So long-time traders no longer are allowed to trade over $250 unless they give you their credit card information?

I'm not cool with this.

Sleet wrote:So long-time traders no longer are allowed to trade over $250 unless they give you their credit card information?

I'm not cool with this.

Or PayPal. Why not?

The idea of having to trade a bunch of <50 dollar trades initially feels kind of onerous to me, when so much of my desirable trades is made up of duals, zendikar fetches and legacy staples.

I'd suggest a limit on number of concurrent trades as an option alternative to dollar amount.

What are the thoughts on a paid trading system? Everyone starts a default set of features, but you could pay $1 to upgrade a feature of your account.

This would deter scammers because they would have to provide information to upgrade features to enable their scamming, and they are usually cost adverse anyway.

I haven't traded so I can't chime in on what would be a good baseline and then increase features. But I would imagine that premium members would have all upgrades or an allowance to spend on upgrades the day such a system would go in place.

This would also allow people who can't afford the monthly sub to spend a $1 here and there for upgrades to their account getting themselves value and providing support to the site.

Putting this out there for consideration.

ok I am going to comment based on what I am reading as I read it so if it get jumbled, I apologize.

First, I don't like the dollar limit on any tier. I think perhaps a limit on the active number of trades is a good idea. if a new trader has a goyf and wants my cards, I don't think it is fair to prevent that. the tracking and sending first helps prevent scammers at first.

second, I like the idea of enforcing the person with fewer confirmed trades to send first. However, if an experienced user is not doing this already, shame on them. I have only had one problem with a new user and I feel bad for him, however he chose not to use tracking and did improper packaging so it's not my problem. I do disagree with making it a lower sends first in all cases. I am close to 400 trades now and why would I want someone with 300 trades at 100% positive feedback to send first. doesn't make sense. I think there should be a cap at tier 1 as 20 trades and tier 2 as 50 trades.

third, having a credit card on file is not an option for me. I use paypal expressly for that reason. there have been way too many security breaches to start giving out my credit card number to every site I use.

forth @Zyron, I personally have 2 accounts. I manage them for different purposes and also (before premium) traded to myself to move cards from one account to the other. I also have noted on my profiles that the other account exists. If someone was to try to do some shady things by "trading" between accounts they created, that is of course a bad thing. I personally check the references for anyone under 30 confirmed trades to see who they have been trading with to ensure nothing shady is going on. I also check the "member since" to see if the shady things mentioned above could be happening.

fifth, if anyone is doing a thousand dollar+ trade and are not using a third party for the exchange or meeting in a populated place, then sucks to be you. this only makes good trading sense. many local gaming stores are happy to do the exchange. I see comment about a mediator. I for one think that is a great idea. this site could leverage willing traders with high trades counts as mediators for high value trades. there would be extra expense (to the senders buy sending postage value to the mediator's paypal) and time delays but as long as the mediator is verified through their address and paypal, this is a great alternative.

sixth @Amurpcs, stopping new users from selling is not a good business idea. the fact that sebi enforces people to use paypal, adds the security that is needed for buyers. they can do a chargeback through ebay if needed.

seventh @AuspSqueeky, always leave accurate feedback even if it is negative/neutral. if your trading partner does leave retaliatory feedback, open a ticket and sebi will reverse it. I have had experience with this. dude was pissed because I wouldn't take a different edition of the card worth 25% less than what he promised. left me negative feedback saying "trader is too picky". sebi reversed it to neutral feedback which is appropriate. Although sebi, I have asked in the past and would like to state it again. keeping feedback hidden until both parties have left it, is a wonderful idea!

eighth, I like TechnicolorMage's idea on expanding the feedback option. I have to say that at least 1/3 of my trades have come in with a problem (ie wrong set, bad condition, missing card, etc). most traders are very quickly fix the problem but sometimes it isn't worth the hassle for a 10c card. for those of us who have collections of playsets this would be a great way to give a lower score for the issue but still leave positive feedback.

