Recent Posts

@Dan187 said:

I kinda wish i hadn't gotten so swept up in all the paperwork and actually got in on this now :+1:

It is a "class action" lawsuit. As long as the court certifies it as a class action, you are in it by default. No worries. As long as you suffered losses, you are in.

posted in Announcements read more

@c4 Hi there. :) At the moment nothing. I am sure I will be reaching out to the community to gather any additional documents, and such, we may need as the request is made from the law firms. I am already going through what I have here and reorganizing everything by subject matter, so that we are not scampering about later, trying to find specific references to whatever. I am preparing for anything and everything I can conceive of at the moment. :)

posted in Announcements read more

@xpyerr We cross that bridge once we get to it. There would be an immense amount of accounting work to do obviously.

posted in Announcements read more

Hello Everyone.

I forgot to post here yesterday, and just remembered to do so now. If you have not heard yet, we filed GAWsuit yesterday in the District Court of Connecticut:

GAWsuit.png

Have a nice day! :D

posted in Announcements read more

@JackMiner said:

@Allen1980s At least you are closing doors the right way and not screwing the investors like BTCLend did. Yes I was one of them that drunk the Koolaid :)

It was very disturbing how Carmelo closed his doors. There are a number of rumors out there circulating as to what happened there. None of them are good, to say the least. Crypto is full of unethical business practices. One of the advantages I had over others, was that I have operated a successful fiat world business for nearly 25 years now, in a position of fiduciary trust, with some of the largest American enterprises. I would like to keep that record clean for my remaining years. LOL

posted in The Lounge read more

@xpyerr That was the direction we were intending to go. Asset-based loans on mining contracts, mostly Geneis-Mining contracts. The daily proceeds would go into a special wallet on the platform, paying against the outstanding balance, as well as having the borrower make weekly payments against the loans until the loan was paid off. Again, the main problem was that this was supposed to be a long-term development project, but many were getting involved in other projects which was limiting the amount of time they could spend on Bitlend.

The due diligence was actually not against any specific loans. The due diligence was enacted to ensure that only qualified borrowers could actually enter the platform. In the end, we realized that most of the borrowers were of very poor quality, or were flat-out trying to game the system. When you borrowers are scattered around the globe, you become very reliant upon the documents submitted. When the documents are altered or forged, that results in denial of use of the platform.

I definitely agree with your idea of hard money loans. "Eventually," the goal was to address a specific demographic of client that is unserved and rather low risk. Since the platform will be down soon anyway, I can say that my goal was to approach the American expat community abroad. This is a demographic of roughly 7 million Americans who live and work outside of the United States.

Due to recently enacted reporting requirements of the U.S. Treasury, by foreign banks where Americans "held" assets (checking and savings accounts, predominantly), these foreign banks would incur significant increases in capital expenditures to remain compliant with the new Treasury reporting requirements. To avoid the increased annual costs, most foreign banks notified American account holders that they must close-out their accounts with the bank. This ultimately led to a vast majority of American expats having no banking relationship in the countries in which they worked and lived. Moreover, U.S. investment firms were also notifying their foreign-based American customers that they could no longer service them whilst overseas.

The above demographic equates to billions of USD in annual potential cash flow management to any financial enterprise that is willing to circumnavigate the underlying causation of unbanked American expats. Currently, those expats, who have foreign spouses (assets of which are also reportable to the U.S. Treasury (IRS) ), get around the problem by placing all of their assets in the names of their spouses. This has created additional problems with those expats who have divorced, as the reliance on the spouse puts them in rather unsavory positions, financially.

Ultimately, Bitlend was to become a "hybrid-bank," which could circumvent the current issues relating to international banking for American expats. Of course, on the surface, Bitlend looked and operated much like the other Bitcoin lending platforms out there, but the intent was to move away from the peer to peer lending model, and towards a more consumer banking oriented platform, utilizing Bitcoin as the method of transference and funding of assets.

Although the use of any crypto incurs much more significant risk to depositors and savers, there are many ways in which these risks could be mitigated, reducing the net-effective portfolio risk to the consumer/depositor. Moreover, since the model increases a value proposition to the depositor, via the ability to fund mortgages and other major purchases, on-hand crypto holdings would be minimal, while cash based reserves would be relatively high. There are enough major players in the crypto/fiat world which could, in essence, create a non-traditional banking model that would resolve issues relating to American expat finance.

Anyway, this was the direction in which I wanted Bitlend to proceed. Since I hope to be an American expat again soon, the model will remain on my list, if not to facilitate my own financial activities while living abroad.

Thanks for the post! :D

posted in The Lounge read more

Hi Guys.

Thanks for the posts.

The problems were multi-fold.

First, Ceforce and I were doing an immense amount of due diligence on applicants (more so Ceforce), who, 8 of 10 times, provided only forged documents to verify their identities. We got burned on a number of initial loans funded and much of that money came from peers on the platform. We had to compensate them for that. This led to the increased due diligence.

Second, there were a number of loans made to the community that are still late in being paid (like by months).

Third, to implement the secured lending platform, we needed a lot of programming to be accomplished, and some of the business members were already involved in other projects, leaving little time to dedicate to Bitlend.

Finally, there were too few peers on the platform, and those active borrowers, who did make it through the vetting process, were too few to run a business off of.

The monthly server costs were a few hundred dollars. There were other assets which were being spent to maintain the business, and we were just not making any money on the platform to even cover the costs and work being put into it. We are not necessarily shutting down forever (probably yes...LOL).

Between my other companies and Bitlend, I just really would rather focus on my non-crypto-world businesses. I fought the notion of shutting down a number of months ago. After seeing that we were moving nowhere fast, I finally came around and supported shutting it down. It will be up for another 30 days to allow everyone time to A.) pay their open debt, and B.) retrieve any funds they may have left in their wallets.

I cannot really see BTCJam or Loanbase staying open much longer either really. There is more fraud than honest lending going on in the crypto world and most of that is coming out of India and Italy. It is just not a good enough environment to conduct commerce in really. The last BTC price rise was also killing us, because no one wanted to pay their loans back. This is another aspect of the business that makes it difficult to circumnavigate.

Anyway, that is the short of it.

Best regards,
Allen

posted in The Lounge read more