Print

[bamalucky]

I think their new forum actually backfires on them.Anyone with half a brain will start looking for an unmoderated opinion once they see that their own questions go unposted there.

[ira01]

I think their new forum actually backfires on them.Anyone with half a brain will start looking for an unmoderated opinion once they see that their own questions go unposted there.

Maybe so.  I guess it depends on the lurker/poster ratio.  If a lot of people just read, and don't post, they would never know about Prosper's heavy-handed moderation.

[mothandrust]

Two innocuous posts made it, so at least FlyingMissle's thread is bumped back to page one.

[Capital_Finance_Group]

Unfortunately I do not believe that P has a "splainin" department.

Perhaps the "splainin" department might be staffed with the same folks that are in the "collections" department 

[bamalucky]

<double007> i'm not going to even post about this notary business

This is Teddie33 on Prosper

<bama> in fact,i know you can't think of 1 intelligent thing to say about it
<bama> come on teddie,don't make yourself look stupider
<bama> tell us why prosper shouldn't require a notary siggy?
<bama> gaerke wouldn't be happening if they did
<bama> you can do it teddie..say something
<bama> crickets

[GLeaderAccountantsChoice]

I just posted this in the .com forums, so let's see if it makes it through moderation:


<> LendingClub's S-1 seems a little different than Prosper's.  I'm not making any judgements here, but it's interesting at least how this all works, so hop on EDGAR (which is the SEC's public database of company records) and check out both of the P2P lending companys' apparent interpretations of their own business activities.  Personally, I feel LendingClub filed a more accurate S-1.
<>
 Why is the above relevant to this thread?  It has to do with what lenders' roles are on this site, and whether or not Prosper's selling notes falls under the definition of issuing unlicensed securities.  I personally don't know the answer here and am a bit confused.

Typically one must have a license to lend and is subject to regulations.  If Prosper never lent any money per their statements in court, then it makes me feel like I should have a license to lend money to people before using this site.  If on the other hand Prosper is doing all of the lending (or WebBank now, which wasn't the case previously, as can be noted by differences between today's current lender registration agreement and Prosper's S-1), and then selling all kinds of notes across the country, then I'm curious as to why that doesn't fall under the definition of selling unlicensed securities.  I personally just don't know the answer here and may be confused.

This did not make it through moderation.  Apparently, I must have said something against TOS.