Gathering Opinions: Stickies in Lending

[Maged]

Hi guys,

As some of you may know, I'm the main person in charge of stickies in the Lending forum along with John. Our current policy is to sticky major lenders in order to separate them out from all of the lending requests. I believe that this is reasonable, since there are far fewer lenders than lendees, and when people go to the lending board for the first time, chances are that they are looking for a loan, so making them be stickies makes sense.

However, what has happened is that many of these lenders have started taking out loans of their own in the form of deposit programs and they are advertising them through their sticky, giving them an unfair advantage over all of the other loan requests. In fact, just this last week I had to yell at BurtW for converting his sticky into ONLY the deposit program. As a result, I took about a week to reevaluate the sticky requirements in the Lending board, and I think I have a solution that I want to hear the community's opinion on.

I propose that after giving the current sticky holders a few days of notice, no current sticky in the Lending board other than the Who Pays What? sticky can even mention a deposit program in the first post of the sticky. The only exceptions to this would be for mentions that are part of the company name and the user's signature. No other mention would be allowed in the first post of the sticky, and any other mention would most likely be considered off-topic and subject to deletion as per standard moderation rules. As such, I will likely request that the users make a whole new thread to replace the current sticky, and one of us will swap the two threads out.

Let me know what you guys think.

[1714146796]

1714146796

[1714146796]

1714146796

[imsaguy]

Hi guys,

As some of you may know, I'm the main person in charge of stickies in the Lending forum along with John. Our current policy is to sticky major lenders in order to separate them out from all of the lending requests. I believe that this is reasonable, since there are far fewer lenders than lendees, and when people go to the lending board for the first time, chances are that they are looking for a loan, so making them be stickies makes sense.

However, what has happened is that many of these lenders have started taking out loans of their own in the form of deposit programs and they are advertising them through their sticky, giving them an unfair advantage over all of the other loan requests. In fact, just this last week I had to yell at BurtW for converting his sticky into ONLY the deposit program. As a result, I took about a week to reevaluate the sticky requirements in the Lending board, and I think I have a solution that I want to hear the community's opinion on.

I propose that after giving the current sticky holders a few days of notice, no current sticky in the Lending board other than the Who Pays What? sticky can even mention a deposit program in the first post of the sticky. The only exceptions to this would be for mentions that are part of the company name and the user's signature. No other mention would be allowed in the first post of the sticky, and any other mention would most likely be considered off-topic and subject to deletion as per standard moderation rules. As such, I will likely request that the users make a whole new thread to replace the current sticky, and one of us will swap the two threads out.

Let me know what you guys think.

Then perhaps there needs to be a deposits subforum.  While deposits/loans can be considered the same thing, I'd argue the loans are typically given by the more trusted to the less trusted, whereas the deposits are given by the less trusted to the more trusted and as such, represent two different market segments.  The people stickied in the deposits subform, while not officially endorsed, would be your long term, seemingly highly reliable people.

[Maged]

Then perhaps there needs to be a deposits subforum.  While deposits/loans can be considered the same thing, I'd argue the loans are typically given by the more trusted to the less trusted, whereas the deposits are given by the less trusted to the more trusted and as such, represent two different market segments.  The people stickied in the deposits subform, while not officially endorsed, would be your long term, seemingly highly reliable people.

Absolutely not. The sooner you realize that loans and deposits are ABSOLUTELY the same thing, the sooner you'll wise up and realize that the risk profile is no different. We will not separate deposits from regular loans other than through the "Who Pays What?" sticky, no exceptions.

[Micon]

Hi guys,

As some of you may know, I'm the main person in charge of stickies in the Lending forum along with John. Our current policy is to sticky major lenders in order to separate them out from all of the lending requests. I believe that this is reasonable, since there are far fewer lenders than lendees, and when people go to the lending board for the first time, chances are that they are looking for a loan, so making them be stickies makes sense.

However, what has happened is that many of these lenders have started taking out loans of their own in the form of deposit programs and they are advertising them through their sticky, giving them an unfair advantage over all of the other loan requests. In fact, just this last week I had to yell at BurtW for converting his sticky into ONLY the deposit program. As a result, I took about a week to reevaluate the sticky requirements in the Lending board, and I think I have a solution that I want to hear the community's opinion on.

