Last time I checked, bounty managers are not the ICO's partners and thus partnership law doesn't apply.  You see, when it comes to trial, disclaimer really means nothing.
Disclaimers absolutely mean a lot. You just cherry-picked something that suited the argument. You can do the same with FTC regulations on endorsements to support the counter argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anyhow, this is just a lawsuit. The outcome is TBD. |
|
|
|
Why is this extreme?
Someone accepted to run campaign for investment fraud - and they have disclaimer. Why is this different than anything else with disclaimer?
The example was a clear appeal to extremes. Get a hold of yourself; the above conjecture is just pure silliness. Crossposting: A BM has nothing to do with investors, nor is he/she required to do their due diligence. Accepting a project =/= endorsement =/= guaranteed/expected high returns. We aren't going to censor projects based on potential returns now, are we?
Are they required to do due diligence or not? They are not[1][2], the same way that no hunter nor investor is required to do this. Whether they should or should not do it is another thing. Afaic, BM aren't responsible for the teams actions.
Were the agencies used by Madoff to advertised sentenced to anything ? No.
These topics weren't even brought on during trials.
Correct, because nobody sane would go after a subset of the victim pool. I don't think marlboroza is being bullied and I for one respect his decisions, even if I don't agree wholeheartedly with them. I don't think anyone is screaming at him to reverse his feedback, simply disagreeing with him. Members here are on both sides of the fence when it comes to this issue, and I think both sides need to be heard.
"Disagreeing with someone's opinion == bullying someone" is your classic liberal, whiny bullshit. There are plenty of disagreements among DT members (including child-and-parent DT positions), and that is fine.
[1] They might be if we collectively go on a power-trip.  [2] This doesn't mean you should promote this as a valid project. <- another example of appealing to extremes. |
|
|
|
I don't think posting a disclaimer should be a get-out-of-jail-free card for any and all scams and shadiness. What if I posted an account sale with a disclaimer that said "I am only hosting this sale, am not involved in the sale, don't endorse this sale, and won't be held liable for this sale"? What if I hosted a Bitcoin Doubler with a similar disclaimer?
There is really no need to appeal to the extremes. I'm sure that you've understood what I meant. |
|
|
|
I think becoz he and jamal were ALU's competitors.
2018-07-03. Doesn't surprise me from a chronic liar. |
|
|
|
New key: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
New key fingerprint: 67C1 D8F7 8C0C 4530 4789 E437 897F 3993 8C2D 0592.
Date: 09/15/2018.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEy7g5wBiLreioDJCy9OOtPFL5mtsFAlucjjYACgkQ9OOtPFL5
mtsgrAgAoa7eIYF1UKA6VPxpMu7jpV1Wht36Yu9th8HiMjgg4OHdOd0ao5l7U6xu
wRlabwiFWg/uRS1ZiojeLVHH9qDPNowSk0obbpwR7hPI+IV4TFkpSdL6x710G8P2
MyOrkvkf/CJGrx+YaPmVjCFW8yselBy1B4PqHCbQkkJLsc9eEKmx/0fYtr1/ZT0m
FNtSmuxjDKaFCbN+6TwaU/PVFzYTX9H6ptOXmNF9UodabPA5Y5xz5ssIR9c4ti9P
dzAsn0AjxNLa7yqOJBWVtnGe8kNEFtdngkL7OyofBUxjMXaTrNr/cA2teN0dnFaI
BcNTdJ6DUr7zEEh0D5y/HHjaojiJIg==
=7YVl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----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=jg2V
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
pub rsa4096 2018-09-15 [SC] [expires: 2021-09-14]
67C1D8F78C0C45304789E437897F39938C2D0592
uid Lauda <d.lauda@protonmail.ch>
sub rsa4096 2018-09-15 [E] [expires: 2021-09-14]
With this, the old key can be assumed to be dead and completely shredded. |
|
|
|
 Can this be graded? 
|
|
|
|
So you're saying that people who have made a *name* for themselves essentially aren't allowed to accept such a project (where allowed equals to 'no risk of rating')? How is this 'a choice'? That would be going towards censorship/privacy issues rather than helping remedy the situation.
