Collateral scam?

[Vod]

I recently tagged a user for trying to use collateral he was actually trying to sell.   To me, this means the user has no interest to pay back the loan, as they don't want the collateral.

What do you think?  Is negative trust justified in this case?

[Pearls Before Swine]

I saw that in the lending thread.  I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt as long as that other selling thread is closed.
In either case, he's probably not going find anyone who'll take Pokemon cards as collateral.  Nice cards, but physical collateral doesn't seem to go over well.
He's probably learned his lesson.  But if that's truly what he's up to (selling items he's using for collateral), Vod is correct in his feedback.

[mammabitcoin2u]

I recently tagged a user for trying to use collateral he was actually trying to sell.   To me, this means the user has no interest to pay back the loan, as they don't want the collateral.

What do you think?  Is negative trust justified in this case?

Most of the time I see that too.  BUT You don't provide a lot of other information?  So, I can't vote except say:

Did the loanee, have the item for sale prior to requesting a loan?
Did the loanee inform prospective lender this item is up for sale?
Did the loanee initially claim, "no collateral" and when "called out"/shown this for sale thread did they change the request?

[KWH]

Offering collateral for a loan and a sale for said collateral at the same time does deserve Red. It should be self explanatory.

[jjrundy]

Offering collateral for a loan and a sale for said collateral at the same time does deserve Red. It should be self explanatory.

the collateral, was https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2011641.0 the loan request using previously said collateral is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2041156.0days

[Quickseller]

This is not unlike factoring and/or an inventory loan.

[HKGolden]

I vote a ''No'' here.

As long as the Lender accept for those collateral, even trying to sell,
Anyway, Lender can say 'NO' if they think it is not a good deal.

I don't see any problem.

[Lone Shark]

I might be a bit bias, as jjrundy has been a borrower from me for quite some time, so my vote should not count.

So instead, I would just share an experience with him as his previous lender.

I would say that the guy is trust worthy enough here and he would likely not run with the amount.

I lent him a couple of times, and one time he sent me collateral (PINK Coins in poloniex) that went way below the loan amount. It was not his fault as I was not able to set a stop-loss limit. So I informed him about it, and I said it was my fault for letting it drop to that amount and not auto sell, and said that we could just clear the loan. He did offer repeatedly that he would pay the loan amount plus interest less how much I was able to sell the collateral. In short, he still wanted to pay the difference of the repayment amount and the amount I got for selling the collateral. But in the end, I just insisted that I just clear his loan.

He also had a no collateral loan with me of about 0.02BTC which he paid promptly without even me asking him to pay up.

Do note, however, that all loans with me was not as big as this loan amount. The highest amount he got as loan was about 0.08BTC.

Also, I do not have any comment on the Pokemon cards. But personally, I would deny most physical collateral.

Edit: I would say that in case someone is using collateral that is currently being sold, that's not a good thing. However, I have a reservations on this rule, and I think there is an exception and in my opinion these are the requisites of this exception:

1. the item that is being sold has ceased to be for sale for a long time
2. the amount of loan being applied for is far from the price of the collateral (<60% of the market value maybe?)
3. the collateral can be easily liquidated for far more than the price of the loan.

[zazarb]

Deserve red trust, Only in one case, if it is hidden from the Lender, In all other cases, it is a matter for the two subjects to handle.

[condoras]

IMHO when you offer something to another person/service/pawn shop as a Collateral, you can't sell it. Simple as that.
Because here physical items are rare to have them in our possession (so sale it's out of the picture), its needed to somehow protect all of us.

For me, Red is the only shield of protection at the moment. So until we have a better way, negative feedback needs to be given.
Thanks for creating this pool Vod, it's always good to share our thoughts and discuss.

[jjrundy]

I might be a bit bias, as jjrundy has been a borrower from me for quite some time, so my vote should not count.

So instead, I would just share an experience with him as his previous lender.

I would say that the guy is trust worthy enough here and he would likely not run with the amount.

I lent him a couple of times, and one time he sent me collateral (PINK Coins in poloniex) that went way below the loan amount. It was not his fault as I was not able to set a stop-loss limit. So I informed him about it, and I said it was my fault for letting it drop to that amount and not auto sell, and said that we could just clear the loan. He did offer repeatedly that he would pay the loan amount plus interest less how much I was able to sell the collateral. In short, he still wanted to pay the difference of the repayment amount and the amount I got for selling the collateral. But in the end, I just insisted that I just clear his loan.

He also had a no collateral loan with me of about 0.02BTC which he paid promptly without even me asking him to pay up.

Do note, however, that all loans with me was not as big as this loan amount. The highest amount he got as loan was about 0.08BTC.

Also, I do not have any comment on the Pokemon cards. But personally, I would deny most physical collateral.

Edit: I would say that in case someone is using collateral that is currently being sold, that's not a good thing. However, I have a reservations on this rule, and I think there is an exception and in my opinion these are the requisites of this exception:

1. the item that is being sold has ceased to be for sale for a long time
2. the amount of loan being applied for is far from the price of the collateral (<60% of the market value maybe?)
3. the collateral can be easily liquidated for far more than the price of the loan.

