I respectfully request that sticky posts which are expected to be read by newbies specifically warn that the status of 'staff', 'moderator', 'hero member', positive ratings, etc on Bitcointalk.org should NOT be used to weigh credibility of efforts that such persons may be involved in.
Well, newbies
will turn to
someone, when it comes to "shut up and take my money".
[...]
I just don't see a real solution to the underlying problem with newbies wanting to "invest" into something they don't yet understand.
Half a year ago or so ago I seemed to sense a few new users who immediately became 'donators' and started efforts which seemed to be questionable. I think that it should be noted that the only criteria for being a 'donator' is forking over some money to the operators of the site. I never did understand what a 'vip' is, and the whole 'default trust' thing is not something I understood (or really tried to to be honest.)
I once made a list comparing Donators and VIPs regarding the amount of SCAMMER tags. Donators are much less likely to scam others than VIPs.
If in doubt, trust a Donator!
Seriously though, you're absolutely right, donating money to the forum is one thing but it doesn't really say a lot about the trustworthiness of said person.
At least, it makes scamming expensive. If you paid 10 BTC for Donator status, you're probably not going to throw away your reputation for anything less than a few hundred coins. Also, if you already have that kind of money, you're just less likely to scam in order to make some more.
I do chronically look at the posting history of people who start a business venture. To that end, a long history can help since it is unlikely that someone developed a 2-3 year history intending to scam and didn't yet get around to it. If the sticky documents are updated, it might be suggested that this is a viable method of research.
I guess we all do that. But how many newbies will be able to follow our example?
The best advice for
them is not to make deals with
anyone as long as they're not able to figure it out for themselves.
But will rubbing their nose into such a "prime directive" really make a difference?
I've just seen so many few-day-old accounts throwing their first coins at whoever offers running a cash-printing-machine for them (i.e. ASIC group buy) that I just gave up on
them.
Probably the best thing would be a change of the Trust system where
everyone's trust rating is reduced to -100 for
any new user before
they hit something like senior status. That way,
they'd at least see
all of us as "
Warning! Trade with extreme caution".
I really think that could work, ridiculous as it may seem. It'd certainly ring some alarm bells.
OTOH, if all you see are crooks, the effect would probably wear off just as easily as you get used to clicking away those nagging warning popups on Windows computers
You may factor in whatever you like, there is just no way to determine if a specific user is going to con others in the future. A long post history, great trust ratings, Donator tag, whatever, it just doesn't mean anything. IMHO, there is no solution to that problem.
