Pay Attention to This Pattern

[AakZaki]

My brain was always spinning When I looked at the Reputation Board, it was as if my brain was always forcing to expose the cheaters.

Here's the pattern According to some of my analyses and observations:

• Someone who has been guilty or whose account has been connected will avoid making a post on the Reputation Board
  
• They will avoid tagging a username on someone who always reveals the perpetrators of fraud, maybe they are afraid that their account will be checked.
• When they escape the RedTrust tag, they will build trust by borrowing funds, instead of wanting to get a Positive Trust or they anticipate that when their account is given RedTrust they will not pay their debts.

When a DT faces a case like point number 3, the position becomes a dilemma. On one side, there is a desire to consider the lender’s losses, but on the other side what they are dealing with are cheater.

Maybe my advice to lenders, at least pay attention to the trust tag on their profile, be it a Neutral tag

An example of the case I am referring to is on this account:

DaNNy001

• When anyone uses the search feature on the Reputation Board the name DaNNy001 will not be found as the creator of any posts, this fits pattern number 1.
• Recently, he joined the [Voting 2025] Bitcointalk Community Awards 🏆^Archive vote in the Help Buster section, but he left his vote empty. Maybe he was afraid his case would come up again.
• He has been proven to be a cheater here, but escaped the RedTrust tag because maybe he has built the pattern number 3 above first, so Pandu Geddon changed the RedTrust tag to Neutral, I understand that Pandu may have also considered the lender’s money.

I also saw that he continued to extend his loan, this also made me more suspicious that he was indeed avoiding being tagged RedTrust or that it was indeed made for his anticipation.

[yahoo62278]

When a DT faces a case like point number 3, the position becomes a dilemma. On one side, there is a desire to consider the lender’s losses, but on the other side what they are dealing with are cheater.

Maybe my advice to lenders, at least pay attention to the trust tag on their profile, be it a Neutral tag

Lenders should be the last thing on someone's mind when deciding whether to tag an account or not. Not tagging an account because they owe someone is not protecting the community. Even if you pop a neutral on the account it likely puts eyes on it and soon the account will default anyways. Besides, the lender knows or should know the risks when it comes to lending, especially shasan. He has had so many defaulters it's becoming the norm for him.

[SatoPrincess]

I have also come to the understanding that accounts farmers are using the loan service to “insure” their accounts. Recent events should make lenders more cautious, I believe they should be able to discern accounts that are high risk to give loans to.

I recently noticed an account that has three active loans from different lenders on the forum. I don’t get the logic of why they don’t just borrow the entire money from one lender. I’m not familiar with the case OP mentioned, but it seems he was able to convince everyone who merited the post that he wasn’t a cheater.  Also don’t see any evidence that he took a loan at the time.

[Awaklara]

I also once discussed that account with Pandu Geddon regarding the tags on the account. One of the reasons was indeed related to loan considerations, but there were other reasons that made him change the tag. 
If I'm not mistaken, that account was previously removed from the Stake campaign due to negative tags. After it was changed to neutral, it was accepted back into the Stake campaign.

[hugeblack]

This reminds me of this case ---> Largest Connected Account Farm: 2 Accounts Building Positive Trust via Loans

I changed my trust rating from negative to neutral so that @shasan's business wouldn't be affected, but look, the loan has been extended for another month.


It seems this pattern is repeating. I will tag any account regardless of its loan status, and I hope other DT members will do the same.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Lenders should be the last thing on someone's mind when deciding whether to tag an account or not.

Especially if we see that they knowingly give loans to people who use them for gambling.

I have also come to the understanding that accounts farmers are using the loan service to “insure” their accounts. Recent events should make lenders more cautious...

Given that they have repeatedly failed to exercise caution over time, I don't see why we should refrain from red tagging accounts if there are clear reasons for doing so.

It seems this pattern is repeating. I will tag any account regardless of its loan status, and I hope other DT members will do the same.

I think that many accounts have long since realized the pattern and are pulling our leg.

[Shadiq]

It should be the responsibility of a lender to check the borrower. Especially his tags should be checked once. If the lender gives a loan despite having a negative (neutral) tag, then we should definitely not worry about the lender. Because he is knowingly giving a loan to a spammer or a fraudster and giving DT members the opportunity to be generous which the fraudsters accept.

