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

[The Cryptovator]

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].

Strongly agree with it. I have seen lot of positive rating only for trade. I don't think it's necesarry. But leave a neutral feedback for such as trade appriceated.

[1714147110]

1714147110

[1714147110]

1714147110

[1714147110]

1714147110

[Ludji]

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*. 

Wait, you wrote this literally a few hours before:

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.

So you wanted to give him positive trust to counter the negative? Now you want to leave the negative and remove the positive he has already received? Maybe you should refrain from commenting on posts until you form a concrete opinion on the topic instead of being stubborn and arguing with others. I've seen you post very intelligent things on this forum, but I've also seen you post shit just so you can argue with someone.

[Lauda]

So you wanted to give him positive trust to counter the negative? Now you want to leave the negative and remove the positive he has already received?
-snip-

Removing previous positive =/= leaving negative =/= countering negative. You brain is clearly unable to comprehend this. Now go back to your little account-selling dungeon, 'jeet.

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].

Strongly agree with it. I have seen lot of positive rating only for trade. I don't think it's necesarry. But leave a neutral feedback for such as trade appriceated.

Not even a neutral is required. A positive can be placed once a sufficient sum has been traded/risked.

[Ludji]

So you wanted to give him positive trust to counter the negative? Now you want to leave the negative and remove the positive he has already received?
-snip-

Removing previous positive =/= leaving negative =/= countering negative. You brain is clearly unable to comprehend this. Now go back to your little account-selling dungeon, 'jeet.

You know, when someone runs out of things to say they deflect or become primitive like in your case. My brain is fine, but your mouth(or in this case fingers) is running faster than yours.  

[morvillz7z]

Do we have somewhere written, maybe mentioned in the rules, what bounty manager responsibilities/duties are? I struggle to find any info on that matter,  all i read is various interpretations, apart from obvious - counting stakes, make sure rules are not being broken, dealing with complaints etc.

I can't understand why bounty managers are not being held responsible for endorsing a scam project aka 'simply posting a bounty'?
They are being paid, isn't that type of contract (even if it's informal) between the manager and the project?
In my eyes, they are absolutely required to do their due diligence before accepting the job. Otherwise it's just willful ignorance and they should
be viewed as an accomplice to those who commit fraud.

Since there are little to almost no regulations for ICOs, does that apply to bounty managers too? They can get paid with no repercussions whatsoever, if a
project turns out be scam. Hide behind a 'Disclaimer'...that's it?

My point is, wouldn't it be easier to have clear cut requirements/rules/ and possibly penalties for those who want manage bounties? I see a different
position taken toward different members, that ain't right either.


Disclaimer  : I'm not talking about anyone in particular, just trying to find some answers.

[Patatas]

In my eyes, they are absolutely required to do their due diligence before accepting the job. Otherwise it's just willful ignorance and they should
be viewed as an accomplice to those who commit fraud.

To what extent? Putting 10 hours into research is just isn't worth their time considering they will be getting paid anyway. That should be the other way around. Moreover, the bounty participants can demand escrow services from the project if they think the project could be a scam. Relying completely on a bounty manager is ignorance.

Since there are little to almost no regulations for ICOs, does that apply to bounty managers too? They can get paid with no repercussions whatsoever, if a
project turns out be scam. Hide behind a 'Disclaimer'...that's it?

Your point being? 99.9% of bounty participants have 0 contributions to the forum.

My point is, wouldn't it be easier to have clear cut requirements/rules/ and possibly penalties for those who want manage bounties? I see a different
position taken toward different members, that ain't right either.

Nope, that is just blaming managers for managing the campaign. It's not worth their time or costs.

[suchmoon]

To what extent? Putting 10 hours into research is just isn't worth their time considering they will be getting paid anyway. That should be the other way around. Moreover, the bounty participants can demand escrow services from the project if they think the project could be a scam. Relying completely on a bounty manager is ignorance.

I doubt it takes 10 hours to do basic due diligence on team's background, photos, plagiarism, etc. And even if it does - they shouldn't take the job if it's not worth it. Ignorance of course is a big part of it but it's also a fact that many of those noobs see a trusted (or "trusted") name on the thread and think it's going to be ok. This is not that different from other activities that are frowned upon here: account trades, trust farming, etc.

[Patatas]

To what extent? Putting 10 hours into research is just isn't worth their time considering they will be getting paid anyway. That should be the other way around. Moreover, the bounty participants can demand escrow services from the project if they think the project could be a scam. Relying completely on a bounty manager is ignorance.

I doubt it takes 10 hours to do basic due diligence on team's background, photos, plagiarism, etc. And even if it does - they shouldn't take the job if it's not worth it. Ignorance of course is a big part of it but it's also a fact that many of those noobs see a trusted (or "trusted") name on the thread and think it's going to be ok. This is not that different from other activities that are frowned upon here: account trades, trust farming, etc.

Okay, 10 hours is hypothetical but you get the point that it is a tedious process and forces a manager to learn additional stuff like stock image searching. I don't know how much a trusted manager gets paid. Would it be enough to involve themselves in the basic due diligence? It's subjective again. My only point is, manager will be getting paid anyway so the bounty participants should make sure they do their homework before blindly following a manager.