We are still talking about ICOs, right? People asking for money on the internet? TBH their privacy doesn't concern me. They can go to a loan shark, finance their project to completion, and then make themselves rich anonymously by selling their completed product/service. Two points: A) Not all projects with anonymous teams are ICOs. B) Not all projects are asking for millions. Victims and BM role aren't same.
Absolute nonsense. In most of the cases, the BM is a direct victim and often suffers greater financial damage in comparison to any participant (you could even argue that the manager suffers damage that is greater than the sum of the participants' damage, which is zero if you argue that tokens are worthless until the market gives them a value). Why needmoney is tagged? Did they fail to count posts and update spreadsheet?
Running a fraudulent bounty =/= running a bounty for a project that ends up being a scam. To this date, needmoney has not acted upon the allegations that were brought up which makes the situation completely incomparable. The over-promising ROI part I can agree with. How so? If there is disclaimer, BM's shouldn't be held accountable  They aren't, especially not legally. That's what a disclaimer is for. However, what about projects in which the team is anonymous? Anonymously running ICO to collect millions of dollars? Don't you think it is something which should be avoided in first place? Read my response to suchmoon in this very same post. BM's can't hide behind disclaimers.
They can and they will. If they can not, this will be yet another incentive to never post a bounty from your own account but rather use shills[1]. Stop making up fictional rules that will only re-enforce current problems.
[1] It would be pretty trivial to create a non-discoverable shill that solely posts ANN threads / switch whenever something goes wrong. Strong incentive, minor cost, huge obstacle in tracking down the actual BM. Note: Nevermind; not really applicable. |
|
|
|
Most of managers doing it as well or hire some low ranked account (IMO)
Which is what this precedence will do, create a stronger push towards that. Obviously, they should. It doesn't mean managers should't.
A manager's due diligence is his/her own. If a manager wants to be at a higher risk of being scammed, it is their own choice/fault. You can't expect nor demand any manager to do a certain amount of due diligence. Do you mean only count post and update spreadsheet is managers responsibility ?
Yes, exactly that. If managers do it continuously ( multiple case ) than he deserve tag. On single case excusable, but shouldn't excuse on multiple case.
Let me get this straight: You want to blame a victim for being the victim multiple times? That makes perfect sense. Not. I'm talking about trust ratings. Assuming the project has an anonymous team, and aren't promising crazy returns, how would it be handled in case that it ends up being a scam (given the precedence that is being set here)?
It's still a failure of due diligence on the BM's part so I'm guessing it would be treated the same way as a fake team. Perhaps even worse because the BM can't reasonably claim that they were fooled by cleverly photoshopped images. So you're saying that people who have made a *name* for themselves essentially aren't allowed to accept such a project (where allowed equals to 'no risk of rating')? How is this 'a choice'? Excluding certain project types does not help with the situation. |
|
|
|
It is not a mild inconvenience. Threads tend to be frequently edited depending on the situation and the time between point of contact and actual revision can be days (in some cases it is almost always days).
Not following you here. The bounty manager prepares an update and sends it over to the Copper OP, just like they would if the BM was the OP, except instead of directly updating the thread they put it in a PM. That's BM's job done. If the Copper OP delays or fails to post the update that's Copper OP's problem isn't it? No? Even though the OP would be at fault, it is the bounty managers problem. As an example, you can use a case where you are missing a rule for a certain campaign. That would cause issues for both participants and the manager. I doubt anyone would neg-trust a bounty manager if the ICO turned out to be an uber-elaborate scam, but something with fake photos or offering 10% a month is not hard to notice.
