[denied] Shift burden of proof of the removed wealth when acc recovered

Hello everyone, I hope everyone is having a wonderful Saturday.

This one is dedicated to the homie @BlackBlasses who requested me to even further (over)regulate this website.

Through the history of trading, Sythe users would be lulled by even the most trusted of salesmen and purchase their accounts, put their wealth on it and have them later recovered. Not only would they lose their precious new accounts, but also any wealth they would have stored on those accounts. Luckily Sythe, being the hypermodern trading market and dispute platform that it is, anticipated on this matter and created rules to protect sellers against this (i.e. mandatory disclosure of ownership, etc.)

Nevertheless, a problem remains. The tie remains on the side of obscure sellers with malicious intent. Even when an account gets recovered, there generally is very little to no evidence of the account having X wealth prior to the hack. And economically, the ties are also in favor of the seller when a buyer is unable to prove the amount of wealth he lost. What I'd like to propose is a rule that will not only further dissuade account recoverers from recovering accounts but also aggravate the duty of care of account sellers and consequently even out the distribution of risk between sellers and buyers.

Generally account recovering disputes consist of three parts:

1. Is the seller responsible for the recovering of an account?
2. If so, to what extent is he liable?
3. How much wealth was there prior to the hack based on the evidence the account seller provides?

My proposal:
When "1." is found to be true, shift the burden of proof of "3." for up to 100m or any arbitrary number that the community/staff finds fit.

Example: say A sells an account to B.
say that due to liable negligence of A the account gets recovered, then B not only has the right to ask for a refund equaling what he paid for the account but also a presumption of evidence that the account had 100m prior to getting recovered. Consequently, if A does not want to pay back this 100m lump sum, he will have to prove that the recovered account in fact did not have this amount of money on it.

Variations:
1. Make this a directory rule that can be overwritten through ToS. Meaning that if no ToS has been agreed upon, this presumption of evidence remains. This forces the users to discuss the risks and give reasons for overwriting the compulsory rule.
2. Compulsory: speaks for itself.
3. Make the lump of assumed wealth variable, for staff to determine case by case.

Ratione:
-Dissuades users even further from recovering. More dissuasive than a pardon + repayment.
-Justice: when looking overall, buyers, in general, lose more than sellers, this rule may counter this unbalance.
-Buyers rarely document what is on their account because they don't anticipate for the account to get recovered. So it's very hard to prove for them that they indeed did lose something
-Transparency: if a seller does admit to recovering the account, but does not want to repay the 100m, he will be less incentivized to brush it off on a worker when the account has less than that amount of wealth. He will be more incentivized to come forward and say "the amount of wealth on the account was X<100m and I will prove it".
-A form of punitive damage for lost time and effort by the buyer: who will repay the buyer for his lost time when he: was looking for an account, negotiated to buy the account, progressed the account, had to go through the moment of having it recovered, having to go through the trouble of writing a report, etc.
-It is unreasonable to have as a basic premise that an account has no wealth on it
-And more reasons...

Note:
100m Is just a random number I picked, imo it has to be something proportionate. It's also an option to make the number variable (to staff's liking going from dispute to dispute).

Have a nice weekend everyone

 

I think the seller should pay this amount no matter what. I feel like the seller could just recover the account and remove the wealth and show that its not on the account.

I support this suggestion however I think a set amount of wealth should be paid back no matter what even if a refund isn't possible.

 

The point is, it will only be ruled to be paid if buyer proves that the stated amount of wealth was on the account prior to the recovery. The logic behind it is that the buyer can state 'anything' (i.e. I had 100b on the account!)

 

Isn't that how the current rules are though? If the buyer proves that he had wealth on the account, the seller has to pay it back?

Maybe I am misunderstanding something lol

 

Yes and this is the problem, buyers are rarely able to prove that they had X wealth on the account. In the cases that they're unable to do so, they should be protected. This thread proposes some sort of minimum protection in the form of a shift of burden of proof.

 

For sure. I agree. I support this 100%.

Even though my opinion doesn't matter much.. this would be a great change.

 

Ello buddy, so I said i'd reply to this and I will lol

I'll read over it properly but just my two cents on account things such as wealth etc, I feel that we should have people held accountable for it if given enough proof instead of the "whole it could of been anyone" sort of approach

I mean I get why it goes that way, as a service provider myself I understand I am essentially shooting myself in the foot by doing so as well, but I do feel that if you let's say have no terms of service that says "you must remove unrelated wealth" and that's a must, or the customer themselves are responsible for their own stuff (unless discussed otherwise) then you should have enough common sense to understand there are risks no matter how much you trust someone