Do you want to bet on that?

Yes, just like that proof

That is when they were last active, and when is the latest you could have been added. It is possible you were added previous to this time, and some have this data.

I also received the below PM from someone asking to buy accounts from me:
This guy has received trust regarding claimed successful accounts deals.

It is interesting to see these kinds of messages so soon after opening this thread

There is proof the accounts in question are both purchased and owned by the same person. It is undeniable that you have declined to answer questions about if you have lobbied people or otherwise given incentives to people to add you to their trust lists.

There is also this...

These statements do not agree with each other

I want to confirm lauda's response first.

It should not be difficult to find evidence yourself though. Just pick one person who has added lauda to their trust list; there is a ~1 in 9 chance of it being a clearly purchased account, and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.

I am going to take your post as a refusal to answer my questions...

It is very interesting to see you not answer questions about asking people and/or giving incentives to people to add you to their trust lists.

Lauda has claimed to have sent negative trust to >1000 "scammers" however as noted here, lauda has failed to leave negative trust to 6 clearly purchased accounts, all owned by the same person who all have lauda on their trust lists, as well as an account seller who clearly sold one of the accounts in question.


This amounts to over 11% of those who have lauda on their trust lists, and this only accounts that I have uncovered after a quick review.

Lauda has failed to respond to questions regarding if he has used sockpuppets to add himself to his sockpuppets trust lists, and has failed to respond to questions regarding if he has lobbied anyone to add him to their trust list.

How do Blazed, hilariousandco and salty feel about this? Is it appropriate to be selective in when negative trust should be sent? Lauda is well known to have sent hundreds of negative ratings to those who he claims to be sold accounts.

Salty previously claimed to have added lauda to his trust list because of the 'will of the people'. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say this is closer to the will of one person. Or maybe it is best accurately described as being the will of lauda.

I want to be clear if you have any intention of answering my questions about you using sockpuppets to add yourself to your sockpuppets trust lists, and question about lobbying people to add you to their trust lists.

Hmmm, these statements seem to contradict each-other

Maybe I should rephrase my question, have you ever lobbied (or otherwise incentivized) anyone to add you to their trust list? This would include lobbying anyone with a farm of accounts to add you to their trust list.

Or maybe I should ask another question.....do any of your alts, past and/or present, have you on your trust list?

So you are saying that you have absolutely nothing to do with all these accounts adding you to their trust list? I want to be very clear on this.

Actually significantly less than 50% of those who excluded you have a "warning: Trade with extreme caution" tag on their profile because of you.

The purpose of this thread is to question why a certain number of purchased accounts all clearly owned by the same person all have you on their trust list.

While reviewing those who have the extrotionist lauda on their trust list as of the last trust dump (from I believe Feb 17, 2018), and I came across something very concerning.

A total of 53 people have Lauda on this trust list (which is roughly 1/2 of the number of people who have excluded Lauda from their trust list).

What is most concerning is that of the 53 accounts who have Lauda on their trust list, 6 accounts are part of a farm of purchased accounts that are owned by the same person. I am wanting to know why over 11% of those who have lauda on their trust list are all owned by the same person.

These accounts were purchased on or around (very broadly) January 2016, yet none of them have negative trust from Lauda (as of early morning Feb 22, 2018). I also came across an account seller while reviewing these very clearly sold accounts that also does not have negative trust from Lauda.

I would also like to know why neither any of these 6 accounts nor the account seller have any kind of negative trust from Lauda.

One of these accounts was last active as of late May 2017, and most were last active as of June 2017, so I can rule out someone recently adding Lauda to their trust lists.

edit:
Lauda has neglected to answer questions regarding if he has added himself to his sockpuppets trust lists, and has neglected to answer questions regarding if he has lobbied or given incentives for people to add him to their trust lists.


edit2:
Lauda himself was able to "figure out" which accounts I am referring to, however has refused to leave negative trust against any of them despite him making a name for himself as someone who leaves negative trust against "all" sold accounts.

I don't see any reason to allow a "~" at the beginning of usernames.

For those who are interested this is an interesting report on tether by bitmex.

I think this is a good example of a frivolous accusation.

I think the large difference between the average and the median number of merits received is an indication that most participants receive either no, or very little merits for their posts.

He excluded someone who is very clearly utilizing sockpuppets, and likely has over a decade long history of doing so...

The obvious sockpuppet account is obvious.