Regarding account as collateral!

[shasan]

Hey, Lenders stop taking account as collateral otherwise you will be tagged. Also while giving loan please keep consideration this type of rule until forum moderator/DT to save you and us (the bitcointalk community).

1. Account can't be used as collateral
= If so, then any lender cant take multiple loans at the same time and also would not be able to sell anything which can be reversed.
Lenders will give neutral trust once give a loan. And will not give any loan if there is an active loan which can be seen on neutral trust. If lenders or Borrowers break the rules then they/s/he will get negative trust by DT.

[VINSIN]

just a word, moderators ain't the same thing as dt.

it ain't against the forum rules to buy or sell accounts but it is against dt principles

btw

Base on your post history I can give you maximum 0.015 BTC loan by taking your account as collateral. Where repayment should be 0.018 and you have to provide stake address as well as verify the signature.

I confirm that I received the funds and Lemipawa account is now under the control of Shasan

a 1 min. look into your thread

I just hate hypocrisy

[shasan]

a 1 min. look into your thread

I just hate hypocrisy

Probably you have not read my lending rules and edited time of those rules. That incident happened before my new rules. And edited rules marked as red. Also after editing archived that. See post number 2.

[actmyname]

I have a point about this.

Take accounts as collateral.

But the additional value added to that loan should be no more than 0 satoshi. The situation should be considered the same as if they were to ask for a no-collateral loan.

Accounts should not give a user any extra reputation for leverage. After all, what more do they have to lose if they're just going to default?Don't trade the accounts afterward, of course.

[shasan]

I have a point about this.

Take accounts as collateral.

But the additional value added to that loan should be no more than 0 satoshi. The situation should be considered the same as if they were to ask for a no-collateral loan.

Accounts should not give a user any extra reputation for leverage. After all, what more do they have to lose if they're just going to default?Don't trade the accounts afterward, of course.

As account trading is not trustworthy taking account as collateral means 0 collateral and if default then from there lender can get 0 satoshi. But by taking account as collateral may decrease more scam activity as Borrower will not have any access of the account. But if the lender is the same of borrower I mean if lender trades the account then his personal account as well as selling account should be tagged negatively. As happened for grtthegreat

[Avirunes]

Also you cannot be sure if there is an actual trade of accounts going behind a loan deal but it is still a way. Block any chance of doing something that is frowned upon.

And also I agree to the shasan's point above.

[marcotheminer]

Actually, taking an account can be a good idea. Depending on the original user who set it up, it's rating, and activity.

[DireWolfM14]

Hey, Lenders stop taking account as collateral otherwise you will be tagged.

Vinsin pointed out a situation where you took control of an account to increase your chances of repayment and the whole transaction was out in the open, transparent for to the whole community to see.  I have no objection to a lender operating as you have.

I do object to the use of the word "collateral" in such a situation.  Collateral implies value, and in order for the account to have monetary value it would need to be sold to compensate for a defaulted loan.  I think we all agree that selling accounts is a shady practice.  As long as the lender doesn't see the account as having any monetary value and only uses it as leverage to increase his chances of getting repaid, I don't see anything wrong with the practice.

[grtthegreat]

As account trading is not trustworthy taking account as collateral means 0 collateral and if default then from there lender can get 0 satoshi. But by taking account as collateral may decrease more scam activity as Borrower will not have any access of the account. But if the lender is the same of borrower I mean if lender trades the account then his personal account as well as selling account should be tagged negatively. As happened for grtthegreat

I quite do not get what you intend to say, can you please elaborate?

[shasan]

As account trading is not trustworthy taking account as collateral means 0 collateral and if default then from there lender can get 0 satoshi. But by taking account as collateral may decrease more scam activity as Borrower will not have any access of the account. But if the lender is the same of borrower I mean if lender trades the account then his personal account as well as selling account should be tagged negatively. As happened for grtthegreat

I quite do not get what you intend to say, can you please elaborate?

Account trading is not trustworthy and DT will give Negative trust for account trading.
So, anyone takes account as collateral and then borrower default the loan, then lender cant sells the account that means lender cant to be benefitted by taking account as collateral.
But by taking account as the collateral lender may prevent more scams. As on that time borrower would not be able to take any more loans or would not be able to sell any currency which can be reversed.

[Parodium]

Hey, Lenders stop taking account as collateral otherwise you will be tagged.

Vinsin pointed out a situation where you took control of an account to increase your chances of repayment and the whole transaction was out in the open, transparent for to the whole community to see.  I have no objection to a lender operating as you have.

