Brokers.

[3.50]

So I've got a very specific opinion on the currently accepted method of brokering (it dumb), and I'm looking for the logic behind the opposing viewpoint.  (i.e. somebody tell me why I'm the dumb one here)

 

I've been around the trading scene for quite a while now, and I've seen far too many people get scammed by brokers. 
However, it seems to me that it's completely avoidable.  (No, I'm not going to say "just don't use brokers"; brokers provide a valuable service that can help all parties involved.)

 

There's one step in the brokering process that always happens, and after multiple years on the trading scene, I still struggle to understand why it happens. 

Everyone takes for granted that it's a necessary step, while I don't see it as being necessary at all.

It's the step that allows the broker to scam, if he so chooses.  It's the step that changes the process from 100% safe, to 100% dependent on the broker's honesty.

It's this: Giving your items to the broker. 

It's not a necessary step in the process, particularly since some or most brokering agreements require the broker to relay any offers to the owner for approval before accepting or denying.  Even with the ones that don't, it would be no more effort for the broker to negotiate a deal and then send the owner's trade link to the buyer, than just to sell it directly.

 

Brokers always seem to say they need the hat to be able to sell it, but I don't see why they can't seek out buyers and negotiate a deal for the owner, while the hat stays in the owner's backpack.

 

A very similar case that I'm experienced in myself is selling an item while it's listed on the SCM.  I've done that plenty of times, and it's never been a problem that the hat isn't in my backpack while negotiating a price.

 

So here's what currently happens:
1) Owner gives hat to broker, hopes he doesn't run.

2) Broker lists hat on classifieds, OP, wherever else; trolls on trade servers advertising it, or maybe not.

3) Hat sells, broker gives proceeds to owner in exchange for fee (or just keeps their fee out of the proceeds).

 

Here's what could easily be done instead:

1) Owner gives fee to broker, or gives no payment until a sale, depending on agreement.

2) Owner lists hat on classifieds, OP, SCM, wherever else, or just keeps it on their head.  Can actively try to negotiate and sell on their own ("twice the salesmen, twice the sales") , or else can list with notes saying "xx is brokering this for me, contact them to negotiate a deal because I can't be arsed"

3) Broker finds a buyer, negotiates a deal, whatever.  Confirms the deal with owner, puts the buyer in contact w/ seller (i.e. gives their trade link).  Notifies owner so that they know the deal was negotiated by the broker.

4) Broker receives payment / keeps payment previously given up front.

 

I'm aware that there would be downsides involved if you keep your hat, compared to giving it to a broker.  I'll list the ones that immediately come to mind, here (along with the benefits)

 

Pros and cons:

( - ) If the owner keeps the hat, the broker can't have the hat listed on the classifieds (also not on OP? not sure of their stance on brokered hats). 

But let's be real.  This argument is not good.  If you have several expensive hats, and you think that the extra exposure the brokers usually offer will make a big difference, just buy a month or two of premium on BP/OP and get your junk autobumped.  You won't get scammed, and a month or two of premium may even be cheaper than the broker's fee.

( - ) The broker can't show off the hat in-game.

Though the owner can provide the broker with screenshots; and plenty of sales--actually a large majority in my experience--happen without the buyer seeing the hat in-game.  And of course, that's not even a valid point unless you assume your broker is active and dedicated enough to do that.

( + ) The owner can continue to wear the hats while they broker attempts to find a buyer.  You can have your hats and eat them, too!

( + ) The owner can attempt to sell the hat on their own while they broker attempts to find a buyer (double the effort should make it sell even faster)

( + ) The broker can't run with the damn hats.  Risk is kept to a minimum, and even if things go as sideways as they possibly can, nobody loses their lunch money.

 

Feedback on this?  Am I dumb?  Have I missed things?

 

(Edit) Obviously the broker could make a forum post, chat spam in trade servers, etc. that they're selling the hats, all without having them in their inventory.

[Argylekicks]

as a former broker myself, many of my trades happened from "trolling" on the trade servers due to people being able to see in-game and a majority of my clients didn't want to be bothered with that 

[3.50]

13 minutes ago, saveriocello said:

as a former broker myself, many of my trades happened from "trolling" on the trade servers due to people being able to see in-game and a majority of my clients didn't want to be bothered with that 

That's the kind of feedback I'm looking for. 

 

Approximately what percentage of your trades happened that way, would you say?  And do you think you could have been successful brokering hats without that option?

[Argylekicks]

28 minutes ago, 3.50 said:

That's the kind of feedback I'm looking for. 

 

Approximately what percentage of your trades happened that way, would you say?  And do you think you could have been successful brokering hats without that option?