The over-promising ROI part I can agree with. However, what about projects in which the team is anonymous? If the BM is not comfortable with an anonymous team then they should not accept the job. I'm talking about trust ratings. Assuming the project has an anonymous team, and aren't promising crazy returns, how would it be handled in case that it ends up being a scam (given the precedence that is being set here)? |
|
|
|
I wrote a topic regarding this on bounty board; Bounty Hunters ! Must read before join any bounty campaign. But unfortunately not much people interested to read it. No one want decent work. Everyone just need money, hunters are more greedy from managers. But eventually hunters and investors are getting scam due to irresponsible managers. It is not the responsibility of the managers, nor are they liable for the stupidity of the hunters and investors. Time to stop blame-shifting and accept responsibility. |
|
|
|
I'm advocating against setting a dangerous precedence which would end up worsening the dire situation.
I don't see any danger here, just some decent options for freedom of choice: 1) Bounty managers can choose to do or not to do due diligence to reduce their chances of getting into sticky situations. : Create new accounts solely for posting ANNs to avoid risking your main account for any single bounty[1]. 1a) There is also an easy way out - let the ICO scammers buy their own Copper accounts. There is no downside to this. The mild inconvenience of editing the thread is a non-issue. The bounty manager can PM the revised post to the OP, pretty much the same effort.
It is not a mild inconvenience. Threads tend to be frequently edited depending on the situation and the time between point of contact and actual revision can be days (in some cases it is almost always days). 2) Bounty participants can choose to do their own due diligence or require escrow or none of those things and instead choose to bitch and moan about their losses.
They should be doing their own due diligence in the first place IMO.
[1] This is already the case to some extent. I guess that most people involved in the discussion aren't that present (or present at all) on secondary platforms (TG, Discord). 4) Everyone else can choose to pay attention to or disregard the red trust or exclude marlboroza from their trust list.
Too many choices is why we can't have nice things. There is so much wrong in this place that division due to something like this is pointless. In the case of OP, I'm waiting for mr. marlboroza to rewrite the rating so that I can apply mine as well.
I doubt anyone would neg-trust a bounty manager if the ICO turned out to be an uber-elaborate scam, but something with fake photos or offering 10% a month is not hard to notice.
The over-promising ROI part I can agree with. However, what about projects in which the team is anonymous? |
|
|
|
Posting something =/= endorsing something, especially NOT when a disclaimer is present. If one fails to read or understand the disclaimer, then it is only their (the participant's) fault. Let's say I'm a pharmaceutical company with this brand new, super-duper pill for...whatever and i have this little disclaimer at the end, stating that my product may have side effects, such as bla-bla-bla, can also cause cancer and lead to death. Hope my analogy isn't that hard to follow, do you think in case of death/multiple deaths and it's imminent civil lawsuit, the pharmaceutical company and people who helped advertise this product would get away because of that disclaimer? Do you think such product should be even allowed in the first place? Classic false comparison fallacy. Try (harder) again. ~
Washib can't talk or something? I will update this shortly(give me 10 minutes or so) you will love this Well, you seem to have enough dirt on him to warrant a negative[1]. I'm not defending OP; I'm advocating against setting a dangerous precedence which would end up worsening the dire situation.
[1] Maybe it is time to rewrite the rating or add another one? |
|
|
|
Most people don't have a proper/any disclaimer. When you make an ANN thread/run bounties for an ICO, you're endorsing them,because you're getting paid for that. Uunless there's a disclaimer that says: "I do not endorse this project"(which is even worse for the company that paid you to represent). That makes them less of a victim or whatever. But that disclaimer shouldn't protect them,they were still paid for that.
You are not paid for posting a thread; also posting a (bounty) thread =/= product endorsement. In the super-majority of cases, you end up posting the thread because the team does not have a sufficiently ranked account (yes, it can be bought, and no this isn't a counter-argument to this). Meaning, you are not being paid to post it; you are being paid only to manage it. You end up posting it because it is more convenient than the alternatives (waiting for account to rank up; buying c. membership; paging someone else to update the thread each time you need to change something).
