[Denied] Allow multiple payment methods for community repayment

Community repayment is a great way to encourage members to pay-off old scams, or even scams that aren't their own, e.g the name change request thread.

I'm not too well versed on the other amt of funds that go to this payment, but i'm not sure why we have blockers such as only allowing BTC payment that go towards this.

Moderators can easily take rsgp, or other payment methods at a higher rate which favours them and have it transferred to the BTC wallet.

A lot of crypto applications only allow a certain amt to be transferred as well.

This is a huge blocker and makes it harder for people to contribute to the community repayment

In a forum as big as Sythe you'd expect to have multiple re-payment options set-up

 

We've done this as few times in the past. The downside of RS GP is that you don't want to take it at sell rate, as you'll carry some risk and would spend additional time to sell it. Adding a margin would make sense but you don't want this to be abused either. Some would think a 5c margin is fine, others may find that too much.

What I think we could do is refer them to Bond Holders if they want to pay with something other than bitcoin.

 

We've done this as few times in the past. The downside of RS GP is that you don't want to take it at sell rate, as you'll carry some risk and would spend additional time to sell it. Adding a margin would make sense but you don't want this to be abused either. Some would think a 5c margin is fine, others may find that too much.

What I think we could do is refer them to Bond Holders if they want to pay with something other than bitcoin.

RSGP argument makes sense, but what about other payment methods? CashApp, Venmo, Zelle, ApplePay Skrill, Bank transfer, other cryptos even like ETH, LTC?

 

RSGP argument makes sense, but what about other payment methods? CashApp, Venmo, Zelle, ApplePay Skrill, Bank transfer, other cryptos even like ETH, LTC?

This could be done by Bond Holders. I think we should keep the Community repayment funds in as little places as possible. Perhaps adding a USDT wallet would be good though.

 

This could be done by Bond Holders. I think we should keep the Community repayment funds in as little places as possible. Perhaps adding a USDT wallet would be good though.

I agree that it should stay in one wallet, place.
I only meant that moderators should accept other payment methods and then send btc out of their own wallets to adhere to customers needs.
As you said the bond holders could take on this task

 

I agree that it should stay in one wallet, place.
I only meant that moderators should accept other payment methods and then send btc out of their own wallets to adhere to customers needs.
As you said the bond holders could take on this task

The problem you will face with some stuff such as skrill/cash app they can be recovered still. Keeping the payment method to a minimal risk is something that benefits everyone, and with GP being able to lower in price even beyond what we mention the rate to be (or add the +X% from bondholders) it would make people pay more/less in some cases than they are meant to potentially.

 

[Utopia]

We've done this as few times in the past. The downside of RS GP is that you don't want to take it at sell rate, as you'll carry some risk and would spend additional time to sell it. Adding a margin would make sense but you don't want this to be abused either. Some would think a 5c margin is fine, others may find that too much.

What I think we could do is refer them to Bond Holders if they want to pay with something other than bitcoin.

Is bitcoin sold right after it is given as well? I ask being as it is volatile to hold.

 

[Bert]

I personally would be willing to take different methods and send the community repayment fund btc if some users have other payment methods they would like to pay with. (same fees as my bondholder thread)

 

RSGP argument makes sense, but what about other payment methods? CashApp, Venmo, Zelle, ApplePay Skrill, Bank transfer, other cryptos even like ETH, LTC?

terrible idea.. people who scammed in the past paying refundable payment methods to have a chance to scam again

 

The problem you will face with some stuff such as skrill/cash app they can be recovered still. Keeping the payment method to a minimal risk is something that benefits everyone, and with GP being able to lower in price even beyond what we mention the rate to be (or add the +X% from bondholders) it would make people pay more/less in some cases than they are meant to potentially.

Yeah I guess maybe not Skrill/Cash APP but there are definitely other more secure payment methods to allow. RSGP and other cyptos for one, which would remove any form of risk.

