Should people who promote ponzis in their signature be given a negative trust?

[Patejl]

I have noticed that although promoting a ponzi in the investor based games may be allowed by default trust members as the promotion is limited to people who fairly understand the risks of investing.
But what about accounts that promote it in their signature and essentially promise a fake return to people who may not understand yet how ponzis work?
I have heard about cloudminig's example where dserrano5 was about to be given negative trust for such behavious but was probably forgiven by most people, but should the other people be allowed to promote it?

[1714763196]

1714763196

[1714763196]

1714763196

[1714763196]

1714763196

[1714763196]

1714763196

[1714763196]

1714763196

[21coin]

Voted yes, down with the ponzis.

[Vod]

Topic title and question title are asking two different things...

[Patejl]

Topic title and question title are asking two different things...

How so? I think they are essentially the same thing, correct me if I am wrong

[Vod]

Topic title and question title are asking two different things...

How so? I think they are essentially the same thing, correct me if I am wrong

Let's say I am very anti-ponzi.

Should people who promote ponzis in their signature be given a negative trust?  YES
Should ponzis be allowed to be advertised in signatures?  NO

[Patejl]

Topic title and question title are asking two different things...

How so? I think they are essentially the same thing, correct me if I am wrong

Let's say I am very anti-ponzi.

Should people who promote ponzis in their signature be given a negative trust?  YES
Should ponzis be allowed to be advertised in signatures?  NO

Realized my mistake, edited the poll accordingly.

[iCan]

It's a quite hard question, and in my opinion in this case we can count on the Criminal Code. In my country there is no criminal responsibility for information distribution of some pyramid investment scheme or other financials bubbles. So I think people who promote ponzis in their signature can also be cheated so they should't be given a negative trust.

[21coin]

It's a quite hard question, and in my opinion in this case we can count on the Criminal Code. In my country there is no criminal responsibility for information distribution of some pyramid investment scheme or other financials bubbles. So I think people who promote ponzis in their signature can also be cheated so they should't be given a negative trust.

Well it doesnt work the same way in bitcointalk. Negative trust "definition" is : You believe the person is a scammer or you highly believe he is going to scam. But you are free to have your opinion

[minifrij]

What is the definition of a ponzi in this case?
Do cloudmining sites count? What about some shady gambling sites? Or are we just talking about the obvious 'Double your coins in a day' ponzis?

[Patejl]

What is the definition of a ponzi in this case?
Do cloudmining sites count? What about some shady gambling sites? Or are we just talking about the obvious 'Double your coins in a day' ponzis?

Official definition is: A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent.
So I think cloudmining without any proof of their mining equipment should be included in the same category as ponzis, gambling sites don't count as "shady" is the farthest you can go, but ponzis you can be sure they'll end up as scam.

[shorena]

I have noticed that although promoting a ponzi in the investor based games may be allowed by default trust members as the promotion is limited to people who fairly understand the risks of investing.
But what about accounts that promote it in their signature and essentially promise a fake return to people who may not understand yet how ponzis work?
I have heard about cloudminig's example where dserrano5 was about to be given negative trust for such behavious but was probably forgiven by most people, but should the other people be allowed to promote it?

Thanks for the thread.

It's a quite hard question, and in my opinion in this case we can count on the Criminal Code. In my country there is no criminal responsibility for information distribution of some pyramid investment scheme or other financials bubbles. So I think people who promote ponzis in their signature can also be cheated so they should't be given a negative trust.

AFAIK (not the actual law of your country obviously) this ruling only applies if someone does not know they are promoting a ponzi. If you have a ref code for a ponzi scheme in your signature you know its a ponzi. You are fully aware that you need to lure people into the scheme for you to benefit from their loss. I am not talking about cloud mining services that might turn out to be ponzis.

What is the definition of a ponzi in this case?
Do cloudmining sites count? What about some shady gambling sites? Or are we just talking about the obvious 'Double your coins in a day' ponzis?

IMHO this is the important question to ask. After giving it some though[1] I would certainly draw the line where someone guarantees a return that can not be reasonably done without ripping someone off or promisses high free bonuses. A clear example would be this signature[2]:

Free 500$- www.bitcointalk.org/ref?=123, 3% for 75 days, ROI 325%- www.google.com/ref?=abc, Game- http://bitcoin.org/ref?=bct

It should be obvious that these are ponzi schemes and that they not be sustainable, on the other hand it should also be obvious that you should not give a loan without collateral to a newbie.

[1] I asked Patejl to make this thread so I had an hour or so to think about it.
[2] URL and names changed.

[GannickusX]

Definitely yes, a lot of them have neg trust by promoting ponzies but its amusing how people defend it with things like: "people know its a ponzi" or "it's an honest ponzi" like please wtf is going, we allow scams because they tell us are scams

[iCan]

in this case I think you should notice this person that he advertising scam, and explain him his responsibilities. And only after conversations and explanation you could give him a negative trust.

[qwk]

When it comes to questions about how to use the trust system, I always try to assume the position of a complete newb.
Does my trust rating effectively warn the newb in a way that prevents him from falling for a scam?

I don't think that a newb will make a direct connection between the trust rating of a member and his signature, so the answer to the question above in this case will most likely be no. If there were a way to somehow flag the signature itself as untrustworthy, I'd totally do that.

On the other hand, if I started to deal out negative trust ratings towards members who display signatures of ponzis, more people would take more care about which signature campaigns they partake in. Which could eventually lead to the point where "bad" signature campaigns will no longer be able to find takers.
I would harm a lot of members by doing that, though.
For me, this seems to be too much damage for too little of an effect.

[ndnh]

The real reason why Investor-based games board was made was to move all those ponzis into it, wait.. wait.. and then BAN!

[Patejl]

If anyone wanted an example of someone doing the things I have written in OP that is promoting ponzi in their signature here is an example.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=492957

[ranochigo]

I don't think they really deserve the negative trust. Neutral would be more reasonable. Most people would be quite motivated to put on a signature if the payment is high. If they are promoting ponzi, it would potentially cause more people to become victims. Some ponzis are actually quite hard to see through, anything promising high returns is potentially a ponzi while cloudmining contracts are harder to see through. Unless it is in escrow, most people would be quite reluctant to join though.

[erikalui]

Actually the signature campaigns should be banned rather than those who promote it. The people who promote it do so as they get paid but why should these companies be set free and allowed to advertise on the forum? When the websites aren't promoted here and they aren't allowed to have a campaign, there will be no need to worry about. The people who promote it aren't scamming anyone and giving them a negative trust doesn't sound logical IMHO. Those people definitely are doing an unethical thing but aren't scammers.

[Patejl]

Actually the signature campaigns should be banned rather than those who promote it. The people who promote it do so as they get paid but why should these companies be set free and allowed to advertise on the forum? When the websites aren't promoted here and they aren't allowed to have a campaign, there will be no need to worry about. The people who promote it aren't scamming anyone and giving them a negative trust doesn't sound logical IMHO. Those people definitely are doing an unethical thing but aren't scammers.

Although many people who promote it using their signatures are actually the owners of the site.

[cakir]

Ponzis are considered as gambling by this community. (Check the Gambling section: and you can see the ponzi section under it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=56.0 )

And you're wearing a gambling signature. Since gambling is illegal in the most of the world, You should get neg trust too by your logic.

You've chance to win money on ponzis (if you get in early.) You've chance to win money on dice sites etc.

So I've voted no. Also; "Caveat Emptor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor