#PeerDuck went on P2P Deep Dive podcast to speak about red flags in P2P and the market itself.

Key highlights:

- A big red flag for P2P platforms is high interest rates. For example, Kuetzal – interest rates didn’t match the average interest rates offered in banks. If you see 19% when they should have paid 9-12% max interest rate on a loan that is longer than 3 months, you should be suspicious because it is a heavy pressure on the cash flow.

- Another red flag - age of the founders. If you see someone 26 years old trying to be a CEO – you should probably stay away from that. ''You cannot be a kid from university and be Elon Musk.''

- About Crowdestor - ‘’Personally I still think while those piglets are dirty, but they are not criminals and they don’t look like criminals... This is the end for them for sure, as a platform, maybe as a portfolio they will not disappear probably. Their model is not sustainable anymore – they have 500k euro according to their statistics. That is not nearly enough to pay operational costs. There is no money for debt collection because it’s a costly business- you need good lawyers. They don’t have a designated lawyer for that.’’
Crowdestor investors still have hope and don’t want to admit they made a mistake – same story as with Grupeer investors who were in denial for months, reading newsletters and hoping they get paid.
Peerduck says that after November, when the licensing comes in place, Crowdestor accounts will be closed in short time – as we understand they are incapable of getting a license.
Flex product is illegal because it is a clear deposit taking business. They are not allowed to do it and are not capable of it, do not have a license for that.

- Investing in new platforms: If you don’t invest in new platforms, how are they gonna last?
It is not about the age, it is about the purpose and plan of the platform. In case it’s a niche platform which has some professionals who are good in the particular sphere, it could live. A platform needs around 4 million EUR in investments per month to be healthy & a good platform should be transparent – you should see who benefits from it.

When asked to warn listeners about P2P platforms, Peer Duck mentions Viventor. He says that Estateguru, Crowdestate and Bulkestate should probably stay alive.

Listen to the podcast here: p2p-game.com/peerduck-p2p-deep-dive-5

#PeerDuck had a look at $Crowdestor project: "Increase of working capital", his comments below:

From Crowdestor description: "Orange Square Transport Ltd has been running for 6 years. Currently company manages 6 units of new, fully insured Mercedess Benz Actros heavy trucks, and on 01.11.2019 received a licence to increase fleet up to 12 units of heavy trucks."

Peer Duck: I don't see any evidence of any potential transport business on a company, there are 2 employees, no assets, no operations. It looks like a typical shell company. Nor I see any evidence of leasing payments for trucks or similar.

ORANGE SQUARE TRANSPORT LTD was a sleeping company, presumably a mass-registered company staying on the shelf of a lawyer or similar waiting to be bought. Until Timma was introduced, following companies cost approx. 800-1500 EUR

The project description is a joke. I have seen quite a few forwarding companies reports, and does not resemble the one at all. Of course I might be wrong, but for now I would rather say it is a typical money transferring company.

they are changing an address every year, maybe something related with local taxes, no idea

goo.gl/maps/v4h1HUfBsqebo1eE7 - that's where they _officially_ store their trucks

goo.gl/maps/uWgxvyYbVTPwVXKXA - that's where the formal ad with the formal publication (public information)

Orange Square Transport Ltd is a small-sized transport company with the licence number OD1137810. The firm has one transport operating centre in the country. In their subsidiary in Birmingham on Heartlands Park, 2 machines and 2 trailers are available.

So, it is already Romford, no earlier than 16 Jul 2020, and it is still 2 cars and 2 trailers

and subsidiary

Company Vehicle Operator Data
Brit Container Sales Ltd
Company status: Dissolved on 16 March 2021


Timma resignation april 2020 corresponds to the July 2020 revocation. The interesting question - they mention 12 trucks, but we should clear out if it is a 12 actual truck either it is a permission to have a park to up 12 trucks

I suspect Timma was again simply tricked (seems not to difficult to do at all)

-60K equity is a death sentence to the loan anyway

let's pray that some equity money left to cover this debt like others

$Grupeer published another blog post: "Grupeer’s legal team has already filed legal action against two of our loan originators – Pozyczka Pieniedzy (started 24.02.2021) and DoZarplati (started 15.02.2021). " - but no action is being taken against their own fake/fraud LOs - for example, Primo Invest and Finsputnik.

#PeerDuck comment: "They pretend as much as possible not to look like a criminals, focusing topic on non-affiliated LOs and keep silent about the fake ones which are the backbone of their portfolio."

