WGAF, since I'm not bidding at all these days.
But, to engage in a bit of braindrizzling ...
After Prosper eliminated GL compensation, one of the ideas that was floating around was that GLs could be compensated for their vetting work by selling their recommendations to lenders on a subscription basis. I didn't think the idea was workable, mainly because there was no way to control second-hand dissemination of the recommendations by the subscribers, and it would be too easy for non-subscribers to simply mimic a known subscriber's bidding activity and get the benefits of the service without paying for it. The ability to freeload would limit the market for paid subscriptions.
In theory (though I doubt the TOS would allow it, and there are likely major regulatory/licensing obstacles for anyone wanting to try this), lenders could authorize a third-party (the vetter) to not only place their bids using the API, but to also select the loans and interest rates, for a fee. That way, the vetter's recommendations would remain secret until the bids are placed, eliminating the risk of second-hand dissemination, and the sniping function could be used (as on eBay) to thwart copycat bidding. Obviously, such a system would require a high level of blind trust in the vetter by the participating lenders, and/or some form of credible guarantee from the vetter.
Issues with the TOS and legal/licensing issues are not the only obstacles to this sort of arrangement. Prosper's decision to stop sharing members' PII with GLs remains an impediment to effective vetting. Assuming that the recommended loans are those which lenders would overlook in the absence of vetting, the vetter would need to have enough commitments from subscribers to fully fund the loan on the first try (and would still be at risk of failing if the lender's account had insufficient funds to cover the authorized bid amount); otherwise, the borrower would be identified, and copycats could jump in on the second attempt. Blabbermouth borrowers might reveal that they had been vetted, in hopes of drumming up early bids from non-subscribers. And, finally, there is no effective mechanism to market such a service to borrowers, unless Prosper itself were to promote the service (as a suggestion to subprime borrowers during the listing process, perhaps) or grant on-site spamming privileges to the vetter.
All of which brings me back to WGAF.