Trust Levels for Traders

Site Feedback
#42

Ahh bummer.

Thank you! But then we can proceed with that idea and all be focused on that thread not looking else where in a different thread if someone is trusted or not i think.

2 Likes
#43

Currently giving the format a test with a few useful addons. Will post here the final draft for everyone to give feedback then wecll put the system to use

3 Likes
#44

Here’s the rough draft

Members post their own poll here.
Only give votes if you have experience doing transactions with them. (:question: Agreed or no?)

Focus more on who voted; not the number of people. You can see more details by clicking on the avatar pictures in the polls.

New members will need to give their own NFT / funds first to trusted members to build trust and make their own poll here.

Rules

(Exceptions may apply)
Requirements. The post will be deleted if it is not done in this way:

  1. Only 1 poll (or 2 ?) configured like this:
  • Title: YourNameHere Trader Rating
  • Options:
    • Trusted
  • Limit user voting to only these groups:
    • Level 1 (Regular)
    • Level 2 (Member)
Extras

( :information_source: optional? Would some of these be a better idea to be mandatory?)

  • scam wallets to help watch out for and avoid counterfeit copies. Possibly in hopes of returning the NFTs
  • Contact location - Discord, Reddit, E-mail, etc
  • Payment options - Paypal, money order, stripe, cashapp, etc
  • @Mentions of all the most recent, active existing users who have done a transaction on you
  • Other vote choices BUT they must be in a separate poll bc results are automatically sorted :
    • Timely / Punctual
    • Communicative / Reponsive
    • Fair Pricing
    • Secure
    • Professional / Good Attitude
How

I’ll post a picture step by step here later
Show who voted: Reply > Gear icon > Build Poll > Gear icon, bottom left > scroll all the way down > check :ballot_box_with_check: “Show who voted”
Limit to member trust level: Set trust level 2 for members, level 1 for regulars.

Guidelines to know if a user is trustworthy

(:question: Feel free to suggest what else)**

  1. They have been contributing or participating in the community forum
  2. Been a member at least 1 year / 8 months? (Guestimating)
  3. The more votes they have from more trusted members the more credibility they may have
  4. The more involved abd supportive the member has been, the more trust they have.

:heavy_heart_exclamation: Poll Format Post Proposal

Here is what the post may look like
Error “You cannot change poll after the 1st 5 mins”
This turns up if i try to edit the poll again. it seems it still shows that error even after 5 minutes so a bug. Turns out it seems we all have to do the poll thing perfectly once to keep from having that issue

Poll 1 - Part 1 of 2

  • Trusted

0 voters

Poll 1 - Part 2 of 2 ( :question: Would this be necessary?)

  • Punctual
  • Responsive
  • Fair Price
  • Secure

0 voters

Payment type:

Paypal F&F, Venmo, Cashapp, Money Order

4 Likes
3rd PARTY Verification For NFT Purchases
#45
Mentioning users as an invitation for feedback

@JAAJ @anon73693188 @SammyG @Powren @Alex @anon3411921 @Nice2knowU @Maoshan_Wanderer @Zen @Psimindset @DR_MANHATTAN and anyone else that would like their input since i don’t know everyone who may want to share

4 Likes
#46

This is a tricky bit to nail down. I appreciate your diligence in this. :slight_smile:
I can delete this in a bit so it doesn’t mess up your thread.

3 Likes
#47

You’re fine. Just take your time. This is a 1 time deal so lets make it count

2 Likes
#48

Ohh i hadnt seen this, and strange that nobody has commented maybe it was hidden, ill read and get back to give feedback and thank you for all you do!

1 Like
#49

The punctual part can be hard, since there are so many locations/time zones that ppl are operating from. Knowing that someone responds promptly to an ad is nice, but in this case not always practical.

1 Like
#50

Maybe we can encourage people to add “Timezone” info as a note for the poll? Or possibly country of origin? country / location may be too intrusive in privacy so timezone may be better

2 Likes
#51

good to go

but be careful of manipulation of vote

for example person create several accounts to vote for someone just who he can mess around

something that can protect against this too but showing how older their profile is or what trust level they’ve reached i mean for voters

#52

not a problem when people read this

4 Likes
#53

Hello, just seeing this. I will give feedback soon after work. Thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
#54

The fair pricing is technically very subjective. What’s fair to me might be horrendous for someone else. (The pirates for example deem zero a fair price).