I propose that after giving the current sticky holders a few days of notice, no current sticky in the Lending board other than the Who Pays What? sticky can even mention a deposit program in the first post of the sticky. The only exceptions to this would be for mentions that are part of the company name and the user's signature. No other mention would be allowed in the first post of the sticky, and any other mention would most likely be considered off-topic and subject to deletion as per standard moderation rules. As such, I will likely request that the users make a whole new thread to replace the current sticky, and one of us will swap the two threads out.

Let me know what you guys think.

The Lending section is currently a joke, and a black eye on this forum and soon to be bitcoin as a whole when the BCST ponzi finally goes boom.  

Most threads in Lending are Ponzi derivatives or "pass throughs" all sending BTC to 1 guy in 1 giant, biggest ever BTC theft.  

that being said, they should be allowed to operate, and guys like me should be allowed to post that they are blatent scams and you shouldn't send BTC to them.  

Currently categorizing anything that claims to pay 6%+ per week as "Lending" gives major credence to these scams, and the Ponzi schemers are making tons of BTC from this categorization.  

Lending section stickies are extremely valuable to the thread OP.  It should cost BTC to get stickied there, in auction format, with ~ 1-4 stickies total available for purchase, top 4 bidders get a sticky thread.  would be a good way to monitize this forum to make BTC and improve it, sustain it, give away some to users, etc.

1)  as a forum, you are helping this guy scam ppl:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=66802.0  by not only allowing his scam to be listed under "Lending" but now you are HELPING the scammer by giving him a sticky!  When I saw this place I almost thought, holy shit I have to start yet another forum.  They are going to kill bitcoin or at least try and harm it greatly.  I will bring it up at the poker table and ppl will say "oh bitcoin - you mean that internet scam-currency everyone is always stealing?  the one with the bitcoinica theft?  and the $1M+ USD Ponzi's listed as "lending" on the only major bitcoin forum?"

2)  Mods eyes cannot stay shut and admins cannot stay silent on this matter any more.  I know everyone was waiting for it go boom as block-chain investigation, even if embellished by the scammer 5x, is starting to get to a point where new investment this week < interest + principle withdraws requested.  This is an obvious scam that you guys let go unchecked for so long that like a cancer it spread all over the GBLSE in bond form and so many "trust account pass throughs" threads, allowed clear as day to be listed under "lending," while a guy named Pirate gets funneled tons of coin, profiting greatly every single week - more and more BTC scammed from the community, week over week, unchecked by the mods, who all seem to understand it's an incredibly obvious scam, and they still list it under lending

3) We should brainstorm solutions.  Here is a possible starting point:  Categorize all investments based on APR% - if someone lists 7% /wk interest investment, I want it categorized as 3000%+ APR category.  Yes someone with some economics knowledge will need to read each on and categorize appropriately.  This person or panel of 3 or voting of 11 board members or something would be fine.  Most of these are easy.  If you had a handful of investment sub-categories such as:

<10% APR investment threads
10-25% APR investment
25-100% APR investment
100-1000% APR investment
1000-3000
and of course for those really looking to gamble, the
3000%+ APR investment obvious scams.

ok you don't need to keep the obvious scams part of the last one, but you understand.  Categorize by rate of yearly return.  The scams will categorize themselves.

More organization and decision making process must be implemented here.  this is a very important community IMO.  The world watches us occasionally here.  Usually whenever there is a huge theft to write about.  Unfortunately, there will be another to report very soon.  Lets at least learn from this and set up structure to categorize correctly and discuss further as the issue progresses.

[Micon]

Then perhaps there needs to be a deposits subforum.  While deposits/loans can be considered the same thing, I'd argue the loans are typically given by the more trusted to the less trusted, whereas the deposits are given by the less trusted to the more trusted and as such, represent two different market segments.  The people stickied in the deposits subform, while not officially endorsed, would be your long term, seemingly highly reliable people.

Absolutely not. The sooner you realize that loans and deposits are ABSOLUTELY the same thing, the sooner you'll wise up and realize that the risk profile is no different. We will not separate deposits from regular loans other than through the "Who Pays What?" sticky, no exceptions.

running into yet another problem when you mix scams with legit lenders at ballpark traditional lending rates.

the lending section should be for legit lending.  One of bitcoin's killer apps is the possibility of low transaction fee micro-lending.  Africa needs the shits like yesterday.  Somalia - no government? no currency?  no problem - they have tons of totally unregulated cell providers.  Where there is internet there can be money.

let's not ruin this?

[elux]

Here is a possible starting point:  Categorize all investments based on APR%
(...)
Categorize by rate of yearly return.  The scams will categorize themselves.

Upthumbed.