I dont remember exact percents but I do remember that almost all "broker" deals that I did not have the hat in my inventory resulted in no offers from my work nor was i paid typically what would happen is id work and work and then the seller would sell on his on and didn't pay for since I didn't "sell" it

[🍀Swazzy🍀]

I've actually used this before and let me tell you that it DOES work. It not only does it ensure safety as you stated above, it also funnels all the brokers into a bottleneck and really only squeeze out the serious and dedicated ones since it is hard work, and one/clients should expect decent service in exchange for payment/fee. As for the limitations, I do agree on what was stated prior to this, however I also do believe that the point should be understood by both client and broker so as to to ensure that both parties fully recognize that:

A. It may take longer to sell due to the fact that some traders wish to view an item (Although other than looks, any other info can be obtained and even looks can be researched)

B. Safety is guaranteed from both parties in case one decides to go rogue or if the client ends up being a scammer

C. Enforces safer/stricter trading practices and prevents miscommunication since all offers must be reviewed by the owner not the broker

D. Allows for a stronger build up of trust and reliability, thus satisfying both parties at the end

 

In the end I do believe this is a good idea and from experience from the past (As the client that requested this) this does work and as long as the client understands the possible limitations and the broker understands how much effort actually needs to be put in, I see no reason why this should;t be widespread. Cheers!

[Diamond jozu]

In my experience,i find that most of my clients do this is coz they either just dont have the time to do it themself because its too much of work or they seek exprienced traders for help.they also check on how much these brokers charge.like me,i dont charge at all if its a cheap item and still being able to sell it off or not.i dont consider myself the best because there are many other brokers who arr well known usually its procave or savi over here a.k.a hugh mungus

[3.50]

3 minutes ago, Diamond jozu said:

In my experience,i find that most of my clients do this is coz they either just dont have the time to do it themself because its too much of work or they seek exprienced traders for help.they also check on how much these brokers charge.like me,i dont charge at all if its a cheap item and still being able to sell it off or not.i dont consider myself the best because there are many other brokers who arr well known usually its procave or savi over here a.k.a hugh mungus

I completely understand why people use brokers.  The question is, why do they feel the need to give their hat to the broker?  Why do they think that's a good idea?  Brokers should be able to find buyers and give advice without ever touching the hat.  Years of selling items that are also listed on the SCM have proven to my own satisfaction, at least, that you can be very successful at selling an item without having it in your backpack.  If I can do it, any good broker should be able to do it.

 

Also (no offense) but offering services for free should probably be seen as a red flag--"you get what you pay for" is a valuable piece of advice.  In few places in the multiverse does a person doing something for free work as hard as a person who only gets paid if they succeed. 

 

Furthermore, here's a point that would pretty much close the argument for me: if you give the hat to a broker to sell, you've got one guy selling your hat.  However, if you keep the hat, and only pay a broker when and if they broker a deal for you, then you can have potentially every single broker available all trying to sell the hat for you at once.  And that does NOT mean that all the brokers get screwed in the bum.

 

If you have a small hypothetical market that has 10 owners with 10 hats and 10 brokers, each trying to sell one hat for one client, it works out to 1 hat per broker on average.  If you have 10 hats and 10 brokers, each trying to sell ALL of the 10 hats for all of the 10 clients at once, it still works out to 1 hat per broker on average.  The difference is that each seller has potentially 10x the advertising power, and each broker has potentially 10x the commission earning power, if they work hard enough.

 

It's the difference between paying one specific fictional guy to shoot another fictional guy with your own gun, versus putting an open bounty on the specific guy that you want dead.

[LSO]

58 minutes ago, 3.50 said:

I completely understand why people use brokers.  The question is, why do they feel the need to give their hat to the broker?  Why do they think that's a good idea?  Brokers should be able to find buyers and give advice without ever touching the hat.  Years of selling items that are also listed on the SCM have proven to my own satisfaction, at least, that you can be very successful at selling an item without having it in your backpack.  If I can do it, any good broker should be able to do it.

 

Also (no offense) but offering services for free should probably be seen as a red flag--"you get what you pay for" is a valuable piece of advice.  In few places in the multiverse does a person doing something for free work as hard as a person who only gets paid if they succeed. 

 

Furthermore, here's a point that would pretty much close the argument for me: if you give the hat to a broker to sell, you've got one guy selling your hat.  However, if you keep the hat, and only pay a broker when and if they broker a deal for you, then you can have potentially every single broker available all trying to sell the hat for you at once.  And that does NOT mean that all the brokers get screwed in the bum.

 

If you have a small hypothetical market that has 10 owners with 10 hats and 10 brokers, each trying to sell one hat for one client, it works out to 1 hat per broker on average.  If you have 10 hats and 10 brokers, each trying to sell ALL of the 10 hats for all of the 10 clients at once, it still works out to 1 hat per broker on average.  The difference is that each seller has potentially 10x the advertising power, and each broker has potentially 10x the commission earning power, if they work hard enough.

