Silk Road forums
Discussion => Silk Road discussion => Topic started by: nzt48givesyouwings on April 04, 2013, 03:00 am
-
I had this posted in another thread but somehow it was deleted. Not censorship on the Road I hope?
Someone in the last thread mentioned that new vendors who paid in $500 were refunded their original BTC now worth ~$2500. A separate vendor after this post occurred asked if legacy vendors qualify for the same refund.
I echo this question. Vendors that came in before are doing just as well for the community than the vendors that came in later :)
If both options were available today, I definitely would have taken the $500 with refund vs nonrefundable $150. I paid in about ~15BTC. If I had held onto those (which I would have), would be very significant now. Requesting that mods re-evaluate legacy vendors refund of original fees as we were here first and helped SR grow just as much as the newbies getting refunded!
-
I see that the post was deleted, but I don't know why, and it definitely wasn't me. That said, it would not be the moderators who would address the policy - moderators are here on the forums to answer questions, watch for scams, and delete spam, but we don't have any say in the policies or anything like that.
Something to consider: this has absolutely everything to do with the BTC rate. If it had decreased, then vendors who received a bond refund would be receiving LESS USD than they initially paid. It could have gone either way, and I'm not sure anyone could have anticipated it going so high so quickly!
-
I see that the post was deleted, but I don't know why, and it definitely wasn't me. That said, it would not be the moderators who would address the policy - moderators are here on the forums to answer questions, watch for scams, and delete spam, but we don't have any say in the policies or anything like that.
Something to consider: this has absolutely everything to do with the BTC rate. If it had decreased, then vendors who received a bond refund would be receiving LESS USD than they initially paid. It could have gone either way, and I'm not sure anyone could have anticipated it going so high so quickly!
Definitely. Wasn't making any accusations or pointing fingers :)
For me it's less about the BTC rate and more about the principle. We were buying vendor accounts, and not simply clearing a vendor scam filter, right? That's what I thought, but apparently it's much more about the trust filter and not a privilege which must be purchased. If this is indeed true, then all trustworthy vendors should be treated equally, regardless of what the material affects of the situation are. But yes the BTC skyrocketing in value certainly makes this harder to forget about.
I don't want to create a forum that results in a ton of whining, but feel this should be officially reviewed by the folks on top when there aren't more important things that require their attention :)
-
I understand where you are coming from, and appreciate your levelheaded post and response. Things have been hectic lately, but once everything calms down, who knows what will change, or how our community will evolve. If you wanted a direct response from higher up, your best option would be to send Vendor Support a message over on the main site. (but, as you know, there's a lot going on right now so I can't guarantee a response.)
-
Thanks Scout. Will hang tight til things settle down a bit and then message support.
More just wanted to have some record for the community so that the decision making and response is for a collective of people rather than just 1 or 2.
-
[SNIP]
A separate vendor after this post occurred asked if legacy vendors qualify for the same refund.
I echo this question. Vendors that came in before are doing just as well for the community than the vendors that came in later :)
If both options were available today, I definitely would have taken the $500 with refund vs nonrefundable $150. I paid in about ~15BTC. If I had held onto those (which I would have), would be very significant now. Requesting that mods re-evaluate legacy vendors refund of original fees as we were here first and helped SR grow just as much as the newbies getting refunded!
Apologies for bringing up a week old thread, but I just wanted to chime in on this; I'll quote my post from another thread as it answers the same question, and explains the difference between the fee that was paid to purchase vendor privileges and the bond that was introduced to deter scamming behaviour:
Hi,
that's disturbing news. I don't see why an increased bond for future vendors would make old vendors non eligible for their past bonds.
If the bonds were exposed, which is what I read, by December 2012 bonds paid in mid 2012 were worth almost double the 500$ of new bonds. How is taking this money justified and what is it used for?
omnis
Vendors who paid $150 didn't purchase a bond, they paid a fee. There is a distinct difference between the two; the bond is different from the fee in the sense that it is held by Silk Road to ensure that a vendor does not scam buyers, the caveat being that if the vendor does scam buyers they will not get their bond back. The fee was simply an amount of money paid to Silk Road in order to contribute to the running and upkeep of the site, and being a fee - by its very definition - was non-refundable. A bond, by its definition, is refundable or exchangeable to the value of the bond.