And this was a comment from legal team who represents Grupeer investors: "When specific investors used their rights to start insolvency proceedings against SIA Primo invest and SIA Finsputnik platforma, Grupeer group companies which had failed to comply with their obligations for almost a year, took diversionary action. These companies initiated civil proceedings in court against the investors in question seeking the court to recognize the assignment agreements by which the investors bought part of the claim against the debtors as null and void."

Discussion about P2P marketplaces, collateral and buyback guarantees. Focus is on $Mintos, but the same applies to other marketplaces as well: $PeerBerry, $Bondster, $Viventor, $IUVO Group, $Lenndy etc.

Bertrand J: I met a Mintos loan originator who proposed me a note in 2017. He told me buyback guarantees are not much guarantees, and it’s more interesting for him to borrow a large amount (we didn’t discuss the amount) from me than to have to deal with Mintos and investors mainly interested in short term loans. I declined the offer but it exists if you are interested. As dumb unwealthy guy I wouldn’t do it, though. I don’t even invest on Mintos or other platforms anyway.

Peer Duck: Once again, claim rights to individuals, which investors consider to be holding, are nothing more than a fancy wrap. You are dealing with the business loan for the operational needs backed by a portfolio, and nothing else. So yes, the straight loan to a LO with the clear purpose would be actually much more beneficial for both sides, with no resources to waste on the plywood claim right purchase. so, at the end of the day, all your "diversification" is concentrated inside a non-banking lending industry, maybe some moderate international diversification, but zero cross-industry. While there is no sufficient data to build a correlation model between different LOs, no doubt it is higher than 0.5 and does not add any durability to portfolio

Kristaps Mors: In many cases even this part is not true: “backed by portfolio” 🙉 instead backed by hopes & promises

Peer Duck: I took a Mintos a model, they indeed put a pledge on loan originator assets.

Kristaps Mors: In all cases? Then hard to understand why recoveries are so slow and difficult

Peer Duck:
1) Can't comment, possibly some grey schemes for affiliated companies may took place
2) Overvalued portfolio (Aforti f.e)
3)"Controlled landing into terrain" by C-levels and other exit-strategies to leave a burden on the weakest (penny investor)
4) for most cases, recollection from default LO would never cover 100% of a principal, and I would never believe it was intended to (otherwise it is a claim for a riskless investment)

Me Myself And I:
5) even if you have a pledge on the whole portfolio, you need to be able to pull it off (legally and operationally) otherwise it will be pink elephants in the sky. Looking at my favorite examples Capital Services and Monego ... for CS even having a direct claim, but if you are not able to reroute the payments and negotiate yourself to dead until all money has been spend...not worth the paper the contracts were written on
For Mintos, if the other side doesn’t play ball and you don’t get them nailed legally with personal liabilities...🤷🏼‍♂️

Giannis Lever:
1 - is a complicated legal process that depends on agreements signed and a lot of details, like is it the only claim etc. Also on the legal procedure to be done. Bancruptcy - longer, mortgage - faster. Also depends on the other end, they can argue all the way, this will make it at least 3x longer.

Peer Duck: It also depends on the portfolio quality. It's quite easy to inflate a portfolio with low-quality loans prior to the meltdown

#PeerDuck created a poll about reasons, why some lenders are leaving $Mintos. Here are investors guesses:

Discussion about $Juicy Fields:

Hm. JF is by far not perfect. But to call it a scam?! That is far fetched and not fair. Where is the proof?

Kristaps Mors: short version: "CEO & team owns 0% of JuicyGrow GmbH. Fake partners. No KYC/AML. Germans not allowed to invest.", also - changed their terms and conditions and removed a point after I asked for licenses, and paid post in Forbes with some bullshit story about their shady CEO, and their telegram support guy asked me to go to Germany to see documents, wtf.
owner of juicy grow gmbh is Viktor Bitner, he is not mentioned on website or marketing anywhere at all
similar model as in other scams.. company is presented as something else to authorities and banks. and to investors as an investment platform. they have a complete different website as well: juicygrow.eu - no mention of weed, just Hydroponics and in juicyfields.eu/ company name is not mentioned at all, only address: Potsdamer Straße 147, 10783 Berlin
so for authorities company is presented as some Hydroponics/greenhouses stuff, but for investors - as some weed investment platform

PeerDuck: Weed is illegal in baltic states so do the promotion. People, who are stupid enough to invest in similar stuff - be prepared to have troubles opening bank account in any financial organization afterwards. It's not a game. you will be recognized as beneficiaries of drug production. Seriously, that's beyond borders. Even being semi-legal, it is still a drug, heavy regulated worldwide. Mixing some junkie business with the mainstream finances - it's insult for the normal participants, if there are any of them.