As a lender, I always monitor the borrower's profile carefully, especially his tags. If I give a loan to a fraudster, then I should definitely be responsible for it. If someone cheats after giving the loan, in this case, DT members should consider the lender's side.

[AakZaki]

This reminds me of this case ---> Largest Connected Account Farm: 2 Accounts Building Positive Trust via Loans

I changed my trust rating from negative to neutral so that @shasan's business wouldn't be affected, but look, the loan has been extended for another month.

Oh my God, even though I had already noted the maturity date, he had extended his loan again.

It seems this pattern is repeating. I will tag any account regardless of its loan status, and I hope other DT members will do the same.

Now I totally agree with this, even though we have often reminded lenders, but they seem to only think about small profits from their lending business, when the risk is much greater when the borrower defaults.

This should be the last warning for the lender, so as not to carelessly lend to accounts that are indicated to be cheater. Unless they are only thinking about their small profits.

-snip-
If someone cheats after giving the loan, in this case, DT members should consider the lender's side.

Actually, if you look at the two accounts that I mean and hugeblack, a DT is very tolerant of considering the money of lenders, but why do lenders still give loans when the account is marked neutral because of a cheater account? Do they only think about the small profits from their lending business?

[The Cryptovator]

• When they escape the RedTrust tag, they will build trust by borrowing funds, instead of wanting to get a Positive Trust or they anticipate that when their account is given RedTrust they will not pay their debts.

When a DT faces a case like point number 3, the position becomes a dilemma. On one side, there is a desire to consider the lender’s losses, but on the other side what they are dealing with are cheater.

I thought a few people took loans to gamble, gain green trust or at least get positive neutral feedback. But it seems you opened my eyes to how people act to be decent, but they are cheating on the other hand. DT sometimes could avoid a tag when they see there are active loans, because the account would be a loan defaulter due to the tag. But it seems cheaters are taking advantage of that; hence, I think DT members need to be more strict.

Maybe my advice to lenders, at least pay attention to the trust tag on their profile, be it a Neutral tag

Yes, it's the lender's responsibility to check and verify the borrower's account history, including neutral feedback. Otherwise they would lose funds upon tagging borrowers for some other reasons. After seeing this cheating story, DT members would change minds.

It seems this pattern is repeating. I will tag any account regardless of its loan status, and I hope other DT members will do the same.

Yes, I agree with you. Shouldn't give advantage to the cheaters for the loans, cheaters should be treated as a cheater as well, not borrower. End of the day they might scam a bigger amounts.

[Shadiq]

Actually, if you look at the two accounts that I mean and hugeblack, a DT is very tolerant of considering the money of lenders, but why do lenders still give loans when the account is marked neutral because of a cheater account? Do they only think about the small profits from their lending business?

Here I must blame the lender. In giving loans, we must respect the work and comments of DT members, just as DT members respect the work of lenders. When both parties respect both parties, such fraudsters will not get any opportunity to carry out fraudulent activities. We should be responsible from our respective positions, DT members are handling this responsibility well, but a lender is still ignoring this responsibility for the sake of some income. This is not positive at all!

[lovesmayfamilis]

• Someone who has been guilty or whose account has been connected will avoid making a post on the Reputation Board
  
• They will avoid tagging a username on someone who always reveals the perpetrators of fraud, maybe they are afraid that their account will be checked.
• When they escape the RedTrust tag, they will build trust by borrowing funds, instead of wanting to get a Positive Trust or they anticipate that when their account is given RedTrust they will not pay their debts.

Based on your rather reasonable theory, in order to counteract the cheating of cunning borrowers, we need to double-check every account from which a loan is requested. If we assume that they are afraid of excessive attention to their accounts, then the desire to borrow in this way will also be reduced to zero. However, it is doubtful that all of these borrowers will be subject to this level of scrutiny, as even those with two or three accounts can still make mistakes, as has been proven time and time again, and not everyone has the time to come up with excuses or correct these mistakes.

