what wrong with min 100$

this seems perfectly respectable....

Hello BGL,

That was a change based on usage of lending over on Bitfinex. We think it's a good compromise, between being small enough to not push out small lenders, while avoiding lot of small offers that may interests you but doesn't bring much in term of liquidity. The idea was not to lower interest rates (which I don't think it will do).

There is a trick for very small lenders: if you use auto-lending, the minimum amount is 10 USD for an offer to be posted.

This amount of $100 won't be increased in the future. We still want to address people who don't always have a lot of savings and offer them a way to have a good return on their investment. This won't change.

Thank you for your comprehension

Raphael
Bitfinex

Hello,


We are not pushing small lenders. If we prevent offers smaller than 100 USD while still allowing balance of 10+ USD to be auto-lent, it's to avoid the multiplication of small offers while still allowing small lenders to push their dollars.
Otherwise we would have also put the threshold on auto-lending to 100 USD.
If we want to push small lenders, there is more effective ways, like accepting offers of big players than can borrow unlimited amount and slash down the rate of dollars to 5%. We did not, because we want to preserve our P2P lending model


You can find information on the FAQ (support).


It should by now. If it didn't, then it was a mistake, and it's as been corrected.


Not sure I understand, in any case this was not our intention. I still consider that allowing 1.7 millions of dollars to be lent at 92% annualized rate is a quite good deal. And it would still be at 20%

Best regards
Raphael
Bitfinex team

When my original post above was written:

- Auto lend was not lending >= $10

- The $100 loan limit was also implemented

Through conversation w/scrooge, the >= $10 auto loan problem has been fixed.

This mostly resolves the concerns I'd had.


As we're aware, the FAQ does not reflect these recent changes.

I stand behind what I'd said, given the scenario that was occurring at the time.

Again, it appears my concerns have been by majority resolved now.

Thank you