[Shadow383]

How about requiring proof of ID for people who want a sticky deposit thread?

To the sort of extent this guy did:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98767.0

That'd help to weed out some of the scams surely?

[matthewh3]

Hi guys,

As some of you may know, I'm the main person in charge of stickies in the Lending forum along with John. Our current policy is to sticky major lenders in order to separate them out from all of the lending requests. I believe that this is reasonable, since there are far fewer lenders than lendees, and when people go to the lending board for the first time, chances are that they are looking for a loan, so making them be stickies makes sense.

However, what has happened is that many of these lenders have started taking out loans of their own in the form of deposit programs and they are advertising them through their sticky, giving them an unfair advantage over all of the other loan requests. In fact, just this last week I had to yell at BurtW for converting his sticky into ONLY the deposit program. As a result, I took about a week to reevaluate the sticky requirements in the Lending board, and I think I have a solution that I want to hear the community's opinion on.

I propose that after giving the current sticky holders a few days of notice, no current sticky in the Lending board other than the Who Pays What? sticky can even mention a deposit program in the first post of the sticky. The only exceptions to this would be for mentions that are part of the company name and the user's signature. No other mention would be allowed in the first post of the sticky, and any other mention would most likely be considered off-topic and subject to deletion as per standard moderation rules. As such, I will likely request that the users make a whole new thread to replace the current sticky, and one of us will swap the two threads out.

Let me know what you guys think.

There is a board for bitcoin "securities" to help those businesses so why can't we have a child board for bitcoin banking/deposits.

[John (John K.)]

@Micon
There is no telling of a lending program that might turn out to be a ponzi solely based on it's APR alone. Heck, most if not all deposit programs in the Lending subforum would be ponzi schemes then. A low return program might turn out to be a secret PPT, thus folding shop if something happens with Pirate.


Back on topic, yes, I do concur that depositors listed on the stickies are having an unfair advantage over the others in terms of exposure and advertising. They are indeed using their sticky's to advertise their company's entire range of products (deposits, PPT's, etc) instead of just the Lending part.  

As some of you might know that I'm the regular loudmouth at the Lending subforum with Tomatocage and we troll suspicious threads looking for gullible lenders - we're really incensed by the scams which occur so easily. There is people who visit the Lending subforum just to make some returns on their idle coins, so having a list of verified lenders (people taking deposits) that is more unlikely to scam as compared to the regular newbie-looking-for-xxBTC would be better.  This could be covered by the 'Who pays What' thread, but it'll be better if the thread is retitled succinctly - like 'List of Long Term Deposit-Takers'.

tl;dr: Cut down the stickies with deposit programs, make/edit a few stickies/subforum dedicated to deposit takers with proven track records.

Sorry for the garbled reply, but I'm currently on the go and typing this on a tablet. Maybe I'll try to restructure my post later.

[BitcoinINV]

How about requiring proof of ID for people who want a sticky deposit thread?

To the sort of extent this guy did:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98767.0

That'd help to weed out some of the scams surely?

It sucks cause anytime you mention ID, someone says they can fake it. But like anything there is a some risk, just like you could get hit by a car walking across the street. That being said you can always do things to lessen your risk, like looking both ways. But there is always that risk of something you can not control. People just have to understand with no central regulations there will be no sure way to prevent this. So the "what if" game can be played all day with bit coins and that's what is done everyday on here it seems.

I agree no Business should have a advantage over another and each business should have to market for themselves. At first I could not understand why they would not divide loans and deposits. But I guess here it is exactly the same thing with a different name and interest rate, so yes I would  say keep them the same thing.

[BadBear]

I propose that after giving the current sticky holders a few days of notice, no current sticky in the Lending board other than the Who Pays What? sticky can even mention a deposit program in the first post of the sticky. The only exceptions to this would be for mentions that are part of the company name and the user's signature. No other mention would be allowed in the first post of the sticky, and any other mention would most likely be considered off-topic and subject to deletion as per standard moderation rules. As such, I will likely request that the users make a whole new thread to replace the current sticky, and one of us will swap the two threads out.

I agree, having them sticky looks like the forum supports them and makes them seem more legit than they are. Doesn't look good for anyone.

Glad to see you're taking steps to rectify the situation, was gonna do it myself eventually  .

[imsaguy]

Then perhaps there needs to be a deposits subforum.  While deposits/loans can be considered the same thing, I'd argue the loans are typically given by the more trusted to the less trusted, whereas the deposits are given by the less trusted to the more trusted and as such, represent two different market segments.  The people stickied in the deposits subform, while not officially endorsed, would be your long term, seemingly highly reliable people.