I do object to the use of the word "collateral" in such a situation.  Collateral implies value, and in order for the account to have monetary value it would need to be sold to compensate for a defaulted loan.  I think we all agree that selling accounts is a shady practice.  As long as the lender doesn't see the account as having any monetary value and only uses it as leverage to increase his chances of getting repaid, I don't see anything wrong with the practice.

Even objects that are not sold can have value, sentimental value, accrued effort, status and reputation — all of these can be considered reasons why an account is valued by its owner.

I do not believe holding accounts as collateral is against any forum rules, and lenders should be free to do so, if in their opinion it protects them against default. Obviously one must weigh up the risk of taking an account as collateral with the risk of them defaulting, hence the loan must be much lower than the perceived value of the account.

[MadZ]

Also you cannot be sure if there is an actual trade of accounts going behind a loan deal but it is still a way. Block any chance of doing something that is frowned upon.

And also I agree to the shasan's point above.

Exactly. If I wanted to purchase an account, all I would need to do is have the seller create a "loan request
 for the price we agreed to pay beforehand, and have them offer the account as collateral. Just make the repayment date a month or two in the future and no one will remember besides the "lender", who conveniently forgets to leave any negative trust for the default.

[Avirunes]

Also you cannot be sure if there is an actual trade of accounts going behind a loan deal but it is still a way. Block any chance of doing something that is frowned upon.

And also I agree to the shasan's point above.

Exactly. If I wanted to purchase an account, all I would need to do is have the seller create a "loan request
 for the price we agreed to pay beforehand, and have them offer the account as collateral. Just make the repayment date a month or two in the future and no one will remember besides the "lender", who conveniently forgets to leave any negative trust for the default.

There's already been one as I suspect. Here galambo(alt of account seller/buyer, merit begger) takes a loan from blackrabbit1(scammer) but there is no post of any repayment made. I have already tagged the account that was holded as collateral.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5068043.msg47835900#msg47835900

[shasan]

There's already been one as I suspect. Here galambo(alt of account seller/buyer, merit begger) takes a loan from blackrabbit1(scammer) but there is no post of any repayment made. I have already tagged the account that was holded as collateral.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5068043.msg47835900#msg47835900

Lender and borrower both are a scammer. You had provided details info on 12th January where it is proved that galambo is also a scammer but you have not tagged that. Anyway, later but done. Thanks.

[Avirunes]

There's already been one as I suspect. Here galambo(alt of account seller/buyer, merit begger) takes a loan from blackrabbit1(scammer) but there is no post of any repayment made. I have already tagged the account that was holded as collateral.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5068043.msg47835900#msg47835900

Lender and borrower both are a scammer. You had provided details info on 12th January where it is proved that galambo is also a scammer but you have not tagged that. Anyway, later but done. Thanks.

I took my time to find any possible connections from galambo account. Since you have agreed on the fact that he is a scammer, mind reviewing your feedback then?

[shasan]

Since you have agreed on the fact that he is a scammer, mind reviewing your feedback then?

I got my repayment and again asked me another loan but I refused as asked more after paying first one. Though I got my repayment and now proved as a scammer, I have just withdrawn my feedback.
Edit: As account was on collateral the current owner of the account is blackrabbit1 who is already marked as a scammer. So, giving negative.

[asche]

As I have said on another thread...

the market value of an account is not 0.

If the requestor has an account that does have a value on the market (ie Legendary for instance) then they would rather sell the account rather than ask for a loan.

There is no reason why accepting an account as collateral would be a valid reason for a tag as long as said account isn't SOLD afterwards.

Eventhough the account has a value of 0 in the hands of the person lending the money, it does for the requestor. Hence it is a valid incitation for repayment.

I highly doubt your first post is valid, and if another DT tags for that exact reason I would be opposing it.

[actmyname]

Here's an interesting point, though. Account passwords can be reset via email within 14 days of a change thereof.

Taking the account as collateral is only viable if you're able to secure it. That is, any value on the account should be multiplied by the probability of the original holder not running away with the account with a reset.

This is why in my eyes, accounts should be taken as collateral only when you're willing to give the same amount to the user as if they were requesting a zero-collateral loan.

[LimLims]

Here's an interesting point, though. Account passwords can be reset via email within 14 days of a change thereof.

Taking the account as collateral is only viable if you're able to secure it. That is, any value on the account should be multiplied by the probability of the original holder not running away with the account with a reset.

This is why in my eyes, accounts should be taken as collateral only when you're willing to give the same amount to the user as if they were requesting a zero-collateral loan.

Else If the Lender is cunning enough then,  he can ask the user to provide the original email address and after changing the email, the lender will delete the email of "Reset the account within 14 days" from the original email and return the original email to the user.
In this way the lender can easily secure the account IMO.
Moreover i too think accounts should not be kept ad collateral.