[stompix]

The whole lending thing makes no sense, so let's see how this goes
We don't tag a cheater and a spammer and a shitposter because he has money to pay back, the moment he pays back his loan it means he will get tagged if caught spamming again ,so
- What is the point of him paying back his loan, knowing that this is his only protection, and once he pays it back, he will get tagged? Basically, he is "working" for free now to pay for something he isn't forced to
- The only way to keep the account not tagged is to buy some insurance, so keep the loan going, since we won't tag him to protect the lender's interest

Sorry but at what point do we realize that doing this turns the lender into a corrupt policeman offering you immunity to forum trust?
Also, at what point do we start thinking how this has turned from lending money to people that really needed (imbeciles on cruise ships for example) to a mob business?

I'm no fan of tagging as it's a drop in the bucket but I'm starting to think I might change this

[Free Market Capitalist]

- The only way to keep the account not tagged is to buy some insurance, so keep the loan going, since we won't tag him to protect the lender's interest

Sorry but at what point do we realize that doing this turns the lender into a corrupt policeman offering you immunity to forum trust?

Great reasoning. With the quote, I wanted to highlight what I see as most important.

I would add other things, such as the lender continuing to lend despite having discovered that the account is an alt of a loan defaulter (see the Obari case), or continue lending despite the obvious risks because, after all, with the interest earned, they have already earned more than the money they are putting at risk in that particular loan, or as mentioned before, knowing that many are gamblers.

In the end, if we don't red tag these accounts, we are fueling a vicious cycle.

[stompix]

I would add other things, such as the lender continuing to lend despite having discovered that the account is an alt of a loan defaulter (see the Obari case), or continue lending despite the obvious risks because, after all, with the interest earned, they have already earned more than the money they are putting at risk in that particular loan, or as mentioned before, knowing that many are gamblers.

Hmm, I'm starting to see things I don't like here
- so Obari defaulted in 2023, then in 2025, he was caught by Shasan himself with an alt but he still loaned him money???

If anyone takes more than 3 extensions then interest will be at least double of the initial interest rate. And if more than 5 extensions then interest will be 30% per month. This rule will be applicable to all the borrower who will borrow from me from 12th December 2024

- ok I know it's a business but, 360% in USD per year?
- Anyone can say whatever they want, but that discussion on Telegram, really not what I was expecting

Oh god, I already know it, this is some ^&^&^ drama I've seen before, it's going to end badly, really badly!

[Pandu Geddon]

The case of @DaNNy001 became the only case that made me change the tag from negative to neutral in all the cases I publish. 
It’s not because he sent me many messages after being removed from the Stake campaign, but there were also members who sent me PMs regarding considerations about the lender's. 

Before posting a report on the account, several months earlier I had already sent a PM to the lender. I didn’t get any response. I also asked for opinions from several other members regarding the case, until I decided to publish it. 

Honestly, I did not intend to change the tag back to negative after he finished repaying the loan, as long as he continued to comply with the conditions I required. 
First, he would only be active with one account, @DaNNy001. Second, he repaid all loans, including those from his alternate accounts. Third, he did not exchange Merit with the account I suspected to be his alternate (Mate2237).

I just didn't think he would make another loan request that surprisingly gets accepted by a lender.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Hmm, I'm starting to see things I don't like here
- so Obari defaulted in 2023, then in 2025, he was caught by Shasan himself with an alt but he still loaned him money???

Both in 2023.

I have highly tried to show that obari is the alt account of the borrower.

But I don't want to focus on that lender or that case here either. I think there are quite a few of us who have been thinking for some time that not red tagging certain accounts because they have active loans is, at the very least, wrong.

I just didn't think he would make another loan request that surprisingly gets accepted by a lender.

See, that's what we are talking about here. If you give a loan to an account with more red flags than a communist demonstration we shouldn't refrain ourselves from acting like we should.

[Mate2237]

I suspected to be his alternate (Mate2237).

Please we are different people entirely.

[lovesmayfamilis]

I have also come to the understanding that accounts farmers are using the loan service to “insure” their accounts. Recent events should make lenders more cautious, I believe they should be able to discern accounts that are high risk to give loans to.

I recently noticed an account that has three active loans from different lenders on the forum. I don’t get the logic of why they don’t just borrow the entire money from one lender. I’m not familiar with the case OP mentioned, but it seems he was able to convince everyone who merited the post that he wasn’t a cheater.  Also don’t see any evidence that he took a loan at the time.

