At this stage, maintaining objectivity, I can't hold Lauda accountable for BitBlissCoin & aTriz's actions. In a somewhat similar way, why I do not hold OgNasty accountable for Pirateat40's scam. Keep in mind, I have no knowledge of how ALU operates behind-the-scenes. (nor do I know what was discussed directly between OgNasty & Pirateat40)

I've always assumed ALU was an organization formed between aTriz, Lauda, and Untold. It appeared that aTriz & Lauda were the main points of contact on the initial announcement, eventually becoming just aTriz. aTriz seemed to be handling main agreements with clients and [I assume] passing any needed tasks down to approved vendors (so to speak), whom I believe was just aTriz, Lauda, Untold, and the CET team (Blazed, minerjones, Mitchell, Lauda) handling potential services at the time of BitBlissCoin. It appears BitBlissCoin only used campaign management services. That's just my interpretation on what I've seen publicly. It appears now like there is a voting system and other structures of ALU that I am not familiar with, so I'm not sure if agreements were voted on or how that works.

A campaign manager should want to do this for transparency & protection. Would be great to see that transparency globally but nobody is required to do it.

You have obviously been banned before.

I dislike appeasing those that want negative feedback for the wrong reasons, but I've done what I felt was right, and tried to be as objective as I could in the process.

Maybe "vouch" is not be the best word, but without disclaimers disassociating a campaign manager from the ICO, it is misleading, certainly to new members who probably don't even know campaign managers exist. This may be more of a global issue with managers/ICOs though. I'm not sure why campaign managers need to post the announcement themselves? is it to bring more credibility to the ICO because of their higher rank??  As a suggestion, prepare the post and send it to the ICO owner to post it from their [newbie] account/Copper. They can then announce whoever as the campaign manager and define his/her actual role with the ICO and that they do not endorse the validity of the ICO. This would be a little more transparent.

Regardless of that, the fact that aTriz was aware of this "marketing strategy" and was ok with it, to say the least, is disappointing - and alarming.

(FTFY - I'm not sure what this image posted was supposed to be showing, it's an empty album for me)

aTriz has obviously known this ICO was fabricating numbers since the pre-ICO in order to trick investors into eventually thinking there was over 3 MILLION dollars raised when there was apparently only 1BTC ($9,000-$10,000) raised

If we want to call this a "marketing strategy", it should be identified as a "scammers marketing strategy". Is this how other managers run their campaigns?  I've been giving aTriz a very large benefit of doubt with his alia encounter and the unusual behavior and apparent naiveness displayed multiple times, but this seems inexcusable.

No campaign manager should be seeing this as a marketing strategy and letting it go unhindered, especially from a group like ALU whom centers themselves around being "Trusted. Experienced." The sole purpose of this strategy is to deceive investors into thinking an ICO has more financial support than it actually does and is a classic way for scam ICOs to bait investors. Both smart & dumb investors look at the financial support of an ICO, with good reason, and when you combine the speed at which these supposed investors were fake investing, and the seemingly fake hype in the thread about all of their investors... it's just deceitful and untrustworthy behavior, a campaign manager that sees this, accepts it as marketing, and does nothing - also not trustworthy.

Actions speak louder than words, and a handful of aTriz's recent actions are concerning to me. I can understand the reluctancy Lauda, but you must have similar disdain here. I really can't believe you would have knowledge of this type of behavior from a campaign manager and be ok with it, especially given your support for my feedback when looking into Deja who was conducting similar shady behavior and lying about invested funds.

I'm eager to hear other opinions.

This is nothing but deceitful nonsense. What you call a "marketing strategy", I would call fraud.

Scammer: a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.
Swindle: to obtain money or property by fraud or deceit
Fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.


No, you are not forced to do anything you do not want to do here, especially when someone is being fraudulent.

You are ok with ICOs stating false information about how much they have raised to other potential investors... and you would call this a marketing strategy?

I'm confused. 2 investors?





3,111,374 * $.85  = $2,644,667.90 invested


EDIT:
Additionally, there was apparently a pre-ICO sale for 3 days (really *hot* ICO here ), which of course sold out. 660,000 BIBC ("$510,000 raised") here ?   
Nope, no scammers here. /s

Strong logic on linking me as a bought account by QuickSeller.  /s  

Shared interests happen all the time on this forum. If you really think there is only one person interested enough about what theymos thinks about Lauda, you're misinformed.

You are forgetting that those enemies would have to find a DT1/2 member willing to sell their account. In addition, any feedback or exclusions done to other DT members is going to be heavily reviewed and potentially countered, which has already happened a few times, so if enemies are trying to buy DT accounts for the sole purpose to hurt Lauda, it's not the best use of resources and will likely backfire.

I've seen plenty of accusations about Lauda having alts, in general, but I've never seen a valid accusation about Lauda owning DT1 or 2 accounts so I'm not sure wtf you are talking about.

And how exactly am I acting like a "bought account"?
I'm the one and only human behind this account since its creation, so I hope you have something to back up your flawed intuition?

Not to sound condescending, but it was somewhat obvious that the stats were related to April fools, and very entertaining seeing some of the replies here.

Looking back, my post is even more humorous now that I know how politeness/virtue were actually being calculated.  

Since it was technically a joke, I probably shouldn't read too much into this, however, this means Lauda would have ended up with 0 for virtue and have been the lowest member of virtue on the forum. Interesting?

