One of the screenshots in the OP is of a "KuCoin" account that is purporting to show ~$120 in it. There was a recent study showing that 85%+ (IIRC) of trading volume at exchanges is faked, and this is absolutely not an exchange I would trust my money with

Marco PM'ed me asking if I can fill this loan, and after asking questions, he said it is part "arbitrage" and part something else that he described as "another aspect with it is happening (the real money maker)".

I am not sure if this loan will be repaid if filled, but it has many red flags of being an exit scam.

Also, Marco claims he used the proceeds of the previous loan he took to "trade", however he was late in repaying those loans, which implies the "method" that marco has is less than a sure thing.

If I had to guess, it will show zero collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government.

Multiple news outlets are reporting that Mueller has sent his report to the Attorney General and that the Judiciary Committee of Congress should expect notification of this. It is also being reported that a messenger from the DOJ is currently in route to Capital Hill, presumably to give notification of the above as required by the special council regulations.

President Trump has previously indicated he wants the report made public and the House of Representatives this week voted 420-0 on a non-binding resolution asking for the report to be made public.

The Mueller probe started with the intention of determining if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election. To date zero evidence has been presented that supports this claim, despite many Democrats claiming to have seen such evidence.

Earlier this week the Ukraine government has opened an investigation into government officials helping the Clinton campaign in 2016 after allegedly finding evidence of this.

The start of the investigation into the Trump campaign can be traced back to propaganda by the Russian government given to a former British spy and forwarded to the FBI. Neither the former British spy, nor the FBI have articulated why the propaganda had any reason to be believed. Those in the FBI investigating the Trump campaign and the British spy all largely did not want Trump elected. Clinton, during her tenure as Secretary of State in the Obama administration helped broker a deal to sell Uranium to the Russian government and her policies were generally friendly to the Russian government.

The Mueller report will be posted here once it is made public.

Update March 24: AG Barr has sent a letter to congress, who should be receiving it within the hour. The letter will likely include the principal conclusions and findings of the Mueller investigation.  

Updare2 March 24: The letter from Barr regarding the Mueller report, says the Russian government attempted multiple times to partner with the Trump campaign, however all of these offers were either not accepted or rejected. The Mueller report also did not specifically opine if Trump obstructed justice and deferred to the AG in regards to this question.  

The letter to Congress from AG Barr can be found here

---

The above is a picture of theymos I took after he saw this thread.

---

The analogy is not blackmail, nor am I aware of anyone doing this. There are certainly ratings given out for questionable reasons and certain people often have transgressions overlooked, but nothing like this.

The closest I can think of to this is people calling out lauda for stealing funds in escrow for an ICO gone bad and him giving negative trust for calling out his extortion attempt. In these cases, no one else piled on.

To be entirely fair, he wasn’t the one who initially posted in that thread after a year, it was two signature spammers. He probably just didn’t notice the year of the post of yours he quoted.

I am not sure if you looked at his trust page or not but he took out a loan in 2013 that he didn’t repay and has tried to take out additional loans substantially.

I have no idea why you thought it is a good idea lending him money...unless of course, well I don’t think it needs to be said.

I am confused as to what happened here....

Did you just deny his loan, then send him money?

I don't know Subjot, and as such cannot affirmatively trust his opinion. DarkStar, do you have reason to know the value of this domain? Would you be willing to agree to buy it in the event of a default?

OP - Are you wanting to have the loan dominated in USD, or BTC? Or something else? Would you want to receive the loan proceeds in BTC, or a stablecoin (USDT/USDC), or something else?

In theory, someone could deposit money into escrow, and agree to buy the account xx time in the future in order to hide the sale from onlookers, and the password, email, etc would stay the same until some agreed upon date in the future.

I do not subscribe to the underlying premise, however if one views selling your account as being sufficiently untrustworthy so that you are a scammer, then the attempt of selling your account would similarly make you an attempted scammer.

If I am not going to trade with person x regardless of their trust rating, you tagging person x is not going to protect me because it will not change anything. On the other hand, if I am considering buying widgets and you tag person x who sells widgets, then I would be protected (to the extent I am willing to listen to your warning) if you tag him for being a scammer. If you also sell and/or trade widgets, then you would want person x to be tagged if he is a scammer because if he scams a bunch of widget buyers, the marketplace could get a reputation that it isn’t safe to buy widgets, scarring potential buyers away.

