Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.
-
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.
-
@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)
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
PM me in chat
-
Could a rating system be applied to the unverified assets so people dont think ALL unverified assets are a scam.
-
I'm with ID verification, somehow it feels more safe to invest with those who would take extra measures than those who prefer to stay anonymous.
Even better I'll invest with those who pay escrow for their assets and take part of the risk.
To make it a MUST requirement to issue an asset, no!
A warning on the asset that its not verified or paid an insurance to protect its investors might help a lot.
-
Guys we need to understand that decentralization doesn't necessarily means the "Law of the Jungle"! We need to go smart if you want people adopting this currency. I will go for the option to know the potential risks, investors will know if they want to invest with someone issuing an asset that the very next day may just disappear with all the investment funds and without the possibility of at least initiate a fight back in order to get back their investments. Why the heck should I trust someone that definitely -and proven to be the case in the past- might just do that!? Anyway asset issuers may also have the option to go with what they feel comfortable. I am not an asset issuer at the moment, but I wouldn't mind to unveil my identity to a trusted member of this forum who in exchange unveils his to me as well. But write in stone that personally I won't invest a penny in an asset from someone who can just evaporate the very next day without even say "bye, I fu*** up you all!"
-
@FrilledShark said in Change to the requirement to post new threads in the Asset Exchange Category.:
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.
This is a very good point folks!
I'm vote NO for the mandatory verification!
I took (and currently taking) a risk by reveal my identity, so that's why I ask @haitch to reveal his identity as well. I hope he will not share it with anybody and I'm really sure he will not, but because here we are laking about, "what if you die or go to jail", I can not say that I'm sure 100% that in case of issue he will not tell to whom he will ask who I am!
-
@all, as part of the ID Verification, I reveal to the person getting verified my name and address, for those who have requested I've provided proof of my identity and address with my drivers license and green card - so it's not a one way trust, I'm trusting the people I reveal my ID to to keep it confidential. If you chose to get verified, I'm the only one that knows your ID, everyone that gets verified knows mine. So by doing the verification, more people already know who I am than will ever know who you are.
Revelation of the ID of someone who has been verified, will not be done on a whim. If a verified asset owner disappears for 6 months, does not respond to DM's, emails, a letter to their confirmed address, then I'll consider releasing it. If they're offline for two weeks I'm not going to freak out and assume they're scamming and broadcast their details. I'll take every practical step I can to contact them before even considering it.



