This is a community and we collectively decide what is fair and right. You are neither.
What is "fair" is not necessarily what was agreed upon. Some may argue that the interest rates that Loan Shark is charging (and what his borrowers are agreeing to) is unnecessarily high, however his borrowers should still pay this interest rate because it is what they agreed to.
The interest rates that most borrowers charge around here would probably be considered "predatory" in much of the Western world.
I am not so sure that it is appropriate to ask for both BCH and BTC for outstanding loans. I don't see anything in his loan agreements that would compel his borrowers to repay both BCH and BTC. One party to a contract does not have the right to unilaterally change the terms of the contract without the other party of said contract accepting the modified terms.
I would also point out that BCH is trading at roughly 0.179 BTC and BTC is trading at >100% from where it was trading only days ago, and is roughly at the ATH.
I would say that interest paid by borrowers is what compensates Lone Shark for the loss of being able to use BTC for whatever he wants, including to use it to receive BCH, when possible. if Lone Shark was not lending out his BTC, he would have the opportunity to lend it out on bitfinex (or another exchange), or invest it in an ICO, or invest it elsewhere, and it would not be reasonable to have borrowers repay hypothetical returns on these investments plus interest for the loan.
Again perfectly worded. Someone that sees the bigger picture from a fair perspective.
Thanks.
You are not wrong.
I am pro-choice. If someone makes an agreement than that is their choice. That is what they are responsible for. There is perceived higher risk for lenders here and they can charge what they perceive compensates. What really made me go wtf is when i read in Lone Sharks thread someone wanting to clarify that they now owed him BTC plus Bitcoin Cash like they had no say in the matter. I wanted to make a few points so they felt comfortable in speaking up if they disagreed with his demands.
In no way that I prevented them from speaking up though. I clearly stated all the facts to them and if they have a disagreement with it, they were always free to pm me or post on my thread.
And why are we even really discussing this in-depth. In total, the people who owe me have about 0.2
BTC remaining. To be honest, if they reacted to it that they don't want to pay the BCC, then I would have bargained and not ask for its payment. But, again, they agreed. A lot of them through pm and some even wrote a message that they agree.
I only retaliated to you since you are a hostile asshole. If you wanted a discussion then we could have talked properly in a civilized manner. But no. You chose the ugly route of things.
Again, I don't even know what your interest in this. If the people I contract with agree with it, so what is your problem?
I got upset when i read one of your borrowers post on your loan thread wanting to clarify that they now owed you both coins.
I feel you had no right to make the demands you did and that you made them in such a manner as to make them feel they had no choice in the matter. My interpretation entirely but that is how i interpreted your posts.
I spoke up to make these points so borrowers know they have support should they feel they want to speak up.
I feel i am attempting to make this community better by having this discussed.
I don't feel i deserve negative trust because of anything I've written here. Thank you for that little bit of trust abuse. Kind of reinforces my point about you don't you think.