3 Likes
#55

I think my only comment would be that the polls should have both reasons:

First poll:

1- trusted
2- not trusted
3- trusted but some issues

2nd poll (why) and we can choose up to 4 options not limited to 2:

1- Puntual
2- Responsive
3- Fair Price (this shouldnt be an option, anyone can ask for whatever they feel like, i pointed out about one member the other day because offering for higher price a NFT that is still for sale on the stores, that i still believe is sketchy however its peoples responsibility to check the main thread of x NFT to see if its still a public one and what the price is before buying from someone else)
4- Secure

Then 2nd part of the why, why + just marking is enough

But (when feedback is negative):

1- Puntual (received the money or the NFT, did not send theirs right away -this in the case both were talking about doing the transaction right at that moment and then the other part disappeared or took hours to send theirs, or came out with the “i dont know why is not sending its stuck on a loop” because while that can be real, at this point everybody should know that when that happens it means they dont have enough SOL, it should be something they have to talk and show proof (screen shoot) that they have enough before sending anything)

2- Responsive (only mark it when they had the loop issue mentioned above or Paypal/wise etc confirmation and did not pursuit solving the issue right away or soon enough) but not because it took hours to reply if yes or not, said were interested but then didnt reply to finish the deal etc, because tho it shows good character if done properly, it shouldnt go as far as being marked as possible untrusted person to do deals with, unfortunately sales or trades of any kind commonly encounter that situation, plus difference of time zones and busy schedules etc.

3- Fair Price (again no, unless suddenly the price goes up while discussing via PM, or if the person is pestering for a lower price)

4- Secure (well, the transaction failed, or if the transaction went through then they changed their mind and want to undo the deal)

As for who votes for who, i do agree in votes of positive character (so long time forum members can vote for x y person even if they havent done any transactions, still under their responsibility to vote with care) other than those i think it should exclusively be people that have done deals AND that can still show proof of correct transaction (older back and forth messages etc) in case of any issue arises, or in case the person that is unsure of dealing with someone can PM asking for proofs yes only vote for someone if you are willing to send proofs etc :man_shrugging: i think its the only way we avoid people voting + just to support untrusting people/scammers/thieves

And same for the - votes. Can only vote if you have proof of said option showing failure to deliver and finish a transaction. Otherwise no, so that erases the possibility of people just being mean, petty or looking to stop a transaction just so they or their friends can trade/sell instead.

Also maybe, to avoid people replying to x person re a transaction, should just vote and then go to the scammer post and link the person offering then make whatever comment if negative WITH proof.

6 Likes
#56

I was going to write but @anon73693188 pretty much summed up what I was thinking so I agree with him.

3 Likes
#57

A quick note for anyone having the idea(s) of adding more ‘middleman’ / third party trade into this topic

Here are posts relating to the topic with thoughts / opinions on the matter

Read More

Scam / Counterfeit Reports Thread for Sapien Medicine - #32 by Divine_Lotus

Keep in mind that Sammy has been quite busy nowadays so be mindful that such a system may or may not be implemented. Depends on Sam and Dream for the decision making

And a similar idea
Forum Ideas/Feedback/Suggestions - #188 by JAAJ

Also if you have criticism for ‘marketing’ on the matter in relation to promoting services

#58

Google and Microsoft have built in two-factor authentication. This could certainly be used on the initial sales, so that one could always access lost audio files, in the same way that people retrieve lost passwords.

Perhaps after a subsequent sale, there can be an automatic update to the two factor identification, with the NFT in the wallet counting as a factor, so that the unattached audio file can be accessed in the event of seller failure or simply to account for the loss of a file—hard drive crash, for instance.

As to securing a successful transfer of cash for NFTs—I take a look at the Microsoft/Google tech more deeply later. There’s also may be an approach with blockchain QRs, but at a certain point your just recreating an exchange,

#59

i think we can start implementing badges for the most well known members and slowly add new people by asking those well known members who they had traded with in the past, and so on, bcz the badges create awareness for the newbies who get curious about it and we can slowly increase the number of people. the 2nd poll is not needed right now we can maybe add it later based on user reviews.

right now we need speed of execution, as we know a few got scammed in the past weeks. So please roll out the badge system to the known trusted members: for new users we can have no past trades as their badge or something similar.

On a side note, has anyone used escrow.com before for a transcation, they charge 20 bucks i think. maybe that can be an option or we can just be the middle man with a 5 or 10 $ fee to whoever the trusted member that is online.

1 Like
#60

I like some version of an Escrow solution. It would ensure delivery of the NFT for the money. The problem is the audio file. The buyer doesn’t have a good description of it and there’s no way to verify it (not talking about the early Venly NFTs) unless one is an original member of the group (for private NFTs.) Public NFTs have the same problem, but there are many more who could verify characteristics of the audio file. (I’m not suggesting that most people would send a bad audio file. I’m simply saying the escrow company couldn’t do its job. , but the escrow company couldn’t do its job.

The solution would be an audio file bank, where the NFT could used to unlock the audio, which would remove the issue from the escrow company.

Short of that, you’re back to a trust system.

1 Like
#61

Ok so where is the thread where we can do these polls or? I didn’t sleep much and all that was confusing :sweat_smile:

Anyways my votes go to @Sonata and @Kaworu02

They may not be very active in the forum right now. I never engaged with them before (or after). But I bought from them and everything went nice. I didn’t even have the wallet back then and they were patient while I made them. I requested an invoice from Sonata and she made it too.

So yeah, thanks for the patience guys. Hope the tag doesn’t bother you but it is for others to find you (and now even if you change your username they can).

4 Likes