These accounts have been sending merits each other...

visionary
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=58779
identifyuser
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=227450
Camus
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=319059
NetFreak199
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=819793
chixka000
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=821846
alexberezov
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1066970

They are already red tagged as alts by The Pharmacist, but further red tags for merit abuse looks like necessary.  One can check that they are meriting each other for shit posts.  For example, identifyuser sent merits only four times.

20 Merits to NetFreak199

is the development of project progressing according to the roadmap presented on site, or are there deviations?

40 Merits to alexberezov

Look at more photos from "Blockchain & Bitcoin Conference Kyiv 2018", which was held on March 29, on our Instagram channel (en): https://www.instagram.com/all.me_official/

it is a good idea to draw attention to the brand, this I have not met at any conference

16 Merits to visionary

congratulations on the successful completion of ICO! I am sure that the bounty campaign will also be completed successfully

34 Merits to visionary

What happened with KYC.legal Telegram Official (eng) channel which link was posted in Ann thread previously, it was transformed to KYC.legal (support)? There too many fake accounts nowadays, so it`s important to get real and fresh news.

just this channel has renamed and fake accounts has used earlier, there is no wonder

I don't think these posts deserve a lot of merits.  And identifyuser received a lot of merits from them... Again, they are all shit posts.

Received in the last 120 days

May 14, 2018, 08:58:34 PM: 10 from NetFreak199 for Re: 🌟[ANN][ICO] Coinlancer.io CL - Freelancers Of The World Unite - ICO| 14th OCT🌟
May 14, 2018, 08:56:26 PM: 9 from visionary for Re: 🔥[ANN] [NEW BOUNTY] SHIFT CASH - Shift your Car title into cash🔥🚀
May 14, 2018, 08:55:44 PM: 1 from alexberezov for Re: [ANN][ICO+Bounty] Midex | Financial platform with LICENSED exchange
May 10, 2018, 08:31:57 AM: 15 from visionary for Re: [ICO] BitDice - Join The ICO Of The Biggest Crowdfunded Casino With 2300Ƀ PROFIT
May 01, 2018, 04:36:02 PM: 26 from visionary for Re: [ANN][MicroMoney] The New Global Crypto Economy
May 01, 2018, 04:35:05 PM: 31 from chixka000 for Re: [ANN][ICO] PAYCENTOS - Bridging the Gap Between Cryptocurrency and Fiat
May 01, 2018, 04:33:35 PM: 36 from Camus for Re: [ANN][ICO] PAYCENTOS - Bridging the Gap Between Cryptocurrency and Fiat
May 01, 2018, 04:32:48 PM: 27 from NetFreak199 for Re: [ANN][ICO] Global marketplace Storiqa
May 01, 2018, 04:31:42 PM: 45 from alexberezov for Re: [ANN][LATX - Token Sale] Latium Tasking Platform
...

I reported a potential abuse by a bounty manager Anon11073 here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3488441.0
[ Off-topic but he is a merit source and his abuse of 30 source merits was reported here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3443147.0 ]

He is the bounty manager of cosplay token and joined the signature campaign of his own bounty on 6th April.  After 6th April he made 6 posts by Monday, which is less than the minimum requirement of 10 posts per week.  Nevertheless, he gave himself a stake for his first week...  He claims that posts before wearing the signature should be included; in this case his posts made between 2nd to 5th April, even though they were posted before wearing the signature, which is why he added a stake.  He argues that all the participants' counting follow this rule.

I was not sure if it is normal or not... such a counting rule is not written in the rule of the signature campaign, and obviously it is not logical simply because they were posted before wearing the signature.  Finally, while he wrote "all the participants", he is the only person who benefits from this special rule.  

There certainly was no other user applicable, but posts when not signed were also counted.
I did not add a rule. If I do a bounty campaign in the future, it will count in the same way.

To me, it looks like he added the special rule only for himself, which is an abuse of his position as the bounty manager, but I was not sure if it is normal counting or not...  Any feedback from senior bounty managers/participants would be helpful.

[Signature campaign: $30,000(at COT) 30%]

Originally I was just going through altcoin section and noticed an account sent a lot of merits to announcement threads as a merit source, which I reported in this thread.  Further look of his post history, now this account turned out to be even worse as a bounty manager embezzling tokens worth $4000 by cheating his post count, which forced me to open this thread...  

Anon11073 is the bounty manager of "cosplay token" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2843223.0
and participating his own signature campaign, whose rules look like standard ones:

...

• Signature campaign: $30,000(at COT) 30%

...
Rules

• At least ten posts are required per week by the end of ICO.
• Only posts other than Cosplay Token related threads will be counted.

...

