|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
virm pasuul
Viziam
Amarr Empire
314
   |
Posted - 2015.08.11 17:51:39 -
[1] - Quote
This is the rough outline of an idea.
It's short on specifics and not finely tuned, or polished, but I'm curious about what people think of the idea in principal.
Background.
Trust has value in this game.
Characters like Chirbba and RAW23 provide the trusted third party service that the game mechanics cannot.
The premise being the value of their good reputation is worth more to them than a scam, even a large one. Other factors help too, they can make more money by maintaining this service over a long period than any short term grab and run. Again also they are probably nice people.
Problem.
It's difficult to get into the trusted 3rd party game. Trust has to be earned over a long period of time. Eve is an very hostile environment in terms of trust and loss.
The supply is limited, it's only worth a high level trusted third party's time and effort for large deals. Want a trusted third party for a 1 billion deal? Who's going to do that?
Idea. ( Concept based on the chain of trust of SSL certificates )
Say you fancy a go at the trusted 3rd party game, and are prepared to start small. 1 billion ISK deals for a small fee each time.
You have no trust credibility of your own.
You deposit a sum of 10 billion ISK with a well trusted existing root 3rd party + a fee for their time.
The root 3rd party holds onto this deposit for the entire time you are offering 3rd party services yourself.
You then offer 3rd party services on a much smaller scale to other people.
If you break trust on any agreement for which you are acting as a 3rd party the more trusted root 3rd party up the chain makes it right from the money you have on deposit with them. - It all comes out of your pocket, they already have your money.
If you ever want to leave the 3rd party business yourself, once you have proven you are not holding any assets, and all deals are concluded your deposit is returned. The fee is kept by the root 3rd party.
Lots of minor details would have to be figured out to protect all parties and minimise the effort on behalf of the top level 3rd party.
Each deal start and close would need to be mailed to the root 3rd party to ensure the sum of all your 3rd party holdings did not exceed 50% of your deposit at any one time.
Basically by lodging a deposit with someone who is already trusted you can be trusted yourself up to a portion of your deposit.
Possible downside - the trust people place in you is based not their trust in you, but their trust in a public trusted figure and the size of your deposit. Will people come to trust you over time? I believe possibly yes, someone who kickstarted their own reputation this way could over time generate trust in themselves by their behaviour.
Inevitably it needs to be looked at in depth from a scamming point of view.
Is it possible to make sure customer's of your 3rd party service can't collude to defraud you by claiming against your deposit?
Is it possible to make sure that the 3rd party business can't defraud it's customers?
Any possible solutions need to involve the absolute minimal time and effort on behalf of the root level 3rd party.
Any comments on the concept? |
virm pasuul
Viziam
Amarr Empire
314
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 19:11:54 -
[2] - Quote
Thanks for the link Elizabeth.
Tupac
I'm not so much proposing the fine details as giving an example of the general concept, and asking could it be done?
In the example above the deposit would always be much large than all of the deals you could 3rd party combined. E.g. 10 bill deposit and max 5 bills in simultaneous 3rd party deals. The deposit would always more than cover if you ran with it all.
The reason you would come to "me" under this scheme is for small deals that the big boys wouldn't touch because it would be too small. e.g. 1 billion. They have a minimum fee and deal size below which they wouldn't even get out of bed for. This would be a way for a smaller person to start at the bottom, but get the initial trust bit kickstarted, and have it tangibly guaranteed.
I'm not thinking of doing it myself, I was just floating it as an idea.
|
virm pasuul
Viziam
Amarr Empire
314
|
Posted - 2015.08.11 22:26:07 -
[3] - Quote
I think the devil is in the details.
The thread Elizabeth linked where Chiribba commented was quite enlightening. It seems I'm quite late to the table with the idea, it's not new. Chribba's views are interesting and sound.
To work:
The workload on the root 3rd party would need to be absolutely minimal, none would be preferable.
In the event of a default the root 3rd would need to be revoked and the deposit used to cover any damage.
