Talk:Prosper Marketplace/Archive 1

Advertisement Irony
Does anyone else think it's funny that Prosper's paid ad says "Cut out the middleman...." considering the fact that Prosper itself is the middleman? 68.252.32.224 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lending from outside US
Argument is whether website is only US or anyone can lend/borrow. My opinion is that anyone in the world with access to USD in a bank account could theoretically transfer money to prosper since the website doesn't know the actual address of the lender, it only knows the published address of the lender seen on the bank account. 164.107.165.12 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When I became a lender, I remember they pulled a credit report and asked me various information on it. So I think you would need a US Social Security Number as well. I am not 100% sure, however we should probably only reference things that are citable. If Prosper says US only, use that unless you can find a third party source explaining how non-US residents can become lenders. --MattWright (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you do need a social. 68.186.63.131 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the web site is only for US citizens and residents who can provide proof of SSN and a US-based bank account. This isn't necessarily Prosper's "fault", it's a requirement for compliance with the USA PATRIOT Act and other banking and anti-fraud regulations. Amartinezfonts 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Yunus tie-in?
Right now, the content includes, "Similarly, Bangladesh economist Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank, won the Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering micro-loans to lift millions of people out of poverty." I'm not going to edit the content for now (I'd rather open to discussion), but I fail to see how anyone familiar with both Muhammad Yunus and Prosper.com would say they are similar... they're both innovative and operate in the sphere of credit, but I'd say that's about the end of the list of similarities. As such, I don't see why Muhammad Yunus is being mentioned in this article. Anyone care to chime in? 74.92.53.1 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I added "On March 30, 2007, Prosper locked down discussion of the largest Prosper group, and banned several users from their forums for criticizing the leader of that group, claiming 'This thread has been locked because it violates the forum policies of "Baiting other members into a fight or displaying other aggressive behavior" and "Being mean-spirited, unruly, or rude."'. Discussions of other prominent groups were not locked, leading many forum users to speculate that the lockdown was in response to complaints from the leader of that group."

I'm not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, so I don't know the policies regarding such discussion. I've tried to maintain a NPOV. I was not personally banned, nor harmed, but I was participating in the discussions that led up to this and see it as nothing more than a business suppressing criticism. Normally not worthy of mention, but Prosper presents itself as open and honest, so counterexamples become relevant, I believe. 66.75.58.180 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm the author of the comment above, and I feel this issue has been resolved. I'm removing that portion of the article.Zierious 05:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting the Forums section - the entire paragraph is opinion, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Zierious 18:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Section
Why was the entire criticism section removed? The parts on loan percentages were both valid and accurate. Mbisanz 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Entry Title
Listing "Prosper Management Inc." as "Prosper (web site)" seems a little lame to me. There are quite a few companies called 'Prosper'. And PMI is more than just a 'web site'. It's an actual business. The entry title as it exists now seems to be too vague outside of those in the know. Can we modify the Entry title from "Prosper (website)" to "Prosper Management Inc." & update the disambiguation page to accurately reflect this? Gothere (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the name of the company is "Prosper Marketplace, Inc." But I doubt many people will even know that unless they are already familiar with Prosper.  Perhaps "Prosper.com" would be better? Ira01 (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research and improper references
I have added numerous tags to the article, as it contains a large number of claims that should not appear in a Wikipedia article without sources. I'm also concerned that a number of existing citations are to posts on the Prosper website forums. These are not properly cited sources. We need to find reliable and independent sources to back up the specific claims made in the article. Forum posts by people who are associated with or use Proper aren't reliable enough to be used. Please find better external sources - magazine and newspaper articles would be ideal. Otherwise I, or another editor, will remove the uncited and improperly cited information. Thanks, Gwernol 12:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; forum threads are self-published, and therefore not adequate for references. I'll be replacing these with fact tags later today. -- Mikeblas 21:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was everything under "Criticisms"?
I took the "Referral program" and "Competitors" sections out of the "Criticisms" section because I'm pretty sure they weren't supposed to be there in the first place. They're now their own sections, although "Referral program" doesn't seem to be important enough to have its own section. Can it just be removed? (Amartinezfonts 06:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC))