Previously to the bond being brought in instead of a vendor fee, the vendor fees were used to pay for server costs etc., until the fees grew large enough to be able to support the site without the need for a vendor fee.
Silk Road did not 'take' your money, you paid it to them willingly in order to purchase vending privileges. If the bond system were to be applied retroactively then Silk Road would have to pay out an incredibly large amount of Bitcoin to all previous vendor account holders, possibly bankrupting Dread Pirate Roberts as some vendors paid 50+ BTC for their account when prices were ~$3.00. Those 50 BTC would now be worth $8,248.00, and having to refund hundreds, if not thousands of vendors BTC at today's value would mean no more Silk Road.
As stated, the vendor fees were cashed out and used to pay for the actual running and upkeep of the site. The vendor bonds are simply held at an address thereby making the volatile BTC value a non-issue, meaning that refunding legitimate vendors does not cost 55 times more than what they actually paid.
- grahamgreene
-
This makes sense, but are you sure that the coins were actually used for server costs and not held? How did you get this information - do you work with DPR or are you guessing based on the terminology?
Also, I don't think they'd have to refund thousands of vendors. There really aren't that many of us...
-
This makes sense, but are you sure that the coins were actually used for server costs and not held? How did you get this information - do you work with DPR or are you guessing based on the terminology?
Also, I don't think they'd have to refund thousands of vendors. There really aren't that many of us...
I am not sure that the coins were used for site hosting, maintenance and upkeep, but that is the most logical argument. Fees for purchasing vendor privileges were - at one time - the only income stream that Silk Road had. Thus it would not be a huge stretch of the imagination to presume that those fees were what were paying for Silk Road's upkeep.
I am in no way affiliated with Dread Pirate Roberts or Silk Road; I'm simply a long time community member who has been here through it all, and am speaking based from experience of Silk Road, our community, and every announcement that DPR (formerly 'Silk Road') has made.
A large number of people have bought vendor accounts in the past and either left them to sit until they find a use for them or attempted to sell them in contravention to Silk Road rules. I did say "hundreds, if not thousands", but still, even taking 500 as a VERY low base figure:
500 (vendors) x (($150 [vendor fee] / $10.00 [per BTC, the average price range before the price shot up])=15 BTC) amounts to 7,500 BTC.
If 7,500 BTC had to be refunded to vendors, at today's prices, it would amount to $1,752,525 @ $233.67/BTC.
$150 was a very small fee for the opportunity to open up the entire global drugs market, in a safe environment, with an escrow service to protect both buyer and vendor.
To gain access to a global market in a legitimate business would cost many, many times that.
The fact remains that the $150 was a fee which was paid by the potential vendor in order to purchase vending privileges. That was the term of the contract at the time and contracts cannot be changed retroactively - a new contract must be drawn up instead and agreed to by both parties. That is a pillar of every market system ideology whether it be Capitalism, Libertarianism or indeed Agorism, and in the case of purchases on Silk Road it is a pillar that is enforced by the use of the escrow system. A buyer cannot simply turn around when they receive their order and state that they're now only going to pay you half because they have decided it is only worth that much.
The $500 is a bond which is entered into by the potential vendor in order to purchase vending privileges and encourage legitimate selling in order to exchange said bond for the original BTC amount when the vendor fulfills the bond's terms.
If vendors were to simply get the $500 worth back rather than the BTC amount they put in it would make more sense to scam buyers due to the rising value of Bitcoin.
Apologies if I've been a tad unclear in my explanations above; it is very late here and I'm running on a 36 hour sleep deficit due to business pressures. :-\
- grahamgreene
-
This makes sense, but are you sure that the coins were actually used for server costs and not held? How did you get this information - do you work with DPR or are you guessing based on the terminology?
Also, I don't think they'd have to refund thousands of vendors. There really aren't that many of us...
I am not sure that the coins were used for site hosting, maintenance and upkeep, but that is the most logical argument. Fees for purchasing vendor privileges were - at one time - the only income stream that Silk Road had. Thus it would not be a huge stretch of the imagination to presume that those fees were what were paying for Silk Road's upkeep.
