Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.



  • @haitch said in Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.:

    @LithStud How about a compromise then? I'm willing to listen, and adapt to, feedback on any of my plans. I split the Asset Exchange category into "ID Verified Assets", and "Unverified ID Assets - invest at your own risk" ? Disclaimers on each explaining that ALL assets are a risk, but assets where the owner has chosen to go through ID verification, there is a verifiable person they can deal with vs an anonymous asset issuer? People can then decide their trust level in the asset, and no one is forced to disclose their real ID to me. Would that be acceptable ?

    Awesome Idea!!



  • @haitch it probably works. But also i am probably minority in this, so it doesnt matter what i want or think works.


  • admin

    @LithStud Okay, I'll ask the community to weigh in what they want to see - only verified assets, or a split of verified vs unverified assets? This is a community site, so I'll go with the community opinion.



  • @haitch id love to see split ... make researching assets to invest in a little easy'er . thou i can see the legal point in not allowing unvarified.


  • admin

    @Gibsalot I'm willing to do either. I went with the verified only on the assumption that that was what the community would want - but if I'm wrong, I'll do it the way the community wants.



  • Split since it gives a clear choice and allows all to be involved.
    If it were a single custom website that is just for assets I would say only verified.
    Could a terms of service or something be in the unverified section that is well worded that protects you.


  • admin

    @MikeMike If the community wants the split option, I'll put up a pinned disclaimer that people invest in these assets at their own risk, I have no responsibility, and no recourse for helping them in the event of a scam. On the verified side, same at own risk disclaimer, but instead will promise to give the real life details of the asset owner in the case of what I consider a valid dispute.



  • @haitch Sounds good. This will be an awesome and welcomed upgrade to the assets, forum in general and BURST.



  • Hard to say, I feel like having a split option (although it would be neat) completely negates your previous point about getting sued. The Asset Exchange Category already has a warning about scam assets, how would splitting them up be any different and prevent you @haitch from getting sued?



  • Man it feels good to be verified, participate in the escrow program with 50% of funds, AND be grandfathered in lol

    And now for the shameless shilling:

    Check out my Asset, SocalsFarm Mining Asset, the only Asset that has a 50% Guaranteed Investor Insurance and a great way to diversify your portfolio. Asset ID: 9998071651072078911



  • How about this? Those who do not want to do the ID verification may chosse to do the 50% Escrow or they may do both if they like?



  • I personally think by doing this you are polarizing the community. One part of which has the 'Shiny star of approval' , and one who has to stand in the hallway for being unaligned with the current classroom-politics.
    Especially for the new people who get into burst, who get on this forum, and see two different topics in the AE ; Verified Assets, and Unverified Assets. Well if was the newbie I would most definitely choose for the Verified one, without thinking.

    therefor I think by splitting the AE into these two sectors, even though it's not necessarily the intention, you are shaming the unverified assets. Of course for the owners of Verified Assets, this is great and will probably vote for this to go through.

    In my opinion you either go all the way, or not at all. Make all assets to be verified, or none. Middle-ground is in my opinion not a suitable option.

    ( I'll add here that I don't see a problem with getting verified. Since if you're sincere, you lose nothing by doing it)


  • admin

    @TalkingCat I'm hoping having them in a separate category with a pinned warning " Trade with these assets at your own risk, there is no recourse if you're scammed" would be a sufficient CMA. My personal preference is for ONLY verified assets, it removes all ambiguity, removes pretty much any chance of a scam, and increases the trust in the assets.



  • @haitch I and I suspect most people are in the Verified Only category. Given the relative simplicity of the verification process I just cannot see why anyone would not be willing to go through with it? Unless they have something to hide.....

    Rich



  • If what someone is doing with your asset, like trading, running a casino or something else, will punish them if they did it in real life, the chance of getting him/her verified is low. Asset issuers from countries with negativ politics on Cryptocurrency would also suffer.

    If the document somehow got stolen or hacked, they will suffer a lot.
    @Haitch might say that the documents are stored securely, but that is not when you factor in someone breaking into his house. If they are stored encrypted as files, they will also be at risk. Decrypting gets stronger everyday and quantum computers are just about to be a reality. Many predict quantum computers will break most exciting encryption metodes, if not all.
    I don't believe it is gonna happen, but you can't say getting verified is without risks.

    Startups like @Zeus's Casino won't happen as often as well. He is unable to register his casino, and is therefore risking a lot if his identity suddenly got revealed. The same goes for all other verified asset issuers. Did they remember to pay taxes? If they come from Denmark, asset issuers got to pay tax on the investment as well.

    @RichBC. I'm an asset issuer. I can't risk getting verified and something happens. My asset Margin would be dead, if it weren't for my anonymity.

    I don't think creating a sub-category would be great. I don't think eliminating non-verified assets would be great. But in the end, it is entirely up to @haitch. This is my opinion and I might be the only one with the concerns.

    Edit: If we are going to discuss escrow as well. You are literally asking the asset issuer to cut the dividends by half. The investor could also do it himself by only investing 50% of what he originally planned.


  • admin

    @vprf said in Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.:

    For me personally, I will not invest in a "non-verified" asset. I think it would be a good idea to split into two categories. One question. If the asset owner is thrown in jail, dies, or becomes unable to issue the dividends, is there an escrow that will take over the payment to the asset holders? Or will this be an "inherent" risk buying assets?

    If they choose to use the escrow as Socal and BenBurst have, then yes - if they disappear, I can payout the escrowed funds. All other assets, if the owner disappears, that's it.



  • @FrilledShark I agree with you in that point.

    I understand your concern as I sometimes ask myself if I did the right thing becoming a verified member when it wasn't required, I know that haitch will not reveal my identity, that doesn't mean it's protected.



  • @MikeMike Let's continue with this thread main topic.

    @haitch So how are the votes? Will it be a two separated categories or just one for verified ?



  • @Zeus said in Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.:

    @MikeMike Let's continue with this thread main topic ^_^

    It is a concern closely related to "Approved Assets" that is clearly a concern so lets not let this die.
    It could be very beneficial.



  • @LithStud

    PM me in chat


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Burst - Efficient HDD Mining was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.