Justify feedback before you trust anyone

[Little Mouse]

If you are a newbie here or even 1 more 2 years old but newbie in trading in this forum, it's very important for you to justify the feedback before you go upfront.

I will share some forms of positive feedback which doesn't mean that you can go upfront.

- The person is very helpful.
- The person is very knowledgeable.
- Purchased something, he went upfront. Good communication.

etc.

Now, going straight to an user's positive feedback-
User- Zerbis

3 positive feedback-
- Paid upfront for items won at auction. Great communication throughout. Thank you!
- This member won a couple physical coins from me and paid right away, smooth transaction and great communication. Thanks
- won my auction, paid directly. Smooth transaction. Thanks

This positive feedback doesn't mean Zerbis is trusted and you can go upfront, from this feedback, it's understandable that feedback provider risked much, in fact, nothing at all.

Depending on this feedback, BitSat19 had sent 0.03 BTC upfront for a deal and Zerbis didn't pay yet. In fact, no communication after that.
Here is the scam accusation- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5200663.0

So, if you are going to do any trade here-
- Don't rely on the feedback.
- Always check users post history and if they have any outstanding loan.
- Use Escrow.

I have created this topic here to create awareness among the newbie because newbie are the persons who don't understand the trading system here.

[1714259378]

1714259378

[1714259378]

1714259378

[1714259378]

1714259378

[1714259378]

1714259378

[1714259378]

1714259378

[Jet Cash]

If you need to decide if you want to trust someone, then reading their recent posts, and making a couple of searches is more reliable in my opinion. Don't forget that accounts can be sold or stolen here, and you need to determine the trustworthiness of the current controller of the account.

[AB de Royse777]

If you need to decide if you want to trust someone, then reading their recent posts, and making a couple of searches is more reliable in my opinion. Don't forget that accounts can be sold or stolen here, and you need to determine the trustworthiness of the current controller of the account.

Certainly some of those feedback are really useless. Sometimes the user intentionally target some users and make some trades with the hope of getting some feedback before they can plan for a big exit.

This use Zerbis came to me few weeks ago asking for loan and looking at his feedback I had this same feeling and hesitation to approve his request of giving him 0.045BTC or something. After checking his profile and recent posts and other parameter which were in my commonsense I think I offered him 0.005 ish but he was insisting for the amount he was asking. At some point I did not bother to response him.

@Little Mouse you really did this good job to bring this out in here. I hope at least few people will read the concept from here and learn the lesson. Sorry for BitSat19 that he has to pay the price.

PS: I see Little Mouse needs 8 more merits to become a full member. If I had sMerits I would give him the merits. I see this fella is doing really good job in the forum. Can anyone send him some merit for this post for me?

Cheers,

[Jet Cash]

I see Little Mouse needs 8 more merits to become a full member. If I had sMerits I would give him the merits. I see this fella is doing really good job in the forum. Can anyone send him some merit for this post for me?

Done

I really have difficulty in understand why people need to lend or borrow Bitcoin. It's so easy to exchange it for fiat online. If a person isn't able to do that, then how are they going to be able to pay you back? Especially if Bitcoin shoots up in value.

[AB de Royse777]

~snip~

Done

Owe you bud.

Good to see a new full member. Congrats Little Mouse. It's a long run to go yet though but I am sure you will some day.

I really have difficulty in understand why people need to lend or borrow Bitcoin. It's so easy to exchange it for fiat online. If a person isn't able to do that, then how are they going to be able to pay you back?

I have seen many member in this forum in need of quick money for sorting out their bills or any sorts for real life issues and they have this genuine needs. And there are some scammer will always come up with stories with the hope that they will deceive someone and ran away with the money. Fact is that there is a good market for this business in here but it really is risky business.

Especially if Bitcoin shoots up in value.

I think this is how we holders think. There are people out there who really regularly cash out their bitcoin and also buy very often. Yes you have a point here but I think those who borrow they have this in their mind.

[BitcoinsGreat]

If you need to decide if you want to trust someone, then reading their recent posts, and making a couple of searches is more reliable in my opinion. Don't forget that accounts can be sold or stolen here, and you need to determine the trustworthiness of the current controller of the account.

Something similar has been discussed on here Red Trust Manager? and Put A Neutral Trust if you have LENT someone as well.
It quite clear that we need to check the on why the actual trust rating was given and do not blindly trust anyone.
Even still it is difficult to trust as in the case of OP. He could have never thought Zerbis could scam.  

