Temporarily Taking Down SIGNED! Contracts

Given the recent EQS craze, we are noticing an increase in numbers of users weaponizing the contracts on SIGNED! for their deal hunt.

This is not how we intend the contracts to be used. We publish the contracts with the intention for everyone to learn and have the community collectively maintain the integrity of the database, since our small team of two has no bandwidth to verify every single submission.

We are considering temporarily taking down the contracts on SIGNED! as a short-term solution so LH-ers would not be deterred from sharing their numbers. What do you think?

Should we temporarily hide SIGNED! contracts?
  • Yes – it is deterring people from contributing
  • No – we are seeing isolated cases
  • Doesn’t matter – I wouldn’t contribute either way

0 voters

How about in the long run?

How should we handle SIGNED! contracts in the long run?
  • Make contracts public so the community can continue to learn from and help maintain it
  • Keep contracts private and build features to allow Trusted Hackrs to verify it
  • Keep contracts private – no need to verify

0 voters

Leasehackr was founded on the spirit of sharing; SIGNED! was a big effort of ours to make sharing and discoveries easier. We would like to mend what is not working due to misuses and continue to encourage everyone to contribute to SIGNED!.

Thank you for your feedback.

We have opened up access to uploaded contracts to Super Supporters, Supporters, and Signed! contributors.


I think some sort of verification is needed. I have submitted corrections for a number of contracts in the signed section that often have glaring errors in the data. Without the verification, it unfortunately limits the usefulness of the database. This may be something that is a valuable additional offering in the supporter area rather than have it public facing.


Glad you took it down. I saw that many of the “Signed” deals (LH Score, effective, etc.) on the main summary page were not what the actual calculator said when you clicked on the link, or saw that in the actual thread there was some other “explanation.” People also appeared to be manipulating numbers to make a deal look better than it was (easy to do without a full contract being posted).

For example, the Titan deal on the main page (Deal of the Month) does not line up between the listed details, the two calculators and the thread?

Then you had what appears to be multiple people SS’ing the “deal” and showing it or emailing it to dealers? Definitely should be a disincentive for people to post their deal if it will end up being used incorrectly and hurting more deals down the road.

100% verification of the deal is needed.

1 Like

If I had the opportunity to go back, I personally would not have posted my contract - after speaking to a few members of the on and off-site dealer and broker community many have been aggressively approached by people eager to get a unicorn EQS deal without understanding the mechanics behind it.

Some of blindly waived an out of date contract, or linked the calculator and plainly asked to replicate, I don’t believe that’s in the spirit of what it was intended to do, and it’s gone as far as having regional dealer reps sending emails to their dealers in the Tennesse region explaining what the heck is going on.


Have you had a dealer reach out and directly complain?


I would give access to TH, Brokers and Dealers to verify (the latter two being in a position to validate data more thoroughly)


Is EQS breaking LH?

Everyone wants $500/month $100k+ vehicles.


Maybe amazing deals posted can have a trusted hackr verify the contract via pm. Maybe that’s more work then the trusted hackrs want but only way I can think to keep data points legitimate


Too much work for THs. “Signed” should be like an FYI with a big *: consume at your own risk.


Agreed I just meant the deals people post that are blatantly wrong. I’m sure it would be pointed out fast anyway

The next unicorn is going to face the same problems as soon as it gets posted.

I think it’s important to recognize we are in a new phase of the forum where a vast majority of users are the general public perusing.

Not to be a pessimist, but the old way of doing things, like sharing information to where we discreetly and fairly get LT1’s, 4 series GC’s, Tacomas + Tundras, F types, etc. is gone. There’s no more honor or respect for each other in the process.


I’m a contrarian… I voted to make everything public, have people share as they wish, have information flow freely, and let the individuals/market sift things out.

If Brad Pitt goes to Starbucks for a latte, within five minutes a billion people know. I’m not sure why trying to keep any information like a lease deal a secret is sustainable (or even worth pursuing).


I will be a contrarian again :slight_smile:

I think everyone wants a $500 a month car that the market values in the upper $60s. Hence… why these so-called :unicorn: exist. When looked at from that perspective, it is not, in an absolute value sense, as crazy as it seems.

And yes, I would still like one🤪

Ummm… LV? Look how you spelled the title.

Edit : Nothing to see, you can go home now.

1 Like

I don’t think people should need to post the contract- just a simple signed deal with all the inputs .

A proper contract will be screenshot and emailed across the county to any dealer

This in turn will allow the dealer to spin an uninformed consumer and make it harder for ones who do understand

Also will point dealers to this site which is a no-no

Idk if brokers should verify contracts as it’s not in their best interest to have unicorns posted

As many will ask to replicate - some like clutch will roam and find a dealer others will say no can do

Contracts should be visible to users who have some sort of understanding of how leases work otherwise people just take them and show them to the dealer. :grinning:


As for posted unicorns being against our interest, I must disagree.
If anything debunking a mythical creature (in an honest manner) can work in our favor as it does cut down on the amount of unreasonable requests.

If we know a deal is not reasonably replicable (VIN specific trunk money or damage disclosure etc), that benefits everyone and can cut down on the circular firing squad-like results we saw recently surrounding the EQS.

1 Like

We just paused public access to SIGNED! contracts. We will continue to collect your feedback so to evaluate how we should proceed. Thank you all!


Maybe require Leasing 101 and subsequent tutorials / articles be read before accessing Signed? Or making it for supporters/super supporters only