I am in no way affiliated with Dread Pirate Roberts or Silk Road; I'm simply a long time community member who has been here through it all, and am speaking based from experience of Silk Road, our community, and every announcement that DPR (formerly 'Silk Road') has made.
A large number of people have bought vendor accounts in the past and either left them to sit until they find a use for them or attempted to sell them in contravention to Silk Road rules. I did say "hundreds, if not thousands", but still, even taking 500 as a VERY low base figure:
500 (vendors) x (($150 [vendor fee] / $10.00 [per BTC, the average price range before the price shot up])=15 BTC) amounts to 7,500 BTC.
If 7,500 BTC had to be refunded to vendors, at today's prices, it would amount to $1,752,525 @ $233.67/BTC.
$150 was a very small fee for the opportunity to open up the entire global drugs market, in a safe environment, with an escrow service to protect both buyer and vendor.
To gain access to a global market in a legitimate business would cost many, many times that.
The fact remains that the $150 was a fee which was paid by the potential vendor in order to purchase vending privileges. That was the term of the contract at the time and contracts cannot be changed retroactively - a new contract must be drawn up instead and agreed to by both parties. That is a pillar of every market system ideology whether it be Capitalism, Libertarianism or indeed Agorism, and in the case of purchases on Silk Road it is a pillar that is enforced by the use of the escrow system. A buyer cannot simply turn around when they receive their order and state that they're now only going to pay you half because they have decided it is only worth that much.
The $500 is a bond which is entered into by the potential vendor in order to purchase vending privileges and encourage legitimate selling in order to exchange said bond for the original BTC amount when the vendor fulfills the bond's terms.
If vendors were to simply get the $500 worth back rather than the BTC amount they put in it would make more sense to scam buyers due to the rising value of Bitcoin.
Apologies if I've been a tad unclear in my explanations above; it is very late here and I'm running on a 36 hour sleep deficit due to business pressures. :-\
- grahamgreene
Ok, as you explained your logic farther there are a few things I respectfully disagree with. 3 responses:
1) Vendor fees are NOT primarily responsible for funding the site - that's what SR commission is for. I can only guess that vendor fees make up a VERY small percentage of SR gross revenue compared to commissions
2) It doesn't matter what the coins are worth now if they were kept in coins. We'd just be getting the coins back that we paid in, just like the new vendors
3) Regarding retroactive contracting and capitalism - generally things cost MORE as time goes on, so the people that were in first get the BETTER end of the deal, not the worse end. Verizon's unlimited data plan is a great example. If you signed up for an unlimited data plan, you get to keep it even though those plans are not available today. It's called getting grandfathered into the new practice. If a policy gets worse for older members as time goes on, (i.e. Verizon charging $10 a month for 500 text messages, and then releasing an unlimited package for $5 a month), you get to switch to the new policy.
These are just examples and I can probably think of better ones but they are the first ones that came to mind.
It's good customer service, something that I value very highly with my customers :)
-
i got an account when it was .0000000000000001 wheres my infinite coins bitch
-
A lot of great discussion going on here! I haven't seen such an informative, respectful, cohesive argument since this morning in court. Very refreshing. This is why I love the road.
-
This thread is just what I needed to see right now. I have been a vendor for about 5-6 weeks and paid 11.50BTC/$500 bond for my account. I've been kicking myself as those 11.5BTC are worth far now than the total value of my current stock. There is no way I can get back to the level of my original holding, even with these price rises. At least that's what I thought.
Now I'm not the smartest cookie in the jar, but am I right in assuming that there IS at least the possibility of me getting 11.5 coins back, instead of a measly $500 worth?
-
This thread is just what I needed to see right now. I have been a vendor for about 5-6 weeks and paid 11.50BTC/$500 bond for my account. I've been kicking myself as those 11.5BTC are worth far now than the total value of my current stock. There is no way I can get back to the level of my original holding, even with these price rises. At least that's what I thought.
Now I'm not the smartest cookie in the jar, but am I right in assuming that there IS at least the possibility of me getting 11.5 coins back, instead of a measly $500 worth?
I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but...
