I'm a Leo

Going to take a lot more than that to turn it around.  SYS is still not a complete working model integrated into the wallet.  Beyond that the market is down upon checking it, last night it was around 118, now around 111 sats and likely due to holders alerted by your post that want out of it, and they dump it and thus the increased volume.  Confidence is just not there anymore, there are too many coins in circulation for a price for a day to be believed, a trend must be observed and that can only originate with the advancement of the product in the hands of the end user.  shericon, your intentions are golden, but you need to understand what you are up against here, SYS has been back burnered by the devs, not even the actions of the community can correct this, the longer it runs the more long term damage is sustained.

I've already proven that I'm willing to remove feedback by removing feedback from nexusmining. Like I said, I've reached out to der_troll who has simply ignored my PM's. I'm willing to remove that negative feedback, der_troll just has to be willing to do the same and get in touch with me.

coming from a former member of the group, this is RIGHT ON POINT!!!

edit: OMG after being away from alt markets for a month or two, going back and reading this thread is just EPIC.... fuckin' legandary mate.... sry for all the legit 'investors' that got scammed

3k in BTC. This was an epic scam play by Zimbeck, Bter, Lin (ceo of Bter). They hired Bob S and his crew to market the coin. Something didn't work (withheld payment or something) out and a shit fuck fest broke loose. They are all flinging shit like at everyone crazed ape at the zoo! Now David is playing saint and innocent. On this mess for 3 weeks but had no idea who Bob Surplus is.  

I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account. Even if 90% of the time the people are right, there's still a 10% rate that it will be abused. Given the weight that a trusted negative feedback carries (Warning: Trade With Extreme Caution!) it doesn't seem to me that the system would work in the long run as more and more people would start to gain this power, and it would become harder and harder to monitor and deal with.

I see a main problem is negative feedback is being given because of a personal view on things, and not having to do with scamming or potentially scamming. Even if 90% of everything is right, again it still opens up the chance for 10% abuse, which would be 1/10 times a reputable members account would be damaged. As the trust web grows it would be harder and harder to deal with this, and there's a lot of problems you could run into when removing it. In order for this to not happen I think it would be a good idea to keep the trust system in a monitored rate, where only people that have proven that their opinions are correct, that are willing to quickly correct something they did wrong, and that show the responsibility to not abuse the system and their power if something doesn't go their way or if they get mad are given the power to negative rep someone's account and have it show up on their main profile.


The Default Trust Members and people who carry the high feedback weight are like the Bitcoin Police. In a regular police force, a cop wouldn't be able to give a recommendation to someone and them become part of the team. Sure, the cop might personally know that person and know they're a good person, but they haven't gone through the process of being a cop. As more and more recommendations are given out, you'd eventually have citizens killing other citizens and making decisions that aren't really applicable to the law or what they are supposed to be doing. It would be hard to monitor because there would be so many people to deal with that finding the rights and wrongs would take more time than humanly possible. If the trust system isn't kept at a monitorable rate, pretty soon there will be newbies having more say in a situation than a reputable member who's been here for years (Which I believe is already close to what happened in Canaries case).