 * This change has been made. If you disagree, please reply here. --Amartinezfonts 07:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a "Groups" section under "Criticisms"?
The "Groups" section under "Criticisms" is not critical of the company/site. Unless there is a specific criticism you're getting at, shouldn't that information be under the main "Groups" section? Amartinezfonts 06:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This change has been made. If you disagree, please reply here. --Amartinezfonts 07:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Critcisms
So the Critcisms section seems to disappear now and then. I agree that the article shouldn't sound like an ad for prosper and therefore a description of how the lending and groups work may be a bit much, but critcisms don't sound like the kind of thing that is an ad. Mbisanz 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Add this to the Prosper Criticism area:

Prosper's does not extend loans until the review listing has been completed and information verified. However, Prosper's policy states they only contact "select number of borrowers" to verify information (such as a borrower's income.) Therefore, a legitimate borrower could lose-out on a fully funded loan because Prosper does not make any attempt to contact the borrower for verification. If this occurs the borrower's loan listing is deleted and the account suspended.

If the borrower would like to be reconsidered, they must mail a written request that includes name and case number provided on the emailed cancellation notice. The review process may take up to 2 weeks. Reconsideration requests must be sent to the following address:

Prosper MarketPlace, Inc. 111 Sutter Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 ATTN: RECONSIDERATION DEPT

If Prosper truly could not obtain reasonable documentation from a borrower, they should cancel the account. Prosper perfoms a disservice to the borrower and to the lenders who bidded on the listing when they cancel a borrower's account without trying to obtain verification documents.