I think when a transaction takes place, it is for the "value" at that time. You paid $500 for your vendor account - not 11.5 coins. That was the rate at the time, that's how much they were worth, so, you'll get $500 back - not 11.5 coins.
This is whining that the price went up and you didn't hold on to coins. If the value plummeted, vendors would be demanding back $500 bonds, not their initial coin investment. Have some perspective...
-
I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but...
Spot on :(
-
i bought 18 bitcoins, decided to wait a while ended up paying 9 bitcoin to join
bitcoin could be worth nothing tomorrow currently trading @ 94 euro from a high of 203 today
what a ride
-
I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but...
I think when a transaction takes place, it is for the "value" at that time. You paid $500 for your vendor account - not 11.5 coins. That was the rate at the time, that's how much they were worth, so, you'll get $500 back - not 11.5 coins.
This is whining that the price went up and you didn't hold on to coins. If the value plummeted, vendors would be demanding back $500 bonds, not their initial coin investment. Have some perspective...
Hey curiousitymatrix - this thread exists precisely because the opposite seems to be true - SR isn't hedging the Vendor bond, and is refunding the amount of coins, not the $500. Otherwise you're right for $150 there wouldn't be much to whine about :)
-
Ok, as you explained your logic farther there are a few things I respectfully disagree with. 3 responses:
1) Vendor fees are NOT primarily responsible for funding the site - that's what SR commission is for. I can only guess that vendor fees make up a VERY small percentage of SR gross revenue compared to commissions
I agree with you completely, however when Silk Road first started up and began charging vendor fees there was no SR commission, thus vendor account fees were the only income stream that Silk Road had and it follows that those fees were used for the site's upkeep.
Today the situation is very different, and indeed after Silk Road started charging commission, the fees were kept, presumably in order to deter every Tom, Dick and Harry from opening an account and potentially scamming customers without any initial expense on their part; that fee has since been eliminated and Silk Road brought in the bond system to discourage scamming. A higher initial cost to further deter scamming behaviour (after all, previously a scammer only had to make $150 before they broke even with everything on top of that being pure profit), and it is refundable after 30+ transactions worth $1500 in sales and 6 weeks trading, further encouraging good behaviour.
2) It doesn't matter what the coins are worth now if they were kept in coins. We'd just be getting the coins back that we paid in, just like the new vendors
Again, I agree with you; however, it is highly unlikely that all of those bitcoins were kept in Bitcoin. It is more likely that a sizeable proportion were cashed out to pay for the site's security, upkeep and maintenance, and to provide Dread Pirate Roberts with payment. It is entirely possible that they were indeed kept as bitcoins and not cashed out, though as stated I consider it unlikely. The fact remains though that they were paid as a fee - something that vendors agreed to pay in order to ply their wares here - and not as a bond.
3) Regarding retroactive contracting and capitalism - generally things cost MORE as time goes on, so the people that were in first get the BETTER end of the deal, not the worse end. Verizon's unlimited data plan is a great example. If you signed up for an unlimited data plan, you get to keep it even though those plans are not available today. It's called getting grandfathered into the new practice. If a policy gets worse for older members as time goes on, (i.e. Verizon charging $10 a month for 500 text messages, and then releasing an unlimited package for $5 a month), you get to switch to the new policy.
These are just examples and I can probably think of better ones but they are the first ones that came to mind.
It's good customer service, something that I value very highly with my customers :)
Some of the points here I must disagree with; you cannot compare something like a Verizon contract whereby you may switch to the new package if it is a better deal to Silk Road fees and bonds. Verizon only offer this in order to keep their customers as those customers would not renew their contracts if they could get a better deal elsewhere. On Silk Road there is no time limit on your contract, or any need to renew as it was a once-off fee.
Verizon would not offer the ability to switch to better deals if they worked on a once-off fee model as there is no incentive to keep the customer using Verizon; they have already been paid for the service, and there is no prospect of extra future income from that customer.
Silk Road already provides excellent customer service in the form of SR Support and minimal downtime. I think the last reports I saw were Silk Road having 98%+ uptime which is fairly impressive for a marketplace with so many well-funded adversaries.
