Bitcoin Forum

Doesn't red trust mean symbolize bad image?
if so, do you still believe in projects managed by well-known managers who have red trust?

and frankly like @Wapinter

If an account is tag with a red trust often means that account should not be trusted or apply caution when dealing with the account but sometimes not all accounts with a red trust are untrusted because such accounts have equally done so many good things to over shadow the red tag, some red tag account did not actually scam anyone or something of that nature but maybe for other reasons,
My point is, just because an account has a red tag don't necessarily mean that account is bad, especially the example you gave above,  wapinta has handle so many good bounty as well as some bad ones,  there is nothing wrong in participating in his bounty.

There are some exceptions, for bounty managers with good portfolios, professional work, no problem, there used to be Jamalaezaz despite having a red trust but several projects he handled were good and many were successful.  If there is currently Wapinter.  However, we must be careful, if the bounty manager has a red trust that is quite extreme with dangerous indications, it should be avoided, especially if the portfolios are few and not good enough.

It's not about the red trust, as a sign of my personal distrust. I can tell about each Manager, it is necessary to trust him or not, and his subsequently red trust, only confirms my baggage of information which is based on work with this or that Manager!

Red trust don't have the same meaning as it used to be anymore. Flags mostly replaced red trusts. As an example: Somebody can be a perfectly legit&trusted trader/seller but if he promoted a ponzi scheme in the past, he probably got a red trust rating for his action. You can say that you can't really trust a ponzi promoter but what I am trying to say is... it is a bit messy situation right now. There are OG forum people with red trust ratings (not going to name them because I don't want to start a war) and they are still trusted in many people's eyes.

I believe livecoin has many negative trust ratings too. (livecoin has a flag too though) They run their own forum campaigns after hhampuz left the camp.

In the end, if there isn't a valid flag on the account, read the neg trust and make your own mind.

I checked the guy "Wapinter"s account and it is in one of those messy situations.

The pharmacist says he is legit, suchmoon says he is not to be trusted. Yahoo says he is ok too. :/ Too many different opinions...

Actually, yes, red trust is a bad sign. But if it is about bounty managers, we can consider issue differently. BMs can not always choose the right one and sometimes a single mistake can cause such result. I suggest you never trade with red trust forum members, but if they are BMs, always be cautious.

You always have the right to choose. But, Wapinter is not a terrible manager. There are also positive reviews that have been added to the trust list recently: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=527272

Wapinter needs to be commended for being able to get some job despite the red tagged to his account. Some managers can't handle such and would have gone down. I will say cudos to him for getting his client to have faith in him.

Sometimes managers gain redtrust because of other people but I always avoid managers with negative confidence, I feel more confidence in campaigns where managers are known in the forum.

You can open his trust page and there should be link to exactly why he was given red trust. You see who gave him and why. By that you can make your own opinion. Is quite simple.

This post should definitely belong into Meta part of forum and not alt coin discussions.

Yes, because some managers were given a negative trust for other reasons. It is also better to check on personal experience, it happens that the manager has a red trust, but he always keeps his promises.

Wapinter is good manager. But some of the projects he managed was turned to be a scam. Some Bounty participants tagged him for that. That's the problem about being about Bounty manager. They just care about earning because as far as I know, they accept only btc, Eth or any valuable cryptocurrency not the token offered by the project. I think wapinter never eveluate things before proceeding. But I'm happy that many members here are now more concern about new projects. They tagged the manager before many people scammed by the fake project.

because giving red trust could be due to other reasons that have nothing to do with the bounty campaign.  we really should focus more on the performance of the manager's bounty and project strength.  Remember, the success of a bounty is not only based on who is handling it, but many other factors influence such as the bounty pool, market capacity, etc.

I don't believe any admin, I only believe in projects, here this two are different Hhampuz and Yahoo62278. I will believe project that looks good to me, negative trust doesn't mean to me anything. Because negative isn't flash for everything. Wapinter is also good as Arteezy.rtx and Btcltcdigger

Basically, yes. Red-trust means an untrusted member, including a bounty manager. But they got it from various cases, just look at what the case is. If the case has no correlation with the bounty, it is no problem I think. However, for me, the better option is surely a bounty manager with a good reputation.

