Memento Mintos 2
Exactly one year ago, I wrote the first version of Memento Mintos. Rereading it now, I see that the situation in the loans section has only gotten worse since then. There are hardly any new listings, and with a diversified portfolio (26 lenders), 80% of my notes are constantly in pending status—and mostly overdue.
The three pillars Mintos uses to entice investors to buy notes have all been debunked.
1. 60-day buyback obligation. Apparently, this is a worthless gimmick—just look at the list of defaulting creditors in the statistics, and you’ll see it means nothing.
2. Mintos Risk Score. Mintos claims this indicates higher (low score) and lower risk (high score) for loans, thereby offering investors some degree of certainty in their risk selection. Following the default of Planet 42 (MRS 7.4) and the major issues with Nera Capital (7.6), this also appears misleading. If you read the fine print for NC, you’ll see a risk level of 5 on a scale of 7, which doesn’t seem to align with the favorable risk score of 7.6
3. 20,000 deposit guarantee scheme. This suggests that you can determine for yourself how much risk you take and how high you let your portfolio grow. In fact, this only applies to the amount you temporarily hold (especially with automated algorithmic investing) in your cash account.
All three are important factors in the Latvian National Bank’s licensing process. In my country, there are no licenses for financial institutions that imply security in this way but fail to provide it. The same applies to the Latvian National Bank: licenses come with a certain degree of fiduciary duty.
Apparently, our discussion about Nera is being closely followed by the P2P analysts at P2Pempire ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2o-zKz3wQ& t=827s), and they believe that Mintos is a passive multi-asset platform and not a risk manager; however, that does not exempt them from their duty of care nor from the use of sham structures that purport to provide security but do not actually do so. I am still considering filing a claim with the national bank and am waiting to see how the Nera case unfolds. Meanwhile, it is incomprehensible that Mintos has not changed its business model: no collateral, no due diligence, no stricter legal agreements, no annual reports from creditors, etc. And put the risk solemnly with the investors. Like Nera Capital who refuse to pay any compensation out of the 300 million turn over each year. I can do nothing but urge everyone to withdraw their money from loans. It won't bring your default back but maybe Mintos will start to run a bit harder. A comment on the Nera case from the management would be in place as well.
-
Ugo,
You're always the one stepping in to ask questions. And I'll follow you. If something needs to be done to protect us, we'll do it. I've floated the idea of a joint complaint signed by everyone. And if the response isn't satisfactory, we'll report it to the authorities. Let's sort it out! How will this story end?
0 -
Ugo, Pietro,
I fully agree with everything raised in this post. With a diversified portfolio, I'm in the same situation — the majority of my Notes are stuck in pending or overdue status, and the three pillars Mintos uses to attract investors have proven to be hollow promises in practice.
The 60-day buyback obligation, the Mintos Risk Score, and the deposit guarantee scheme all sound reassuring on paper, but when things go wrong — as they clearly have with Nera Capital (Risk Score 7.6!) — none of them provide any real protection.
What I find particularly striking is this: the Base Prospectus issued by SIA Mintos Finance No. 16, dated 19 June 2025 — just 9 months before the current Nera crisis — explicitly describes the exact scenario we are now experiencing. It clearly states that the Buyback Obligation is only as strong as the Lending Company providing it, and that if the Lending Company fails to honour its obligation, the investor remains fully exposed. It also warns, in underlined text, that Notes are only suitable for investors who can afford to lose part or all of their investment. The fact that this specific risk was formally documented so shortly before it materialised is, at the very least, worth asking questions about.
I am willing to join any collective complaint or regulatory initiative — whether directed at the Latvian Financial and Capital Market Commission (FCMC) or any other relevant authority. Count me in.
1 -
@Tomm1q thanks for your support and added comment. As none of the parties -credittor and broker- wants to protect the investor in any situation, it would be more realistic if Mintos would change their name in P2P Casino.
0 -
Thomas, Ugo
Okay, Thomas. I'm glad we're joining the ranks! If you've been following me, I'm stuck, frozen with €105,000 in assets on my card because, in addition to the €75,000 in Nera, I have €18,000 in defaulted EDS bonds, with no interest or repayment for the first ones that matured in December. I'm speechless, and sometimes you might feel disheartened. It's not nice to be opening the Mintos app 5-6-7 times a day hoping for a miracle! I can't know if there was any superficiality in promoting these investments as a panacea, with very high interest rates, cashback, and medium-to-short maturities; whether it's entirely the investor's fault or not, is not for me to say, nor do I have the expertise. Will we ever see the money again??? And I also have to pay wealth tax here in Italy. We need to consult an expert or file a group complaint, first to Mintos and then, if that doesn't work, to the banking authority! I also wonder if it's possible and fair for Nera to apply for loans on other platforms as if nothing is happening here on Mintos, and whether a default on other platforms would harm us, the lenders here. Mintos hasn't given me a satisfactory response to this question. Ugo is perhaps the most knowledgeable of us; let's file a complaint with Mintos first! Talk to you later.0
Zaloguj się, aby dodać komentarz.
Komentarze
Komentarze: 4