Clarification on existing rule: Selling your Sythe account

Describe the problem: Users who post their Sythe account for sale outside of the Sythe market place and get caught face penalty. Users who ask and get an Admin and/or multiple Admin approval to sell their account can post it here with no issue. I understand Admin have the liberty to make changes to the rules as they may see fit, however I do not think this is a rule that should be allowed to be twisted in anyway. This rule seems to have community users safety first by not allowing some random to be allowed to just buy a high rep account to exit scam on. Allowing 1 user to be able to bypass this rule sets a bad precedent for this forums and honestly looks trashy for new users looking to join seeing an account for this platform for sale on its own platform.


What current rule(s) tackle this problem:

Explain the change: Edit the rule to state unless approved by an Admin and/or stick to the rule and not allow anyone to sell their Sythe account.


Explain why this change will fix the problem: When a business sells to a new owner, the new owner does not legally get their name change to the previous owner to "get their reputation with the business". Typically when a business is sold and/or goes under new management that trust is rebuilt and earned. Allowing someone to just buy reputation they did not earn allows for bad actors to potentially to come in and rack up a massive exit scam. With community safety in mind I believe this is probably why Sythe account sales were a banable offence to keep the users of this community safe.

Side-effects: None as it has been a rule for 25+ years on this forums with no issue and ensuring safety for the community and its users.

 

Mods should be voting as a whole per sale.

 

Valid suggestion. Crazy situation ongoing. Is it Sythe himself authorizing this? Otherwise can't imagine who has the authority to bend this rule

Seems like the staff team needs to band together and put a stop to Admins abusing their authority like they did to my boy Video

 

I’d like to start by saying I’m indifferent as to if a Sythe account of a regular user is sold or not.

However I agree that the rule should be clarified to include that a sale of an account may be done with approval by an admin, but also include a clause about possibly changing their user title for 1-2 months to indicate the account is under new ownership as we do for name changes, since ownership transfer is a-kin to a name change.

Another possibility is allowing it on a rare case by case basis where it limits sales to partial owners or long standing worker/managers, where the transfer of ownership of the account doesn’t impact the brand’s image of trust within the community. (This point is a suggestion to solve one of the problems Jay Hill brought up)

 

I understand your suggestion, but do not agree with your proposed risk.

A sythe account sale is forbidden according to the current rules, unless an admin approves the sale. This means your proposed risk of randomers coming in to buy out a profile to scamquit on is highly unlikely.

That being said, the admin involved should require the 'business owner' looking to sell their profile to provide clear documentation on the health of the business. Eg: simple business accounts, expenses, any debts, average turnover. If the business is currently operating at a loss, then how much is this costing the business each month? Are there active customers/consumers? Is the profile associated with any banned users, DNT, scammers, etc. At the very least there must be a clear, specific list on what is included in the sale. If the business owner is reluctant or unable to provide the basics, then it should not be approved.

There are many questions that should be answered and supported with data. Any serious investor or business owner will want to see these before any negotiations occur on any kind of take over or acquisition. Business is all about the numbers and service being provided to customers to satisfy their needs and wants.

I recently reached out to a user to potentially buy their business. They were unable to provide any specifics, so I was amazed they had even been approved. I observed their server for 24 hours and it was completely dead, their profile was dead, and they were associated with a user that had been banned for scamming. There was nothing of real substance for sale except a sunk cost of a donor rank and historical vouches. You could argue that is a personal brand, but that is not a business. I even reached out to the admin to try to confirm some details and I got no response. This was not a great look.

Therefore, I support your suggestion. This needs to be clarified. Forbidding ordinary users to sell their sythe accounts should absolutely remain the case, otherwise your proposed risk will be a real concern. However, real businesses do get acquired. A good example being when Arcus acquired Bogla.

This would require some discussion amongst admin. As a community the last thing we want is every user trying to sell their 'business' because it has a $100 turnover. That would take up a lot of staff time.

 

You raise an interesting point.

The current rule appears to make a superficial distinction between a Sythe account sale (which is prohibited) and a business transfer (which is allowed under admin approval). In practice, both lead to the same outcome: the transfer of reputation and control from one person to another.