Is bitcoin sold right after it is given as well? I ask being as it is volatile to hold.

I don't think it is, pretty sure it sits in that wallet.

I personally would be willing to take different methods and send the community repayment fund btc if some users have other payment methods they would like to pay with. (same fees as my bondholder thread)

Nice that would actually be very helpful and would solve the issue I had in op.

terrible idea.. people who scammed in the past paying refundable payment methods to have a chance to scam again

Again, there are non-refundable payments such as rsgp and other cryptos.

 

I really just don't see this as necessary, if I'm being honest.

As mentioned by others, paypal/zelle/venmo/cash app/skrill, etc. are all recoverable and therefore would not work. The only two viable options I see are crypto and RSGP. Transferring ETH, LTC, etc. to BTC is extremely easy to do and usually costs nothing. Why is paying in BTC a problem?

As mentioned, I do think that it could be valuable to allow for RSGP repayments. In the rare case that someone can't pay in BTC, I'm sure staff could make accommodations (as @Zora mentioned that they have in the past) to make it work, though. Furthermore, bond holders can be utilized. The burden should not be upon staff to "swap" GP for BTC so that it can be safely added to the CRF wallet. That responsibility belongs to the user sending in the repayment. I don't think we need to rewrite the rules. Unless someone is still involved in nefarious activity, I really struggle to see why paying in BTC/crypto is an issue. If this were 2015, yeah sure, but it's 2023. BTC is extremely accessible for the vast majority of the population.

 

I really just don't see this as necessary, if I'm being honest.

As mentioned by others, paypal/zelle/venmo/cash app/skrill, etc. are all recoverable and therefore would not work. The only two viable options I see are crypto and RSGP. Transferring ETH, LTC, etc. to BTC is extremely easy to do and usually costs nothing. Why is paying in BTC a problem?

As mentioned, I do think that it could be valuable to allow for RSGP repayments. In the rare case that someone can't pay in BTC, I'm sure staff could make accommodations (as @Zora mentioned that they have in the past) to make it work, though. Furthermore, bond holders can be utilized. The burden should not be upon staff to "swap" GP for BTC so that it can be safely added to the CRF wallet. That responsibility belongs to the user sending in the repayment. I don't think we need to rewrite the rules. Unless someone is still involved in nefarious activity, I really struggle to see why paying in BTC/crypto is an issue. If this were 2015, yeah sure, but it's 2023. BTC is extremely accessible for the vast majority of the population.

No offence but the theme amongst suggestions that require a bit of work are always deemed as not necessary. Ultimately why? Because too much work or effort. Which is the most common and over-used ignorant argument.

The burden SHOULD be on the staff to swap the GP. The whole point of having a set-up like Sythe is to make it as easy to use for its users. Not to make the users have restrictions on something so simple as making a payment. Why would the burden go to the users?
Having a restriction on ways to come back to a black-market isn't very appealing and just looks bad on the community as a whole.
The same way gold sellers allow for multiple payment methods, attracting a higher customer base; the same logic applies here to those looking to donate, or to make a repayment.
BTC is accessible but not used by everyone, crypto isn't so easy to use. Especially on applications like Binance where a minimum amt is required to be sent.
In-fact crypto is probably the most complicated to set-up for a complete newbie.

The payment methods that have refundable options should of course not be allowed, and no need to repeat and use those as reasons to deny a suggestion focused more towards multiple crypto, RSGP and non-refundable transactional options.

 

I think having an ETH & USDT address might be useful.
However I think using refundable USD payment methods wouldn’t be that smart.
If people want to pay in GP, they can easily sell into to any gold seller that bumps their thread on here, and have them send the crypto to sythe.

 

Not all staff members want to take the risk of accepting GP and adding more payment methods complicate the logistics, bitcoin is simple enough and commonly used in this market.
If a user wishes to use another payment method they're free to find someone who's willing to accept and send the bitcoin on their behalf. (e.g. Digital Currency and Non-Game Sales)