Why poke fun at politeness?  The world would be better off with more of it. The only keyword I may agree with to poke fun at here is "Sir"
Please, Sir, pardon my politeness, but may I be the first to say that a thanks is in order? .. because this was very much appreciated.. thank you.  

All in all, this was fun and entertaining.

And congratulations to Gleb, well deserved!  

Now, Sir, to honor you... we shall hoist you up on our shoulders in a pink tutu and parade you around the forum.
(Don't get too excited nullius, I do not believe he does erotic skype sessions. *cough*alia*cough*)  

Can someone make an infographic?

I've left feedback to warn others, sorry for your loss OP.

DT members are not moderators nor a God. There are plenty of things you can do on this forum with your account, even with one red trust from Lauda, so it certainly isn't useless. Buying a new account will usually not end well for you. Register again or do something worthwhile on the forum to earn good trust.

Activity: 1160
Merit: 1181
Politeness: 287
fMerit: 123
Imagination: 115
Virtue: 7
Coins: 188
Karma: 15
Posts: 1160

Good news is, I have the same amount of virtue as theymos.
Bad news is, I'm apparently not polite enough  

Can you help me occupy my brain?

Satoshi wouldn't be posting here at all because it is protected by Cloudflare! 

I might trust my doctor to have good judgement on what medication I need but I wouldn't trust his or her judgement to leave feedback to someone on this forum.  

---

The doctor doesn't even know who Lauda is, nor the knowledge needed to make Lauda send a signed message to verify Lauda == his patient!  

Do DT members get some sort of guidelines sent to them by theymos when they are added to DT1?  Blazed mentioned theymos said "Add people based on how they help the network not based on trade feedback", which makes sense to me, but I'm seeing a few comments here which seem to imply DT members are being added based on trades, in general. DT1/DT2 members leaving positive trust for someone is what I would see as someone saying "I trust this person, based on this particular trade/reason/comment".

nonnakip should have just gotten positive trust, and maybe multiple, based on various work or trades with Og/Nasty*. I feel like Og's response to nonnakip being added to DT2 may just be "Well, I trust him!".. which he may, but does the inclusion of nonnakip help the DT network, no. Does it hurt it? Short-term probably no, long-term may be debatable. Unless there are specific guidelines sent to DT1 members like Og* specifically stating all of this, it seems tough to deem this "DT abuse". Maybe I've missed it but I'm not sure I've ever really seen any public guidelines involving DT1 members and why they should or should not be adding people to DT2.

It seems like the real question to be asked for inclusion by DT1 members is "Do I trust this persons feedback and/or judgement of other members on this forum?" If the person has not left feedback for others, there is nothing to go off of. Even if the person added has left good feedback on eBay and gives you good feedback on your product/services directly, it doesn't mean they are going to have useful or accurate feedback on this forum towards other members, and so while they may be trustworthy to you, I'm not sure they are beneficial to the DefaultTrust network which serves an important niche of the community.

As for centralization/decentralization of DT. It makes me nervous to think of many more DT1 or DT2 members being added to the DT network as a way to decentralize it, as I believe this increases the percentage of shadiness/scams that may occur within DT, and DT-level shadiness IMO is the worst kind because of the power it creates, whether the power was intended or not - it exists, and higher-level scams may likely occur more often when those percentages of DT members suddenly increase. Adding more DT members in the name of decentralization feels like a double-edged sword to me.


It would be nice to hear theymos clarify what he meant when he referred to the DT network becoming centralized, as maybe I have misinterpreted this. My take was that centralization of power was occurring around the activity level of a handful of DT members, as opposed to being related to the count of DT members. Additions and/or exclusions may need to happen, but educated decisions in a slow and controlled manner.. not just add a bunch of new DT1/DT2 members and say we are more decentralized now.

Message verifies. I've left feedback to for awareness.

I took the implied accusations in this thread as an attempt to mock your recent threads, combined with possibly a bit of retaliation. I realize this thread may have been started for other reasons or to make a point, in a witty/mocking sort of way, but your threads have similar characteristics and I look for any facts or evidence you may present that is worth looking at, as I've done here.

As was the case with an outrageous claim about a pill addiction, you started it with zero evidence (but the possibility of good evidence) and ultimately just made statements about a secret source whom you would never name nor present any evidence the source gave you. Vod is starting this thread maybe with a bit of subjective mocking but also providing blockchain & post evidence showing TF sent you 20BTC for the purpose of a civil action lawsuit against Vod and you appear to have received it and never did anything with it. Is it your claim you did pursue a lawsuit or are you denying this transaction ever happened?  I'm curious what your stance is here?



How is this prima facie evidence?
I'll agree he began the same trollish-like behavior on these threads that have been done in the past with other threads attacking him, which could be interpreted as a hypersensitive reaction for someone who is frequently attacked with threads of this nature.
Lauda implicitly or explicitly denying the allegation is a denial of the allegation.
Whether he said he was or was not going to respond beforehand doesn't seem relevant.

When you finish with "and later claim", this has not happened yet, and appears like speculation, so I've disregarded the rest of this sentence until additional evidence is presented.
Could this be prima facie evidence if your speculation comes true, maybe if any evidence is strong enough, but one will never know because you don't seem to be willing to show any evidence and this comes off as prima facie evidence that you are acting in bad faith.

Updated OP
Added some questions, adjusted merit source numbers, and more font/color changes because I'm slightly anal-retentive.