ninth @sidewayzracer/Amurphcs, buyer feedback is a decent idea. ebay does it and it shows that you are active on the site like Amurphcs states and not some inactive scammer. perhaps not even feedback but just a tally of how many purchases you have made through the site.

tenth, I talked about it above but I cant find it now. I think that limiting new users to current trades in route is a better idea than a dollar cap. I think that 3 is too low though and that 10 would be my max until they hit the next tier.

tenth @sebi, I think this site is amazing and I consistently tell everyone at my LGS how awesome it is! thank you for an RFC on such a big issue as this.

wonderdog79 wrote:ok I am going to comment based on what I am reading as I read it so if it get jumbled, I apologize.

forth @Zyron, I personally have 2 accounts. I manage them for different purposes and also (before premium) traded to myself to move cards from one account to the other. I also have noted on my profiles that the other account exists. If someone was to try to do some shady things by "trading" between accounts they created, that is of course a bad thing. I personally check the references for anyone under 30 confirmed trades to see who they have been trading with to ensure nothing shady is going on. I also check the "member since" to see if the shady things mentioned above could be happening.

ninth @sidewayzracer/Amurphcs, buyer feedback is a decent idea. ebay does it and it shows that you are active on the site like Amurphcs states and not some inactive scammer. perhaps not even feedback but just a tally of how many purchases you have made through the site.

Just to clarify, I was referring to shady trading practices, not people legitimately using 2 accounts. Mostly meaning that if there is a trading limit until you hit 25 trades, or $250 worth of trades, people can just open two/three/four+ accounts and just trade between them to hit those numbers. Since they aren't actually trading anything they don't even need the cards or pay anything. Maybe they do 1-2 legitimate trades to make it look better. I'm just saying, cheaters gonna cheat.

Also, Ebay removed negative and neutral feedback for buyers, you can only leave positive feedback. They did this because of the aforementioned reasons here, sellers would withhold feedback until a buyer left it then use it as a weapon if the buyer had a legitimate complaint. For instance, a seller once sold me something not even close to what they advertised. I paid return shipping on the item, so I was out a few bucks, and I left neutral feedback, not even negative. The seller was so upset that he shorted me and made me pay return shipping that he left me bad feedback even though he sold an item that wasn't what he stated. It's hard to have a system where buyer feedback is honest since it is basically another tool for bad sellers to use to pressure buyers into giving fake positive feedback instead of honest feedback.

Zyron wrote:

wonderdog79 wrote:ok I am going to comment based on what I am reading as I read it so if it get jumbled, I apologize.
...
ninth @sidewayzracer/Amurphcs, buyer feedback is a decent idea. ebay does it and it shows that you are active on the site like Amurphcs states and not some inactive scammer. perhaps not even feedback but just a tally of how many purchases you have made through the site.
...

...
Also, Ebay removed negative and neutral feedback for buyers, you can only leave positive feedback. They did this because of the aforementioned reasons here, sellers would withhold feedback until a buyer left it then use it as a weapon if the buyer had a legitimate complaint. For instance, a seller once sold me something not even close to what they advertised. I paid return shipping on the item, so I was out a few bucks, and I left neutral feedback, not even negative. The seller was so upset that he shorted me and made me pay return shipping that he left me bad feedback even though he sold an item that wasn't what he stated. It's hard to have a system where buyer feedback is honest since it is basically another tool for bad sellers to use to pressure buyers into giving fake positive feedback instead of honest feedback.

Perhaps a tally is a better option in this instance, however, would it hold any weight when going from purchases to trades? I also wonder if we could publish orders as we do trades, so at least everyone could see the value of purchases, who we are purchasing from, etc. Not sure if that feature is already there or not. Could be an alternative way of feedback so if someone sees a person only making a lot of $10 purchases, it may weigh less than someone who buys $50 or more.
Sorry if that got convoluted, just waking up.