 

It's the difference between paying one specific fictional guy to shoot another fictional guy with your own gun, versus putting an open bounty on the specific guy that you want dead.

I haven't brokered yet but I have trust-traded and I would apply my same safeguards here on my end. At the very minimum I would expect full or partial payment up front because serious brokers have to keep up a good reputation (i.e. trust), whereas you could find that your clients decide to not pay you after the deal has been completed. I don't have research backing this up, but it would surely feel like less of a scam to just not pay the broker, and add this to the greater number of people outside of the trading community who would want their items brokered and it'd likely turn out to be a waste of time in my opinion.

 

Regarding not charging for items under a certain value, I can see the logic behind that to build up trust faster. Doing brokering for free forever would be pointless and maybe a red flag, but when you're starting out it's definitely the best way to gain traction.

[Torb]

50 minutes ago, 3.50 said:

I completely understand why people use brokers.  The question is, why do they feel the need to give their hat to the broker?  Why do they think that's a good idea?  Brokers should be able to find buyers and give advice without ever touching the hat.  Years of selling items that are also listed on the SCM have proven to my own satisfaction, at least, that you can be very successful at selling an item without having it in your backpack.  If I can do it, any good broker should be able to do it.

 

Also (no offense) but offering services for free should probably be seen as a red flag--"you get what you pay for" is a valuable piece of advice.  In few places in the multiverse does a person doing something for free work as hard as a person who only gets paid if they succeed. 

 

Furthermore, here's a point that would pretty much close the argument for me: if you give the hat to a broker to sell, you've got one guy selling your hat.  However, if you keep the hat, and only pay a broker when and if they broker a deal for you, then you can have potentially every single broker available all trying to sell the hat for you at once.  And that does NOT mean that all the brokers get screwed in the bum.

 

If you have a small hypothetical market that has 10 owners with 10 hats and 10 brokers, each trying to sell one hat for one client, it works out to 1 hat per broker on average.  If you have 10 hats and 10 brokers, each trying to sell ALL of the 10 hats for all of the 10 clients at once, it still works out to 1 hat per broker on average.  The difference is that each seller has potentially 10x the advertising power, and each broker has potentially 10x the commission earning power, if they work hard enough.

 

It's the difference between paying one specific fictional guy to shoot another fictional guy with your own gun, versus putting an open bounty on the specific guy that you want dead.

To answer the question "why do they feel the need to give their hat to the broker?", i myself have used brokers and brokered also. When using a broker, you are trusting them to make level headed decisions with your item and to not be a dick and steal it ect. If you have the broker do all the work for you (advertising, finding buyers ect) only for you to finalize the trade and essentially take all the credit for their work. Having the owner hold onto their hat while you advertise it also has many nuances such as the broker not being able to accept good offers for your hat, rather having to message you ect. Most people come to a broker because they are struggling to/too lazy to trade their own unusual so what makes you think there would be 200% the effort being put in. In summary, this idea has less risk yes, but in practice it comes with more problems than the risk protection is worth.

[Diamond jozu]

2 hours ago, 3.50 said:

I completely understand why people use brokers.  The question is, why do they feel the need to give their hat to the broker?  Why do they think that's a good idea?  Brokers should be able to find buyers and give advice without ever touching the hat.  Years of selling items that are also listed on the SCM have proven to my own satisfaction, at least, that you can be very successful at selling an item without having it in your backpack.  If I can do it, any good broker should be able to do it.

 

Also (no offense) but offering services for free should probably be seen as a red flag--"you get what you pay for" is a valuable piece of advice.  In few places in the multiverse does a person doing something for free work as hard as a person who only gets paid if they succeed. 

 

Furthermore, here's a point that would pretty much close the argument for me: if you give the hat to a broker to sell, you've got one guy selling your hat.  However, if you keep the hat, and only pay a broker when and if they broker a deal for you, then you can have potentially every single broker available all trying to sell the hat for you at once.  And that does NOT mean that all the brokers get screwed in the bum.

 

If you have a small hypothetical market that has 10 owners with 10 hats and 10 brokers, each trying to sell one hat for one client, it works out to 1 hat per broker on average.  If you have 10 hats and 10 brokers, each trying to sell ALL of the 10 hats for all of the 10 clients at once, it still works out to 1 hat per broker on average.  The difference is that each seller has potentially 10x the advertising power, and each broker has potentially 10x the commission earning power, if they work hard enough.

 

It's the difference between paying one specific fictional guy to shoot another fictional guy with your own gun, versus putting an open bounty on the specific guy that you want dead.

Well what if i get a good offer from someone and the owner is offline.i'd have to hold the trade.theb when the owner comes it can be a sudden that the offer may back off coz maybe they found a better deal.brokering doesnt just exist over here.it exists as a real life job like housing agencies

[3.50]

18 hours ago, Torb | Elite Spell Trader™ said:

When using a broker, you are trusting them to make level headed decisions with your item and to not be a dick and steal it ect.

