How Sythe Could Put An End to 99.9% of Scams

I think Sythe could update the system it currently uses by placing restrictions on the amount of wealth a user can be trusted with. What I had in mind was an automated deposit system and a publicly visible trade limit that corresponds with the amount deposited. The only issues that come to mind are:
1) The incentive to donate to Sythe would decrease dramatically.
2) A trader could scam multiple users in a single sitting, which would prevent reimbursement and ultimately defeat the purpose of the deposit system.

To remedy issue #2, Sythe could create its own chat and trade web app that would allow forum users to talk and trade amongst themselves in real time. The application would then restrict its users from being trusted with an amount of wealth that exceeds their trade limit. Additionally, this would also serve the purpose of replacing the 3rd party chatting apps that allow scammers to thrive.

Thread was moved from the "discussions" to "suggestions" section by a moderator. Feel free to move it to the appropriate section.

 

You know, while I do applaud you for the good intentions your post has, this is unfortunately a system that will never come to Sythe. People have suggested deposits time and time again but you have to realize trust is such a relative thing that forcing people to pay a deposit to do business goes against the nature of this very forum.

You also have to think about who is going to enforce something like this? Sythe staff do not police its members and this suggestion requires exactly that. It's not worth it at all and will be incredibly hard to enforce. You also claim it will stop 99.9% of scams, do you have any statistical proof or any kind of data to back up this claim? Or are you basing this off of nothing but a half thought out idea?

Me personally, I am in possession of thousands of dollars worth of gold and cryptocurrencies and so are many other big marketers on this forum. There is no way I would ever pay a deposit to continue doing business here, and I am fairly confident others will agree.

It is up to the customer in question to use their own due diligence when trading others and choosing who to trust. If you choose to get a service from a nobody with no reputation vs someone established and you get scammed, that's completely on you, and we should not be forced into something because people don't know how to use their brain in this market.

 

The DO NOT SUGGEST list.

It's on the do not suggest list


Screenshot - c9780e6b15b49bc05675b8eea0943319 - Gyazo

 

I'm going to go through some of the points you've made here.

Sure, valid point. Just make deposits optional. It would prevent scams and allow the rich to get richer. The more capital or rep you have -> safer your customers feel -> the more trustworthy you are -> the more buy incentive your potential customers have. The market changes, traders adapt and everybody is better off for it.

Optional deposits, unlike forced deposits, wouldn't guarantee results. However, in making deposits optional you gain the freedom to trade however you'd like to, along with the option to request stricter trade rules if the circumstances call for it. This would retain the free market appeal that Sythe's current identity promises while still giving users the tools needed to protect themselves from scammers.

Sythe could hire certain staff members as contractors or hire 3rd party contractors or even hire through a 3rd party company. (How or why Sythe would pay for this needs to be addressed too)

Obviously not, but I did map this out in my head. I've made several dozen searches for holes in my logic and I'm currently unable to find any that need to be addressed. A forced deposit system would achieve the desired outcome, but as you pointed out, this would almost certainly drive a large % of users away, which is unacceptable. Optional deposits it is.

With the deposits now being optional, this would no longer be an issue.

 

This is a discussion, not a suggestion. Sythe would never pursue this, but it's interesting to imagine how a system like this might successfully function in the real world if it were to ever come into fruition.

Also, this thread was moved from the "discussions" to the "suggestions" section by a moderator.

 

If sythe had enough funding to put into this venture, I think that it would be a good idea but I doubt the money would go into this solve. The bond would probably be as high as $2000 which wouldn't be worth it, you already see $500 donators scamming only $2k soo ;/

 

No, this site has always been a free market and that likely will never change. This isn’t going to happen and isn’t worth discussing.

Having optional deposits won’t prevent 99.9% of scams or stop the people depositing from scamming more than their deposit anyway. It just isn’t worth the effort.

 

If users were forced to deposit in order to be trusted with other people's wealth, I absolutely believe that 99% of scams could be prevented. But as Hope already pointed out, a system like this would completely alter Sythe's identity and appeal for the worse. So optional deposits are the way to go.

 

Optional deposits wouldn't do shit.

Take a look at the donator role on sythe. There are a large amount of members who have scammed who have been large donators.

If someone was forced to place a deposit before using this marketplace as Ryan said they would just scamquit over their deposit amount. (See Pak and Sticktalk for recent examples of donators (basically optional deposit) who have scamquit for over $500)

 

A donation is a gift. A deposit is insurance. One of these two approaches will prevent scamming and reimburse scam victims while the other will not, therefore they are not the same. A donation is not a deposit.

 

Sythe could prevent 100% of scams by simply shutting down.

But essentially what you're proposing would put a huge burden on low-volume sellers to participate in the market, and barriers to entry make markets work less smoothly. For Sythe, that would probably mean that prospective users just turn to another site to conduct their business, so as perverse as it sounds, having 0% of trades ending up in scams is not necessarily the best option to be working towards. People are going to be reckless with their money no matter what, so we might as well have them do it here than elsewhere.

 

Check the IQ of members joining 99.9% of the scams are because the end users is retarded.

 

Having these deposits at all implies some sort of responsibility for Sythe in the case of a scam. And if the user scams more than their deposit, what is supposed to be done? I just don't see the point in any of this. People are going to get scammed regardless, all this does is make it harder to trade for everyone but the big names in the market.

EDIT: Just realized this isn’t even in suggestions anymore, and rightfully so. I’m out of here lads, my work here is done.

 

The way I look at it is, whenever I buy something from somewhere in the real world, online, what have you - I don't expect the entity I am trusting with my money to put a deposit down. You can't fully stop scams even with the most consumer friendly preventative measures, it all boils down to knowing who you purchase from and to a lot of members on this forum, that's worth the extra money spent.

I do like this concept but in the end the harsh reality is, a scammer is a scammer is a scammer and no amount of preventative measures will change that.

 

Read the thread Ryan, I've already solved that problem

 

Oh you mean the custom chat platform? So not only is the main suggestion on the DNS list but the way you want to fix your suggestion is also on the DNS list. We’ve talked about all of these things before, many times before actually, and it’s been denied every time. This is not worth the effort and time it would take to make this happen, especially considering Richard doesn’t want it.

EDIT: Just realized this isn’t even in Suggestions anymore, and rightfully so.
My work here is done.

 

This has been suggested 50,000 times. I actually agree with it but the logistics are too complicated. I always thought having bond holders for this reason would be a neat idea, but it would create some undue trust with PayPal payments and account sales depending on how quickly they could withdraw their bond.

 

Sounds like Flamo was just trying to have a discussion around this topic, Mod moved it to the suggestions, Flamo got flamed for "suggesting this".

I believe Flamo is owed an apology.

 

Its an internet forum, why would he be entitlted to an apology lmao.

Was a bad suggestion thats on the DNS list and even if probably implemented wouldn't stop "99.9%" of the scams that he claimed.

 

in general middle man , OMM doing great work about trusty trade....
but the thing for example about osrs and runescape3 thats even if you use trusted mm or doesnt metter its not safe ... cuze recovery can be done by contacting jagex.
other game's as well the same thing's