@lorddax
That sounds like micro-transactions. Mobile games say micro-transactions are a good way to make money, but I've never spent money on a time-waster game so I'll just have to take their word for it. I can't think of things people would be willing to pay a one-time fee to unlock, but I'm also not the target demographic of micro-transactions.

Zyron wrote:

wonderdog79 wrote:ok I am going to comment based on what I am reading as I read it so if it get jumbled, I apologize.

forth @Zyron, I personally have 2 accounts. I manage them for different purposes and also (before premium) traded to myself to move cards from one account to the other. I also have noted on my profiles that the other account exists. If someone was to try to do some shady things by "trading" between accounts they created, that is of course a bad thing. I personally check the references for anyone under 30 confirmed trades to see who they have been trading with to ensure nothing shady is going on. I also check the "member since" to see if the shady things mentioned above could be happening.

ninth @sidewayzracer/Amurphcs, buyer feedback is a decent idea. ebay does it and it shows that you are active on the site like Amurphcs states and not some inactive scammer. perhaps not even feedback but just a tally of how many purchases you have made through the site.

Also, Ebay removed negative and neutral feedback for buyers, you can only leave positive feedback. They did this because of the aforementioned reasons here, sellers would withhold feedback until a buyer left it then use it as a weapon if the buyer had a legitimate complaint. For instance, a seller once sold me something not even close to what they advertised. I paid return shipping on the item, so I was out a few bucks, and I left neutral feedback, not even negative. The seller was so upset that he shorted me and made me pay return shipping that he left me bad feedback even though he sold an item that wasn't what he stated. It's hard to have a system where buyer feedback is honest since it is basically another tool for bad sellers to use to pressure buyers into giving fake positive feedback instead of honest feedback.

This blows and actually brings up another issue I want to raise:

I would like to be able to remove my feedback IF another user does not leave feedback for me.

I'm tired to chasing people down for feedback.

This type of crap needs to stop, there was nothing wrong with this trade. We simuled, mine arrived first - my card was mint. His arrived, cards were mint, everyone happy. I leave feedback, he doesn't. Hogwash.
UPDATE: Feedback left!
Give me the power to remove my feedback, maybe then, he will pay attention to the messages I am sending him. If you are afraid of abuse of system, then let us message an admin/moderator to remove the feedback for us.

This isn't the first time I have had to chase someone down for feedback but it would be nice if it were the last time under this type of system.

mobung wrote:With a 3-trades cap, I would be encouraged to cancel the trade in order to keep my slots open. Sure, canceling a trade isn't a hostile action, but it still feels unpleasant when both parties are keen on said trade and will likely lead to fewer trades overall.

There's no "3 trades cap", only a value cap. You can leave the trade accepted without marking it sent, then it will not "Block" things. Only when you mark things sent = you promise cards were sent, then it counts them as "in progress".

Again, the whole point is to prevent people from saying they "sent" the cards to 15 traders, but lie about it, and dissapear with everbody's cards.

Latest case: http://deckbox.org/users/DoctorGraim/trades

I see a lot of users not being happy with limits, but I also do not want to have cases like the linked one happen here again. If they happen on other sites, that is their business, but something will be done to prevent it here.

sebi wrote:Latest case: http://deckbox.org/users/DoctorGraim/trades

Wow. I know why you got rid of public adjudication of cases, but as a result I have no real idea how often this stuff happens. Hopefully not too frequently.

Of course, looking at his active trades every single one of them is with a user that has less than 25 feedback. Again, that's the most-obvious problem here - low-feedback users having to simulsend with potential low-feedback scammers. I think whatever policy changes should just focus on this and then maybe if there are still problems (eg. scammers just acquire some minimal feedback threshold and then fuck everyone) look at doing more. I think all of this multi-tiered user stuff with a variety of limits though is imposing a lot of restrictions when most scam cases *seem* to be about low feedback users targeting other low feedback users or high-feedback users just flaking out of a bunch of trades.. and you can't do much about the latter imo.