One problem with keeping the workload minimal for the root 3rd would be keeping track of the contracts covered by the deposit and making sure that approval is not given if an attempt is made to cover contracts worth more than ( say ) 50% of the deposit.
You also can't retroactively change that 50%.
For the sake of a hypothetical example I start offering this service.
I deposit 10Bill + fee with a respected 3rd party and declare a maximum 50% contract cover.
This means I can only cover contracts up to 5bill in total.
I cover a 3rd party service for 3 bill.
So far so good
Then someone else comes along and asks me to cover another 3 bill.
Covering this would take me to 6 bill total and my max is supposed to be 5 bill.
I tell the second party I cant cover it and maintain a deposit double my total contracts.
They say not to worry they are happy for me to go up to 6 bill cover against my 10 bill deposit.
If I were to accept this new contract whilst the second client may be happy I've suddenly retroactively changed the terms for the first contract I accepted. My liquidity and totals contracts to deposit ratio has gone lower than I promised. This would be unacceptable.
Preventing this happening is one of the devil details.
Also to start a new hypothetical case.
New 3rd party business starts up, sets up a nice deposit.
Then goes and signs up loads of 3rd party contracts with no regard for deposit to total contract ratio.
Once they have more in contracts than the deposit they just keep the contract goods and forfeit the deposit for a tidy profit.
Deliberate scam from the get go.
The clients need to be able to check the value of the total contracts for any given 3rd party but not by asking the 3rd party. Which comes back to where we started, at trust :)
If someone could solve some of these issues, there's money to be made :) |
virm pasuul
Viziam
Amarr Empire
314
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 07:55:48 -
[4] - Quote
Seriously - an idea that would require sticking to some as yet undefined set of rules and procedures to make it work and you come up with "what if they don't stick to the rules?" Isn't that true of everything? Pointless.
Anyway I think Sabriz has the best critique of the general concept above.
Because the activity is guaranteed or insured ( yep I like that ) by the deposit, would any trust be earned.
Ironically the better the fine details and procedure was worked out, AND PEOPLE WOULD NEED TO STICK TO THEM ( thank you ), the bigger Sabriz's question gets.
I think it could generate trust over time. Here's my reasoning why.
Using MD loan and bond requests etc... as an example.
There is one "test" that exists currently that isn't really explicitly stated but in my opinion is quite an important test applied to requests for money.
It's the attitude test.
Someone makes a loan request and faces the usual picking apart of their idea to see where it falls short. Sometimes this can be quite harsh.
One of two things then happens, they respond in a friendly manner, act mature and try and address those concerns. Maybe post some information they forgot, or take on board the criticisms and change their application to reflect this feedback.
The other thing that can happen is they get in a huff, react badly, get defensive or aggressive.
Needless to say the second course of action sets off alarm bells, and all the usual investors are put off by this bad behaviour.
If you send any length of time reading the MD forums you will see this factor making a lot of difference in requests. Especially if the amount is small. Behave well and people are much more likely to take a punt.
Demonstrators of good behaviour in a load request:
Realistic request, shows understanding of how the loan request process works.
Good understanding, shows research and effort.
Good attitude, again shows understanding that you are asking other people for something.
Deals with criticism and feedback positively, indicator of likely future behaviour.
I feel this judgement by behaviour is quite important within the Eve community. How does someone handle themselves when things go a bit bad. It's taken as an indicator of how they are likely to behave when things go much worse.
If you accept most of the above as true then I think a person who kickstarted their trust with this general concept could earn genuine trust during their dealings by a public display of good behaviour whilst doing business.
There would probably be plenty of opportunities. Some deals for which you are the 3rd party will go wrong. You will then have to take on the duties of a 3rd party in trying to resolve the issue.
Inevitably scammers will look for weaknesses and try and exploit you or your clients.
The best scam attempts will probably come from both parties colluding together against the 3rd party to try and make a claim against the 3rd parties deposit.
There will be plenty of opportunity for people to see just how you handle yourself, and to form opinions about what kind of business you are running by your actions.
