marlboroza - about the red trust - Nel.network fake team

[Woshib]

Concretely I have nothing to say, I will not deny the accusations of marlboroza, yes I was not careful enough and I was wrong to not have deepened my research about Nel.Network

I think this post summarizes my intention to never make the same mistake again:

Actually, I did the researchs about the project. But the linkedin accounts seem extremely well done.

Extremely well done....plagiarism. You can google their resume.

I can now see that my investigations have not been pushed enough, I will be able to learn from my mistakes and something like this will never happen again.

I pledge to make further investigations next time.

You said that last time when you promoted something which was obvious ponzi. I gave you benefit of doubt back then. I ain't gonna do it twice.

I can understand your point of view, ICO scams are everywhere nowadays, but no one has been scammed, and I still ask you for a second third chance, this time ensuring that you will never hear about me again on a shady or scam ICO. Looking forward to hear from you.

[1714731467]

1714731467

[1714731467]

1714731467

[Vod]

Concretely I have nothing to say, I will not deny the accusations of marlboroza,

Ok, so why the post?

[Lauda]

You shouldn't receive red trust for something like this as long as you stop everything related to the project as soon as you're notified/you found out.
Was there no ANN thread/official team account?

[The Cryptovator]

Was there no ANN thread/official team account?

There is , ANN thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5006712.0 ( locked )

Bounty thread : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027551.0 ( running )
Both is by team.

You shouldn't receive red trust for something like this

Perhaps this is his second mistake.

I am not sure why OP opened this thread. Accusation against you was valid, for your info others people opened scam accusation against you, not by marlboroza. From your statement marlboroza excused you before.  This time people's make sound against you. Others managers also got tagged for similar case. That's why also you got tagged accordingly. Perhaps he can removed if you work decently on future ( IMO).

[yogg]

You shouldn't receive red trust for something like this as long as you stop everything related to the project as soon as you're notified/you found out.

I have the same opinion. The flame focus should be on the malicious project, once discovered.
Woshib stopped all activities with them when as soon as this has been brought to his knowledge.
Also, he is managing a couple of other, legit, bounties and he's good at it.

I think this negative feedback should be turned to neutral.
You can't humanly monitor every page / paragraph, and check every day if there have been a change or not ...

What Woshib did here by withdrawing from the agreement is the expected behavior after the issue has been brought to his attention.
There is no malefactor association here, and Woshib helps to spread wealth to some people taking time to translate things and do stuff.
In the end, all balanced out, is the negative feedback really the way to go here ?  

[Ludji]

You shouldn't receive red trust for something like this as long as you stop everything related to the project as soon as you're notified/you found out.
Was there no ANN thread/official team account?

Do bounty managers have no responsibilities? I have seen multiple people receive negative trust for participating in a scam bounty campaign, wouldn't the bounty manager be subject to the same treatment? Or is he allowed to "back out" when he learns they are a scam?

I have the same opinion. The flame focus should be on the malicious project, once discovered.
Woshib stopped all activities with them when as soon as this has been brought to his knowledge.
Also, he is managing a couple of other, legit, bounties and he's good at it.

I think this negative feedback should be turned to neutral.
You can't humanly monitor every page / paragraph, and check every day if there have been a change or not ...

What Woshib did here by withdrawing from the agreement is the expected behavior after the issue has been brought to his attention.
There is no malefactor association here, and Woshib helps to spread wealth to some people taking time to translate things and do stuff.
In the end, all balanced out, is the negative feedback really the way to go here ?  

Once again, if he can receive money, he can do a background check on them. It's not his first time, that's for sure. There was no need to "monitor every page or paragraph" an initial check was sufficient and he failed to do it. Also, he advertises himself as "trustworthy" so it's about time he starts acting like he is. If we want to fight the root of the problem(scam projects) then we should start with bounty managers, since that's the first door to knock on for any scam project. Accomplice to scam in any real-life situation is a serious offense, that's why people carefully watch what they sign and who they work with. Negative trust is a good wake up call for Woshib, the consequences could have been much larger if members didn't out the scams early on.

[Lauda]

Once again, if he can receive money, he can do a background check on them.

That is not his responsibility.

Negative trust is a good wake up call for Woshib, the consequences could have been much larger if members didn't out the scams early on.

This "measure" does not have a single positive effect, but will rather lead to more and more BM work being settled via 3rd party communication platforms and posted by random lower-ranking accounts.
Whether it is Woshib or someone else, it doesn't matter. It's time to stop viewing things from a narrow-minded perspective.

[Ludji]

Negative trust is a good wake up call for Woshib, the consequences could have been much larger if members didn't out the scams early on.

This "measure" does not have a single positive effect, but will rather lead to more and more BM work being settled via 3rd party communication platforms and posted by random lower-ranking accounts.
Whether it is Woshib or someone else, it doesn't matter. It's time to stop viewing things from a narrow-minded perspective.