---

Note :
I think you don't need to include "@Wapinter" on your thread above. There are still many worse managers. It is not a place to judge him!!
Why don't you just stated a red-trust bounty manager, no need an example. I think it is clear enough.  

Surely that manager have bad image on his past campaign. I think you must be wisely to join every project that managed by those people. Look at their profile why he got red trust and you must avoid that case in the next time with other guy.

Of course, yes, especially if the tag was really accurate and proved with some evidence.

And scamming its bounties its managing, e.i. deducting the rewards/stake of participants, proven that applying its alts on the campaign, and etc. Those BM who has this kind of tag should be avoided.

But those red tags with 'managing scam projects' should be considered coz its too hard to say if a project will turn to scam especially if they have with better idea/mvp/whitepaper and etc. And the BM is one of the victims as well.

If we could see red paint on their names it doesn't mean that they are an untrusted person. There is something we need to figure out what it happens and what makes this red paint on his name, we can't simply judge on it.

I appreciate how Wapinter does with their bounty campaigns, in fact, I'm one of his participants before and everything went so well.
But for those other BM, who has a proven bad claim, we shouldn't have to trust them. They will surely scam again and again cause they never care about their reputation.

Although the wapinter has Red Trush, there are still many bounties that he manages and many participants participate. Wapinter is one of the top bounty managers at the moment. I have participated in many projects and been paid. Regarding the red trush problem, there was indeed a mistake he made because he was promoting a scam project, but that had been a long time since.

of course not. Logically, only participants who have a red trust cannot join, and if the manager alone has a red trust, then what will the rules look like? this is very hard to believe, and if the manager has a red trust, then participants with red trust can also participate, surely the project is not good. What's more, a red trust is a symbol of a negative account.

Depends on the case mate. But I think having red trust is also a big factor on participants. Of course this is a bad image, meaning they have been reported to some DT about their handled campaign maybe doesn't pay participants or have serious issue. Wapinter have been flagged negative trust without a valid reason but I dont think its the whole story for him. I still he have campaign participants meaning, maybe the issue arent that strong.

Thanks for triggering my Maggiordomo alert, let me explain.

I think my rating on Wapinter is factual and has a proper reference. Read the linked thread and decide for yourselves what the risks are, don't just look at the red and green numbers. That applies to all trust ratings and flags. The trust system is there to help you make decisions, not to make decisions for you.

@Wapinter is the best manager and has managed the bounty for a long time, many bounties have successfully paid for it, and I think if the @Wapinter account is Red Trush but he still gives the best to the participants, it means that he does not cheat in managing the bounty.
But unfortunately I have not seen the bounty launched by him.

Depends on the reason why they were tagged in the first place. If the tag is simply not correlated nor related to the project he's handling then there is no reason why not to give a shot. I'm not supporting it but we shouldn't judge them falsely. Although we can't put out that they aren't worth to be trusted, we still can't deny to consider evaluating them first.

Wapinter is one of the bounty managers who has been around for a long time and is trusted by many bounty hunters. In my opinion, Red Trust depends on the mistakes made and sometimes the Red Trust giver is also not free from mistakes and they give red trust based only on assumptions.

Red trust is given because someone violates or commits an act that is not good. Whether it's cheaters, scammers, fraudsters, or others. There are many reasons for this, of course, sometimes the reasons are less grounded. Because everyone can give red trust even though the mistake is not too fatal.
I once participated in the bounty Wapinter, I think he is a person who can carry out his duties as a manager well, yes even though sometimes there are projects that are delayed but that is not his fault.
Everyone can change, but the sign of the red trust never disappears even though he has done his best. So judge according to how he treats you not from what others say.

That depends on the case that has already made the bounty manager was getting red-trust. But it looks like that problem that has already obtained by him (wapinter) was a severe problem and that guy is having a bad image. what you need to do to see what was the accusations that already written for him.
Red trust means symbolize bad image but not every time that will bring someone to the wrong image.
As far as I know that even some shillers are not doing something wrong (based on my opinion) also got red-trust.
But as per wapinter's trust summary and I don't believe him as well as all of the accusations for wapinter was about running scam project

Red Trush will indeed greatly affect the confidence of participants in the bounty manager. when the wapinter still didn't have Red Trush many followed the project. But after the Wapinter was given the Red Trush, some bounty hunters no longer believed in the project he was managing. But not all projects managed are problematic, there are some projects that are successful and proven to pay bounty hunters. Maybe it was an unintentional mistake made by the Wapinter, so getting a Red Trush.

there is indeed a sense of curiosity about the bounty manager who has the red trust, but for the bounty manager wapinter I think it can still be trusted even though some projects can be successful but it is not the fault of the bounty manager because he only runs his job whereas when the project is scam then it is a mistake of its founder.