(Apriljoyc 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC))
 * I wouldn't doubt that that happens - and it sucks. But to imply that Prosper never contacts the borrower isn't accurate.  "Prosper requests further verification of the identity, address, bank account, employment, and income of a select number of borrowers." (Emphasis mine.)  You can problably search for and/or solicit several first-hand accounts of Prosper's verification in the prospers.org forum. NewHorizon 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As a followup since it seems to be in response to my original comment. I'm not an admin, so I couldn't add your comment even if I wanted to.  And as an editors, I suggest against adding the proposed comment.  1. We shouldn't be a how to service on how to use and/or complain to prosper.  2.  Its not sourced.  3. Its not WP:NPOV.  4. It seems to include sections that look like copy-pastees of other websites. Mbisanz 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actions of Hu12
I am pretty new to Wikipedia, but nevertheless I do not see any justifiable reason for Hu12's repeated actions that have the effect of turning the Prosper page into an advertisement for Prosper. The Criticisms section (which I added part, but not all, of) is accurate, neutral, and highly useful. It should not keep getting deleted. Similarly, the external links to various important sites, such as the third-party statistics sites (which make a huge amount of data about Prosper borrowers, lenders, and loans available to anyone) and the official and unofficial Prosper forums, which contain much essential information for anyone interested in borrowing or lending on Prosper. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is not supposed to be an alternative Yellow Pages, but rather a compendium of useful and accurate information about the particular topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.184.223 (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:EL, the external links to the third-party stats sites are absolutely appropriate for inclusion. The proper analogy is the linking of stats sites for professional athletes, which is an example given in WP:EL of an external link that SHOULD be included. Similarly, the links to the official and unofficial Prosper forums are appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.184.223 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The information is improperly referenced, mainly self (Prosper Marketplace, Inc) and a multitude of links that do not conform to WP:EL. Guidelines such as External links policy, and Citing sources are generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition.--Hu12 (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hu12 - In regards to the block on Ira01. I am suggesting that he just ride it out for right now if for no better reason than a cooling off period & to take time to educate himself about Wikipedia's standards & practices. To that end, I have invited Neranei the moderator to join in our discussion here: http://prospers.org/forum/index.php?topic=4139.0. If you don't feel too hot under the collar, I would like to invite you too. I want to stay away from finger pointing debates & he did/she did accusations & feel I can help moderate that discussion in a positive educational direction. Viewing some of the responses of those forum members, some of them don't quite get Wikipedia's philosophy either. I really do think this could be turned into a good positive education session for many people. The last thing I want is a bunch of people walking into Wikipedia not understanding NPOV. I also think that although Ira01 screwed some stuff up, the majority of that is due to him being new to the process. An additional note: On Ira01's home page you noted that he was using socks & multiple IPs (maybe one from work & one from home as do I). I *think* you are mistaken. I largely suspect that there are a number of contributors to that page that carry the same ideas (another reason to help educate). One of the socks you attributed to Ira01, Newhorizon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NewHorizon, is actually a well respected separate individual as seen by his lending portfolio http://www.lendingstats.com/memberProfile?lenderId=NewHorizon. Check the IP address locations if you have doubts. Let me know if you wish to discuss this in any other venue. I am really trying to help moderate this situation in a positive long term direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothere (talk • contribs) 22:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Guidelines such as External links policy, What Wikipedia is not and conflict of interest are generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are all Prosper lenders. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote. This disruptive editing editing has continued on this article repeatedly by multiple accounts with no regard for the interests of wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your position. I am working to ensure that the posters on the forum I post to understand Wikipedia's NPOV.  You might be going a little to far out on a limb to assume that all of the edits are from any organized group.  With the recent attention, I am trying to make sure that they don't suddenly think that is at all a good idea. Gothere (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The presumption that I, as Prosper lender "own, maintain or represent" any sites under discussion here is yet another unfounded claim (like the sock puppet accusation) and entirely false. To my knowledge, the same can be said for Ira01.  Maybe I'll find myself corrected about Ira1.  But in the meantime, the presumptions to the contrary seem incongruous with the "good faith" exhibited by most WP admins. NewHorizon 15:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with Hu12? He proposed adding a link to the 3rd party applications page on Prosper's website which was agreed to, and now he is deleting it a month later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.215.212 (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Post-mediation
Hu12, at this point what is the shape of the article? As far as I can tell, the criticisms and Business parts look good. The EL links could probably be pruned back from all those "forum" style websites. Mbisanz (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove forum style sites, by all means, please do. But please, CHECK the links before you do, because from my review of the edits, it appears that Hu12 has been simply blanket deleting all the external links, including those to statistical sites such as lendingstats and ericscc. Those sites are founded on data supplied through the Prosper API and are hardly "forum" sites. chaeberle (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed (if it matters.) And it's a pity a clueless newb (Ira01) got banned for trying to address this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewHorizon (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think part of the issue might be that statistical sites are better under "References" then External Links in my mind. And some of them have forum-ish sound titles.  Mbisanz (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have no objection to the external analytical pages being moved to references. I'd do so m'self but as you know, the page is now under lock. :)  Chaeberle (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't say I disagree with protection. Given the emotional nature of debt and the fact that the US subprime crisis will probably push more Prosper loans into default, I suspect this page may need a permanent semi-protection.  Mbisanz (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Semi-protect the page due to the sensitivity of the subprime crisis if ya want. But not because there's a debate about external links. NewHorizon (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, most of the conflict here is coming from lenders, not borrowers. A large number of lenders believe (as do I) that Prosper has engaged in an all out war of restriction of anything potentially negative on their own site, and so lenders with extensive experience are lashing out at what we see as highly unethical behavior by trying to use other avenues to make it clear to prospective lenders that Prosper's claims (even the statistical ones) should not be taken at face value.  Some of the external links at issue are to sites that still allow free discussion of Prosper, instead of Prosper's fully moderated view on their own site.  (I know, thats probably not relevant, other than to explain the high emotion on the topic.)Chaeberle (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As it stands there are two stat sites, we just need one site representative of a category. If the statistical sites are to used as references they should be inline citations, not just moved. other than stipulation, I have no other issue with that section.--Hu12 (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As citations, duly noted. However, as each stat site provides different analysis, I don't necessarily agree that just one is sufficient.  Having multiple examples of a type of site is not unique to this page. See [ETrading] for example of page with multiple examples of a type of site.  However, in said example, what differs is that the examples (and links) are nested into the article itself.  Perhaps a better approach would be a section about Prosper's providing of statistical data and how numerous sites are leveraging that to provide analysis over and above what is offered directly at Prosper?Chaeberle (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the "What should be linked" section, WP:EL sayeth, "3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."  (Emphasis mine.)  It strikes me that stats about this site's transactions fall exactly into this definition.  NewHorizon (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's what the style guide says, then lets adhere to it. Part of the problem is that many of the ELs appear to be forks of Prosper data or have fishy sounding names like "Prospers".  And of course, if the data appears unverifiable and couldn't make it into the article, then it shouldn't be linked.  Mbisanz (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know how to resolve the fishiness, then. The veracity and independence of the ELs which contain the statistics and which Ira01 was trying to keep up there is virtually unquestioned in the Prosper community.  NewHorizon (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless they are Links normally to be avoided. Appears prospers.org is sturring the pot, by attempting to controll Wikipedias content. expect more of the same type of accounts, thus the protection--Hu12 (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sturring the pot" or not is non sequitur as it doesn't relate to WP policies. NewHorizon (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but Links normally to be avoided does and Hu12 is right that some of the links do not qualify, judging by the EL. The statistical information provided by said links speaks for itself.Chaeberle (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ... and ad hominem-ish. ;)  NewHorizon (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

