marcotheminer - con[fidence] man

[suchmoon]

Not sure how marcotheminer is able to weasel out of these shenanigans and get his reputation threads locked but I've had enough. Here's a new thread for all his bullshit.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5120044.msg50220744#msg50220744

What is the 3rd chance you are talking about? Why should 1 negative remain if I did not default nor scam?

I'm asking you to take a level-headed stance on this, if you speak with Roman you'll find he doesn't ask for any negatives to remain. Thank you.

You convinced me to revise the red rating I posted for you a week or so ago. Fair enough. That was your second chance. You blew it by being late on a loan. Therefore you're not getting a third chance from me.

It doesn't matter what your lender (who got repaid) says. It's about giving a fair warning to another person who might find themselves in this position.

Self-mod rules: serial posting, off topic BS, and other rule-breaking posts will be pulverized on sight to avoid wasting mods' time. Same with the hypertrolls (CH/Thule/et al).

[1714044191]

1714044191

[1714044191]

1714044191

[1714044191]

1714044191

[Quickseller]

Perhaps you are trigger happy if someone is able to resolve their rating after doing so little. Maybe voicing your concerns would have been more appropriate.

Leaving a negative up after someone is late repaying a loan will remove the incentive for someone who is late on a loan to repay in the future.

[Vod]

trolling

Only if that person had a scammer attitude.   Some people try to make reparations....

[bones261]

Perhaps you are trigger happy if someone is able to resolve their rating after doing so little. Maybe voicing your concerns would have been more appropriate.

Leaving a negative up after someone is late repaying a loan will remove the incentive for someone who is late on a loan to repay in the future.

The three major credit bureaus in the US log a ding on your credit if you are 30 days, 60 days, 90 days late. Also, you get an even bigger ding if it's charged off, goes to collections and/or gets a judgement against it. These dings do not go away even if you become current or pay it in full. (Although they do drop off after 7 years.)

[Quickseller]

Perhaps you are trigger happy if someone is able to resolve their rating after doing so little. Maybe voicing your concerns would have been more appropriate.

Leaving a negative up after someone is late repaying a loan will remove the incentive for someone who is late on a loan to repay in the future.

The three major credit bureaus in the US log a ding on your credit if you are 30 days, 60 days, 90 days late. Also, you get an even bigger ding if it's charged off, goes to collections and/or gets a judgement against it. These dings do not go away even if you become current or pay it in full. (Although they do drop off after 7 years.)

The impact on your credit score is much less if you are no longer delinquent on your loan (as well as the impact to most banks' underwriting standards). Also, marco was not 30 days late on his loan, he was a week(?) late, and appears to have paid compensatory interest, and most importantly, the lender appears to be happy with the transaction.

[Vod]

and most importantly, the lender appears to be happy with the transaction.

pay attention fool.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5120044.0

[bones261]

Perhaps you are trigger happy if someone is able to resolve their rating after doing so little. Maybe voicing your concerns would have been more appropriate.

Leaving a negative up after someone is late repaying a loan will remove the incentive for someone who is late on a loan to repay in the future.

The three major credit bureaus in the US log a ding on your credit if you are 30 days, 60 days, 90 days late. Also, you get an even bigger ding if it's charged off, goes to collections and/or gets a judgement against it. These dings do not go away even if you become current or pay it in full. (Although they do drop off after 7 years.)

The impact on your credit score is much less if you are no longer delinquent on your loan (as well as the impact to most banks' underwriting standards). Also, marco was not 30 days late on his loan, he was a week(?) late, and appears to have paid compensatory interest, and most importantly, the lender appears to be happy with the transaction.

NO, its time that makes the dings have less impact. Naturally, if you are 30 days late and then become current, it won't progress to the 60 day, 90 day, & charge off stage. Once it gets to the charge off & judgement stage, it doesn't matter if paid or not.
In Marco's case, this is fresh behavior. And it appears he's done it to more than one person. If marco wants to continue to get loans, he's going to need to pony up the collateral.