It depends on how did they got that red trust if they've got it from scamming bounty hunters, then he is not worthy of trust by bounty hunters, but if it is because of the work of the project that he is working on that he has no control of, then that trust means nothing to me, bounty managers has no control of the works of developers.

I think the Wapinter has never deceived the hunters by paying the participants always to be paid in a timely manner, a lot of the green reputation earned by the Wapinter means that it is still trusted by many people, rest assured that he is a professional manager like his other managers.

Most accurate explanation so far. Most people view red tag as scam but in reality, trust feedback here is not only for scam. Some DT giving negative feedback based on there own perspective on what is wrong although trust feedback are originally made for trading purposes. Its important to consider first the comment on the feedback because some of it is not for scamming people but some human error on this forum.

Don't just make conclusion based on those fancy colours you see on managers profile, some of the positive feedbacks aren't even associated with their line of work (bounty management) and some of the red tagged might just be retaliatory feedbacks (personal attacks) or forgivable silly mistakes they made in the past. Research on the managers record before you can make a decision whether a manager can be trusted or not or his style of management suits you.

Don't rely on any individual opinion also as we're all humans, some managers get accused of promoting scam projects now it left to you to make your judgement on what you consider scam projects. Most project tagged on the forum are project that have Plagiarized whitepaper etc so if you don't consider such offers scam worthy it's left for you to decide. Always used the reference to look into the reason for the feedbacks.

The feedback are just precaution measures that's why I always indicate that when even I leave a negative feedbacks on projects/managers profile.

It is true, marked bad deeds in the past or present.

However, this problem was returned to each participant participating in certain projects.

Manegers have a good and bad reputation when managing their projects.

If you believe that a certain manager has a bad reputation in managing the project, just leave it, do not register with the project he manages, and if you believe that the project managed by a particular manager has a good reputation, you just choose to join or not.

Can not prohibit a manager with a bad reputation, in developing their projects, as long as you have a mind and have the sense to determine your own destiny to success or failure.

So, the conclusion now is: you alone determine good and bad for yourself, not a bounty manager, who has a bad reputation.

I will not make a conclusion right away, a fair member of the forum should understand that trust is not moderated so anyone can paint red trust in anyone's profile, and also, bear in mind that DT members will not stay forever, there's always a changes, some just come and go and some stays longer.

I suggest before you judge, review the reason why the manager has the red trust, and from evidence you see, you can make your own judgement.

That's how it's done.

There is a big difference IMO in saying I trusted this guy to do trades. We did around 1000$ in trades, my paypal for his btc. He always sent 1st and the transactions were always fast and smooth.

My opinion on his bounty managing however is different. He accepted about any project that came his way and ended up running a few that turned scam. So IMO you have a 50/50 shot on getting paid from a bounty he manages. You guys need to decide if a 50% chance is worth your time and read feedbacks before blindly trusting someone.

Did you created this thread to discuss Wapinter trust rating ? In general, managers should not have red trust but it is not always that the Red trust would mean that he can scam or can't handle bounty well.
An example which I can remember is of aTriz (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=135920) who started his Signature campaign management as a good manager whom got many projects but later when he got red trusted, we can only see him managing few altcoins bounty campaigns.
Companies do not need to hire Red trust managers, when positive trusts managers are available to manage the campaign.

Does it mean that he is trusted? He always sent first means you were not in risk. Although this is your personal matter but a neutral feedback is appropriate for this kind of deal instead. If you were on risk then green trust would a reasonable feedback.

---

However, I have made a thread over year ago regarding Wapinter related with scam? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4496912.0) and that time he were promoted multiple project which was contained with fake team photos. And wapinter didn't show honesty to do his own diligence before pick any projects. He just promote for his own benefits. He doesn't care about bounty hunters or investors. And its true hunters didn't got payment from may bounty campaign managed by Wapinter. He got red tag for his shady behaviour but it doesn't mean that he don't have ability to manage campaign.