One other thing that comes to mind here is I imagine that there were some warning flags here. Like this guy *did* make proposals to high-feedback traders (not me though), but was rejected. My guess is that he refused to send first, which could be considered a red flag. Perhaps some system for privately passing these red flags on to admins would be useful - there have been a couple scenarios on my end where I haven't gotten packages in sketchy ways that caused me to wonder if I should be alerting the users' other trade partners, but thankfully those situations ended up being resolved amicably.

No, it does not happen too frequently, but I would like to take it from "rarely" to "almost never". If I only limit no-feedback users to no-feedback users, it will happen at 10-feedback users with 10-feedback users then.

I don't want anyone to have thousands of dollars in promised trades at once, if they do not make a commitment to provide a credit card or paypal account. It's a minimal commitment, for what I hope is a useful service (trading on deckbox).

(Also worth noting the mentioned case is not cut-and-dried yet, I will still try to contact him further, but it is a perfect example of what the proposed system tries to prevent.)

Im interested in knowing what the average number of transactions open are for users on here? Personally i only try to keep 1 or 2 open at once

Honestly I dont think refusing to send first should be considered a red flag. I have known of people getting burned very badly on other sites by traders with alot more feedback/refs.

Amurphcs wrote:Im interested in knowing what the average number of transactions open are for users on here? Personally i only try to keep 1 or 2 open at once

I go through spurts but I will only ever keep a max of 5 or 6 trades going at the same time.

Agentdark wrote:Honestly I dont think refusing to send first should be considered a red flag. I have known of people getting burned very badly on other sites by traders with alot more feedback/refs.

Lots of things can be red flags even if you're not guilty of whatever is supposedly being flagged. Simulsending won't protect you from scummy behavior anyways if that what you're afraid of. "Users below X feedback trading with users above X feedback have to send first" is totally a rule I would support.

Agentdark wrote:Honestly I dont think refusing to send first should be considered a red flag. I have known of people getting burned very badly on other sites by traders with alot more feedback/refs.

YMMV but this is sadly especially true for non-US traders. I have a lot of people with zero or little feedback asking me to send first because "you live in Canada and I've had problems dealing with Canada before." I understand that Americans try to avoid their post offices at all costs, but if you're trading high-value cards you can't just slap a stamp on an envelope and call it a day.

sebi, I think some kind of system where the more established of a trader you are, the higher card value you can have "in progress", is the only system that will help against what you describe. There's no way to design an exploit-proof system, so if we shift the goalposts to limiting liability, that's at least a step in the right direction. It's a toss-up, would you rather have a large number of unprotected new users, or a smaller number of protected ones? I know which I'd choose, but you're the boss :)

Amurphcs wrote:

HikingStick wrote:Wouldn't requiring a verified address for trades over a certain amount provide some of the safeguards needed? It's easier (at least in the USA) to file a mail fraud claim if the other party's address is confirmed.

While not sure I'd support the idea, a credit card or bank account (alternate payment method) could be required for trades over a certain amount. If the trade goes south, the alternate payment information could be used to make it good. This would, of course, require a revision to site rules and trade policies, and all parties of a trade would have to agree to all terms.

I would be more inclined to use a mediator. Basically both parties send to a site admin/mod and once all cards are checked and deemed accurate in terms of condition set etc then the mediator sends to respective parties

That would require shipping both card sets twice (trader to middleman, middleman to other trader). It could also introduce claims that the middleman damaged/lost/stole cards. There's no means of compensating such middlemen, either, so I don't believe it would ever work.

Personally, I believe that getting into caps and limits makes things too complicated--for the users, and for the coders/admins. Why not change the trade workflow to *require* new traders to send first? The higher-rated trader is instructed not to send until they receive the cards. You could enforce such logic for low trade score (<10), or if there is a large gap between two traders (one at 23 and one at 176). Let an experienced seller override that setting if willing to take a risk on a specific trade (but modify the rules and add a warning message that advises them that they may be looking for trouble and have limited recourse).