Oh but it does have a positive effect, you can bet that he, and others who find out about this, won't slack off when it comes to doing their due diligence. There's nothing "narrow-minded" about this, it's simply a punishment to him for endangering members of the forum and actively helping and working for/representing a scam project. I don't see any situation in which this wouldn't be considered worthy of a punishment.

but will rather lead to more and more BM work being settled via 3rd party communication platforms and posted by random lower-ranking accounts

Lower-ranking accounts don't advertise themselves as "trustworthy" and don't enjoy the reputation an established bounty manager does. New users trust bounty managers, they don't trust "random lower-ranking accounts".

[Lauda]

Oh but it does have a positive effect, you can bet that he, and others who find out about this, won't slack off when it comes to doing their due diligence.

It does not. Your emotional argument against OP is your own thing that is not of concern of me. Based on past ways of settling similar situations, Marlboroza should remove his rating or someone should counter it.

[Ludji]

Oh but it does have a positive effect, you can bet that he, and others who find out about this, won't slack off when it comes to doing their due diligence.

It does not. Your emotional argument against OP is your own thing that is not of concern of me. Based on past ways of settling similar situations, Marlboroza should remove his rating or someone should counter it.

I don't have any personal problems with the OP. I am just sick of all the scams around here and would like to combat that as much as possible. What's "your concern" is totally irrelevant to this topic, the user received red trust for organizing bounty campaigns for scam projects multiple times and I don't see why you are so actively combating that. Marlboroza did what he thought was right, I agree with what he did, while you may not and that's your opinion.

[mdayonliner]

Based on past ways of settling similar situations, Marlboroza should remove his rating or someone should counter it.

You may not aware that for marlboroza time is not relevant (possibly), place is not relevant (s/he mentioned several times), evidences do not count. For marlboroza sentiment is everything. When someone is too senti then things like this will happen very often. OP would be warned with a neutral tag instead of red. Painting red is too easy now a days. People forget that there is a neutral tag as well.

[The Cryptovator]

That is not his responsibility.

So who is responsible?
To be honest I can't agree with this sentence. You don't think a managers should have minimum responsibility? I am agree if it's exit scam. No one can stop exit scammers , not important team how potential. But before start any project should search minimum. At least use Google search for picture. Just forget about marlboroza and woshib case. I am not against OP or not just blindly supporting marlboroza. I am also not much interested to tagged any managers for first mistake especially higher ranked. I don't know OP previous case. However tell me honestly, you never think about your hunters ? You never care about them? Who are trust you blindly and joined your campaign? If a project become scam is it good reputation for a managers ? So how can skip a managers that he has no any responsibility. I noticed you had tagged also new OP of bounty. That's called responsibility.

someone should counter it.

Simply you can do it. Still you are in DT 2.

[Patatas]

That is not his responsibility.

So who is responsible?
To be honest I can't agree with this sentence. You don't think a managers should have minimum responsibility? I am agree if it's exit scam. No one can stop exit scammers , not important team how potential. But before start any project should search minimum. At least use Google search for picture.

And how do you define minimum responsibility? Using google search for the picture or reverse image matching doesn't count as 'minimum responsibility'.More than the managers it's responsibility of the participants to do all that knowing managers will get paid anyway but if the project turns out to be a scam, it's the bounty whores who'd suffer. I get it obvious stuff should be taken care of but usually these scammers are well spoken and professional with the managers. I wouldn't participate in a random bounty knowing if it turns out to be a scam, I wouldn't get paid but the manager would. Stop depending on spoon feeding.

[The Cryptovator]

And how do you define minimum responsibility? Using google search for the picture or reverse image matching doesn't count as 'minimum responsibility'.More than the managers it's responsibility of the participants to do all that knowing managers will get paid anyway but if the project turns out to be a scam, it's the bounty whores who'd suffer.

How you expect payment for participant if ICO team or ICO itself if fake from began? Will you join any bounty if you know the team is fake & plagiarized whitpaper , steal content from others website. Is it trustable, even no one can say exactly they will scam. Will you like to buy this token or will you like to join bounty? Thats I mean minimum responsibility. We can't check their physical location but we can check on web about their face. We can't realized they will scam but we can check their website content whitepaper they did steal or not. I expect you got my point it will take max. 1 hours but it can minimized scam. Whatever I exposed fake team most of them skip with fund. So how can we believe them ?

I am not blaming only managers, I have a thread about it. Please read it : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5018435.msg45272968#msg45272968

[marlboroza]

OP forget to mention this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4655987.0 and this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2329309.0, but it is all ok because he is only bounty manager.

https://www.hashkon.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi

They are probably still looking for legal papers, as Woshib mentioned:

In coordination with Hashkon, campaign has been suspended, they will apparently be back when they have all legal papers.

Would legal papers make ponzi - not ponzi? I am really confused with this statement.

Anyway, in the future, my priority will be to verify that the project is legit.