<-un-indent Just a reminder to not reproduce anything on wikipedia from off-wiki discussions without copyright permissions from all contributors off-wiki and all recipients off-wiki. If you do feel there is something going on off-wiki that impacts the encyclopedia, It should be sent to WP:OFFICE or WP:ARBCOM. Mbisanz (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also want point out that there are serious conflicts of interest with using lendingstatslending portfolios. It appears this whole edit war was a result of Prosper lenders, reverting in order to use Wikipedia for promotion. clearly Violates WP:NOT! I suggest the use of alternatives site going forward from here. --Hu12 (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, both of the major Stat websites LendingStats and Eric's Credit Community are both very highly regarded for their raw output of Data and statistics. The people placing those links in are not the owners of those websites.  Other websites I might be more concerned about in terms of NPOV.  Prosper.com does link to both of their websites, so you know they are not hack jobs on Prosper.com.  Here is an example chart on Eric's Credit Community.  Hunt around on that site, you will see a lot of good raw data & statistics.  Each of the two websites has their own strengths.  Would it ease your concern if I found news articles referencing those websites?Gothere (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and requires views to be represented without bias, this applies not only to article text, but to external links and any other material as well. Some links can be a service to the reader, but they cannot improve the encyclopedia or article itself. I would mention that the link http://www.prosper.com/tools/3rdParty.aspx, is not only acceptabe, it appears much a much more complete resource than cherry picking links from it individualy. It also allows access to various sites that would not normaly be allowed on wikipedia. If its agreeable, I proprose replacing the individual link mentions, with this "3rd party application" link you posted above.--Hu12 (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly would find that agreeable. My *only* concern is that the link itself is controlled by Prosper, and so the possibility exists (and IMO is increasingly probable) that Prosper could shut down that link at some point.  (I'd rather talk to you offline about that probability if you're interested).  Still, for now, that should do, and if they do pull it, we can come up with a comparable list hosted somewhere else.Chaeberle 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, both Hu12's and Chaeberle's comments make sense to me. And of course I'm all in favor of folks taking a closer look at the ELs before making wholesale deletes and tripping up newb conributors.  (oops, I didn't sign this post. Doing it now.)  NewHorizon 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding a note. I am an admin and can make the agreed upon change, certainly if we have majority consensus for it. As Chaeberle suggests, we can come up with a comparable list hosted somewhere else, when or if that occurs.--Hu12 15:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That prosper link has almost half of it's links pointing to outdated sites & some links are even dead. So it isn't reviewed very often by the company.  It could be construed as having it's own set of biases, however I seriously doubt we will ever find any other collection of prosper related links that would be free of any other biases.  The one perk that 3rd party app link does provide is that it currently links in a number of websites that had already been added in & I would consider to be somewhat grey in terms of their value.  It may be the easy way out, but it does kill a lot of debate that I wouldn't be all that interested in.  I'm for Hu12's proposition.  Gothere 15:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