I think over time it will be possible to build trust by starting off with this method.
e.g. what's your deposit to cover ratio?
Some might choose a deposit twice their combined deal coverage thus generating lots of trust that they want to offer the best coverage and peace of mind to their clients. Some others might choose 1:1 or even lower than 1:1 which would be more profitable, but be far less reassuring to the clients.
A successful 3rd party after a period might increase their deposit to be able to take more contracts on board whilst maintaining the same deposit ratio. Surely a good sign of a very trustworthy 3rd party?
Although the deposit is intended to kickstart the trust process, I do believe it would be possible to build real trust on top through good business practices. |
virm pasuul
Viziam
Amarr Empire
314
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 10:05:30 -
[5] - Quote
RAW23 wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:This does not allow the prospective new third party to build trust at all.
This is also an important point. No reputation for safe-dealing accrues to someone who has covered the exposure with a deposit, just as no reputation for honesty accrues to someone who completes a secured loan. The fact that some people do give credit for completing secure loans and probably would for secured third-partying constitutes an unfortunate flaw in those guys' thinking and I certainly wouldn't want to facilitate that kind of error, which is precisely the sort of thing that leads to scams. tl;dr - Anyone who trusts someone more after they have completed a secured loan or secured third party work is an idiot, since the individual involved has not actually been put in a position of trust.
Raw - agreed on a technical level, but doesn't how someone conducts themself during business build a small degree of trust or maybe more accurately confidence over time? |
virm pasuul
Viziam
Amarr Empire
314
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 10:11:52 -
[6] - Quote
Hey Raw a question please.
Of your entire Eve experience how much benefit do you get from 3rd party services.
Not numbers, but "yeah it adds to my enjoyment" or "it's a pain but I help people out a bit".
My gut feeling is that being a 3rd party is a probably pain in the arse for you, but you do it out of social responsibility. I'm also guessing any fees you make are small when considered against the time and effort involved. However that's all guess, and you are the one who actually knows.
Thanks for your input above, it's quite insightful seeing yours and Chribba's points of view.
Oh one last cheeky question sorry. In real life do you hold a position of significant responsibility at all analogous to your position of trust within the Eve community? |
virm pasuul
Viziam
Amarr Empire
314
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 11:32:09 -
[7] - Quote
Thanks for your replies Raw.
I would consider academia a pretty responsible position. Passing on human knowledge and encouraging the next generation to think critically is a big responsibility especially in today's politically charged climate.
I think from what you, Sabriz, and Chribba in the other thread have said. It's not possible to remove the human trust element by a technical means. The human part is integral. The idea is fundamentally flawed, although I'd love to see someone make a go of it. |
virm pasuul
Viziam
Amarr Empire
314
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 12:45:47 -
[8] - Quote
humm Kon
I think the subject is probably a bit more subtle.
Mankind has always used inductive logic - the sun has risen every morning so far, therefore it will rise tomorrow.
Lets not forget that whilst the well know 3rd parties have built a solid reputation of trust that is also based on the same inductive logic. Any one of them could get bored at any time and just keep the lot. It's the number of times that they could have and didn't that generates our trust.
Surely a long period of any business working exactly as advertised is the most that any of us could hope for, especially in Eve.
Take the gambling sites as an example. Despite the many conspiracy theories it's my belief that they can make far more over the long term by keeping themselves honest than the short term snatch of cheating and loosing customers.
I don't however see that trust placed in someone who operated a service well for a long time would be any fundamentally different from trust in existing parties who already have a history of good practice. The exception being as has already been pointed out, where the trust of one is enforced by deposit and security and the other isn't.
Running a business well and doing a good job does inspire at least confidence in competence, if not actual trust.
I do acknowledge that all the above can be exploited by a dedicated scammer willing to put the work in. Ironically the scammer would need just as strong work ethic as the geniune service provider, possibly more even. But most scamming today is the laziest unoriginal Jita copy and paste spam. Kids of today eh? Can't even be bothered to criminal properly!
PS do you have a link to where you spoke about this before please? |
|
|
| |
|