There is no any rules that red tagged users couldn't manage campaign. Instead of OP question I will ask another question. Hope OP will find his answer on my question. Why a project should hire a red tagged user to manage their campaign? And why bounty hunters should joined a red tagged manager's campaign?

Well yeah but it depends... for example Atriz got f***** up because he managed a scam ICO project which it led to his demise although to be honest he was one of the best campaign managers alongside with yahoo (personally i think that he should given a chance) but sadly i agree with visarog once you got fucked up in campaign managing well companies will not hire these managers.

He did promote some scammy projects then later took it down after feedback from several members here. That suggests that he doesn't check projects carefully before accepting and then promoting them.


Those feedback left by the pharmacist and yahoo were personal trades though and has nothing to do with managing bounties. I think the op is more concerned with how wapinter chooses and manages bounties.

If you check ATriz profile, he has been given red tag by multiple persons and even if few of them agree to give him chance, it is not possible as all of them won't change their opinion. Signature managers should study the projects themselves first to avoid such situations later. Also there are few others managers too who are in the similar desperate situations.

I believe not all Red Trust Manager are proven to be scammer or really did an awful things. Who will admit a crime he did right? Of course they will deny all possibilities of being guilty. Atriz for example he was tagged red trust due to stealing of some fund payment supposedly for bounty participants. I remember he was with Ultralite and Lauda in forming a bounty group but  segregated due to these kind of incident involving stealing.  But I still see Atriz joining some campaign, or the real one retired and someone using his account already? (Just assumption)

Anyway, I know some red trust manager who really did a good job but tagged due to scam project promoted. Like wapinter, Ibe always join his campaign and his a good one, but the problem hsre is the project that becomes scam of course he will be put into tough seat to defend it. Anyway not all of them pose a bad image.

We have different judgement but my personal judgement on the bounty manager you put as your example, I would not trust a project that he is promoting due to the fact that he has negative feedback from 4 DTs and I trusted some of the 2 DT that give a rating so basically i trust their judgement too.


here's the rating, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=527272

and some of the comments.

LeGaulois

suchmoon

just dont join any of those red trusts managers,why would you join them ? they dont accept red trust users so we do the same dont accept their projects..Most of these red trusts managers have bad reputation like needmoney and his army.

I would probably see an exception if the project is really good that reputable users here in the forum are shilling for it. Generally we see it in a negative sign but I would try to see if the negative feedback to him is justified by the reason. We've seen bounty managers having lots of negative feedback before Jamal was one only to find out he is proven to have done something unacceptable by users.

That's the good catch. When Red trusted users can't be on the campaign, then the Red trust managers wouldn't be allowed to run the campaign.  :)
Also i believe if a manager has multiple red trusts, it does mean that he has done some serious damage to the society and should be avoided at all costs.

You are not well informed about "Atriz". I wanna let you know that after revealing his Alt account (Zapo) he completely stopped all communication and at that time one of his campaign reward distribution was not completed. For his unexpected behavior BQT & IOU team were not able to release bounty participants payments. So what do you think after committing this kinda thing he deserve second chance. IMO after his alt account issue it was his responsibility to distribute bounty participants reward but he didn't feel it necessary.  

Yeah, it was definitely negative trust for more than just managing a campaign for a scam project.  I hated to see things work out that way for aTriz, because he actually was a good campaign manager.

And Darkstar_ and Hhampuz, who are also excellent campaign managers.  There are probably a couple more that I'm not thinking of, but those two definitely deserve mention alongside Yahoo62278.

I haven't checked his trust page, but wasn't there more going on with him than managing a campaign for a scam project?  I thought I recalled reading that there were other things as well.  I'll have to check.

He did it repeatedly with blatantly fake ICOs and was quite belligerent when it was brought to his attention. That was the reason for my rating anyway. I realize that shit happens, but what matters is how the person deals with it. If the behavior indicates that it's likely to happen again then some sort of warning is needed.

Not necessarily. Having a red-trust for a personal dispute or something that doesn't reflect the credibility of the manager as a whole wouldn't really be considered. Trust them with money or use them as an escrow for the project? Definitely not! Regardless of what the red trust is for, I'd think twice before trusting them with any amount of money.