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Well said, and that's why referencing a feedback is very important so others can use that reference as a confirmation point. Many still not understand that the trust feedback isn't just some confirmation that you have successfully traded with a user, the positive feedbacks has more responsibility to it now than it previously did since it states clearly, that leavings that positive feedback on that users account, means you think the user is unlikely to scam any other forum user.

Leaving a positive feedback for a trade you were at zero risk of getting scammed is uncalled-for and misleading especially when there isn't any previous records of trustworthiness from the user as it portray that users as someone who's trustworthy but in the reality, that's not the case. Trust feedback are just there for guidance, you shouldn't based you decision solely on them.

[Bttzed03]

It's also important to note that positive feedback given by other users were due to their "personal" trades.

So, if you are going to do any trade here-
- Don't rely on the feedback.
- Always check users post history and if they have any outstanding loan.
- Use Escrow.

Maybe "ask for collateral" can also be added to the list.

[Little Mouse]

Maybe "ask for collateral" can also be added to the list.

Can be added but that's not what I was trying to focus in this topic. Collateral is somewhat for the lenders. Newbie lending service will not be accepted because they may scam the collateral as well since collateral amount is more than what someone lend.
Anyway, I think that's something else. Thanks for the kind words and suggestion.


Thanks to both- Jet Cash and Royse for gifting me the rank earlier.

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

I agree with you here, and if I see a user taking out multiple loans (even ones fully paid back on time), I am less likely to trust them, not more. I can understand taking out a single loan here or there, perhaps when you need some bitcoin quickly and don't have access to your cold wallets or an easy peer-to-peer trade (since there are people like me who refuse to trade on privacy invading centralized exchanges). But users who are taking out a loan every month or so suggests to me one (or sometimes both) of two things; they are bad with money management, and they have a desire to build up their trust rating, both of which are undesirable as far as I am concerned. If I see multiple positive ratings for loans in quick succession, I'm going to treat those as a negative rather than a positive.

[GideonGono]

It's also important to note that positive feedback given by other users were due to their "personal" trades.

So, if you are going to do any trade here-
- Don't rely on the feedback.
- Always check users post history and if they have any outstanding loan.
- Use Escrow.

Maybe "ask for collateral" can also be added to the list.

Rely on feedback especially on the person that has name or a trusted person. But don't rely too much from others because there are some strategy that you can gain from reading article especially on this forum. It is better that you have more knowledge than everybody than you rely to someone who doesn't have fully trusted.

[bitmover]

I agree with Little Mouse. Those feedbacks like "this is a nice guy" doesn't make any sense...
On the other hand positive feedbacks for small transactions make no sense either.

I think that green and red trust in your profile shouldn't be so easy to tag
 For example, if at least 3 dt members were necessary for a tag in your profile, I think there would be less drama in reputation board.

For now it only takes one dt2 feedback to basically destroy an account. And one "nice guy" feedback to make that account "trusted"

[o_e_l_e_o]

Those feedbacks like "this is a nice guy" doesn't make any sense.

Whilst I've never left a "nice guy" feedback, I can understand why some users do. The feedback guidelines simply state "You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone". They don't state that a trade has to have been made or that that you have to have risked anything to the person in question. Thinking someone is friendly, helpful, and a "nice guy" very much correlates with thinking that person is unlikely to scam. Given that theymos has previously stated that it is fine to leave ratings about a person in general which are not linked to a trade, then while you can decide you don't place much faith in these kind of ratings, I don't think we can argue that users shouldn't leave them at all.

For now it only takes one dt2 feedback to basically destroy an account. And one "nice guy" feedback to make that account "trusted"

As I've previously argued for, I would be in favor of requiring a net of 2 inclusions from DT1 to become DT2, rather than the current 1. It would cut the number of DT2s by several hundred (from the current number of 457), and would result in far fewer of these "single feedback" issues which you describe.

[bitmover]

As I've previously argued for, I would be in favor of requiring a net of 2 inclusions from DT1 to become DT2, rather than the current 1. It would cut the number of DT2s by several hundred (from the current number of 457), and would result in far fewer of these "single feedback" issues which you describe.

I think it is healthy to allow many users to become DT1 and DT2. The more people, the better imo.
However, they/we should have less power. Maybe 3 or 2 feedbacks instead of one would be nice to be able to tag an account (green or red tag).