, and other informative threads, they encourage lenders to require collateral. One of the best collateral suggested in these texts is Bitcointalk accounts.

Now, here comes a thread questioning actions of senior members tagging these accounts that were left as collateral and the owner has defaulted. Do you guys mean that we as lenders, we should just consider these accounts as worthless because we should not dispose by selling them and consider the loan lost as a loss on our part?

Knightkon has been in the business of lending for quite some time, for sure he has had his fair share of defaulted and repaid loans. He for sure has checked the accounts thoroughly and ensured that he would get paid. However, there are circumstances that lenders cannot foresee. Like the borrower not paying for some shitty reason, we cannot even fathom at times (you would not even believe what they tell us when they can no longer pay the loan, which is really frustrating). And now here you guys go, and tag the collateral left with us. The only chance we can regain what we lost and you guys just simply leave a negative trust. You easily do this, because this is not your livelihood. Lenders don't really want these accounts, in all honesty. We want our money back, but how can we when the borrower has already lost our money in whatever he is doing and don't want to pay us back. So we must result in selling the collateral so we can recover from our loss. Is that so bad? Is this not business?

We just want also co-exist within the bounds of the rules implemented. If you guys really want to stop account selling and spammers/scammers taking hold of these accounts, why not make a permanent solution? Ban the selling and transferring of accounts! This is the only solutions to this. Because leaving a red trust really destroys an account and makes it worthless. No one wants to trust an account with red trust; that's the truth. But getting a red trust from doing something which has been heavily debated as legal and valid in this forum, now that is unfair.

[Lauda]

wow , just wow .

What are you trying to imply here? That it's a surprise that I agree with KWH or that their stance on the matter is as stated?

From what has been said here, this would be a dangerous precedent that would result in an implied restriction and discouragement to the lenders not to accept Bitcointalk accounts as collateral.

Did you even read anything written by me? The account was not tagged because it was collateral. I did not even know about this loan at the time of the negative rating, nor at the time of the PM (OP did not provide the link at that time).

Because leaving a red trust really destroys an account and makes it worthless. No one wants to trust an account with red trust; that's the truth. But getting a red trust from doing something which has been heavily debated as legal and valid in this forum, now that is unfair.

Yet you took in an account with 3 previous negative trust ratings as collateral. Interesting.

[BlockEye]

I don't agree with account selling and never will. However it has been confirmed on many occasions by other staff members that it is allowed and there are many sellers in the digital services trading section that get away with it daily. Selectively punishing people who take it as collateral is like kicking a man when he is down - pretty dirty. Just ban it altogether and far fewer accounts will be traded in this way.

Don't accept accounts as collateral, simple fix.

Accounts is the best collateral on this forum, we can't denied it especially when the account rank is high. I'm not against about tagging account with neutral feedback, but i'm just comcerned on how lenders will gonna sell the account to recover the lost. The lenders is not expecting that the borrower will be defaulted. I think it is better to have a private list of defaulted account on loan and let someone on DT monitor on this list as well as where this account will gonna transfer, in that case we can controll scam attempts

[Lone Shark]

wow , just wow .

What are you trying to imply here? That it's a surprise that I agree with KWH or that their stance on the matter is as stated?

From what has been said here, this would be a dangerous precedent that would result in an implied restriction and discouragement to the lenders not to accept Bitcointalk accounts as collateral.

Did you even read anything written by me? The account was not tagged because it was collateral. I did not even know about this loan at the time of the negative rating, nor at the time of the PM (OP did not provide the link at that time).

Because leaving a red trust really destroys an account and makes it worthless. No one wants to trust an account with red trust; that's the truth. But getting a red trust from doing something which has been heavily debated as legal and valid in this forum, now that is unfair.

Yet you took in an account with 3 previous negative trust ratings as collateral. Interesting.

I predicted this was going to be brought up. In retrospect, I would say accepting that account was a newbie mistake on my part, and I have taken that one as a loss on my part.

