I think they actually collapsed last week. It appears that you purchased at the worst possible time :/

66% most of them are on default trust list because of him alone

trolling?

Go to your trust settings and add their username to your trust list (it is the box that most likely only has DefaultTrust listed) and click update.

Giving positive feedback does not automatically add someone to your trust list.

Ignoring your very low price, it is very risky for the OP to give up the username like this. It would be better if the OP were to have escrow check for outstanding loans prior to giving a potential buyer access to the account

I don't think he is scamming personally. I may or may not be wrong on this, but even if he does run away with the campaign funds bit-x will likely make good on the payments. They seem to have a large marketing budget (they already spend 30+ BTC on forum advertising).

He has spent a long time on here, has multiple business ventures that would likely be ruined if he did pull a scam like this.

No this is applicable unless they do the above. For example CanaryInTheMine's trust rating will not be affected by anyone that is on his trust list and no one else's. If you were to receive 20 positive trust ratings, all by people who are on CanaryInTheMine's trust list and no one else's then my trust score would not turn green until you received a positive trust rating from someone who is on someone besides CanaryInTheMine's trust list.

From what I said about a potential improvement for how trust should work:

I think this is clear trust padding on CanaryInTheMine's part. I have always had reservations about redsn0w, but would not go as far as to say he is planning any kind of long con, but would also probably take his trust reports with some level of a grain of salt. I don't think it is appropriate for him to be on default trust.

If he wants to make a scam report then he can open a scam accusation, like I am sure he knows how to properly do. IMO this really should be the way to stop a scam in it's tracks as it is a way to give much more evidence and public discussion about a potential scam

They don't need to have actual trades, but they need to show some level of trustworthiness. The person putting someone on their trust list should have a good reason to believe they will make accurate reports only when appropriate.

Being on default trust list is very powerful, even if this power is revoked, the power can still do serious damage up to the point the power is revoked.

The whole point of having default trust and default trust list is to have a trust network that can be relied on by people who do not otherwise know who is safe to trade with.

I don't think bitcoininformation will include campaigns that do not pay in bitcoin. (except for silver wallets, but that is a good exception)

Some people are able to provide the private keys when accounts are sold.

The real issue in my eyes is the fact that he was trying to act as an escrow service when doing so is not appropriate. There are many warnings out there that say to use escrow, but a newer user may not know who is and is not appropriate to use as escrow.

Why is it that you suggest people to use escrow, and when you give specific recommendations you choose people who have a very long history of trading (with many successful trades)? The answer is because those particular people have the lowest chance of scamming.

Using the same logic, someone who is somewhat "trusted" but has a less extensive trade history has a higher chance of scamming but the chance is still generally low. Going further down the spectrum, someone who has virtually no trade history and is trying (or offering, or accepting a request to) escrow will almost certainly scam.

Your arguenrny is invalid in both this case and in others. In this case it is invalid because he is paid a fixed rate if he makes no posts or 1,000 posts.

In other cases your arguement is invalid because campaign operators have an incentive to stop spam because spam with their campaign is not effective advertising.

The op is probably right. I saw (and stopped at) 4 pages of nothing then one liners of useless posts

Going back on topic - it appears that Chris_Sabian was recently added to CanaryInTheMine's trust list. I noticed because as of when this thread started Mabsark has zero trust feedback, however he now has a positive report from both CanaryInTheMine and Chris_Sabian. I had noticed that Chris had given Mabsark positive feedback a few days ago, but it was showing as 'untrusted'

When I look at the Hierarchical view of the default trust network, I see that he is roughly in the middle of his trust list, that appears to otherwise be in roughly the order that people were added in. It also appears that KaChingCoinDev was recently added to the bottom (last active November 10 2014), as well as sjc1490 who appears to have given Canary feedback several months ago, along with FACTOM which I have no idea why he is on his trust list as he was registered ~a month ago with 7 posts and no trade history.

I am not 100% sure on the above three (although if they were previously on his trust list, their position was recently moved, because I know that suchmoon was ~the 2nd from the bottom. I do know for certain that Chris_Sabian was not on default trust network previously

+1 on this.

Many of the people on his trust list should not be on the default trust network, which is giving them power that it is not approbate for them to have.

One thing to add is that you (CanaryInTheMine) recently removed someone from your trust list because they made an off the cuff response to an off topic thread saying they might sell their account in the future. I would say that the majority of the accounts above are potential accounts that could be sold in the future, some with the possibility that their owner has no idea of the power they hold and are selling.

Correct me if I am wrong (with documentation of course) but I don't think there is anything in the NXT protocol that forces someone to have something of actual value to back any assets issued in the NXT marketplace. If you are the one issuing such assets then there is nothing to force you to provide any kind of actual value for such assets.

I would think a more appropriate warning would be to say that all collateral must be held by a trusted escrow, however I would think that someone with 50 BTC worth of crypto assets would probably already know this. Your post implies that you would be willing to send 50 BTC of collateral to a lender directly for a loan of similar size. Most scammers would be more then willing to do this, but never fund the loan, however if the collateral does not have any actual value (meaning there is a liquid market of willing/able buyers to convert the collateral to BTC) then it would mean nothing if/when a lender tries to scam you because they would have just stolen worthless collateral.

I have in the past however I am really not in a position to be buying accounts now.

if you were able to provide 120% of the repayment amount worth of NXT as collateral then I would be willing to lend up to 5 Btc. I am somewhat skeptable though as you do not mention escrow until the lender isn't set up to receive NXT. (I of course accept escrow)

To most people being on default trust is in itself a stamp of being able to be trusted (even though it was not designed to be this way) in some people's eyes.

I think it does walk a fine line to advertise a default trust account like this but there are non scam reasons to buy an account like this.

Edit: I think most people would consider giving your competition to be scamming