Bitlend sounds pretty cool however I’m curious on getting more details about verbiage below.
Is this only for colored assets or other type assets ?
This is inferring that one will have to provide Bitlend the account access to ones assets and if so the dividend payments from that asset will be paid to whom ?
Just wondering - if it’s an asset being used as collateral does it make more sense to have assets themselves transferred oppose to obtain account access, however dividend payments would be an issue, right ?
Although it may be possible to use other coins to secure, or partially secure loans, it is by far not the only focus of the model. The main focus is based on commercial relationships with retailers or service providers, where such accounts or products can be controlled for the period of time the loan is outstanding. The problems with focusing only on altcoins or coloured coins is that their market values can vary dramatically, creating a mathematical formula the borrower may use in their decision making process, resulting in a purposed default on their loan; leaving us stuck with worthless collateral.
The industry currently suffers from a default rate of around 17.5%. Most of this is due to a lack of proper securitization as well as a lack of borrower due diligence. The reason Peers suffer most of this loss rate is due to the lack of screening of the respective Borrowers. Our credit rating system is far more stringent than what we have been able to uncover in the current industry, which relies more on social media connections than anything else. We would rather originate fewer loans, with higher quality, and lower risk, than open the floodgates to anyone or everyone who prefer the shroud of anonymity. We cannot fulfill our project plans when borrower quality is not compelled to conform to the needs of the lender(s).
Securitized loans is something that the lender must create through relationship building with the very service/product providers seeking to tap into the extremely large market that cryptocurrency affords to them (substantially more consumers with access to more consumer capital). Moreover, the use of proper legal structures creates an environment of enforceability that we also do not see in this particular industry. You need the legal document(s) in place to facilitate the ability to recover the very assets which were loaned against. This is the main reason Borrowers must sign a promissory note for every loan they request. Promissory notes are legally binding in most countries of the world. For the U.S. and Europe, they are all that is required to pursue legal remedies within the courts or with credit collection agencies.
Our Credit Rating system is stringent. The less information the Borrower is willing to divulge the less they can borrow and the higher the interest rate. That is fairly straight forward, but with little or no information given, with proof of such information, you cannot even borrow on the platform. There are no E-class Borrowers on Bitlend. Moreover, if you miss a payment date, chances are your credit rating will drop to E regardless, because we just do not subscribe to the concept of lending money to pseudo-anonymous borrowers. You need to visit the local loan shark on the nearby street corner if you want that kind of loan, without strings attached, but even then, the loan shark knows who you are, and where you live and work.
If/when we decide to use altcoins or coloured assets as collateral, the Borrower will relinquish control over those assets by depositing them to a locked wallet on our platform. The requirements for loan performance will be the same, in that the risk of asset loss will be high should a missed payment or default occur. I have “considered” converting the collateral at the time of deposit, replenishing the coins when the loan fully performs. We capture the then market value of the coins, precluding a diminished value in the future (for loans over one or two weeks) based on market analytics of the coin’s exchange value history. Example: If altcoin 1 has a long-term history of devaluing at an annual rate of 35%, then the expected market value of the coin is less than initially valued as collateral for loan, when the payback period is greater than 30 days. It is risk mitigation that we have to address in a financial model. If I sell the coins on the market today, and the loan performs, we buy the coins back from the market several days before the last payment is due, and replenish the Borrower’s locked wallet. This is only a concept. We are in the finance business, where risk should be borne by the borrower, not the lender, under crytocurrency environmental conditions. We are not setting out to be the easiest lending platform in this space, but the most secure and most comprehensive model, engaging in the building of consumerism through financial economic modeling. Initially, it starts in the mode we have, advancing over a very short period of time. When referring to “staking” coins, I see no model where this would work as collateral, in that there is no way we can secure those coins while maintaining the staking aspect of the underlying coin. At this moment in time, we have no plans on the board for staking any coin. We leave that to their respective coin networks. It is not the typical function of a bank-like entity, to lock up capital into staking cryptos, which may or may not be fully leveraged in the borrowing/lending model.
Depending on the product/service being sold (through us as lenders) account ownership would be started by us, not the borrower. We would hand the account over to the borrower once they have satisfied their loan requirements in full. In the case of altcoins, that is explained above. As a borrower, you should not be able to hold your own assets, independent of the financial institution, while simultaneously using the same assets as collateral for a loan, with the same institution. In essence, it is not a collateralized loan anymore, but just a promise to liquidate assets should financial difficulties arise from which the borrower is unable to satisfy their loan requirements. Bitlend would always act as temporary holder of all collateral used to secure loans on the platform, not the peers, and certainly not the borrowers. The definition of collateral is that which can be readily taken by the lending institution, either through repossession or through direct liquidation of the held asset within the control of the institution.