It is the future transactions that lenders will do, is what I fear will be prejudiced if we can no longer dispose of the accounts we held as collateral.

So in light of these question, what do you guys propose us lenders do with an account left with us as guarantees for loans we give out? Or would you propose us lenders not to take accounts as collateral anymore?

[Lauda]

I predicted this was going to be brought up. In retrospect, I would say accepting that account was a newbie mistake on my part, and I have taken that one as a loss on my part.

Of course it is going to get brought up as it is relevant and there's no reason to hide it.

It is the future transactions that lenders will do, is what I fear will be prejudiced if we can no longer dispose of the accounts we held as collateral.
So in light of these question, what do you guys propose us lenders do with an account left with us as guarantees for loans we give out? Or would you propose us lenders not to take accounts as collateral anymore?

IMHO you guys are on the error by accepting such accounts in the first place. There is zero guarantee that the account will not receive negative trust between the loan begin and time of ending/default (the same applies for forum bans, e.g. if you accept a sig. spamming account). This is a risk factor that has been seemingly overlooked.

Accounts is the best collateral on this forum, we can't denied it especially when the account rank is high.

No.

[actmyname]

It is the future transactions that lenders will do, is what I fear will be prejudiced if we can no longer dispose of the accounts we held as collateral.

So in light of these question, what do you guys propose us lenders do with an account left with us as guarantees for loans we give out? Or would you propose us lenders not to take accounts as collateral anymore?

Simply put, you should have a plan before you accept anything from a person for collateral. Suppose I decided to take credit cards as collateral (hypothetical example). Should I be blamed when I try to sell them, or can I blame the person who is preventing me from selling the cards? Although accounts are not necessarily like that, it should still be noted that both of these examples negatively impact the market. Account sales lead to spamming or scamming. There are but a few examples of times that they are not like that, but I'm willing to bet that 95% of account sales lead to either one or the other. Are you willing to contribute to that?

And by preventing the collateral of being an account, that would be a factor in the decrease of account sales disguised as loans. Scammers would be forced to either ask for a low no-collateral loan (which I assume that they want to avoid) or be rejected by the loan provider. If this is implemented by loan providers, individuals that have collateral like stable altcoins (oxymoron for 90%+ of them) are your market, along with smaller loan requests.

[BlockEye]

It is the future transactions that lenders will do, is what I fear will be prejudiced if we can no longer dispose of the accounts we held as collateral.

So in light of these question, what do you guys propose us lenders do with an account left with us as guarantees for loans we give out? Or would you propose us lenders not to take accounts as collateral anymore?

If this is implemented by loan providers, individuals that have collateral like stable altcoins (oxymoron for 90%+ of them) are your market, along with smaller loan requests.

Alt coin as a collateral is a good idea, but there is also risk on it especially when the loan has long time period, The value of the coin might deflate, because the term stable on alt coin trading is impossible. Because even bitcoin that well known as established coin faced a big price dump also. And if that happens, I think the borrower might decide to default the collateral.

[actmyname]

Alt coin as a collateral is a good idea, but there is also risk on it especially when the loan has long time period, The value of the coin might deflate, because the term stable on alt coin trading is impossible. Because even bitcoin that well known as established coin faced a big price dump also. And if that happens, I think the borrower might decide to default the collateral.

Keep in mind that we're considering maybe 1-4 week long loans, and the relative stability of the altcoin is based completely on the discretion of the loan provider - like every single loan request.

There can also be conditional statements, for example: if the altcoin's value reaches a point where selling the collateral will return only 110% of the loan request, then the collateral will be sold immediately.

These failsafes may possibly stop potential threats (though it should be stated that there can be mass dumpings). Again, discretion.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

wow , just wow .

What are you trying to imply here? That it's a surprise that I agree with KWH or that their stance on the matter is as stated?

From what has been said here, this would be a dangerous precedent that would result in an implied restriction and discouragement to the lenders not to accept Bitcointalk accounts as collateral.