Exactly.  And I'm saying you can still get things done without having to trust anyone.

 

18 hours ago, Torb | Elite Spell Trader™ said:

If you have the broker do all the work for you (advertising, finding buyers ect) only for you to finalize the trade and essentially take all the credit for their work.

I see what you're saying here, but I have to point out that this issue has nothing to do with who has the hat, and can happen even if the broker has it.  This is something that you might deal with as a broker if you told the client who made an offer, rather than just telling them what the offer is.  If you do that, you're just begging to be cut out of the loop (even if that's dishonest).  They could be like, "Nah, don't take the offer.  Actually just give me back the hat, I've changed my mind about selling." and then immediately sell it to whoever offered on it.  

 

Even if a broker physically has a hat, the owner can (and unless otherwise agreed, has every right to) continue to advertise and try to sell the hat, and (depending on the agreement), can ask for the hat back at any time, resulting in the broker potentially losing their invested time and effort.  It's up to you as a broker to come up with an agreement that you're happy with, and doesn't involve you wasting your time and effort and getting mad.

 

You can still lose time and effort the way things are usually done now, and it's because of poor agreements.

 

18 hours ago, Torb | Elite Spell Trader™ said:

Having the owner hold onto their hat while you advertise it also has many nuances such as the broker not being able to accept good offers for your hat, rather having to message you ect.

I completely agree (and have already pointed out) that it's not 100% better in every way for the owner to keep the hat.  However, in a lot of the instances I've seen (though obviously not all cases), the owner still wants to have final say and approve the offers, even if the broker physically has the hat.  In those cases the broker still has to wait for the owner, message them, etc., so it doesn't speed up the process any for the broker to hold the hat.

 

19 hours ago, Torb | Elite Spell Trader™ said:

Most people come to a broker because they are struggling to/too lazy to trade their own unusual so what makes you think there would be 200% the effort being put in.

The point was simply that the owner retains the option, if they so choose, to add their efforts to the broker's.  Whether it's 200% or 102% makes no difference to the validity of that point.

 

19 hours ago, Torb | Elite Spell Trader™ said:

In summary, this idea has less risk yes, but in practice it comes with more problems than the risk protection is worth.

So you're saying that (essentially) making brokers work a bit harder isn't worth eliminating most or all of the risk? 

mp.tf, to use one example, exists precisely because people are willing to accept a slightly less efficient process in exchange for eliminating risk.

 

The only real problem I see is that the current brokers like things the way they are, and don't want to change anything because there's no obvious benefit to them.

But there's a huge benefit to sellers, so I'm curious as to why sellers keep accepting the status quo. 

 

18 hours ago, Diamond jozu said:

Well what if i get a good offer from someone and the owner is offline.i'd have to hold the trade.theb when the owner comes it can be a sudden that the offer may back off coz maybe they found a better deal.brokering doesnt just exist over here.it exists as a real life job like housing agencies

First of all, I'm sure brokers currently have to deal with this issue sometimes, because in some cases owners want to approve any deal before it's finalized.  Who holds the hat wouldn't make a difference.

 

As for the real-world part?  Good point!  Brokering exists in the real world without physically transferring the goods in question, so it can easily exist here, too!  Think of ebay, or etsy, or any platform like that, where you give them a percentage or fee in exchange for help finding a buyer.  Do you have to physically give the goods to them before using their resources to advertise and find a buyer? Nope, you don't!  So why should you have to do it here?

 

Brokers could easily change their brokering agreements.  Just a wild example: you could ask a flat 1 key fee for your time, plus x% of hat's value if/when you facilitate a deal. 

 

Also, I'd like to point one thing out: I would never pay for the services of a broker who thinks selling my hat while I keep it is too difficult or complicated. 

It makes you look unmotivated and uncreative, not to mention seems kind of sketchy.  "No, it won't work unless you give me the hat". 

 

The typical current brokering terms give the broker complete control, and the ability to steal the items at any time.  When will people realize a better way is needed, and possible?

How many more people are going to get scammed by brokers before the community decides it's a bad idea to give strangers your toys and trust them not to run?

[Diamond jozu]

I would understand why today people are gonna be exceeedingly cautious when dealing with brokers today due to the incident.it shocked all of us tho he did 2 scams.broker and paypal.it just kinda depend on you which brokers you think is trusted.the best way to trust one is to check his backgroubd and social status on how well-known he is.in the end,its up to you who yoi want to trust

[S.D.M.G.]

This is a very hard thing to talk about, for me brokering was a nightmare because i met a brokerer whit a lot of Plus-Rep in bp.tf so i trust him and he sccamed me out of everything owrth to get but the idea that a unexperience trader can relay on a much more experience trader to help him sell his item sounds very hellpfull you just need to do it carefully