Isn't this a similar case? A loan is taken out with two different lenders at almost the same time, and even the smallest loan isn't repaid on time, and the repayment period is extended, even though the debt remains large and no longer seems trivial.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3539126

[AakZaki]

Isn't this a similar case? A loan is taken out with two different lenders at almost the same time, and even the smallest loan isn't repaid on time, and the repayment period is extended, even though the debt remains large and no longer seems trivial.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=3539126

Previously, I would like to thank you, my friend. Because it has brought a new name here. Let's take a look at the loans from these three accounts, The time is very close, the USD borrowed is quite large.

I found a wallet connected in between. Somehow they will explain.

Odohu - Loans 721$ Date: 22-12-2025
Woodie - Loans 1307$ Date: 07-01-2026
DaNNy001 - Loans 606$ Date: 08-01-2026

Odohu - bc1qd666kg8m9p9mcw9e40pf0nhv9gvnjv5r3j05mc
sent to
Woodie - bc1qgdrs2phjfwrvmm6ur2ncqd6ku3e5sg7pvnk724 <= Binance Deposit Wallet used by Woodie

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/a5f5bc076d2b9f08ae9cb58eab67f5ddfaef5c86ac0099a96269128a08161d84

Wallet - TSuouM1xe422Mx7SVCRSYsJxp7FzwiVdN1
Sent To
DaNNy001 - TCwRyMrM3YgRf4avQ1hsXe3b2zk9uyfkEK <= Binance Deposit Wallet used by DaNNy001
Odohu - TQaF6nrJDc5QKHrooQ2zbEUoCqa94xFDn2 <= Bybit Deposit Wallet used by Odohu

https://tronscan.org/#/transaction/735c19448df79520be2c3222713abfd9958a50d9c509c021d73bc02774d06d99 - Block & Time: 2024-06-18 23:56:06 (UTC)
https://tronscan.org/#/transaction/1fb3f241c438d119095d563f86315ee499eec3de7f848c6dd95ebf861bd2414b - Block & Time: 2024-06-19 20:47:42 (UTC)

Can you imagine if for example they belonged to the same person? This is just a parable, because I haven't checked the whole thing. But there is already a connected wallet

Then do you still remember this post of yours

It's pretty weird what happened. Could you describe in more detail what device you are using and how someone was able to hack into your account? Did you have a simple password? Is your mail intact? I think that the hacker who got into your account purposefully went to take out a loan. And maybe it could be someone from your environment, someone who knows you.
Have you seen the IP address change?
All these questions will help you and all other users understand what went wrong with your login to the forum.

Pay attention to the Wallet in the OP, right?

https://bitlist.co/address/TReZah87Zxhfk7YZtYksQ2Z9fNiq7Z2PMB

Peanutswar - TReZah87Zxhfk7YZtYksQ2Z9fNiq7Z2PMB
Sent to
Woodie - TWN2BYmN1cmoGQmNaAVjzYLUX12As4zTrX <= Payeer Deposit Wallet used by Woodie

https://tronscan.org/#/transaction/18b4608bae300833416689160c4e64a574585f656ff2ff74896484450cfa5f2b


https://bitlist.co/address/TWN2BYmN1cmoGQmNaAVjzYLUX12As4zTrX

All of this looks like a Borrower Specialist with a sizable amount.
There is about 2634$ of money that would be sacrificed if this is really verified. Oh my God

[Woodie]

Odohu - bc1qd666kg8m9p9mcw9e40pf0nhv9gvnjv5r3j05mc
sent to
Woodie - bc1qgdrs2phjfwrvmm6ur2ncqd6ku3e5sg7pvnk724 <= Binance Deposit Wallet used by Woodie

https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/transactions/btc/a5f5bc076d2b9f08ae9cb58eab67f5ddfaef5c86ac0099a96269128a08161d84

That transaction  happened  because Oduhu did send me a small coin top-up some time back and actually got late and was reported to Hhampuz my Sig manager at the time to step in some time back who can confirm this as it was resolved in private!
---
And that Tron address doesn't ring a bell,and I don't use player...is this not the same time someone tried to get a loan in my name !!? And I think this happened to two other users around this period & if not mistaken a reputable user who hardly gets loans was made to pay for funds they didn't get ??
**Can't even find that application on Shasans thread***