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

LithStud

@haitch ok understood, so no more assets from me, and to that same extent no more modifications as well, as i am not gonna go against my principles just to please someone.

I couldnt care less if asset has verification or not as i understand my risks i take in crypto world.

haitch

@LithStud That's your pejorative, and I hope you'll reconsider.

In the US online services can be sued/prosecuted for the content they advertise. There is an online site here that is currently being prosecuted by the federal government for promoting prostitution due to the ads they ran. I'm not willing to be the one left holding the bag if someone decides to sue over a scam asset. Publishing in good faith from an anonymous source is not a legal defense, Publishing in good faith from an identifiable individual is.

So my options as I see them are: allow NO asset promotion, or allow asset promotion from verifiable individuals. Yes, part of it is me wanting to protect the users here from scams, but it's mostly to legally cover my butt.

LithStud

@haitch well i understand your point even if i dont understand US laws. And since i will adhere to those rules i wont advertaise what i do. There is nothing to consider as there cant be any exclusions from the rules. Either there is freedom or there is rules, cant have both.

MikeMike

@haitch

I like the concept and this is what I wanted to bring into the Asset and Crowd Fund websites.
Of course ones can create their own and post them where they like but for sites that are created
to bring BURST to the next level of mass adoption some standards or guidelines or rules
are usually very welcoming to those who are serious about creating and investing in
honorable assets.

Perhaps a notice in the BURST OP page with links to all created avenues to advertise these assets and crowd funds could be considered.

haitch

@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 ?

Bitdv

@haitch I agree totally and am more than happy to do this , and yes it is a individual decision and we have to respect everyones own decision

MikeMike

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

split the Asset Exchange category into "ID Verified Assets", and "Unverified ID Assets

"split the Asset Exchange category into "ID Verified Assets", and "Unverified ID Assets"
This could work well for this forum.

Bitdv

@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!!

LithStud

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

haitch

@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.

Gibsalot

@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.

haitch

@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.

MikeMike

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.

haitch

@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.

MikeMike

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

TalkingCat

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?

socal

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

Focus

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?

keyd0s

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)

haitch

@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.