Rudigier Johannes: Actually, JF could then go here at the FinFellas conference and just show that they are legitimate. As Kristaps said, it's up to them to prove that they are legitimate. It's not for nothing that critical investors who ask questions like to be banned from open-ended groups. If they want to be trusted, then they should just go ahead and answer the questions and accusations. And do it properly. Would bring a hefty push to investors. Provided that they want that ;-)

Kristaps Mors: Completely agree.. but then it should be done by someone who makes decisions at JF. Who is Daniel Gauci? Some guy from Malta, that is responsible for marketing/content. If real owner would show up, answer to questions and provide licenses, financial reports, that would be something in direction of proper communication. But cannot expect that from a fraud..

RealJ: they dont want investors, they want idiots. I think you're overthinking it tbh. It's the same pattern as before. same scam site, same person promoting it, same critical blogger stating facts

Discussion about $PeerBerry group guarantee:

Peer Duck: how does the memorandum locks the responsibility of a mentioned separate companies to fulfill his guarantor's responsibilities in case of a default?I want an access of a doc by a third party respected lawyer with his sign on it (so we can go after him if it will not work in real life)

Rita: cross-guarantee agreements have been concluded between all of these companies and are signed by CEOs of these companies. The Memorandum on cross-corporate guarantee (which is public and in this way stolen by competitors), confirms, that there are these internal agreements entire companies concluded. The Memorandum is signed by the owner, who unites these companies.

Peer Duck: where could we see them?

Rita: Cross-guarantee agreements between companies are internal documents with non-disclosure provisions between Aventus Group and Gofingo Group companies that both Groups have the right not to disclose. Thats why additionally the Memorandums, that confirm the existence of such the agreements, were sign to make it public to investors.

Tom: I still dont get it legally what is management of the group. Is it a formal legal organisation or what? It looks like they are individual CEOs of separate companies not board of directors of mother company. So legally, how they are obligated to bailout failing company? Can the decision be not to bail out? I dont see legally any system in place to enforce it Is there some formal voting in place like in shareholder meetings? It looks like a very optimistic system where all parties are friends and hopefully they will come to some agreement. Is maybe this model similar to joint venture? (like it is when multiple Companies apply for some Public tender)? Together as partners. Even then I think there is special type of legal entity/ agreement created

Rita: I will ask the lawyer what was the process/legal base of concluding the guarantee agreements between the companies and I will answer next week

Peer Duck: So there is no way to confirm it, nor there is a prohibition on asset transfer registered in the state registry. Thanks for the answer. There is no legal guarantee than.

Tom: Exactly it was simply marketing and not legally binding. But then its not guarantee. And many young investors will see it as safe when its not.

$PeerBerry not happy that $Kviku copy/pasted their legal documents:

Rita from PeerBerry: Dear all, I found a great example (from the opposite side) of how to do business. At the beginning of February (01-02-2021), the platform kviku presented to its investors a group guarantee memorandum, which is a word-by-word copy-paste from our business partners' Memorandum on cross-corporate guarantees. Why use the brain, if you can just copy-paste and wualia, you have a legal document! Predicting that plagiarism may reveal, they dated their document on 01-01-2020 (to convince everyone that they signed the document earlier than the Aventus Group), but ups ... reckless mistake again, the first day of January around the world is a non-working day.

Bulldog P2P: The story being told of Kviku "stealing" the group guarantee wording deserves an explanation. It was Sterling and I that gave Kviku the PeerBerry guarantee as an example. I suppose Kviku took it to their legal Moscow team, which approved it after about 2 weeks. The original disussion is still present on the Kviku channel.

PeerDuck: Legal docs are the intellectual property of a company. in most cases, 20% change in doc is enough to consider it "new"

$Mintos wrote a post about P2P vs #stocks and #bonds: www.mintos.com/blog/how-does-investment-in-loans-compare-with-stocks-over-the-long-term/

#PeerDuck did not agree with conclusions, expects only 5-20% to be recovered from suspended/defaulted loan originators.

Peerduck comments about $Mintos: "My take was, and remains the same - invest, but avoid mintos-affiliated companies. I was telling it back from 2019. And Finko clearly shows why I was right"