Absolutely not. The sooner you realize that loans and deposits are ABSOLUTELY the same thing, the sooner you'll wise up and realize that the risk profile is no different. We will not separate deposits from regular loans other than through the "Who Pays What?" sticky, no exceptions.

So then why aren't we arguing that bonds are the same thing?  After all, there's nothing to verify that those people have actually bought anything or done anything, yet we have a securities board. 

It seems John (johnthedong) and matthewh3 seem to agree with me, at least in principle, so surely I'm not being that unreasonable.  I have to wonder if it'd be more acceptable had someone else proposed it first, since it seems you oppose most anything I have to say the last few weeks.

[BadBear]

Then perhaps there needs to be a deposits subforum.  While deposits/loans can be considered the same thing, I'd argue the loans are typically given by the more trusted to the less trusted, whereas the deposits are given by the less trusted to the more trusted and as such, represent two different market segments.  The people stickied in the deposits subform, while not officially endorsed, would be your long term, seemingly highly reliable people.

Absolutely not. The sooner you realize that loans and deposits are ABSOLUTELY the same thing, the sooner you'll wise up and realize that the risk profile is no different. We will not separate deposits from regular loans other than through the "Who Pays What?" sticky, no exceptions.

So then why aren't we arguing that bonds are the same thing?  After all, there's nothing to verify that those people have actually bought anything or done anything, yet we have a securities board. 

It seems John (johnthedong) and matthewh3 seem to agree with me, at least in principle, so surely I'm not being that unreasonable.  I have to wonder if it'd be more acceptable had someone else proposed it first, since it seems you oppose most anything I have to say the last few weeks.

I don't know which way I'm leaning in this one, but you should make a separate thread about it, and make your case there so theymos can read it.

[Micon]

@Micon
There is no telling of a lending program that might turn out to be a ponzi solely based on it's APR alone. Heck, most if not all deposit programs in the Lending subforum would be ponzi schemes then. A low return program might turn out to be a secret PPT, thus folding shop if something happens with Pirate.

yes, most of the lending forum is Ponzis or other scams.  A major cleanup is needed.  You are helping on particular PPT help scam by giving them a sticky

all PPTs are ponzi affiliates

I'm sure you have seen the 2nd most viewed thread ever in Lending --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94900.0 

many, many of us believe it's an obvious Ponzi, and there is almost no defense for some1 guaranteeing 3000% APR with no business unit.  There is over $1M+ USD in this scam, and allowing stickies to PPTs help the scammer each week scam a bit more.

[PatrickHarnett]

I propose that after giving the current sticky holders a few days of notice, no current sticky in the Lending board other than the Who Pays What? sticky can even mention a deposit program in the first post of the sticky. The only exceptions to this would be for mentions that are part of the company name and the user's signature. No other mention would be allowed in the first post of the sticky, and any other mention would most likely be considered off-topic and subject to deletion as per standard moderation rules. As such, I will likely request that the users make a whole new thread to replace the current sticky, and one of us will swap the two threads out.

Let me know what you guys think.

I am going to strongly disagree with your proposal.

Currently there is a sub-forum called "lending".  It is a bucket for people offering deposits as well as seeking loans.  We also have people asking for project donations, arguing the merits of different users and different arrangements that assist commerce.  We also have people posting blatantly off-topic responses (and I'm pleased to see one in particular got removed), or posting false material without bothering to check the background of what is posted (that happens and I can live with that).

I would be comfortable with stickies for people that are actually active in lending.  I checked with INAU a couple of weeks ago about his because he had no availability, and I see Znort's gone for now as well.  Sen, Kluge, and HK are still active, and I'm still running an active loan book and actively look for opportunities (I have done seven loans this month so far (around 2000BTC , but only two from this board).

Some time ago, I was receiving regular requests for information about where people could deposit funds, and users were after "banking" services.  That resulted in the WPW thread (and it's not pure lending).  WPW has grown to cover more than simple long-term deposit takers (including bonds and some other instruments), and the next step was to provide some ranking information on the financial strength of these people taking other users funds.  This is part of my ambition to clean up this sub-forum.  I still have concerns about some of the entities listed, and that is probably why people still ask who I have my money with or where they should invest.