If the concern behind the "no account sales" rule is to prevent bad actors from acquiring established reputations to exploit community trust, then allowing “business transfers” under the same circumstances creates an almost identical risk.

The only real difference appears to be whether the transfer has been pre-cleared by staff. But from a community-safety standpoint, this doesnt eliminate the underlying problem: a new owner inherits reputation they didn’t earn. If the purpose of the rule is to protect users and preserve the integrity of Sythe’s reputation system, then the policy probably needs to treat both account sales and business transfers consistently. Or at the very least introduce a clear and enforceable mechanism to verify when a "business transfer" is legitimate rather than a disguised account sale.

 

Shouldn't allow the sale of Sythe accounts in any circumstance in my opinion.

 

Regardless out of the outcome of this the actual "rules thread" needs to be edited to clarify a Sythe account can actually be sold with administrator approval as this is first I've ever heard of it being a thing.

As for the suggestion itself, I am in two minds because if someone wants to sell their account they will still do it off-site and we will generally never know about it (unless they admit to it / new owner chooses to scam).

The only way I think it could work is the staff as a whole voting on it + a visible thread somewhere that lists when an account changed ownership and the date it happened, as is already the case with name changes.

 

Seems a little bizarre that this is even up for debate. Regardless if it is a transfer of ownership from the business or not; you're creating a trading hazard for individuals. I don't believe any sale of a Sythe forum account should be acceptable.

I don't know many of the new traders or the circumstances but I feel like there is just too much risk for the reward. One bad apple on the tree could create intense havoc across from the forums. All my opinion, of course.

 

Yes — many major companies have been sold or transferred to new owners while keeping the same brand name. This is very common in business, but the key difference is that in these cases, the company itself (the legal entity) was purchased — not just the name or reputation.

Here’s how it works and a few examples

Why companies keep the same name after being sold
When a company is sold as a whole business entity (including its assets, liabilities, and legal structure), the brand name typically remains the same because:

• The legal identity of the company continues — only ownership changes.
  
  
• The brand has commercial value and recognition, so new owners usually want to preserve it.
  
  
• Customers generally see “same brand, new management.”
  

This is different from someone buying an account or identity to impersonate a reputation — which is what communities like Sythe ban.

Real-world examples

1. Instagram → acquired by Facebook (Meta) in 2012
   
   • Instagram kept its name and user base.
     
     
   • Legal ownership changed, but the company brand stayed identical.
     
2. Ben & Jerry’s → acquired by Unilever in 2000
   
   
   • Still operates under the “Ben & Jerry’s” brand.
     
     
   • Founders sold ownership, but the reputation and identity remained part of the business sale.
     

What is the point of buying Bogla without Bogla name and user base what is the point of buying Arcus without Arcus name and user base =? What is the point of buying any bussines if you would have to start from scratch and build that trust again...

So if there is bussines sale sythe account and whole reputation should go with it but if some random cdt member decide to sell acc then just ban him ...

 

love when people compare sythe users to real businesses. I agree if ur a legit registered ltd and not some offshore money laundering/fraud company it's fine. Companies legitimately sold have transparency unlike some random regard on sythe selling his acc.

 

well thats what i kinda said in last 2 lines not the best wording but ya if you are random no if you are legit registered bussines then yes i do belive account and reputation should go with it otherwise what is the point

 

Right, if there's an acutal registered business, and the business is sold, the owner of the account stays the same, so the account isn't directly sold, the owner is sold.

That is if the Sythe account can be owned by a corporation, or whether it can only be owned by natural persons. I recall that our real name is asked when signing up an account, but I'm not sure that would imply that the account is owned by that person, it might have been more of a verification or due diligence thing. In any case it's not uncommon for corporate accounts to be setup with personal details but in the name of companies.

However, when I read that rule, I imagined that anyone sensible would make the acquisition known and would disclose/get approval of the fact. But even without doing so, if the account regularly trades as a company, and later continues to trade as the same company, it's actually transparent by itself, and any trader who does business can verify the public records of the company itself, regardless of ownership changes, because they are trading with the company, not the individual ownres/employees (at least in theory, sham situations aside)