Thanks ls

Do keep in mind what I was offering was in fact not for sale...
Edit: it was however previously offered at auction more than a week prior.

[condoras]

Do keep in mind what I was offering was in fact not for sale...

I am not referring to anyone in particular. Is a general question at least for me, so i just post my opinion/answer about it.
I will not grand a Loan Request with this collateral anyways...

[jjrundy]

Do keep in mind what I was offering was in fact not for sale...

I am not referring to anyone in particular. Is a general question at least for me, so i just post my opinion/answer about it.
I will not grand a Loan Request with this collateral anyways...

In that case I would agree with you. For example someone making a thread to sell their domain and also offering it for collateral that would be a great example.

[Snub]

Dont deserve the red for me, if the lender accepts a collateral that only means he thinks it is valuable enough for the loan so if the borrower does not pay the collateral now belongs to the lender and he can sell or keep the collateral. If i am the lender, i would not accept anythng i dont like as collateral in the first place

[EcuaMobi]

It deserves negative trust if there's a clear intention to defraud. If it's obvious the borrower doesn't have intentions to repay the loan to get the collateral back then it definitely deserves negative trust.

However I can think of a scenario where it doesn't:

• A person needs 0.5 BTC
• He has a good worth 1 BTC which he could sell if required
• He posts 2 threads: one trying to sell it for 1 BTC and another one asking for a 0.5-BTC loan, offering his good as collateral
• Whatever happens first, he closes the other thread

If it's clear the good is worth much more than the loan then he doesn't deserve negative trust. The reason is simple: he does want to get the collateral back even if he's trying to sell it because it's worth considerably more than the loaned amount. Of course the difference between the loaned amount and the good's value must be clear for this to apply.

[nejibens]

If he is trying to cheat and not informing the lender that the collateral is already posted to sell, so he deserve the red trust. Otherwise , if the lender know about this and accept it, there is no need to the red trust, in my opinion.

[jjrundy]

If he is trying to cheat and not informing the lender that the collateral is already posted to sell, so he deserve the red trust. Otherwise , if the lender know about this and accept it, there is no need to the red trust, in my opinion.

would it make a difference if the previous thread with the "for sale" item
was closed a week before the loan request with the same item was made using that item as collateral?

[TwSeventh]

I recently tagged a user for trying to use collateral he was actually trying to sell.   To me, this means the user has no interest to pay back the loan, as they don't want the collateral.

What do you think?  Is negative trust justified in this case?

justified or not,it's all based on every individual opinion.
in my view,they deserve a red trust or even banned.
based on my observation they'burrower' are who's asking for a loan and using an account that he want to sell as a collateral.
that mean he's trying to scam a lender,it's really hard to sell an account plus we can see many people get hacked.
(found a lot of cases about account hacked and the hacker him/herself trying to sell it or even we can see it they're trying to use it as a collateral)
a dog always be like a dog,same like a scammer always be like that and trying to scam people everyday.

[FFrankie]

It deserves negative trust if there's a clear intention to defraud. If it's obvious the borrower doesn't have intentions to repay the loan to get the collateral back then it definitely deserves negative trust.

However I can think of a scenario where it doesn't:

• A person needs 0.5 BTC
• He has a good worth 1 BTC which he could sell if required
• He posts 2 threads: one trying to sell it for 1 BTC and another one asking for a 0.5-BTC loan, offering his good as collateral
• Whatever happens first, he closes the other thread

If it's clear the good is worth much more than the loan then he doesn't deserve negative trust. The reason is simple: he does want to get the collateral back even if he's trying to sell it because it's worth considerably more than the loaned amount. Of course the difference between the loaned amount and the good's value must be clear for this to apply.

I would have to agree with this, but I think if the user has been trying a good "worth" X amount for over 1month, I wouldn't consider it valid collateral because it doesn't meet the criteria of being easy to sell.


I think every alt coin as collateral that is worth 1 sat with almost no volume should be marked negative because that is clear to be scammish.

I would have done the pokemon card loan(and I am sure everyone else would have) if the value of the cards exceeded the loan by 200% but that was not the case.

However, I requested a loan where I did not want the collateral back per say because my issue was selling the collateral for cash in the first place, but the collateral was BTC, so does that make it different?

I will secure the loan with .28 BTC but I need $200 sent to me via bank deposit (if this is not possible than W2W/MG). It will be for 30 days max, 5%.


I can pay back the loan either with cash or BTC. But I require that I receive USD

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1749746.msg17483711#msg17483711

^

[jjrundy]

I would have done the pokemon card loan(and I am sure everyone else would have) if the value of the cards exceeded the loan by 200% but that was not the case.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1749746.msg17483711#msg17483711

^

there was never even a chance to establish the worth of collateral
never got to a point where a potential lender asked for ex. $800 in collateral

but with everything else about this, its all being based on assumption and alternate scenarios...instead of facts

I recently tagged a user for trying to use collateral he was actually trying to sell.   To me, this means the user has no interest to pay back the loan, as they don't want the collateral.

What do you think?  Is negative trust justified in this case?

everyone sees this, and is making their voice heard based off of this alone, instead of doing their due diligence before
providing their opinion on the matter