While we are at it, this sentence kinda bugs me as inaccurate "Prosper matches borrowers with loan buyers, verifies borrowers' identity and personal data before funding loans, and manages loan repayment." Prosper is really more of an auction house or 'ebay' of loans. Since the auction aspect has previously been addressed in the article I think it should read "Prosper verifies borrowers' identity and personal data before funding loans, and manages loan repayment." -Gothere 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Make that "Prosper randomly verifies a selection of borrowers' identity and personal data before funding loans, and manages loan repayment." and I'll agree. We had testimony from more than one borrower on the now deleted forums confirming that Prosper doesn't verify everyone.  Sadly, the references were anecdotal (forum posts) and no longer cite-able. Chaeberle 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Prosper verifies selected borrowers' identity and personal data before funding loans, and manages loan repayment"..? Both of you suggestestions are good. I like all three, you chose..--Hu12 18:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yours works for me - it makes it clear that not *all* loans are verified.Chaeberle 19:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Its been added. I can change it if Gothere disagrees.--Hu12 20:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do fully agree that "personal data" is selectively verified. As far as selective verification of identity goes, I (& prosper followers) can fully agree that they obtain a credit report & a phone number at minimum.  Prosper has had .4% of their loan repurchased (part of that repurchase guarantee is for fraudulent id) I think that *a* litmus test of borrower identification is if they obtain a fax of the borrower's driver's license 100% of the time.  Beg my forgiveness for pulling out this point, but as long as this is going under formal review, I want to get it technically correct.  Chaeberle & NewHorizon, please help me research this.  I have tried to research this on their webpage, but it is lacking in details.  I know that leporello has saved their forums prior to mass deletion, and know that there is accurate/official confirmation of this data in the old forum data on this subject. ---Gothere 13:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Mbisanz's question at the top of this section ever answered fully? There's the ELs issue and the sentence Gothere would like to change. Anything else? I should think we'd want to hash 'em all out before protection ends. NewHorizon 20:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ive added the raw text below. I'd prefer better sourcing, but for those of you who are prosper lenders, you knowlege expertise could realy make this section better. I like to hear Mbisanz thoughts as well.--Hu12 20:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be online only rarely during the next few days. I can probably help edit the raw text later, but for now, a couple of quick comments off the top of my head, if I may: any description of "transfer speed" really ought to mention "Instant Transfer" - a new feature with some restrictions.  Also, while we're here, maybe the performance stats could be updated (dated 5/21/07 as it stands now). NewHorizon 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hu12 - as far as the Criticism section goes, I am 100% confident that they are *technically* accurate. From a encyclopedic & personal perspective, I am always a little bit concern about the direction such sections go in.  I will try to review the associated reference links in the next day or two.  If there are specific reference links you are concerned with, please let me know & I will concentrate on those as necessary.  Also, if there is a Wikipdeia policy page on Critisim sections please let me know & I will try to assess them from a policy standpoint too.  --Gothere 13:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure there is a policy page per se, but i believe Mbisanz has experiance in this type of section. Also, I would think the average reader may be confused with only having technical type critisisms. Any citable second or third party critisism should be included. Remember this isn't a PR piece for prosper, as long as info is encyclopedic and verifyably accurate, even scandals are welcome.--Hu12 15:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, LSATs were this morning so I was in hibernation most of the week. The Criticisms as currently in the article looks good.  My question (from so long ago) was resolved by pruning the criticisms sections of things that couldn't be verified or weren't actually criticisms (a description of Prosper's lending groups I believe).  Glad things have calmed down on this page.  Mbisanz 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
--Interest on Deposits, Transfer Speed-- Prosper does not pay interest on idle funds due to rules associated with pooled accounts. Persons transferring money to Prosper wait 4 business days before transferred funds can be bid, and then from 1 day to 2 weeks for the auctions to complete and loans to be funded for interest income to begin accrual. A lender's cash balance in his or her Prosper account can be transferred at any time to a linked external checking or savings account.

-- Loan Performance & Collections-- Prosper's performance statistics report that as of April 21, 2007, 636 of 6570 active loans over three months in age, or 9.68%, are "1+ months late". Over 400 (over 6%) of these are "three plus" months late, and Prosper's best collection agency has historically cured only a small fraction of those.

