Silk Road forums
Support => Feature requests => Topic started by: DayDreamer on September 30, 2012, 10:13 pm
-
Hi everyone,
I been thinking...
There is so much bullshit being thrown around with the whole scammer (vendor/buyer) /FE /Non FE crap...
Those who have been reading vendor profile pages, and forum posts on related matters will know what i am talking about as this document progresses.
I was wondering if it would be possible to add an option (along with finalize / in stead of it ) to pay an ADVANCE.
Best explained with Example scenarios:
here we assume that a new vendor is a potential scammer, and so is a new buyer.
ICSH = in case shit happens, which could mean any potential scamming gimmic.
If a New Vendor (NV) does not want to be scammed by a New Buyer (NB), he can negotiate an "ADVANCE" amount as % of total payment, via PM, with the NB. NV can calculate how much of a risk he is willing to take with his money ICSH. e.g., if it costs NV 100$ to procure 1gm of substance, and he resells it for 150$, then he can ask the NB to pay a 66% advance (100$) to cover his costs.
The advantage of this is that the buyer can still see the order status (as in transit, and the no of days since dispatch, etc ), and still has some cash in escrow that can get released ICSH. The seller protects his investment (or a part of it).
This will also, at times, eliminate the need to "REFUND" an amount. e.g., if a vendor only does 50% refund ICSH, he can straight up ask for a 50% advance, and ICSH, just cancel the order, to release the balance to the buyer.
Also, the Seller will have at least a portion of his money available to purchase more product, and not have too much money sitting in escrow for weeks, waiting for deliveries, just to be cashed in just to buy more product.
I believe this will also improve the vendors' restocking times, if the restocking capacity is finance dependant, not suplly dependant.
In case of large orders, custom orders, etc, the advance amount can be negotiated by PM.
The advance should only be payable ONCE, after which the option disappears, and is replaced with "FINALIZE"(same function as current, but transfer BALANCE amount ).
legit NV are more susceptible to NB scams, and would want to at least cover a part of their purchase costs, and would ideally keep their advance amounts under 50%.
Certain Established Vendors might want to keep certain advance % age, based on buyer stats, instead of asking them to FE
example:
1 - buyer <5 purchases and <200$ spent = 90% advance
2 - buyer >10 purchases <30 & 200>spent<1000 = 50% advance
3 - etc, you get the drift.
They can also specify the advance amounts by countries they ship to ( as i have often seen FE for specific countries, particularly Australia )
Please add on any thought or ideas that might make this better.
I have not reviewed how this might affect the security of the site ( but then i am not a geek ;) )
I have not reviewed how this might affect buyer / vendor statistics.
I have not analysed who benefits more from such a change, vendor or buyer.
Let me know what you think.
-
I like that idea.
Imho FE doesn't help against scammers anyway because most vendors still offer 20-50% refund which means they can still get scammed but since the refund is sent out of escrow it won't affect the scammers' stats and they can happily go on to scam the next vendor.
Maybe there's something I'm missing because I'm not a vendor, but I don't see how honest vendors could see an advantage in requiring FE.
On the other hand, your system might establish a standard where buyers get used to sending a portion of their coins in advance which can then be abused by scam vendors...
-
The advance % can be decided by the vendor, and if a buyer feels the advance % is too high, then he can just look elsewhere!
different vendors have different policies regarding FE. Some of the most trusted vendors require FE under certain conditions.
What i am suggesting is and advance % that can be decided before hand.
The vendor can decide an advance amount sufficient to cover a part of his costs.
A scammer vendor will not last too long as there is a very good feedback /review system in place.
A potential scammer buyer can be asked for a higher advance, probably equivalent to the vendors cost price.
-
Disallow FE on the entire site, and ban any vendor who requests it.
-
Disallow FE on the entire site, and ban any vendor who requests it.
All I can say about that is the only time Ive ever been scammed on the road involved Finalizing Early at a sellers request...