Heck, what about a warning on the trade screen if a partner has more than a certain number of open trades: "This trading partner currently has __ active trades worth $____ that are in transit and not yet completed. Many open, non-delivered trades--often adding up to large dollar amounts--may be a sign of a potential scammer. Proceed with caution and at your own risk."

Think about the amount of time and energy going into discussing an issue that is rarely a problem here (based on trade volume). Per Sebi's own disclosure, the worst case example (someone having dozens of open trades at once) is "extremely rare". And do not forget that scammers can learn any set of rules--that's why such crimes are often called "cons" (confidence games). A skilled and motivated scammer will do anything to build the required confidence to pull off the ultimate heist. Ebay had some such users in its history--sellers with stellar reputations until the day they stopped shipping and tried to disappear. What's to stop someone with one of the highest site trade ratings from simply deciding to cash in by not shipping his/her half of any number of trades? NOTHING. PERIOD. Nothing, at least, as far as the mechanics of the site go. Personal integrity, morals, and ethics are the only things that stand in the way. After all, locks on doors and windows will keep out casual or incidental intruders, but when someone with criminal intent encounters a locked door, they just reach for lock picks, a pry bar, a brick, a bump key, or some other tool to bypass your protections.

This topic comes up time and time again. It needs to be put to rest, so Sebi can focus on things that will add value to the site.

HikingStick wrote:Personally, I believe that getting into caps and limits makes things too complicated--for the users, and for the coders/admins. Why not change the trade workflow to *require* new traders to send first? The higher-rated trader is instructed not to send until they receive the cards.

Because this does not cover cases where < 10 users trade with < 10 users, or when one user has 11 feedback and the other also has 11 feedback.

It is true that it makes things complicated but I am quite decided now that I do not want to allow large scams to be able to take place, and part of that is making guards against abuse by new users.

Of course some type of scam will always happen, and some people are just thieves regardless of the obstacles they face when stealing, but like I do feel safer in my city knowing there are laws & police & locks, I'd like to have a bit more protection and guarantees in place for the newer users.

HikingStick wrote:

Amurphcs wrote:

HikingStick wrote:Wouldn't requiring a verified address for trades over a certain amount provide some of the safeguards needed? It's easier (at least in the USA) to file a mail fraud claim if the other party's address is confirmed.

While not sure I'd support the idea, a credit card or bank account (alternate payment method) could be required for trades over a certain amount. If the trade goes south, the alternate payment information could be used to make it good. This would, of course, require a revision to site rules and trade policies, and all parties of a trade would have to agree to all terms.

I would be more inclined to use a mediator. Basically both parties send to a site admin/mod and once all cards are checked and deemed accurate in terms of condition set etc then the mediator sends to respective parties

That would require shipping both card sets twice (trader to middleman, middleman to other trader). It could also introduce claims that the middleman damaged/lost/stole cards. There's no means of compensating such middlemen, either, so I don't believe it would ever work.

I am aware. I was mainly speaking to trades that are worth around 1k, and or trades that include very expensive cards like moxes etc. I believe sending to an admin or mod would be fine and not a random person. Also at that point i would rather spend the extra 2.60 to ship to be more secure.

I'd heard about the DoctorGraim case, though hadn't looked into the full extent of his duplicity. While it is unfortunate this has happened, I trust it is a rare occurrence. And, as HikingStick mentioned, no amount of precautions will stop a dedicated scammer. I understand wanting to protect new users, but trade limitations will hinder a significant portion of users in order to make a handful theoretically less vulnerable. I feel a New User Orientation would be more effective. Teach users what to look out for instead of hamstringing them right out the gate. It wouldn't be "There are sometimes scammers here!" but just general tips that could make their Deckbox experience more pleasant. Things like stay cordial, feel free to turn down a trade, you can block users if they're being belligerent, give your trades an actual name, use the chatbox, watch out for dudes with a bunch of active trades, it's generally expected for new users to send first, etc. Then have a "Check out the New User Orientation (this message will disappear once you have completed it)" alert on the trade and homepage of users who haven't done it. Users will read through the orientation, answer a question (to get around the tendency for people to not read things and just click okay), and now they're informed. It seems easier to implement from a coding perspective too.