You may not limit your tags to widget scammers in the above example because a scammer who sells hammers might scare away potential widget buyers and otherwise give the marketplace a reputation where people mostly get scammed, or the victim of a scam attempt.

In the same example, if you tag people unfairly who trade hammers, the marketplace might get a reputation for not being fair and potential widget buyers might not want to use the marketplace to buy widgets, hurting your business. Also some people might be afraid to do business with you if you tag people unfairly.

The major problem with the trust system is the selection process for those who are on DT has nothing to do with who actually uses the trust system in a meaningful way (eg, they don't participate in the marketplace in a meaningful way). As a result, the DT system is not one of self governance, but is rather something closer to a dictatorship, in that those who make the rules are entirely unrelated to those who are bound by the rules, and those who are bound by the rules have zero input in the rules.

Those who are in DT are also not selected by those who have ever been active in the marketplace.

IMO, the best way to structure the DT system is to have several people who own, or have owned large bitcoin related businesses who have people on their trust list they are willing to trust their businesses' reputation on in regards to giving fair ratings, and otherwise acting fairly within the trust system. When there is a rating dispute, if someone is not acting in good faith, or otherwise is acting fairly, their sponsor(s) should be called out publicly.

The best and most appropriate people to run the trust system is those who are wanting to protect their (potential) customers.

Looking at the first 3 pages of the digital goods section, it looks like nearly all of the threads are scam attempts, or attempts to do something illegal. The services sub is made up almost entirely of signature campaigns, the currency exchange sub has few active threads of people conducting legitimate business, and very few loans are ever made in the lending sub.

I am referring to anyone who doesn't regularly trade, or who has not previously traded extensively.

My concern is not about being qualified to hand out ratings, my concern is about the lack of self governance. The most active DT members have never traded (or have seldom traded) in the marketplace, and have not been selected to be on DT by anyone with any kind of substantial trading history in the forum marketplace, and as such, their judgment as to when (or when not) to leave a particular rating does not represent the consensus (nor the will) of those who will use the DT system in any substantial way.  Instead, ratings, or lack thereof has more to do with the person is a member of a clique of a small group of people.

I am not sure if you are aware, but the original term of the loan was supposed to be for one week, with ~13% interest, instead, the loan was repaid 17 days, and approximately 66% interest was paid. 5x the agreed amount of interest was paid in exchange for the loan lasting approximately 2.43x it should have.

The additional ratings he received are all generally saying he needs to offer collateral to take out additional loans, but none of these people are lenders, nor borrowers, so those who left the ratings are not "protecting" their customers or trading partners, which is often the case for those who like to hand out lots of ratings.

If you believe this, you can click on this link, enter "50" in the "merit points" box and click "send"

Maybe theymos can use his away account to beg to get unbanned and claim to not know plagiarism is against the rules.

Or better yet, announce that anyone caught *not* plagiarizing will get banned.

Another good idea would be to offer a bunch of custom memberships for “sale” that can only be purchased with Honeycombs, but payment is based on the honor system.

Scammer tags could be handed out to everyone except the account you are logged into.

Announce that Bitcoin cash can only be discussed in the main sub and bitcoin must be discussed in the altcoin sub. (Or some other coin).

Create a sub specifically for begging for merit and/or for plagiarism.

Create some kind of system in which merit is socialized. 

The administration has sufficient tools to exclude erroneous positives resulting from this and can usually detect alts using tor and different VPNs for each account.

This has the potential to expose a lot of hypocrisy among certain people and could create enough chaos to last until the following April fools.

I was trolled extensively years ago when I was in the account selling business, examples are below.

IMO, the above is likely an indication that the trolling was not an expression of his opinion but was an attempt to discredit his competition unethically.

There is also substantial evidence that Lauda is/was engaged in account trading and he also tags sold accounts.

As long as the “d” remains in DT creating a custom trust list is worthless.

Even those that have custom trust lists still use DT as a reference to determine if they will do business with you because it is shown by default to potential customers.

The WSJ confirmed the source was Bezos’ mistresses brother, who was paid $200k for the texts.

It sounds like the brother really doesn’t like Bezos. He probably could have gotten 100x this much from Bezos just from asking for a favor.