Quote from: examplens on Today at 02:16:42 PM

If the lenders don't report a problem with loan repayment, I don't see what exactly is the problem here. Is it a smart investment? Certainly not, but as long as these users bear the eventual losses. I don't see the difference between this kind of investment and gambling as a reason for a loan.

Nice to have you join the conversation concerning what should be done about loans that are (unknowingly) used to facilitate loans to participate in Ponzi's. What happens when the borrower takes out a loan and never pays it back? The lender waits. Then waits. Then waits some more. They'll probably contact the borrower and wait some more. Then eventually, they create a scam accusation concerning the default of their funds. Collectively negative trust feedback and or DT negative trust is dispensed and the borrower moves onto their next alt. Rinse and repeat.

Quote

A participant in any HYIP scheme is just a naive person who thinks he will make a lot of money in a short time. Most often, he is not a fraudster.

In my examples I've shown that the borrower doesn't actually need the loan adding the funds to a much larger pot they have gathered which was then sent to an address identified as participating in Ponzis. (both of the "three days later" examples)

Quote

I haven't tracked everything, but it seems that there is a possibility that the accounts are connected. Certainly, this can be important information for lenders, and it is up to them how they will manage loans according to these user/s.

I appreciate you are at least considering that they are alts and are considering what the ramifications of random borrowers borrowing funds that have been derived from Ponzi activities.

Quote

edit: Timelord2067, I just saw that you left negative feedback on these accounts. I invite you to double-check the matter, the fact where someone spends their money should certainly not be the subject of trust assessment. Tagging them only complicates the issue of currently active loaners and discourages them from maintaining their reputation on this forum.
I am opposed to your flags, I hope I won't have to leave positive feedback as a counter to yours.

I've found people usually take "this trust feedback is counter X feedback" not just with a grain of salt but with mirth and merriment as the persons later on who stumble upon it will know the author has had a clash with the one they are countering and makes the author look foolish.

Go right ahead and be "that guy" and leave a *cough* counter trust feedback to mine. Or, we could just discuss this in a rational manor.

Confirm they are alts, or, prove me wrong.

.

In the last week I have read a totally different thread concerning the ramifications of funds that were paid out to signature campaigners that came from a mixing site that has been seized and it's owner arrested.

Shouldn't we be mature enough to have a conversation about the harm Ponzis cause in people's lives? In that other thread it was confirmed to me that admin/mods of the Forum are banned from participating in Mixer campaigns - if the Forum is at least willing to take a small step, let's actually take a stand on Ponzi's (and no, I've never participated in a ponzi, thanks for asking).