Speking as a newer user and as recently being an online trader over the past year, i will say that i have currently been scammed twice in about 150 total trades. It makes me more aware of what is going on, but a lot of the trades that I do i try to keep around $50 or more just because it makes the shipping worth it. It insures that I am sending in a BM with tracking and vice versa. PWE always has some risk, amd I have been accused of scamming when I honestly send the $10 of cards in a PWE and it got lost in the mail. I just started to ship with tracking for any trade now, as it only costs 2.60 and intl i get tracking from stamps.com...although thats kinda slow to register etc.
I would be fine with a cap as I can work around it, but maybe there can be something where a new user can trade high value cards of some sort of requirement is met? I.e proof that card is in hand, tracking number, and the user they are trading with can provide the same and has a "verified" account? This way new users with proof could ship cards first and would have some protection for the other person that they will ship or else they can be charged for losses?

HikingStick wrote:Personally, I believe that getting into caps and limits makes things too complicated--for the users, and for the coders/admins. Why not change the trade workflow to *require* new traders to send first? The higher-rated trader is instructed not to send until they receive the cards. You could enforce such logic for low trade score (<10), or if there is a large gap between two traders (one at 23 and one at 176). Let an experienced seller override that setting if willing to take a risk on a specific trade (but modify the rules and add a warning message that advises them that they may be looking for trouble and have limited recourse).

Heck, what about a warning on the trade screen if a partner has more than a certain number of open trades: "This trading partner currently has __ active trades worth $____ that are in transit and not yet completed. Many open, non-delivered trades--often adding up to large dollar amounts--may be a sign of a potential scammer. Proceed with caution and at your own risk."

Think about the amount of time and energy going into discussing an issue that is rarely a problem here (based on trade volume). Per Sebi's own disclosure, the worst case example (someone having dozens of open trades at once) is "extremely rare". And do not forget that scammers can learn any set of rules--that's why such crimes are often called "cons" (confidence games). A skilled and motivated scammer will do anything to build the required confidence to pull off the ultimate heist. Ebay had some such users in its history--sellers with stellar reputations until the day they stopped shipping and tried to disappear. What's to stop someone with one of the highest site trade ratings from simply deciding to cash in by not shipping his/her half of any number of trades? NOTHING. PERIOD. Nothing, at least, as far as the mechanics of the site go. Personal integrity, morals, and ethics are the only things that stand in the way. After all, locks on doors and windows will keep out casual or incidental intruders, but when someone with criminal intent encounters a locked door, they just reach for lock picks, a pry bar, a brick, a bump key, or some other tool to bypass your protections.

This topic comes up time and time again. It needs to be put to rest, so Sebi can focus on things that will add value to the site.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Yes, you can stop scamming by restricting the size and volume of trades, but then guess what you're making the site less-useful for all of its users, including those like me who would probably not be subject to these restrictions. Even modest trading caps could cause users to make stupid tradeoffs if not implemented carefully - eg. if a new user opens a $200 trade with me where they're sending first, and thus I'm at basically 0 risk of being scammed, will this negatively impact their ability to trade with other people because now they're $200 closer to whatever limit exists? If so, then this basically means that it becomes costlier to trade with me, and that's a problem for me.

Also, if such limits were imposed you'd see a lot more complaints about people not shipping or closing trades in a timely fashion - "I can't make new trades because of you", etc. I don't think that the perverse incentives that some of these rules would generate are being fully considered here.

Rather than restrictions on trading, what about turning this into a possible service/business opportunity?

Imagine a Deckbox service that essentially acts as an escrow service.