Did you even read anything written by me? The account was not tagged because it was collateral. I did not even know about this loan at the time of the negative rating, nor at the time of the PM (OP did not provide the link at that time).

Because leaving a red trust really destroys an account and makes it worthless. No one wants to trust an account with red trust; that's the truth. But getting a red trust from doing something which has been heavily debated as legal and valid in this forum, now that is unfair.

Yet you took in an account with 3 previous negative trust ratings as collateral. Interesting.

I predicted this was going to be brought up. In retrospect, I would say accepting that account was a newbie mistake on my part, and I have taken that one as a loss on my part.

It is the future transactions that lenders will do, is what I fear will be prejudiced if we can no longer dispose of the accounts we held as collateral.

So in light of these question, what do you guys propose us lenders do with an account left with us as guarantees for loans we give out? Or would you propose us lenders not to take accounts as collateral anymore?

You asked me via PM to remove my feedback on that noob account, and I said no.  We discussed it, but I was hoping you'd start a topic like this so we could all talk about it. 

I don't support account sales, and taking them as collateral for loans I don't support either.  You trying to sell that account is only going to help the scammers and shitposters, and whilst the feedback I left might not apply anymore, if I removed it I would only be adding another negative for it being sold. 

You should have known that douchenozzle was going to abandon that account.  You didn't do it out of the kindness of your heart, you did it for profit and you got burned.  As I said in my PM, I respect your position but next time you'll know better.

[DarkStar_]

Keep in mind that we're considering maybe 1-4 week long loans

I have a active loan with altcoin collateral with a 3 month period  

There can also be conditional statements, for example: if the altcoin's value reaches a point where selling the collateral will return only 110% of the loan request, then the collateral will be sold immediately.

Most loans have these terms attached, and should to reduce the risk a lot for the lender.

These failsafes may possibly stop potential threats (though it should be stated that there can be mass dumpings). Again, discretion.

In case of a mass dump, you could keep your coins on an exchange, and set up a stop order where if the price reaches X, you automatically place a sell order at X price. Pretty safe if the first X is 110% value, and the second one is 100% loan value (will sell for higher if possible, but creates good margin).

IMHO you guys are on the error by accepting such accounts in the first place. There is zero guarantee that the account will not receive negative trust between the loan begin and time of ending/default (the same applies for forum bans, e.g. if you accept a sig. spamming account). This is a risk factor that has been seemingly overlooked.

Meh. People (almost) never have altcoin collateral in the first place.

[TwitchySeal]

In my opinion, the only reason the accounts have value is because of the signature campaigns.  If someone purchases an account so they can earn more in a signature campaign, it would be a good investment, which is the only reason I would think one would want to purchase an account.  Lets work together and prevent the accounts from being sold for scamming purposes by all loaners agreeing to neutral tag every account the day it is sold as being sold on this day.  This tag would ideally have something stating in it that the account was sold and that no previous trust should be considered.  To give it purpose, I suggest that all ligament tags should have a reference back to the collateral loan where the account was lost.  I understand how account sales give scammers the opportunity to get over on people, but this would warn people which accounts have been purchased and which accounts were not.   

What most are not understanding, no offence high ranking members; however, anything can have a value to someone else.  It does not matter if it has a value to you or if it does not, if someone else has a purpose for it, then it has a value.   How many people throw away their plastic milk jugs after they are done being used?  Better yet, how many people send them to recycling?  Why do you do it?  Most people will answer because it is garbage.  Now if someone told you how you could come across 100,000 of those a day with very little effort and each one of them are worth $.012 USD, would throw them all away?  Most people would answer no.  The same goes with the accounts, they will always have value as long as someone else has a use for them. 

Lenders beware - if you accept an account as collateral, it might get neg feedback due to the actions of a previous owner.

This is not the case of someone scamming then selling their account via taking out a loan with their account as collateral. This is a case of the OP accepting accounts as collateral the borrower defaulting on the loan then Lauda leaving negative trust for said accounts. There was no scam nor scam attempt.