[shasan]

he was a week(?) late

I have many more borrowers who makes late but usually, I do not disclose that. I have sent a loan and that is 2 months late. But I have not posted that also I have another loan 4 months passed from the repayment date but I have not posted that too. Do you know why?
It is because they are contacting me on time and try to send me partial repayment. But marco could not maintain contact, asked for extension openly on the reputation board but could not repay even could not update anything either s/he needs more time or not. S/he started promoting Ponzi and got negative tag latter by request all tag has been removed though it is not considered by other DT for other people even though that promotion was too old.  For example, see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1432468
There are many more examples for tagged of Ponzi promoter but marco got chance. His/her another scam attempt was s/he tried to take a big loan where s/he tried to take 0.33BTC loan. I believe if s/he could take the loan s/he never repaid. As I have disclosed that and disclosed ponzi promotion s/he might have been able to take the loan base on his feedback though there was no feedback for the transaction.

And for the current loan have you noticed when s/he has been repaid? At the time when Pamoldar told s/he could make the trust positive from neutral. I think that made marco optimistic and marco repaid loan for scamming larger amount.
Marco might be honest or not but base on his/her recent activity I can't believe him/his.

[suchmoon]

Perhaps you are trigger happy if someone is able to resolve their rating after doing so little. Maybe voicing your concerns would have been more appropriate.

Leaving a negative up after someone is late repaying a loan will remove the incentive for someone who is late on a loan to repay in the future.

Perhaps you have zero knowledge of the underlying facts unless you're marcotheminer. How could you possibly know if it was "little" or not, and if I voiced my concerns or not?

Forgot to include trolling escrow scammers in the self-mod rules... but consider yourself not welcome in this thread from this point forward unless you stay on the topic of marcotheminer's reputation or lack thereof.

[Quickseller]

NO, its time that makes the dings have less impact.

Actually the formula for calculating credit scores is secret, and you do not know how specifically a credit score will change given a set of changes, and the credit bureaus periodically change the formulas.

If marco wants to continue to get loans, he's going to need to pony up the collateral.

I don't think you are in a position to dictate to others what terms they can conduct business on. People are free to give loans on terms deemed acceptable, no matter how risky or ill-advised.

he was a week(?) late

I have many more borrowers who makes late but usually, I do not disclose that. I have sent a loan and that is 2 months late. But I have not posted that also I have another loan 4 months passed from the repayment date but I have not posted that too.

If these people are late, they may decide against trying to repay you after seeing the risks involved in paying late. I am not against putting a negative on someone who is late on a loan in order to pressure them to repay quickly, so they can get their negative rating removed, and maintain their reputation.

Marco might be honest or not but base on his/her recent activity I can't believe him/his.

I don't think marco is a particularly trustworthy person, and did not fill any of his loans after he sent me unsolicited PMs asking me to. I do not advise others to trust him. I also posted at least warning in one of his lending threads against lending to him. Marco has been involved in a lot of shady business over the years, but I am strongly against leaving ratings based on speculation, and when there is no (longer any) harm. I don't think you can call these loans a scam attempt because he was given the money, and eventually repaid.

Perhaps you are trigger happy if someone is able to resolve their rating after doing so little. Maybe voicing your concerns would have been more appropriate.

Leaving a negative up after someone is late repaying a loan will remove the incentive for someone who is late on a loan to repay in the future.

Perhaps you have zero knowledge of the underlying facts unless you're marcotheminer. How could you possibly know if it was "little" or not, and if I voiced my concerns or not?

Perhaps because I told him to PM you when he asked for advice on how to deal with the situation (I did after he did). And I noticed the amount of time between when I advised him to send a PM and when all of the new ratings were removed.

[bones261]

NO, its time that makes the dings have less impact.

Actually the formula for calculating credit scores is secret, and you do not know how specifically a credit score will change given a set of changes, and the credit bureaus periodically change the formulas.

The fact of the matter is that if you are 30 days late on a payment, that fact remains on your credit report for 7 years. A loaning institution is free to use whatever scoring system they chose, or use their own criteria.

If marco wants to continue to get loans, he's going to need to pony up the collateral.

I don't think you are in a position to dictate to others what terms they can conduct business on. People are free to give loans on terms deemed acceptable, no matter how risky or ill-advised.

