P2P Lending / NFT Lending Forum

It's now been updated to tell you the offer was made by Teller themselves, which as it turns out is very common. My data shows that 48% of all loan offers made by Teller against ENS names since mid-June came from the Teller team. wow. And that's if they only have 1 address that they're using for it. It's this one: 0x62c04179d85f2d776a028a1453f2ded314b18bc8

Here's an example where all the offers were from them: https://venusaur.eth.loan/

new thing, maybe there'll be something to talk about or pique someone's interest. Was it you who recommended something like that? I saw a suggestion on here a couple weeks ago about it.

Speaking of live ENS loan data, I just added this little feature that will show you all past loan offers on Teller for a name. I should probably update it to also show if a loan offer has actually been accepted as well but one thing at a time i suppose.

Even though I'm on a big losing streak, I made some offers against names people listed for loans. No bites presumably because I was not as generous with the amounts. Reminds me of a couple exchanges I've had that look almost exactly like this-

Them: My name is worth more than that.

Me: I know. That's why I offered a lower amount.

Them: But why would I take less?

Me: So that you have incentive to pay back.

Them: Pay what back?

Me: The loan...

Quote from: nobody1 on September 04, 2023, 08:10:22 PMThanks for approving me. Will you quit lending if all the rest don't pay off either? tbh, the names don't look that great to me. wouldn't be surprised if none paid.

no prob. No, I am still in a learning phase. I have learned some extremely valuable information from these defaults so far. If they all default, the journey still continues.

Quote from: edENS on September 04, 2023, 11:38:54 AMDid you see that azuki.eth is listed on NFTfi looking for 2 eth? Looks odd to me.

Hmm... owned by a broke wallet too.

Turns out it was 6 defaults in one day. I had forgotten to check Arcade. walletfactory.eth also defaulted So a total of 9 straight defaults. 8 loans left to go!

All the rest of the loans I have outstanding at the moment are:

sulfuricacid.eth - due 9/5/23
nftpawns.eth - due 9/5/23
artpawns.eth - due 9/5/23
onlinereviews.eth - due 9/6/23
freedapps.eth - due 9/7/23
directbank.eth - due 9/8/23
p2plending.eth - due 9/11/23
claddagh.eth - due 9/17/23
zoomedia.crypto - due 9/17/23

I had 5 loans default in a single day on Teller, all from different borrowers. Out of 6 loans on Teller I've had reach the due date so far, all of them have defaulted.

Names to default today were:
accountlogin.eth
blockpoker.eth
freewallets.eth
onlinemusic.eth
p2pnetwork.eth

Amounts varied from .10 to .13 eth

Teller doesn't let you liquidate right away. They have a built-in 5 day grace period.

It definitely stands out simply because it's cfo, one of the most recognizable titles in the world. On another note, I just added a feature where the profile for each name will show the user links to any mentions of the name in this forum. Once public registration on this forum reopens, perhaps that may drive some new users and engagement, plus offer additional insight discussions about a name.

About a month ago, I wrote that if a lender wanted to entice a borrower into accepting a loan offer, they'd have to offer at least .1Ξ (right now around $160) because the borrower could have a transaction fee etc just to do the loan. I've since changed my mind. I have seen too many people list names that they cannot afford to renew that expire very soon for which there are not even any buyers for the name. Which means that any amount greater than what they paid to register it or what it would cost to renew it is basically a win for them, even if they decide to intentionally default. Case in point, I am now looking at the user's eth balance, renewal cost, time left til expiration etc. In another post on here, we already began to see that borrowers with no eth in their wallet at the time of the loan tend to default.

When checking the status of a loan recently, it told me that the wallet address matched the owner of the name, which really shouldn't cause one to bat an eye... EXCEPT that when someone borrows against an ENS name on NFTfi, ownership of the ENS name is transferred to an NFTfi contract address. That means that there is no way the owner could match the wallet address that the borrower had set and something had to be off.

Let's examine what happened here. ENS has 3 layers to look at:

1. Where the ENS Name resolves to, i.e. the wallet address
2. The manager address of the ENS Name
3. The registrant/owner of the ENS Name

When someone borrows against their ENS Name on NFTfi, the registrant/owner changes to an NFTfi contract address. As the manager, the borrower can still make changes to the name's profile but they can't change the owner of it.

Some mainstream ENS dev tech uses the wrong language. For example, in web3.js, retrieving the Owner of an ENS name actually retrieves the Manager of it. This is where eth.loan went wrong (the language has since been updated). Other platforms confuse a wallet address with ownership which creates a ton of unintended consequences.

At the end of the day what you need to know is that when a loan is made, the owner of the name is the lending platform, so be sure to check who the borrower actually in order to figure out who the loan was made to.

Quote from: sean3.eth on August 30, 2023, 08:53:57 PMyeah....

I have another loan coming due in just a few hours, qualitycontrol.eth. Borrower is an ENS seller. Currently has 28 cents in their wallet. Had $0 at time of loan. What's the over/under on this one paying you think? lol

Update: loan is now in default    =\

yeah....

I have another loan coming due in just a few hours, qualitycontrol.eth. Borrower is an ENS seller. Currently has 28 cents in their wallet. Had $0 at time of loan. What's the over/under on this one paying you think? lol

Quote from: KHY Lending on August 28, 2023, 09:46:49 PMI used Sean's eth.loan/ensloans/ list and examined just the liquidated ones.

anywhere.eth - eth balance of $8.25 at time of loan - $0 right before loan was due

btcdominance.eth - eth balance of $64 at time of loan - $96 right before loan was due

didwejustbecomefriends.eth - eth balance of $0 at time of loan - $80 right before loan was due

9361.eth - eth balance of $92 at time of loan - $92 right before loan was due

meatballs.eth - eth balance of $6 at time of loan - $0 right before loan was due

sushiboss.eth - eth balance of ~20k at time of loan - ~18k right before loan was due

In each case, excluding sushi, the borrowers had less than $100 in eth from the very beginning and did not recover. This ignores their weth balance which I don't know how to pull and ignores what happens for loans that perform though when I started checking those, very few of those start off with such low balances, more like in the $200 - $1,000 range. I admit this is not very scientific in presenting it this way but already it should speak to the point raised about a borrower starting off with no money to begin with and signal that there is a model to be built here. The sample size is still very small though as well.

Welp, your theory just played out. Loaned .08 weth (about $136) against finlend.eth. Borrower had $13 worth of eth at time of loan and $34 at the time it was due. Has no weth. The name also expires in 2 months and they never bothered to set an address for it. Looking at the owner now, which I didn't do before, I see that they specialize in selling ens names on ens vision so I suspect that they viewed this transaction as a sale all along. It had also been listed two months ago for .02 and here I went and loaned .08, 4x what they previously listed it for. This would've been material info I think. Need to figure out a way to automate getting that info

https://finlend.eth.loan