If someone has an account, and needs money, why shouldn't they be able to sell their account? (Which is what giving it up as collateral is doing). What do you think will happen if someone in need of money is unable to sell their account and is desperate?

I think KWH's policy is the most fair, although it does cause some issues.

I didn't say they shouldn't be able to sell their account.  Just that people should understand that when you takeover someone elses account, there's a risk they will receive neg feedback because of the actions of someone else.  There aren't many scenarios I can think of that I would remove negative feedback from an account because it had a new owner.  I don't think account trading should be banned, but I do think it should be discouraged. 

[Lone Shark]

@The Pharmacist: Profits is the main purpose why we are lending to people. But giving chances is another thing and should not be mixed with business. Regardless, I got burned with that. Count it as a mistake and charge it to experience. We all make our mistakes.

@Everyone who suggests altcoins: There are only a few people who would want to use altcoins as collateral. The reason is simple, if they had altcoins they have money. They only need to convert these coins into another asset like bitcoin or sell them for dollars.

In light of all these discussions, instead of discussing "why we lenders should stop accepting accounts as collateral" and "sold accounts are bad" why not let's move just to make it illegal selling, trading, farming, sharing, etc. of bitcointalk accounts? I support all your stance regarding the fight against spamming/scamming, however since the rules have this loophole regarding accounts, then let's just move to ban it.

Edit: What's the point of discouraging something if people are condemning to the point of just damaging the account to make it worthless? Just make it illegal.

[Gunthar]

however since the rules have this loophole regarding accounts, then let's just move to ban it.

Edit: What's the point of discouraging something if people are condemning to the point of just damaging the account to make it worthless? Just make it illegal.

Wrong!
If you ban account sales on THIS forum it will become even worse. Accounts would be sold/bought somewhere else (bitify, darknet, shitforums) and then used here without any (almost) control. I see their point: the only way to stop accounts trades is to make them useless with red/neutral tags...
~Gun

[Lone Shark]

however since the rules have this loophole regarding accounts, then let's just move to ban it.

Edit: What's the point of discouraging something if people are condemning to the point of just damaging the account to make it worthless? Just make it illegal.

Wrong!
If you ban account sales on THIS forum it will become even worse. Accounts would be sold/bought somewhere else (bitify, darknet, shitforums) and then used here without any (almost) control. I see their point: the only way to stop accounts trades is to make them useless with red/neutral tags...
~Gun

They can't stop every single transaction of accounts. They cannot tag every single one of them too. That's another truth.

[Gunthar]

however since the rules have this loophole regarding accounts, then let's just move to ban it.

Edit: What's the point of discouraging something if people are condemning to the point of just damaging the account to make it worthless? Just make it illegal.

Wrong!
If you ban account sales on THIS forum it will become even worse. Accounts would be sold/bought somewhere else (bitify, darknet, shitforums) and then used here without any (almost) control. I see their point: the only way to stop accounts trades is to make them useless with red/neutral tags...
~Gun

They can't stop every single transaction of accounts. They cannot tag every single one of them too. That's another truth.

Oh...say they can tag only 80%...does it make it better for you to accept accounts as collateral with the purpose to sell it?

[Lone Shark]

however since the rules have this loophole regarding accounts, then let's just move to ban it.

Edit: What's the point of discouraging something if people are condemning to the point of just damaging the account to make it worthless? Just make it illegal.

Wrong!
If you ban account sales on THIS forum it will become even worse. Accounts would be sold/bought somewhere else (bitify, darknet, shitforums) and then used here without any (almost) control. I see their point: the only way to stop accounts trades is to make them useless with red/neutral tags...
~Gun

They can't stop every single transaction of accounts. They cannot tag every single one of them too. That's another truth.

Oh...say they can tag only 80%...does it make it better for you to accept accounts as collateral with the purpose to sell it?

You're a lender as well. What do you do if you got accounts as collateral and they default? You use them yourself or you sell them or just say "oh well good bye money"?