• Posts with the following topics are not counted. Marketplace, Off-topic, Archival, Marketplace (Altcoins)

...

When checking his post history, I found that 90% of his posts remain in the bounty thread during the campaign.  He posted info on "Current participants" for the campaign multiple times a day.  The following quotes are examples.  I am not snipping his posts, these are the whole part of his posts.  Almost the same posts, not sure if it is necessary to post them...  

Cosplay Token Info


Current participants
Signature campaign: 17/250
Article/Media campaign: 250/250
Twitter campaign: 261/300
Facebook campaign: 148/150
Telegram campaign: 305/1500

Cosplay Token Info


Current participants
Signature campaign: 17/250
Article/Media campaign: 250/250
Twitter campaign: 261/300
Facebook campaign: 148/150
Telegram campaign: 305/1500

Of course these posts are in the bounty thread, and should not be counted for signature campaign.  However, the thing is that, it turned out that he counted these posts as signature stakes and continued it for 4 weeks.  I checked his 120 posts during 4 weeks and if one follows the rule above, his post count is actually 3, 3, 6, 3 for each of 4 weeks, none of which satisfies the minimum requirement of 10 posts per week, since most of his posts remain in the bounty thread.  

At the end of the day, the spreadsheet of the bounty thread shows that he got 12 stakes in total for 4 weeks, which is 13% of the total stakes in signature campaign.  Since tokens worth $30,000 is allocated for the signature campaign, he earned tokens worth $4000.

One thing is that in principle he could have 10 posts at the deadline of each week and then part of them were deleted after that for some reason.  It could happen but I doubt if it could happen for successive 4 weeks...  If it is the case, 24 posts should have been deleted, which implies his posts did not satisfy the requirement of "constructive posts" anyway.

Another thing is that I am not sure if the forum has unofficial allowed culture for bounty manager to count his stakes in an exceptional way...  At least it is not the case for several bounty managers I checked:  Some of them counted correctly, some of them only wear the avatar and didn't count their stakes, and others were not participating their own campaigns.  

So in general, are posts by a bounty manager exception of the counting rule for the signature campaign he is managing?  If the answer is no and it should be counted as usual, Anon11073 is cheating his stakes and stealing $4000...

[Anon11073]

Since I am not sure if this is allowed or not in the forum, let me ask in this thread:  Is it allowed for a merit source to send a lot of merits to announcement threads for coins for which he is the bounty manager and translator of the announcements?

I know some people send merits to announcement threads for their favorite coins as just "like".  I do not like that type of use as it is not suitable for the original aim of the merit system, but I admit that ultimately how to use merits depends on each person... However, what about if a merit source is sending merits to the announcement threads for which he is the bounty manager and translator?  To me, it smells like an abuse of merits.

I found this account  

Anon11073
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=969327

has sent 25 merits to announcement threads:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1847292
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2933939
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2821548
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2825011

From his post history, I found that he is actually the bounty manager for one of these coins.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2843223.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2843224.0

He is also a translator of the another coin's announcement thread.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2719420.0

Actually his post history shows that more than 90% of his recent posts are shit posts to these threads... so he has earned a few merits so far.  Wait, then why did he have a lot of smerits sent to the announcement threads?  I noticed one possibility... he must be a merit source.  My guess was correct, there was a clear transition in his merit sending history on March 20, and by checking his posts around the date, I found this post

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=877.msg32817882#msg32817882

in which he disclosed that he was designated as a merit source.  According to google translate:

"Today, three merit sources including me have been added to the Japanese board."

In addition, I found he is the moderator of the local board!

I do not know why this guy was designated as a merit source and moderator... he is absolutely not suitable for a merit source... you can check his merit history and that he wasted most of his source merits to the announcement threads... I think it is an abuse of merit, but is it allowed for merit sources to use their merits in such a way?

Update 1:

This merit source continues to award announcement threads... Here is new award, he abused 5 source merits in addition to the above 25:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2416310.0

Update 2:

I am sure he is a merit source as

1) he wrote that he was designated as a merit source,

2) there is a clear transition of his merit sending history, and

3) from direct calculation below:
Using the formula theymos provided and taking his rank Sr. Member and his register date March 15, 2017, his initial smerit should be less than

9.5 months / 12 months * 0.25 * 250 = 50

He has earned 16 merits = 8 smerits so far so his smerit is less than 58 in total if he is not a source.  However, he has sent 92 smerits in total, so he is a source.

The exact formula was:

Code:

yearActivity = activity in the last ~year, max 378
freeMerit = the merit (not sMerit) you started with
modifier =
  0.1 if member
  0.2 if full member
  0.25 if sr member
  0.35 if hero
  0.4 if legendary

return (yearActivity/378) * modifier * freeMerit