-
been scammed once as of now by missit who asked me to FE puny order but pissed me off. cause what am i gonna do talk shit to someone with my info. no one should be able to demand it as a stipulation in sale. i think finalize part is ok the people here are fucked up. a good seller wont ask FE but may appreciate it. be the best vendor ever and we will know its the buyer that is lieing. be the best buyer and we will know it is the new fry vendor. if you both the best then i am sure that something can be done i bought big coins from foxy once. then spent em with foxy and finalized within seconds. i got my shit. had i not foxy would of def reship, the time before i bought big coins and spent them with foxy. i FE just cause i wanted to be nice.. coins dropped and he lost 200 dollars on valentines day coin massacre... after my shit arrived i thought you nice ass person you... sent foxy the 200 that had been lost
-
What i am suggesting is NOT a removal of the finalization system. FE as a concept/process, stemmed from "finalize" option.
This option is not available immediately to a buyer, if an order is placed to a new vendor ( under some X no. of transactions? i guess x = 35)
It becomes available only after a few days.
For orders placed with established vendors, the finalize option is available to the buyer immediately after placing the order.
What i am suggesting is the replacement of the finalize option with a "pay advance option", which should be availabe only once.
Also, the use of this system, or the standard finalize system, can be left to the vendor to decide.
A vendor can specify advance policies on his profile page, and if a buyer is not comfortable, he can just go and look somewhere else.
when a buyer needs to pay an advance, he just clicks "pay advance", and puts in the correct % number, as per vendor policy.
Once the vendor gets the advance, he ships out the package.
Once the package arrives, the buyer clicks "pay remainder", and the transaction is closed...
Escrow has been put in place for security of both - vendors and buyers.
advance system, will open the doors to new vendors and new buyers.
It is difficult for new buyers to buy from established trustworthy vendors because a lot of them require FE.
I think this system leans a little bit more in the direction of securing the buyer rather than the seller, but there are lots of things that a vendor can do to secure his moneys with such a system.
I am actually surprised there has not been mush interest in this.
ah well... maybe i should get in touch with the mods directly?
-
There should be no pay advance system. All money should remain in escrow until the buyer has their order and is happy with it. I'm fine with sellers not selling to people with a high auto-finalize rate, or not selling to people with a low order or cash amount on their profile.
-
The idea here is to minimise scams and offer a variable degree of protection.
FE is a concept, not a feature. It has stemmed from the feature available on the site.
What i am suggesting is a modification of that feature, which will eliminate the concept of FE, and replace it with a variable "Advance" payment.
-
Daydreamer, excellent idea!
-
Though I agree it's the human part of it all that makes the finalize system weaker than desired, I also agree that you can still scam people with the advance system. However as both buyer and vendor I'd much prefer the advance system. In both cases I'd rather get a bit of money back when I'm scammed than lose all of it. We can't completely get rid of scammers but I think that this is a step in the right direction. Plus, this'll make it easier for both new vendors and new buyers to build a good reputation which has become increasingly difficult. Great idea in my opinion and it has my support.
-
I just think they should add something that says "are you sure?, click to confirm, after this the vendor owns your funds and they cannot be returned to you through SR support" Or something to that effect.
-
There's already a clear note that finalization is final. If there's need to add another button people should read stuff better before they click every button in sight. We've all just gotten used to not reading and clicking "accept" or similar buttons without knowing what we're accepting.
-
I bet it would save SR support alot of emails
-
I agree with SCORE.
-
I feel that an advance system instead of finalize, gives much more control to buyers and vendors over scammers.
they can, in the worst case scenario, at least recover the costs.
take example of ducth. he promises 20% refund on non delivered products. In stead, he can ask for a 80% advance if he wishes to, in case he suspects a scammer.
Lots of Coke vendors require FE. In stead, they can ask for a substantial advance, so the buyer can at least hold on to something to ensure that a vendor delivers.
upon FE, there is no way of knowing anything, no transaction details, and no way to approach the resolution center.
Reading the note about "finalize button is final." does not server any purpose if a vendor requires FE. EVERYONE knows that finalize is final. doesnt stop vendors from requiring it. Doesnt change anything when you click it either.
-
i made the point of coming to a clear agreement about what happens to the Escrow as any other transaction in escrow in the world works, namely a penalty, the conditions for tht to become effective and the percentage the penalty incurs (here the refund percentage). This can be as simple as mentioning it in a discussion via silkroad PM because silkroad support can access that and verify prior consent to the conditions before the order.
If they want more structure over behaviour of vendors they cuold implement what is proposed here, but any type of clarity beforehand about what to expect is better than it is now.