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



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

    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.

    Another approach than issuing a "warning" on assets could go over better and show the reasonableness that
    there are many assets that are unverified with a great history and by trusted members.
    As for a "General Warning" I think @haitch is having those put in both categories. But to have to force a warning
    on every asset if I am understanding correctly might be too much.

    Perhaps a bullet list of options and some are checked and some are not? I am sure something could be figured out to consider all.



  • @haitch Maybe a Kill switch would be a smart contract that sees no payouts within 3 months and shuts down the asset?

    I like the verification since the Crypto is Decentralized but the Help forum can not be Decentralized. By requiring an attempt at Verification of ID then it absolves the Forum of any complicity to the scammer. If they want to advertise elsewhere anyone can double check for their safety on the Help tab to know about Verification at least. Then there is a safety net.

    The only question is about Advertising on the Forum. Assets can be made and not Verified and still be great assets. It is just the liability of Advertising a possible scam asset. Most investors would assume the risk knowing this.


  • admin

    @CryptoNick How do you shutdown an asset ? It can't be removed from the AE, once an asset is created it exists as long as the Blockchain exists, and as such can be held, transferred, traded. If the asset is automatically accumulating Burst in the asset account, then a custom SC per asset could be set to do the dividend distribution, but if the funds for the asset are not going into the asset account - eg GPU mining, coin trading, staking then the SC has no access to those funds and nothing to distribute.


  • admin

    @all The OP has been updated with a poll on this subject, please vote and express your opinion. The results of the poll won't determine the direction I take, but it will be taken into consideration.

    Thanks.

    H.

    OP Link



  • @haitch I guess I meant dissolve the Asset and Block it. Like an alert? If there was an Escrow or predetermined arrangements then that asset would flourish because it was bound by them. It would be another level of Asset Grading. This would have to be done prior to the creation of the Asset.

    Say an Asset grants 1 Million Shares at 10 Burst per share. The asset would be liable for 10 Million Burst. If the Asset holder could use a holdings address linked to the Asset which can only be withdrawn by the Smart Contract it could start at 1 Million Burst there is a 90% risk to the asset. If you want a better grading, then the asset can do 5 million in holdings which is 50%.

    Then the asset can also pay into the Escrow as time goes on and create a 100% rating. It would be fully funded. As soon as funds stop going into the Payment address the Asset is dissolved. This will also tie up more Burst. This is kind of like a CD and the Asset issuer could be the Principle so they have stake. Maybe they own the 50% and sell shares on the market. If the Issuer ever wanted to close the asset they could buy up the outstanding shares and get their deposit back as the single holder when the Asset expires and pays to the remaining holders.



  • @CryptoNick i could not understand anything. Do you suggest tying up invested BURST? Why the hell then even create the asset?



  • @LithStud Only if you wanted a good rating for your Asset. It is like you are willing to back your word and pay into the Asset as a Holdings company would.

    This would alleviate the need for Verification and you could Advertise on the Forums etc.


  • admin

    @CryptoNick The way I'm doing it with Socal's asset works like this:

    Socal created an asset, 1,000,000 shares. All of them get sent to the escrow account I run for him.
    The escrow account puts the asset up for sale on his schedule - 50K at a time currently.
    When each tranche of the asset sells out, 50% of the funds go to Socal, 50% go to another Escrow holding account.

    So at any given time, Socal has 50% of the funds, I have the other 50% escrowed.

    Once the asset has performed for the agreed time (minimum of 1 year), the escrowed funds and remaining shares are returned to Socal.

    If Socal disappears, after I've verified he's gone, then I can return the escrowed funds to the investors, and take all the other shares off the market.


  • admin

    I propose a list of trust of with e.g. 10 points:

    1. ID Verification (true/false)
    2. Pictures of Proof (true /false)
    3. High reputation in the forums (true/false)
    4. Other accounts linked: e.g. eBay, Facebook (true/false)
      ...
      ....
      ... and so on.

    The Asset issuer or the users can rate the asset with a trust score of 7 of 10 points for example.

    We have to discuss the points on the list then. Asset issuers can use the scoring to advertise their asset but they don't have to.



