I don't think requiring notarization will contribute enough to the safety of the process to compensate for the extra burdens it places on honest Borrowers, and the additional cost to Prosper. Cheap and effective is what you need, Notarization is neither.
Then it would be fraud/ID theft and P-----r would have to honor their guarantee. Probably why they don't required notarized statements.
Yes, this must be the real reason. mtnchick has won.
Actually, the real reason is obvious -- Prosper doesn't do more to prevent ID-theft (and to make it easier to prove it when it does occur), because doing so is not in its financial interest. Prosper just wants to originate as many loans as it possibly can, because it makes money off each one, regardless of whether the loan if fraudulent, and regardless of whether the borrower ever pays it back. Lenders take all the risk of fraud and ID-theft, except in those circumstances where lenders can prove ID-theft to Prosper's satisfaction, something that used to occur with some frequency before Prosper methodically eliminated lenders' ability to do so, by scrubbing every trace of PII it can from the listings. That's why Prosper has only repurchased one loan that originated in the last almost 13 months. Without the city information and borrower-supplied PII, we can no longer find the Victoria Crawfords who take out 10 loans in other people's names (discovered by forum detectives, not Prosper), the infamous Leporello discovered NY ID-theft loan, (which Prosper had studiously ignored, including being given the freaking name and phone number of the NYPD detective handling the ID-theft investigation, until there was such a shitstorm on the forum that Prosper had no choice but to repurchase it), etc.
And let's not forget all the fraudulent listings discovered by forum detectives thanks to PII (and no thanks to Prosper), including StylumCEO (who was caught by forum detectives offering to trade his camera for being added as an authorized user to a person with good credit's account so as to fraudulently raise his credit score, Indictment-Man (who was outed as being under indictment for LOAN FRAUD; did Prosper thank the forum detectives who found this? No, it suspended one for posting a link to an FBI PRESS-RELEASE announcing the indictment), Conviction-Man (who was discovered to have been convicted of federal crimes and was soon to report to a federal prison for 24+months -- "coincidentally" his Prosper loan listing was in the amount of the criminal fine/restitution order he had to pay), etc. So does Prosper learn from all of this that they need to tighten their review of listings, and provide more information to lenders so we could find more of these miscreants? Of course not -- instead it cut lenders off at the knees in being able to protect themselves (can't interfere with the number one goal of increasing originations, after all).
+100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.01