Paying for freelancing. - page 4
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I wasn't interested in this kind of thing before, and it's punishable, but still I'll risk asking about this service
1) what % of transactions are fraudulent?
2) what % of freelancing has to clean up only through the involvement of outsiders? Because judging by the profiles here it is abnormally high. And that's clearly for a reason and is alarming to say the least.
Of course, there will be no answers.
I'm explaining the basics here so that there's a story and an antidote to statements like the topicstarter's and yours.
Recall that you failed to substantiate your statement about the service's shortcomings.
In 2-4-6 weeks, amounts much greater than $30 arrive, when both participants are gone.
You will realise the depth of the problems if you do it yourself. There, 2-2 is easily equal to -2, and even -1 is so all over the place. Once again, in practice, when you do it.
Well there will always be risks, open a credit service, if someone really needs to withdraw now (the amount of course limit within reasonable limits), does not want, can not man 7m days to wait, let him pay as for microcredit 1% per day, need to withdraw urgently and not wait a week more -7%. It will cover some of the losses in difficult payment situations.
Weekly freeze is an extremely forgiving scheme and it does not solve the problem even by 80%.
In reality, a chargeback from the bank comes even after 1-2 months. As a result we bear most of the risks and costs. Payment systems freeze us for at least 2 months, regardless of what they have written on paper in the conditions.
It is important to understand that this situation is everywhere. You just don't see that someone else actually bears all the risks and dampens them when they come down to a lower level.
The contractor and the client come to this service for one purpose only: to prevent fraudulent actions against each other. This is what the service charges a commission for. It is the service that guarantees that neither party will be cheated. But in the end we have a scheme where the contractor is left without payment. But the order is executed.
The fact that the service bears some risks is self-evident. In business there is nothing without it. But neither the contractor nor the client are not interested in it. If one party is a cheater, the second party must be protected from this by the service. But the opposite is what we get - the contractor bears the brunt of the losses. While the service loses only the commission for the reverse transfer of funds. This is what we are talking about.
Exactly.
Can't the freelance service see that there is an agreement and start checking the funds from there? That was the original plan, I think. If the next day or two days later it is found to be a forger, the developer will be notified and will not waste any more time. It's been writtenhere that this is a measure, among other things, to protect performers. It was explained, it all makes sense, it was accepted, no questions asked. But if the check is started after the "TOR + finished code", it turns out that all the risks are taken by the developer. What, with this approach, is the protection of performers?
Can we lift the veil a bit, what is the verification of "clean" money? Are there any procedures or is it just waiting for someone to make a claim on the part of financial institutions?
The contractor and the client come to this service for one purpose only: to prevent fraudulent actions against each other. This is what the service charges a commission for. It is the service that guarantees that neither party will be cheated. But in the end we have a scheme where the contractor is left without payment. But the order is executed.
The fact that the service bears some risks is self-evident. In business there is nothing without it. But neither the contractor nor the client are not interested in it. If one party is a cheater, the second party must be protected from this by the service. But the opposite is what we get - the contractor bears the brunt of the losses. While the service loses only the commission for the reverse transfer of funds. This is what we are talking about.
The service takes a commission, provides the whole service, but keeps control at an economically acceptable level.
I understand you are now hypothetically discussing the issue of the freelance contractor. Do you have a concrete example of a real performer who has had problems getting a refund for non-fake work done?
Also, I suggest you don't stoop to discussing the idea that there is a guarantee of fraud prevention. It is too naive to make such assumptions.Can't the freelance service see that there is an agreement and start checking the funds from there? That was the original plan, I think. If it is discovered the next day or two later that it is a forger, the developer will be notified and will not waste any more time. It's been writtenhere that this is a measure, among other things, to protect performers. It was explained, it all makes sense, it was accepted, no questions asked. But if the check is started after the "TOR + finished code", it turns out that all the risks are taken by the developer. What, with this approach, is the protection of performers?
Can we lift the veil a bit, what is the verification of "clean" money? Are there any procedures or is it just waiting for someone to make a claim on the part of financial institutions?
As far as I understand, you are now hypothetically discussing the issue of a freelance contractor. Do you have a specific example of a real performer who has had problems getting a refund for work that was not fake?
As far as I know there have been similar cases:
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/91074
As far as I know there have been similar cases:
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/91074
There it was OK with the interim proceedings.
The man is doing well and continues to work well.
The service takes a commission, provides all the service, but keeps control at an economically acceptable level.
As far as I understand, you are now hypothetically discussing the issue of the performer in freelancing.
I haven't personally encountered this yet, but from what I understand there have been precedents.
This is the worst kind of advertising to a service one could think of ((
Apparently I was wrong in imagining that the service's main task is to be the judge between the two parties. If one party is a cheater, and the service failed to protect the other party that fulfilled its obligations, why do the contractor bear the brunt of the losses? The fraudster is the one who got what he wanted.
As a solution to the problem, you can do as follows: if the contractor and the customer are relatively new people in the service, the freeze to do longer. The more works have been performed/ordered, the shorter time of freezing should be. With a gradual withdrawal to 0....As a solution to the problem, you could do the following: if the contractor and the client are relatively new to the service, then the freeze should be longer. The more work performed/commissioned by the performer/customer becomes, the shorter the freeze should be. With a gradual withdrawal to 0.
Good suggestion, I support it.