As a group, E and HR borrowers have resulted in negative return on investment for loan buyers. Lenders and group leaders who contact late borrowers requesting payment will be banned from the site, as most lack the necessary knowledge of collections law to make appropriate collections contact.

As of November 8, 2007, the median estimated Return On Investment ("ROI") for relatively experienced lenders (all Prosper lenders with >20 loans and an average loan age >6 months) is 4.89%. -- considerably less than what is available from fully liquid FDIC-insured accounts (such as at E-Loan) after taking into account Prosper's servicing fee charged to lenders (1% annual fee on A-HR loans). Of the 5,846 relatively experienced lenders, 1,333 (22.8%) have an estimated ROI <0% (i.e., they can expect to net no interest and actually lose some of their principal), while fewer than half as many (630, or 10.8%) have an expected ROI >10%.

Documenting controversy
What is an acceptable means for documenting controversial actions taken by Prosper. For example, Prosper recently locked down their forums, wiping out 2 years of history and making the new one full moderation. Now they've added blogs but the comments are filtered AND deceptive - post a comment and a cookie is used to fool you into thinking the comment was accepted. We've got proof of these claims, and multiple experts who can attest to it, but most of the proof is forum based. So - how should we go about making a credible reference for any claims we want to back up with forum based proof?Chaeberle (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given prosper's size, I'd expect (want) coverage in some reputable webmagazine, maybe a CNET style thing or Breitbart. Forums really shouldn't be the primary source of a cite in my book.  Mbisanz (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks mbisanz. We'll have to see if we can't drum up interest.Chaeberle (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, reliable sources are basically a requirement for criticisms sections. Prosper has been written about a lot, so surely an academic paper, news report, etc. can be used. Forum posts don't cut it. --Delirium (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Prosper itself is less than 3 years old. Most of the news on Prosper has been fueled by PMI's own marketing engine.  The lender community at large is working to get some official journalistic work up on the negative side of Prosper, but since it's a small market with not much name recognition, there haven't been any bites that I know of.  I appreciate you leaving the criticisms intact - I think the note above them is appropriate. 66.170.132.194 (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional thought on "forum posts don't cut it". Generally, I agree.  Forum posts are often nothing more than statements of opinion.  However, a forum post can also be seen as a type of interview, wherein a person is recounting their own direct and personal experiences and/or findings.  Ultimately, nearly all references lead back to one of two things - demonstrable fact, or personal testimony.  Citing a magazine article which is based on interviews with people is only one step removed from citing the actual interview, and without demonstrable fact, an interviewee is only making claims that are trusted on principle.  So, in that line of reasoning, I believe that *specific* posts made by people who claim to have dealings with Prosper resulting in criticisms, and for whom we have no reason to doubt their claim, such posts *should* be accepted as "interview citations".  Thoughts?Chaeberle (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Posts on Web forums are rarely regarded as reliable. They can also be easily forged or misrepresented, and many are anonymous or pseudonymous. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.--Hu12 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to differentiate between magazine interviews and forum interviews for a couple of reasons. First, in theory, a magazine interview has a journalist and an editor on the opposite side, who should screen out or identify patent lies.  Also, on the internet, forums give a degree of anonymity.  So one users could create 10 accounts and give 10 different, unrelated stories as why prosper is bad, and then we go and put them in here as though their a mass crowd of dissent, when its one person with a grudge.  I have followed prosper over the years and do admit that i have no faith in its model of people trusting people.  There are 1,300 news stories here  are none of them both confirming of what the forums say and reliable?  MBisanz  talk 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of the news articles are largely press release regurgitations or have interviews set up by Prosper with specific lenders or borrowers they select. Any criticisms noted in such articles tend to be very vague & general to Peer-to-Peer lending as a whole.  Very little in depth research as been done beyond the press release.  Personally, I am content with relying on 3rd party press agents.  The #1 thing we need to keep in mind here is that Wikipedia as a whole needs to be viewed as a reliable credible accurate encyclopedia.  If people have a beef with Prosper, they need to take it to a reporter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothere (talk • contribs) 17:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I didn't look at the list (not that interested), still it seems that if there is all this smoke of forum complaints, there will be a fire reported somewhere reliable. But until it is reported, we can't add anything about it.  I like this title as I don't think the corp on its own would be notable, but this website is notable for its influence and apparently groundbreaking methods.  MBisanz  talk 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we unlock?
The dispute seems to have been resolved and I think all parties are willing to use Discuss to plan out changes before making any. Chaeberle (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Pointed here. I'm not an admin, so I can't unlock it. I'm also not the one who formally requested protection (I think I suggested it maybe).  I'd still like a semi-protection due to the high odds of anon-ip vandalism.  But this is a call for an admin to make.  Mbisanz (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