Actually, I did the researchs about the project. But the linkedin accounts seem extremely well done.

I pledge to make further investigations next time.

How many times someone has to give you benefit of doubt to wake up and stop promoting scams? 2? 3? 10?

I would really like Woshib to say something about this:

I can understand your point of view, ICO scams are everywhere nowadays, but no one has been scammed

Shell we do more investigation about Woshib?

MANY SATISFED CUSTOMERS VOUCHED 5$ IQOPTION earning method can you say who satisfied costumers are, except accounts with negative feedback (account trades, asking loan without collateral, ponzi operators, tagged for scamming someone, (selling script for gambling site))

Now look who was given vouch copy(this won't be taken for any kind of evidence, as it is probably random user posting):





Whoshib's response to review:

I just bought the method. Heres my review

First of all, this is nothingness but will more likely make your risk go higher and loose it all. Its not a method , its a common sense tip , like you should call or put depending on majority choice. You will not make any profit of these but instead you will loose it all. No one can predict a currency price. It all depend on your luck with huge risk , With my $20 deposit, i made it to $26 , loose it to $18, $15, $10 and then zero. Shall you buy this? Well if you buy, you will regret. But it all depends on you , it has some dead martingale method too, that will make your risk 20x if so.

thanks for the helpful review

His review can be wrong, so don't base yourself on just one review.
Method still available.

BUSTABIT 2$ SCRIPT TO FOLLOW SOMEONE not only gambling scripts are available for free, they will make naive people to lose money, and, also, there is always that well known "stealing balance" part.

Wait, I have more on this account:

You tried to buy trust here.  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1593220.msg16061095#msg16061095

archived topic 0.00015 bitcoins bonus for everyone who deposit a good feedback about this bonus

Hello,
It's not a lot, I will probably rise it, but you can earn 0.00015 bitcoins just if you deposit a feedback about this bonus, and I send it to you, don't forget to send me your bitcoin address.
Payments proofs if you don't trust me: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1590519.0

So how the hell is this guy trusted member of this community?

Marlboroza should remove his rating

This won't happen. Not with all these things I have just discovered.

or someone should counter it.

Then counter it.


Edited - links.

[Lauda]

Marlboroza should remove his rating

This won't happen. Not with all these things I have just discovered.

So, the current sentiment is stronger than the reason behind the initial rating.

or someone should counter it.

Then counter it.

Sigh. I don't really know OP, but you will see how this pattern (applied to others) will make matters worse in due time. Hint: It's already very bad if you start looking through other platforms.

So how the hell is this guy trusted member of this community?

He never was. People need to stop leaving trust ratings for $5 deals.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

We had this exact discussion a while back, i.e., is a bounty manager responsible for vetting the legitimacy of the underlying project.  If I recall correctly, the results are much what we're seeing here--managers shouldn't be held responsible if a project turns out to be a scam but that the manager is responsible for terminating the bounty as soon as the project is exposed.  Other managers in the past have done this, including yahoo62278 and some have not, like aTriz.

I think Woshib is a stand-up guy, and I don't think he's to blame in any of this stuff, so I'd also respectfully disagree with marlboroza's feedback.  I do think there's way too much shenanigans going on in the ICO world, based on the number of fake projects and whatnot, but I don't think the bounty managers should share the responsibility for that unless they either had prior knowledge of a scam or allow the advertising to continue once the scam is uncovered.

[marlboroza]

Marlboroza should remove his rating

This won't happen. Not with all these things I have just discovered.

So, the current sentiment is stronger than the reason behind the initial rating.

I messed up something while editing. Shouldn't sound like that - but it did, unfortunately 

He was given benefit of doubt 2 months ago for running bounty for ponzi(2 ponzi's).

~

Have you actually read one word I posted here and went trough all topics and posts?

I'd also respectfully disagree with marlboroza's feedback

Then counter it.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Have you actually read one word I posted here and went trough all topics and posts?

I did, but my comment was specifically about his responsibility as a bounty manager, not the other questionable stuff you pointed out.  He did stop the bounty once the project was exposed, and I stand by my opinion that it isn't the manager's responsibility to vet the project before starting a bounty.

That said, I'm going to change my feedback on him to a neutral, since in the deal we did he was the one to send funds first and thus I didn't really risk anything.  There's enough doubt in my mind about his other actions that I don't think he needs a DT positive for that.

[Lauda]

That said, I'm going to change my feedback on him to a neutral, since in the deal we did he was the one to send funds first and thus I didn't really risk anything.  There's enough doubt in my mind about his other actions that I don't think he needs a DT positive for that.

I advise others to do the same or completely pull their feedback. We really need to stop giving out 'positive trust', which is obviously seen as something *prestige* (unfortunately), as references to successful trades. Positive trust from DT for e.g. 0.01-2 BTC trades is ridiculous at best, naive and stupid at worst[1].
[1] This is IMO - readers: do not get triggered if you see the 'trust system' as a *trade system*.