Yes. We only accept valid documentation of identify, address, income, credit standing (fiat world), etc etc. Our model is a lot more stringent however, due to our ongoing development model. We are not simply a bank, we are also a commercial development entity, developing tendrils into various commercial areas of “economy.” There is a lot more on the horizon, which when announced, will make more sense of our intentions and direction. We are only starting out as a normal lending model, because we have to open the doors now for exposure and to build economic activity from which we can continue to innovate.
Adam and Joe are business colleagues of Prestige Auditing, one of my fiat world enterprises, yes. They both have agency positions with Prestige Auditing and act in other capacities as well, such as software development for Prestige, and later InstantAudit (a JV, fiat world, online enterprise in my primary industry), as well as Marketing, Web Development, and PR for Prestige and InstantAudit. They are working on a large number of projects with me, including Bitlend, along with several other experienced individuals. In all cases, and businesses, I am the CEO, and head of the companies (not that it is that good looking a head). All companies, I am involved with, are companies which I represent and develop, alongside many other individuals I have deemed trustworthy, and who bring needed skills to the a business models; mostly developmental. There are also another half dozen or so individuals who work on one or more projects, including several others which are not complete at this point. There will be quite a number of people from the community who will be involved in a large number of projects in the future. I would never turn my back on the larger community just because of some stupid idiot who allegedly scammed everyone out of their savings.
In reference to a post made on another forum, which I will not name, I would never have anything to do with “person who shall go unnamed,” especially since I lead the largest litigation group against such individual. I will also point out that a federal agency representative and I have worked together, for some time now, on the “criminal” case against “person who shall go unnamed.” Subsequently, I have been deemed one of a few with the most comprehensive information gathered on the subject, collectively, in the federal criminal cases against “you know who.” Therefore, my credibility, and the credibility of those with whom I work, is far from questionable, when it comes to any of the businesses which I control. I would never work with anyone where I had information which would undermine their perceived integrity or trustworthiness. Everyone can read my biographic summary on http://prestigeauditing.com/about-the-owner/ if they want to know my abridged background (Btw that is not my mug on that page). I have no hesitation putting my long-running reputation on the names of the companies I personally am involved with or head. I also personally back every individual with whom I work.
Therefore, everyone can rest assured that these are enterprises I head exclusively, with great control, and with absolutely no ties, links or associations to/with the “person who shall go unnamed.”
I had a feeling this question would arise eventually… >_<
I just want to say this (posted this on Bitcointalk so don’t want you to think I’m talking about this behind your back @allen1980s):
Involvement of Mordica is quite concerning. Someone who was clearly part of the abysmal hashrate rentals pretending to be GAW’s “hosting” in early 2014 and then all later shenanigans (e.g. a data center built in October to “host” hashlets sold in August) is a bad hire for a trust-based business like a lending site.
I definitely sympathize with people’s present understanding of Joe’s past experience with GAW, but there is certainly a vast difference between willful perpetration of a fraud, operating a data center, or programming platforms and features, outside of a position of central management. Giving someone the title of CTO, at least within GAW, is meaningless, when the requisite salary is far from that of a normal CTO. His responsibilities were focused on technicals, not management. Everyone saw the videos GAW posted of Hangouts. It was obvious to most that Joe was kept quite out of the loop on managerial decision-making. Most of the data I have on the GAW fraud indicated, greatly, that many of the staff members were fundamentally clueless as to the intent of the company’s CEO. If the federal agencies agreed with your position or concern (or that of Bitcointalk), I would be the first to know this, definitely not the last. Since I am in communications with one of the agencies, which is levying criminal charges in the GAW matter, I would again be the first to know if they had found Joe liable for any breach of any U.S. laws, or therein culpable in any of the crimes committed by GAW and its CEO. Since this has not been in any way indicated or affirmed by the federal agency, and my character read of Joe is without concern, I am staking my reputation behind him and will continue to work with Joe, and others, without reserve, and well into the future.
I also wish to add that Joe has lent great assistance to the lawsuit group, and has equally helped two federal agencies in forming their present cases against GAW, the CEO, and specific other individuals who are also at risk of litigation or possible criminal proceedings. To a great degree, the result of any successful litigation against GAW will be partially the result of Joe’s unconditional assistance in the discovery process with me over the past months. He has not been granted any protection from any of the agencies, officially. Should our case result in a clear win (both cases), everyone in the lawsuit group should be thankful Joe volunteered to help in the discovery process. He was certainly not obligated to do so.
