[ Closed ] Request for Comment: Trading restrictions&User levels to promote trust (Page 5 of 6)

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).

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.

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

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

No idea how this would end up. However, if I were piloting such a service, I'd make it clear I'm not responsible for anything other than the escrow verification process. In home purchases, escrow doesn't get held accountable for anything other than verification that the title is clear. For a card escrow service, I'd make it clear that I open the package, verify the cards are in there and that they look like the ones in the pictures, and then put them right back in the packaging it was sent in (sleeves, if any, envelope) (and that in turn into a new envelope that will have the actual postage) and ship it off once I received both trades.

That might not be what users would want, though. Maybe Deckbox traders WANT to hold Deckbox accountable for such things. So, no idea what such a service would end up as.

Why not have the individual users set profile parameters so the person on the other end can see what will and will not be accepted? Right now, this sort of thing is all laid out (when it is laid out at all) in profiles.

I get the bit about new-to-new trades, mind you, as that can be an issue for all kinds of reasons.

I would also suggest that idle time prior to an email address change, or perhaps any email address change, might put some measure of restriction onto the account until a means of verifying that the original owner still controls the account.

Nothing will be 100%, however.