The proposal to require the StarfishBCB OP to remove references to deposits is, in my view, silly.  It is part of the business.  There is not a good alternative location within bitcointalk to place such a thread, and it is not analogous to a loan as you claim.  That might be due to my deposits being on-call.  As someone noted, it is more like an ATM and I have people that deposit and withdraw small amounts regularly.  I certainly do not advertise other parts of my portfolio here such as the securities I run, simply the banking side of things.

I am not a moderator here (and I've had people wonder why not), and I actually care about the stuff that goes on.  There is real money at stake, and I see people get burned or put off by the aggressive and often unnecessary trolling that occurs.  I hold a lot of information confidentially about different people and that is necessary to help make this a better and safer environment for people, even if it is viewed as a conflict of interest or Starfish is viewed as a competitor to some of the other offerings.  I will continue to be as impartial as possible and contribute to the lending forum, and cater to the needs of people needing banking services - and that includes noting in the Starfish thread that I do a high volume of loans and provide low risk place for people to park funds (even if it has returned more than 50% since 1Feb12).

As a BTW: I support micon's right to discuss the BS&T system which has been done many times before, and one of the reasons it has been viewed so many times is that it is entertaining, but a lot of the material within the OP is false.  The discussion would more properly be located elsewhere, but it may as well be in lending as anywhere.

[Micon]

I am a very active lender and have been for a long time (long in Bitcoin time that is).  You can see from the OP in my thread just how many public loans I have on my books and how many public loans have been paid off.  The only reason that there are not a lot more loans listed is that many people who borrow from me have asked to not be listed publicly.  I make loans all the time. I do also take deposits when people are interested in a long term safe "certificate of deposit" type account.

I also happen to have a trust account at BS&T.  I have met Pirate personally.  I have discussed his business with him over dinner and I understand it pretty well. I am personally convinced that it is not a ponzi.  So, I also offer people the option, if they are so inclined, to open an account at BS&T through me.  If I thought it was a ponzi I would not be involved in it at all.

Having said all that I would be willing to remove the one single line in my OP that mentions BS&T if asked.  My deposit/lending business is separate from the BS&T account offering anyway.

Flame on, Micon.

Hey, that rhymes!

1)  It is important to understand the BTC behind the words when reading posts by BurtW & Payb.tc - they are the 2 biggest affiliates of this giant Ponzi scheme.  BurtW is a strong Pirateat40 shill and IMO will say anything to perpetuate the scam 1 more week.

2)  IMO it is extremely shameful to send this scammer BTC each week and take a small %.   This is Ponzi 101 and in no way flaming or trolling or FUD.

[theymos]

I never liked the stickies. Using stickies for categorization seems like a misuse of the feature. How about "long-term offers" under "Lending" for this kind of stuff, and no restrictions on post content?

[myrkul]

I never liked the stickies. Using stickies for categorization seems like a misuse of the feature. How about "long-term offers" under "Lending" for this kind of stuff, and no restrictions on post content?

That sounds better, IMO.

[John (John K.)]

@Micon
There is no telling of a lending program that might turn out to be a ponzi solely based on it's APR alone. Heck, most if not all deposit programs in the Lending subforum would be ponzi schemes then. A low return program might turn out to be a secret PPT, thus folding shop if something happens with Pirate.

yes, most of the lending forum is Ponzis or other scams.  A major cleanup is needed.  You are helping on particular PPT help scam by giving them a sticky

all PPTs are ponzi affiliates

I'm sure you have seen the 2nd most viewed thread ever in Lending --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94900.0 

many, many of us believe it's an obvious Ponzi, and there is almost no defense for some1 guaranteeing 3000% APR with no business unit.  There is over $1M+ USD in this scam, and allowing stickies to PPTs help the scammer each week scam a bit more.

How are you going to know that every non-PPT program isn't a secret PPT in this case? Anyway, it would be better if you could make a new thread in Meta to propose your case to theymos, and keep this thread solely on the discussion of the stickies.

I never liked the stickies. Using stickies for categorization seems like a misuse of the feature. How about "long-term offers" under "Lending" for this kind of stuff, and no restrictions on post content?

Awesome. If I understand it correctly, posts like '★ VESCUDERO's Guaranteed Weekly Term deposit at 1.5% ★' and 'NCKRAZZE's Deposits - Low Risk Deposits with Guaranteed Payback Weekly @ 2.5% /w' goes under long-term offers? If that's so, the 'Who pays What' sticky could be migrated there as a sticky too.

[Bitcoin Oz]

Stickying individual lenders is as bad as  stickying individual merchants and should be avoided as the forum should be agnostic and not recommend one over the other.