On the other side of my position, Joe has played, and will play in the future, a major technical role in developing software for Bitlend, as well as other enterprises which I personally own, and have managed now for over 20+ years. Since these enterprises are under my leadership, the only person responsible for these enterprises would be myself. I see no conflicts with the current corporate structures as they stand today.
People need to cease being judge, jury and executioner against some of the ex-employees of GAW. I have had ample time to know most of them, and “most” of them are equally as innocent as the customers; some having lost significant sums of money during their time there, no thanks to the criminal intent of the CEO. That may be a hard pill to swallow for some naysayers out there, focused on exacting retribution on anyone having been associated with GAW, but it is a pill that should be swallowed, none-the-less.
I find it extremely hard to believe that one could possibly not know that Hashlets are a ponzi when posing for a picture in front of shelves of unplugged miners. But I can wait for the “agencies” to complete their work, I’m not in a hurry
It is a matter of control. When someone starts telling you to do things, which you find unethical, you leave. Joe left. End of story. People need to start giving his character credit for making the right decision. We saw a few wait until the writing was already written on the wall, in bright red. I am not working with them. LOL
I hate it when things are phrased like this. Allegedly’s ass. It happened. Allegedly means it might have happened. If they have you on video stabbing 5 people to death with high resolution close ups; it didn’t allegedly happen… you just did in fact kill 5 people.
Ok… shakes head and breaths deep … now that that’s out… LOL … Some people who don’t know Joe has tried to redeem himself and avail himself of all the perceived wrongdoings by coming clean might think that there might be some suspicion there. And, yes, the question was bound to happen. I think you have a crack team there with those two names. We must never let the actions of one king turd to interfere with how we see those that might have just been “doing their jobs”. Joe showed skills on that whole debacle. He was quick, gave kind responses to queries made and generally just worked and kept his nose to the grindstone.
I look forward to seeing how this pans out. I might avail myself of your services at some point. I will though give you the Microsoft window of error period. Maybe 6 months from now we’ll see how you’re faring. I wish you all the best and the best possible prosperity in everything you do sir! You as well have been a mentor to me in times of question and i appreciated that greatly.
We are not set up for other currencies yet, and much of what is being rolled out “soon™” is linked to another company coming online, also “soon™.”
There is not real use for Paycoin at this time as well. Why borrow Paycoin, to stake? That is not why we are in this business, and with the erratic market values of Paycoin, we would potentially lose more than we would make from the loans, over a short period of time.
You have to understand that I lead a lawsuit group, and in the world of law, everything is “alleged” until the process has decided that it “did” happen as alleged. I am watching what and how I say anything concerning the lawsuit.
Thanks. I am glad you see the trees for the forest - type picture. Yes, we certainly have some “brainiacs” working in the group, so we actually have the ability to deploy “services” very quickly, and with minimal bugs. The nice thing about the group lies in the diversity. It is not a group comprised 100% of programmers, it is a group comprised of programmers, and others who have real-world business experiences, in different areas of business, such as management, marketing, finance, and branding. The other benefit of the group’s composition lies in a common experience, or background. We all went through the same crap with a certain company that showed the world how you do not run a company or business model. Of course, everyone saw me post about the shortcomings of the other company, in the old days, but also the “solutions” of how things are supposed to work. I was not alone in this regard. Many others put forward their experiences and education to help then. The real issue was that the company ignored the advice given, and failed.
Thanks again. Yes, in 6 months, we will be in a totally different place than people expect. As I have said before, it is not a simple business making simple loans. You have to create the reasons for loans, which is what we have already been working towards, long before now.
If anything, people will see me repeat the phrase: “You have to identify the underlying needs of the consumer, building products and services which address or fulfill those needs; even if the consumer is not aware of their own needs.”
Well looks interesting but unfortunately if you lay with dogs you will get flea’s and as I have stated here before Mordica is as bad as Josh, if the CTO did not know what was going on then he is a joke.
Mr. Joe Mordica serves as Chief Technology Officer of GAW Labs LLC. Throughout his 7 years in the industry, Mr. Mordica has designed multiple SaaS infrastructures, managed operations, development teams, and was a co-speaker at an Innovative Systems and Telephony Conference. Mr. Mordica has have a knack for bridging the mind of an engineer, complete with dozens of acronyms and long-winded code, to the general public to ensure complete client satisfaction. He has have a degree in Business from the University of Southern Mississippi.
Sorry but for a multitude of reasons I am going to have to take a pass on this one. Best of luck to you Allen and I hope all works out well.