Quote from: Timelord2067 on Today at 07:11:08 AM

Quote from: holydarkness on Today at 06:18:47 AM

Whatever that is, wouldn't the fact that they fake deals is enough to warrant some suspicion and advise people to exercise caution upon doing any deal with them?

I was going to say something along those lines but I would also add that there are no TX details (faked or actual), so at best there is only a suspicion that the accused might take the collateral (assuming that after they had said they are prepared to use an escrow a potential borrower were to then go ahead and send that collateral to the lender direct).

As you pointed out, it may be that the lender was trying to make themselves look worthy of conducting business with, but we don't even have solid proof ^{(i.e. use of the same wallet, email, twitter etc)} that the borrowers were alts - just a suspicion.

The lack of TX details themselves, in my opinion, are the evidence. There is something suspicious by the silence. Let's put ourselves on the shoes of those people whose username put by DireWolfM14, they --or rather, we-- got a promise that our non-collateral loan was acccepted and then we never received it. If we are real and not the alt of Loansik12, wouldn't one of us, at least one of us, will ask for clarification that goes along the line, "hello good sir, how do you do. When can I have my loan?", or "My good sir, I have not yet received the payment." or, "Sir, plz good sir, I need the loan to buy shiba 5 years and be millionaire, I need helping."

None did.

It'll be a different case if Loansik12 PMed them and rejected each of their loan. That'll nicely explain why there is no transaction on each of the wallet and none protested. But that'll be a breach of implicit --or could it be even a written one?-- contract. Loansik12 agreed upon a "contract", and then rejected them behind the screen, and most likely unilaterally. At the very least, it entitled them a suspicion. Why else would someone offered a non-collateral service, agreed, only to decline it later on behind the screen?

And ultimately, the silence itself. The thread spread from 28th of May to 12th of June, if they're not guilty, or they've send the payment, perhaps to a different address that's changed by mutual agreement behind the screen, they surely would try to defend themselves, provide TX ID, ask the borrower to made testament, or at the very least, those borrower will say something themselves and provide statement that'll defend Loansik12.

Can we agree on these?