This isn't a discussion of whether you are liable or not, but rather whether posting a bounty is equal to product endorsement or not. Hint: It isn't. Note: There is a distinct difference between posting an ANN and posting a bounty. A bounty thread does not mean automatic product endorsement. |
|
|
|
Posting something =/= endorsing something, especially NOT when a disclaimer is present. If one fails to read or understand the disclaimer, then it is only their (the participant's) fault. This "measure" does not have a single positive effect, but will rather lead to more and more BM work being settled via 3rd party communication platforms and posted by random lower-ranking accounts.
Your point being? 99.9% of bounty participants have 0 contributions to the forum.
Exactly. The current super-majority are jr. member spammers; thus the damage (not being paid out fictional tokens) is negligible when you look at the big picture.
Luckily none of you are lawmakers anywhere.  |
|
|
|
So you wanted to give him positive trust to counter the negative? Now you want to leave the negative and remove the positive he has already received?
-snip-
Removing previous positive =/= leaving negative =/= countering negative. You brain is clearly unable to comprehend this. Now go back to your little account-selling dungeon, 'jeet. We really need to stop giving out 'positive trust', which is obviously seen as something *prestige* (unfortunately), as references to successful trades. Positive trust from DT for e.g. 0.01-2 BTC trades is ridiculous at best, naive and stupid at worst[1].
Strongly agree with it. I have seen lot of positive rating only for trade. I don't think it's necesarry. But leave a neutral feedback for such as trade appriceated. Not even a neutral is required. A positive can be placed once a sufficient sum has been traded/risked. |
|
|
|
That said, I'm going to change my feedback on him to a neutral, since in the deal we did he was the one to send funds first and thus I didn't really risk anything. There's enough doubt in my mind about his other actions that I don't think he needs a DT positive for that.
I advise others to do the same or completely pull their feedback. We really need to stop giving out 'positive trust', which is obviously seen as something *prestige* (unfortunately), as references to successful trades. Positive trust from DT for e.g. 0.01-2 BTC trades is ridiculous at best, naive and stupid at worst[1].
[1] This is IMO - readers: do not get triggered if you see the 'trust system' as a *trade system*. |
|
|
|
Marlboroza should remove his rating
This won't happen. Not with all these things I have just discovered. So, the current sentiment is stronger than the reason behind the initial rating. or someone should counter it.
Then counter it. Sigh. I don't really know OP, but you will see how this pattern (applied to others) will make matters worse in due time. Hint: It's already very bad if you start looking through other platforms. So how the hell is this guy trusted member of this community?
He never was. People need to stop leaving trust ratings for $5 deals. |
|
|
|
Step 2 is nonsense. A BM is not qualified in any way to judge the idea, nor are 99.99% of the bounty participants and users of this forum. Anecdotal evidence proving said statement: Market cap of 99% of the altcoins based on coinmarketcap data.
One of things that can be done is *verify* that the claimed 'pictures' are actually individuals that are behind the project. This can be done via a video. You, however, can't verify their identities.
A BM should look out for the investor's and hunter's best interest when taking upon a project, although I do half agree with you. A BM has nothing to do with investors, nor is he/she required to do their due diligence. Accepting a project =/= endorsement =/= guaranteed/expected high returns. We aren't going to censor projects based on potential returns now, are we? |
|
|
|
|
Step 2 is nonsense. A BM is not qualified in any way to judge the idea, nor are 99.99% of the bounty participants and users of this forum. Anecdotal evidence proving said statement: Market cap of 99% of the altcoins based on coinmarketcap data.
One of things that can be done is *verify* that the claimed 'pictures' are actually individuals that are behind the project. This can be done via a video. You, however, can't verify their identities.
|
|
|
|
Oh but it does have a positive effect, you can bet that he, and others who find out about this, won't slack off when it comes to doing their due diligence.
It does not. Your emotional argument against OP is your own thing that is not of concern of me. Based on past ways of settling similar situations, Marlboroza should remove his rating or someone should counter it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