  • @daWallet

    If users are able to vote/rate the asset could there be a requirement for them to post their nic and a reason
    and once approved the rating/vote would be made.
    Or something like that...
    This could keep unscrupulous ratings to a minimum.



  • @haitch Excellent! AAA Rated!



  • @MikeMike Also what if people rate the Asset great so other people buy them out? Meaning it wasn't really that great of an Asset but all holders rate it great and then dump on unsuspecting buyers.



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

    @MikeMike Also what if people rate the Asset great so other people buy them out? Meaning it wasn't really that great of an Asset but all holders rate it great and then dump on unsuspecting buyers.

    Yea that could be a problem and setting up the ratings so they need approval is one way but that puts alot of time and pressure on @haitch to constantly be qualifying those ratings. I was thinking any who rated them
    would be required to include their nic and and explanation so at least you could research who they were and how long they have been around etc.
    I know @goodplanets wanted to setup an asset evaluation/rating system, that could help.
    If any systems are adopted for sure it is not as easy as it seems, trust is one of the main considerations.
    I guess we can only try to do our best to create checks and balances and the rest is trust.



  • Decentralized platform, we shouldn't do anything to take away from this at all. People like @haitch can give their seal of verification, but not as a forum feature.


  • admin

    @haitch I'm still deciding how to handle this, so for now consider it to be no change in policy ( posting open to all ) until I decide the best path.



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

    Decentralized platform, we shouldn't do anything to take away from this at all. People like @haitch can give their seal of verification, but not as a forum feature.

    I'm all for decentralization. Since it will be awhile yet for BURST tech and other developments on hold to get up to speed it is not critical for mass adoption right now. For sure though it will be son enough and having some
    guidelines will be welcomed by those new to crypto.



  • I don't think we should have verified only, I think we should leave the option, but not make it MANDATORY...

    It's a good option to have, but if people want to make an asset without verification and promote it here, it is okay IMO...

    We should just keep an eye out for scams as we always do and make people aware.

    I don't think getting sued is a possibility because a forum owner isn't responsible for everything that is put on the forum, they are only responsible for giving as much info to the authorities as possible if they ask for it.



  • @haitch I agree, I lost over 50 btc scammed by anon devs lol, no more..and when I do an asset, I will make sure everyone can see my ugly muggins rofl because investors need to be protected. I had to start from scratch 3 months ago because 2 anon devs fleeced me and I don't want to see others burnt because of being naive like me. I like to see the face behind the investment I putting my hard earned BURST in..I have been scammed too many times... ANON doesn't sit with me nicely at all anymore.



  • When I worked with the Real Estate Investors we had to go through a lot more than just verify who we were. It was a gauntlet of different tests, paperwork, and discussions. I understand the assets are not dealing with millions of dollars but I would like to see as if they are.

    Another way to look at this is, what if a massive investor discovers Burst and would like to invest into and also run an asset. I doubt s/he would take Burst seriously if it's a den of past known scams. I'm not implying that we are there yet; but if unchecked then we might be there soon.

    Maybe create a tier system to reflect the level of trust??

    • Copper
      • You have made more than five posts on the forum.
      • You have contacted any of the admins or mods to let them know of your intentions.
      • Asset will be labeled as high risk and unverified by the admins or mods of the forum.
        Your post will be removed if you have not created five upvote worthy posts.
    • Iridium

      • You have made more than 10 upvote worthy posts.
      • You have more than 10 rep points on the forum.
      • You have contacted Haitch to let him know of your intentions.
      • You are allowed to post an asset on the forum.
      • You have been verified by Haitch.
    • Gold

      • You have made more than 20 upvote worthy posts.
      • You have more than 20 rep points on the forum.
      • You have contacted Haitch to let him know of your intentions.
      • You are allowed to post an asset on the forum.
      • You have been verified by Haitch.
      • You have insurance for your asset through Haitch

    Folks that are serious about their asset and contributing to the community will have no problem getting to the Iridium and or Gold level.

    Existing assets will be grandfathered in at the approval of Haitch.



  • My view is: Either have mandatory ID verification or split it into 2 as suggeted by others. Without verification there is no accountability and as stated, people have been scammed already. If you do nothing people are going to be scammed again and again and again until it gets to the point where people will stop investing completely and that will be the end of the asset exchange.


Log in to reply
 

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