What you are talking about is not 'customer service' though, it is in fact 'customer retention'. In other words, it is Verizon keeping their customers happy so as they do not switch to AT&T or Sprint (I'm not American so please do forgive me if those companies do not offer the same services as Verizon - you understand what I'm getting at though, I'm sure.)
Silk Road has neither incentive nor need to do that as there are no meaningful competitors to the Silk Road marketplace, thus no incentive to return the initial vendor fee (nor an obligation to do so), and no need to employ practices that result in customer retention as customers (vendors) are going to continue to do business here regardless.
This thread is just what I needed to see right now. I have been a vendor for about 5-6 weeks and paid 11.50BTC/$500 bond for my account. I've been kicking myself as those 11.5BTC are worth far now than the total value of my current stock. There is no way I can get back to the level of my original holding, even with these price rises. At least that's what I thought.
Now I'm not the smartest cookie in the jar, but am I right in assuming that there IS at least the possibility of me getting 11.5 coins back, instead of a measly $500 worth?
You will get back the amount of Bitcoin that you paid in - in your case, 11.5 BTC.
I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but...
I think when a transaction takes place, it is for the "value" at that time. You paid $500 for your vendor account - not 11.5 coins. That was the rate at the time, that's how much they were worth, so, you'll get $500 back - not 11.5 coins.
This is whining that the price went up and you didn't hold on to coins. If the value plummeted, vendors would be demanding back $500 bonds, not their initial coin investment. Have some perspective...
This is incorrect. I presume you are using the purchasing stats system to make your assumption. Purchasing stats are always denominated in USD, with the BTC value changing depending on the current USD/BTC price. The bond system is denominated in Bitcoin.
The vendor in question did not pay $500 for their vendor account, they paid $500 in Bitcoin for it; that is, they paid X amount of Bitcoin when each Bitcoin was worth X amount of USD.
- grahamgreene
-
Sorry; I misunderstood the conversation.
But what I see is: however you do it, (return exact coin value, or hedge it and return dollar value), someone will wind up such that it hurts them.
-
I had this posted in another thread but somehow it was deleted. Not censorship on the Road I hope?
Someone in the last thread mentioned that new vendors who paid in $500 were refunded their original BTC now worth ~$2500. A separate vendor after this post occurred asked if legacy vendors qualify for the same refund.
I echo this question. Vendors that came in before are doing just as well for the community than the vendors that came in later :)
If both options were available today, I definitely would have taken the $500 with refund vs nonrefundable $150. I paid in about ~15BTC. If I had held onto those (which I would have), would be very significant now. Requesting that mods re-evaluate legacy vendors refund of original fees as we were here first and helped SR grow just as much as the newbies getting refunded!
you my friend have just made my day. i searched the forum the other day for this info and found nothing. got distracted until i read your post and searched the wiki for some info for the bond. Lo and behold I have now 29.65 btc in my posession. so you might want to switch the title :) :) :)
thanks a bunch
-
you my friend have just made my day. i searched the forum the other day for this info and found nothing. got distracted until i read your post and searched the wiki for some info for the bond. Lo and behold I have now 29.65 btc in my posession. so you might want to switch the title :) :) :)
thanks a bunch
you're welcome!
maybe i should have worded it differently - this thread is about vendors that came in before you and didn't pay $500, but $150 and aren't getting a refund like you just got. title isn't wrong :)
we've just been evaluating both sides of the argument on whether "legacy" vendors should be refunded the original coins they paid in, just as you were.
congrats btw, nice chuck of change
-
I messaged support about this and hey replied refunds would not be given to legacy vendors. If it changes I would like my monies please.
-
you my friend have just made my day. i searched the forum the other day for this info and found nothing. got distracted until i read your post and searched the wiki for some info for the bond. Lo and behold I have now 29.65 btc in my posession. so you might want to switch the title :) :) :)
thanks a bunch
you're welcome!
maybe i should have worded it differently - this thread is about vendors that came in before you and didn't pay $500, but $150 and aren't getting a refund like you just got. title isn't wrong :)
we've just been evaluating both sides of the argument on whether "legacy" vendors should be refunded the original coins they paid in, just as you were.
congrats btw, nice chuck of change
I think I should have worded differently aswell. I meant you might wanna change the title because I got roughly $5000 worth of bitcoins back not $2500. ;)