Possible Process

• Traders A and B have to submit pictures of their cards for them to both approve of the conditions. (This eliminates Deckbox having to verify conditions based on a subjective scale)
• Traders send cards to Deckbox escrow address
• Deckbox representative films: the opening of each envelope and each card (used as evidence that same cards were shipped as in pictures and protection from claims that Deckbox switched cards out), and the placing of cards into new envelopes (to protect against claims that Deckbox sent different cards). Alternately, something can be written into the service's terms of agreement contract that indemnifies Deckbox of any such claims
• Upon verification, Deckbox sends the cards to the new owners (likely with tracking, again for liability reasons)

Thoughts on Cost
The service would cost money to cover expenses, such as shipping fees and labor costs for having someone handle the trade. I imagine labor would be around 0.2 hours (opening, verifying against trade lists, possibly filming everything, creating new shipping labels, then putting in mailbox for shipment). Assuming minimum wage may go up to $15 in the future, after employment taxes you're looking at about $16.50/hour. At 0.2 hours of labor, that's about $3.30 in labor, maybe about $2.50 for USPS first-class or $5.50 small flat-rate box (for larger quantity trades).

Labor could be split by both parties, and shipping would depend on what someone is sending. Per trader, Deckbox's expenses would amount to about $3.65 (half of labor, $1.65, plus $2.50 first-class) for smaller shipments, and $6.65 for larger ones. Add in a 25% profit margin, and you get approximate service costs of $4.56 and $$8.31. At just 10% (I don't know Deckbox's overhead costs, so I don't know what would be feasible) the pricing would be more like $4.01 and $7.31.

Worth it or Not?
This wouldn't be economical for low-value trades, but for high-worth trades, some users may find this useful. Ultimately, the cost might not be all that much higher for some traders. If any of you are like me, I decide whether to add tracking based on my level of trust in the other trader (definitely not so the other user can track where the shipment is, I couldn't care less about that). Mail gets lost on rare occasion, but I suspect the more common culprit are traders claiming not to receive cards. Deckbox would be a trusted service, so I wouldn't feel the need to spend money on tracking when sending to Deckbox. I save money on my shipping costs, and spend a little more for the service. So, for trades above a certain monetary threshold (for me it would be around $50), the cost would be minimally higher in return for peace of mind.

Those are my initial thoughts on how such an escrow service could work (I'm sure you all can think of many other iterations). The inspiration was thinking about what the problem is we're trying to fix. People tend to get scammed on higher-value trades. Lower value scams certainly aren't pleasant, but the sky won't fall if you lose $20 in cards (let alone $5-$10). This would avoid restricting traders (an issue brought up by some), create a solution for those who are interested in a trade but normally wouldn't do it for fear of getting scammed, and would add an additional revenue source for Deckbox, paid for by those interested in the service. There may even be opportunity for including some version of this service for premium accounts, but that would have to be figured out by Deckbox's accounting team to see what would actually be worth it (perhaps X escrow trades per year for free).

Anyway, just a thought and opening this up for discussion.

renoan wrote:Rather than restrictions on trading, what about turning this into a possible service/business opportunity?

Imagine a Deckbox service that essentially acts as an escrow service.

Possible Process

• Traders A and B have to submit pictures of their cards for them to both approve of the conditions. (This eliminates Deckbox having to verify conditions based on a subjective scale)
• Traders send cards to Deckbox escrow address
• Deckbox representative films: the opening of each envelope and each card (used as evidence that same cards were shipped as in pictures and protection from claims that Deckbox switched cards out), and the placing of cards into new envelopes (to protect against claims that Deckbox sent different cards). Alternately, something can be written into the service's terms of agreement contract that indemnifies Deckbox of any such claims
• Upon verification, Deckbox sends the cards to the new owners (likely with tracking, again for liability reasons)

Thoughts on Cost
The service would cost money to cover expenses, such as shipping fees and labor costs for having someone handle the trade. I imagine labor would be around 0.2 hours (opening, verifying against trade lists, possibly filming everything, creating new shipping labels, then putting in mailbox for shipment). Assuming minimum wage may go up to $15 in the future, after employment taxes you're looking at about $16.50/hour. At 0.2 hours of labor, that's about $3.30 in labor, maybe about $2.50 for USPS first-class or $5.50 small flat-rate box (for larger quantity trades).