As I have mentioned before, I have over 20 years of both soft and hard collections. I deal with this situation day in and day out. Furthermore, how is me issuing my recommendation a "dictate?" It's not like I'm going to give out negative trust scores for anyone who wants to give a high risk loan.  

[shasan]

Perhaps you are trigger happy if someone is able to resolve their rating after doing so little. Maybe voicing your concerns would have been more appropriate.

Leaving a negative up after someone is late repaying a loan will remove the incentive for someone who is late on a loan to repay in the future.

You have replied too on my thread regarding marc's  3rd loan. Where you told there was a mistake you are not marco. But I can't understand base on these all situation how can you advocacy for marco.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Ultimately, marcotheminer was irresponsible with someone else's time and money and had an arrogant attitude about it.  I thought I might remove my feedback on him if he repaid the loan, but it was this comment that changed my mind:

At the end of the day, all of this was between Roman and I. Any other comments were just opinions from the sidelines. I'm glad you stuck through with me.

I'll be chilling with the loans, to everyone's delight (I imagine). I've made enough in the past week to self-sustain and hopefully grow a nice fund from here on.

He's so happy for himself that he made some money and is completely dismissive of the comments he received from the community.  This is a person who doesn't give a shit about paying back a loan on time, and I strongly suspect that eventually he'll take out a loan that for whatever reason he won't repay.  Potential lenders need to be warned about that, and I don't think a neutral feedback will do it.

Oh, and then immediately after paying this loan off, he sends me a PM:

Loan repaid.

So?  This is what you should have done when the loan was due.  If you're expecting a round of applause for not scamming the guy, you're on the wrong forum.

[suchmoon]

~

Cool story bro. Except the reason for revising the rating was marco removing his ponzi sig and repaying his loan to Pamoldar, AKA resolving the issues that caused the neg trust. Not your PM or the timing thereof or any of that shit that you make up.

I'm not gonna waste my time trying to understand your slippery slope pretzel. Honest people pay their debts, there is no "ifs" and "buts" about it. I'm not gonna stop paying my mortgage if my neighbor says bad things about me.

[DireWolfM14]

I was holding back from leaving a review on marcotheminer's wall, but his arrogance and deceit have convinced me.  Marco's attitude has been abysmal.  I can forgive someone for being late on a payment under certain circumstances, shit happens.  But this was just about trading with other peoples money, and to blow off your obligation in that manner is definitely untrustworthy behavior.

[shasan]

I was holding back from leaving a review on marcotheminer's wall, but his arrogance and deceit have convinced me.

There are a lot of borrowers who took a loan and take long extension as I told on my previous post so marco took an extension, it could be normal but it is not normal. Which you can see if you see his posts from the coming back on the forum. So, above all, I think he is untrustworthy. Marco is a person who is not aware of others time and money and s/he has a lot of scam attempts.

[The Cryptovator]

I can forgive someone for being late on a payment under certain circumstances, shit happens.

Never mind if someone late reply lent amount, but borrower should always stay connected with lender and he should convince his lender. If lender agree to extend duration then we don't have any business there. But in marcotheminer case, we found multiple accusation against him about late repay. We can see also that he paid lent amount eventually. My question is, why every lender should open thread to get repay their lent amount? Because marcotheminer not cooperating with lenders.

So tag should remain on marcotheminer profile in my opinion. Because always he will make problem and DT will tag. After repaid again DT will remove tag, how long it will continue? DT members have their own business. One time or two time could be consider and give him chance, but he continuously repeating same thing. Better remain negative feedback's, other lenders will know about past problems.

[marcotheminer]

Yeah the drama continues..

I repaid the loan, how are any of the negatives justified?

[Vod]

I repaid the loan, how are any of the negatives justified?

You defaulted on the loan.   You then forced the lender to negotiate new loans under duress, multiple times.  :/

[marcotheminer]

I repaid the loan, how are any of the negatives justified?

You defaulted on the loan.   You then forced the lender to negotiate new loans under duress, multiple times.  :/

Oh I defaulted? Right..

Under duress? I coerced him? Lol, man, let's not use big words to justify a fucked situation. I was clear to him I would be late, he didn't like it (of course not) but was AT EASE when I provided all the proof he would ever need to believe I would repay.