AmSher
What about their collection agencies? I see AmSher is the new default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inputdark (talk • contribs) 10:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Delayed Bad Debt Sale
On 5/2/08 Prosper announced on their "official blog" the delay of selling some $6 million of defaulted loans to junk debt buyers. Debt Sale Update Barryboyn (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
I believe the criticism section is out of compliance with Wikipedia sourcing requirements in a number of areas, particularly for potentially controversial material. The "adverse incentive" piece turned out to be a blog written at Propsper's public launch in February 2006 in which a blogger predicted that Prosper would turn out a certain way. A blog is not generally a reliable source. While early predictions are relevant if relibaly sourced, they definitely shouldn't be presented as current fact years later. I rewrote to reflect the fact the fact that the source represents a blogger's predictive hypothesis. I intend to remove it entirely if this criticism can't be reliably sourced. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, Wikipedia requires reliable third-party sources for criticisms. While the sourcing requirements aren't quite as strong as for living persons (and hence I'm tagging things rather than removing them immediately), content does have to (and will be) deleted if this basic requirement can't be met. Many of the "criticisms" are currently sourced entirely to Prosper's own website. The reliable source requirement reflects the fact that what product detail constitutes a bug and what a feature can be very subjective. (Famous example: Dow Chemical executives originally thought that the substance that became Saran Wrap was worthless because of what they thought was its unfortunate tendency to cling. This tendency ultimately became its biggest selling point.) A reliable 3rd-party source has to characterize a particular detail as representing a problem rather than an advantage in order to represent criticism. This inference can't be drawn by an editor. (See generally Wikipedia's original research synthesis) policy. For this reason, most of the criticism section seems to be out of compliance with core Wikipedia policies and per policy should be deleted if sourcing can't be improved. --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Because this section has remained tagged for more than 6 months, just giving folks a heads up that I will be proceeding with deletion shortly. The more detailed tags I've put in are a courtesy to explain the policy-compliance issues more clearly in the hopes of improving rather than deleting. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Prosper is still new enough that there has not been any adequate source material analyzing its performance and problems. Although there have been hundreds of newspaper articles (which would constitute proper wiki sources) about Prosper, they simply regurgitate Prosper's press releases in ways that are demonstrably false and misleading.  If you delete the criticisms section due to a rigid application of source requirments, the net effect would be to take an article that is fair and accurate, and turn it into a Prosper advertisment.