Labor could be split by both parties, and shipping would depend on what someone is sending. Per trader, Deckbox's expenses would amount to about $3.65 (half of labor, $1.65, plus $2.50 first-class) for smaller shipments, and $6.65 for larger ones. Add in a 25% profit margin, and you get approximate service costs of $4.56 and $$8.31. At just 10% (I don't know Deckbox's overhead costs, so I don't know what would be feasible) the pricing would be more like $4.01 and $7.31.

Worth it or Not?
This wouldn't be economical for low-value trades, but for high-worth trades, some users may find this useful. Ultimately, the cost might not be all that much higher for some traders. If any of you are like me, I decide whether to add tracking based on my level of trust in the other trader (definitely not so the other user can track where the shipment is, I couldn't care less about that). Mail gets lost on rare occasion, but I suspect the more common culprit are traders claiming not to receive cards. Deckbox would be a trusted service, so I wouldn't feel the need to spend money on tracking when sending to Deckbox. I save money on my shipping costs, and spend a little more for the service. So, for trades above a certain monetary threshold (for me it would be around $50), the cost would be minimally higher in return for peace of mind.

Those are my initial thoughts on how such an escrow service could work (I'm sure you all can think of many other iterations). The inspiration was thinking about what the problem is we're trying to fix. People tend to get scammed on higher-value trades. Lower value scams certainly aren't pleasant, but the sky won't fall if you lose $20 in cards (let alone $5-$10). This would avoid restricting traders (an issue brought up by some), create a solution for those who are interested in a trade but normally wouldn't do it for fear of getting scammed, and would add an additional revenue source for Deckbox, paid for by those interested in the service. There may even be opportunity for including some version of this service for premium accounts, but that would have to be figured out by Deckbox's accounting team to see what would actually be worth it (perhaps X escrow trades per year for free).

Anyway, just a thought and opening this up for discussion.

Using this system, My concern would become more with the cost of product as well. People tend to ship things in their own way, and don't always use a "user friendly" system. The system I speak of would be:

Card ---> optional perfect fit ---> sleeve ---> hard cover ---> Team bag ---> Bubble mailer/PWE

The cost to ship 1 card in this way would be an additional approx $1.2 or so, depending on how much bulk you buy. Would these supplies be issued by deckbox?
I think that the cost would be marginal for trades that exceed $100, especially if you don't include insurance as the cost pretty much makes up the difference.
It would be nice if you could just use the shipping methods over again, but many times people use tape etc, which would limit the ability to use them again. Also, if a shipping method is suspect, you would want to re-package the items so there would be no problems on the next stage.

sebi wrote:(Also worth noting the mentioned case is not cut-and-dried yet, I will still try to contact him further, but it is a perfect example of what the proposed system tries to prevent.)

As someone who got burned by this guy (he had a couple trades marked as sent and hadn't opened the other 20 trades so it looked fairly legitimate unfortunately) I am definitely in favor of some type of safeguards against this kind of thing in the future.

Also if it is at all possible, is there a way to put anybody who opened a dispute against him into some sort of Internal chat/dispute/thread so we can explain to everybody the steps we took to file for Mail Fraud and contact the Coats PD? I'm pretty skeptical anything will happen with just 1 person doing those steps but if everybody he scammed does that, I find it hard to believe the local PD would ignore 20 complaints against the same mailing address.

valdor wrote:

Amurphcs wrote:Im interested in knowing what the average number of transactions open are for users on here? Personally i only try to keep 1 or 2 open at once

I go through spurts but I will only ever keep a max of 5 or 6 trades going at the same time.

When I show up to trade, I open anywhere from 1-30 trades, with card trade priority based on a first confirm, first serve basis. Most users ignore trades and never respond, so I take that into account. With lots of trades open, I have a good chance of getting 5-6 trades finalized once you take into account non-responders, failed negotiations, etc.