 * Also, you may be misinterpreting the references to Prosper's website and to Lendingstats.com, particularly with respect to the Loan Performance and Collections section of the Criticisms. These references are not simply to statements made by Prosper on its site, which certainly could be viewed skeptically, but rather are to Prosper's actual loan data.  Prosper makes the raw data on every one of its loans available in several ways.  One such way is through its performance tab on its website, which allows anyone to query the database of every loan and analyze various segments of the data.  So, for example, one can see the complete dollar amount of loans originated in each credit grade, and the portions that have defaulted, are in various states of lateness, etc.  Prosper also makes its database of loan information available to independent third-party sites, through a complete data downloand and through an API.  Numerous third-party sites exist that facilitate analysis of Prosper's loan data in various ways.  The two best known are lendingstats.com and ericscc.com.  These sites are generally regarded in the community as being highly reliable.  Thus, the statements in the Loan Performance and Collections section that address the portion of loans in various degrees of lateness or default, the ROI's of certain credit grades, and the median, top, and bottom 10 percentiles of lender ROI are really indisputable -- and no one has suggested otherwise.Ira01 (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The difficulty here is that Wikipedia policy says that Wikipedia will only publish content that can be verified by statements made in what Wikipedia policy considers reliable sources. This is so even if editors, based on their own original research, believe that what the reliable sources have to say is "false and misleading" (etc.). If reliable sources aren't willing to publish criticism, we can't include it include in the encyclopedia. The problem with using Prosper's web site as a source for criticism is that Prosper's website never says that anyone thinks the facts sourced represent criticism or problem. You, an editor, are compiling various facts found in Prosper's website together and characterizing them as "criticisms" on your own say-so. Our Original research synthesis policy prohibits doing exactly this.  Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If the problem was the characterization of the numerical facts about historical loan and lender performance (e.g., the numbers and percentages of loans in various degrees of lateness and the median, 10 and 90 percentile ROI's of lenders) as "criticisms," then is there a permissible way to include the numerical facts that were in the now-deleted criticisms section without such a characterization? For example, can those facts be resurrected by putting them in a "Historical Loan and Lender Performance" section, rather than a "Criticisms" section?  Because although I do not profess to be a Wikipedia expert, I find it extremely odd (and troubling) if such important historical facts, that are available not only from Prosper's own database but also from numerous independant third-party sites, and which in reality have never been disputed by anyone, should not be included in the article.  After all, what could be more important to include in an article about a lending institution than the percentage of loans that default and/or go delinquent, and the historical performance of lenders using the platform?76.238.241.153 (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the responses appear to suggest that reliable sources for criticism simply aren't available, I'm going to go ahead and remove the section. As Jimbo Wales has said many times, it's much better if we simply say nothing than if we say something that turns out to be unreliable, particular where criticism and other controveries are involved. A substantial amount of press coverage has been generated about Prosper since its inception, and it's quite possible some of the statements in this press coverage include criticism. If (and when) this happens, these statements can be used to souce a new, reliably sourced criticism section. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added new content, including a new "Risks" sections with reliably-sourced information about risks. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Where? I do not see a "Risks" section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

De-archiving
This entire talk page was archived since it hadn't had any activity in about two years. I restored it because although the comments are old, they're the most recent discussion on the subject and could be constructive. When the activity on this page warrants it, I would support rearchiving the oldest information.--otherlleft 17:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of Primary Sources
Citations that link to the company's own website is primary source material, correct? I'm going to see if I can find some secondary sources for some of that information.--otherlleft 17:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Prospers.org web site should be considered a limited primary source, as well. The publically-accessible "Lobby" section is heavily moderated, and the moderators verify if a given user is a Prosper lender. This would tend to address a prohibition on self-published sources, and it is more specific and direct an answer to the question "which lenders?" with regard to an assertion of criticism by lenders. Mmtmmt (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The SEC has mentioned the existence of criticisms from Prosper lenders and specifically noted blogger Fred93's evaluations of Prosper lender returns See http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1416265/000000000009049230/filename1.pdf (Reference to general member criticisms is in Item 7, and the reference to Fred93's blog is at the bottom of item 8.) Perhaps this SEC document could be used as a source. --71.235.103.35 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Change in Business Model
As of December 19, 2010, Prosper has significantly changed its business model. It dropped its former signature Dutch auction approach to setting the interest rate and replaced it with a fixed-rate system analogous to Lending Club's in which Prosper assigns a rate and prospective lenders choose to take it or leave it for each individual note. It issued a new Prospectus describing the approach. The change requires a significant revamping of the article with the former signature approach relegated to company history. --71.235.103.35 (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Eric's Credit Community
Is Eric's Credit Community a viable reference? It is used in several places in this article, and doesn't appear to meet WP:SOURCE. Mikeblas (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Paid edits
Acting as a paid consultant for Prosper Marketplace, I have just updated some information in the article that was outdated and added some updates re: funding. Please let me know if you have feedback on these edits. Thank you. JNorman704 (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Prosper financed San Bernardino massacre.
Reuters just reported that the couple behind the 2015 San Bernardino shooting borrowed $28,000 through Prosper to finance their weapons purchases. Should this go in the Prosper article? John Nagle (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)