[morvillz7z]

Putting 10 hours into research is just isn't worth their time

They should take a lot more than 10 hours before endorsing projects, unless they don't care whether or not their name and bounty services are being associated with scam.

Okay, 10 hours is hypothetical but you get the point that it is a tedious process and forces a manager to learn additional stuff like stock image searching.

In this particular case, it took me 15 minutes to find the fake photos, additional 15min. for stolen LinkedIn profile descriptions, i would guess you'd need no more than 30 more minutes to find plagiarized whitepaper or any other copied content on their website.

[Lauda]

Posting something =/= endorsing something, especially NOT when a disclaimer is present. If one fails to read or understand the disclaimer, then it is only their (the participant's) fault.

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.

Your point being? 99.9% of bounty participants have 0 contributions to the forum.

Exactly. The current super-majority are jr. member spammers; thus the damage (not being paid out fictional tokens) is negligible when you look at the big picture.
Luckily none of you are lawmakers anywhere.

[pugman]

I respectfully disagree with people who say managers shouldn't go and check for fake teams and stuff like that. A campaign manager's only job isn't just to count posts and reward participants for their work. While this maybe a tedious task, they should at least take certain precautions(mentioned by suchmoon),it should take a couple of hours. Or if you want hire a Private Investigator sort of a person to take care of it.

Posting something =/= endorsing something, especially NOT when a disclaimer is present. If one fails to read or understand the disclaimer, then it is only their (the participant's) fault.

Most people don't have a proper/any disclaimer. When you make an ANN thread/run bounties for an ICO, you're endorsing them,because you're getting paid for that. Uunless there's a disclaimer that says: "I do not endorse this project"(which is even worse for the company that paid you to represent). That makes them less of a victim or whatever. But that disclaimer shouldn't protect them,they were still paid for that.

Exactly. The current super-majority are jr. member spammers; thus the damage (not being paid out fictional tokens) is negligible when you look at the big picture.

This wouldn't have been the case had it been a bitcoin paying campaign. That's double standards.

Luckily none of you are lawmakers anywhere.

Yet its acted like that is the case.

[Lauda]

Most people don't have a proper/any disclaimer. When you make an ANN thread/run bounties for an ICO, you're endorsing them,because you're getting paid for that. Uunless there's a disclaimer that says: "I do not endorse this project"(which is even worse for the company that paid you to represent). That makes them less of a victim or whatever. But that disclaimer shouldn't protect them,they were still paid for that.

You are not paid for posting a thread; also posting a (bounty) thread =/= product endorsement. In the super-majority of cases, you end up posting the thread because the team does not have a sufficiently ranked account (yes, it can be bought, and no this isn't a counter-argument to this). Meaning, you are not being paid to post it; you are being paid only to manage it. You end up posting it because it is more convenient than the alternatives (waiting for account to rank up; buying c. membership; paging someone else to update the thread each time you need to change something).
This isn't a discussion of whether you are liable or not, but rather whether posting a bounty is equal to product endorsement or not. Hint: It isn't.
Note: There is a distinct difference between posting an ANN and posting a bounty. A bounty thread does not mean automatic product endorsement.

[The Cryptovator]

I respectfully disagree with people who say managers shouldn't go and check for fake teams and stuff like that. A campaign manager's only job isn't just to count posts and reward participants for their work. While this maybe a tedious task, they should at least take certain precautions(mentioned by suchmoon),it should take a couple of hours. Or if you want hire a Private Investigator sort of a person to take care of it.

Yes, that's the point I always try to highlight. But the problem is most of managers just think their work is only manage the campaign. They never care they have more responsibly. On the other hand I noticed most of managers are Jr. Member. I am not sure how experience they are. I don't think they are able to investigate an ICO or just avoid it. Still I can't see managers not much encourage to investigate or search about project before start the work.

[morvillz7z]

Posting something =/= endorsing something, especially NOT when a disclaimer is present. If one fails to read or understand the disclaimer, then it is only their (the participant's) fault.

Let's say I'm a pharmaceutical company with this brand new, super-duper pill for...whatever and i have this little disclaimer at the end, stating that my
product may have side effects, such as bla-bla-bla, can also cause cancer and lead to death.
Hope my analogy isn't that hard to follow, do you think in case of death/multiple deaths and it's imminent civil lawsuit, the pharmaceutical company and
people who helped advertise this product would get away because of that disclaimer? Do you think such product should be even allowed in the first place?

Your point being? 99.9% of bounty participants have 0 contributions to the forum.

Exactly. The current super-majority are jr. member spammers; thus the damage (not being paid out fictional tokens) is negligible when you look at the big picture.

I'm not sure why you mention jr.members or bounty participans, or are they getting paid and what's their forum contribution. I don't get your point either, quoted text is about non-regulated ICOs and BMs hiding behind self made-up disclaimers with no consequences in case of scam.


And who encourages these so called clueless jr.members to spam the forum with the expectation of receiving a reward? Scam projects endorsed by ignorant bounty managers, no?

[marlboroza]

Okay, 10 hours is hypothetical but you get the point that it is a tedious process and forces a manager to learn additional stuff like stock image searching. I don't know how much a trusted manager gets paid. Would it be enough to involve themselves in the basic due diligence? It's subjective again.

I am pretty sure Woshib knows where to look. Besides, they said they did research their linkedin profiles.
Clicking on linkeding accounts and closing them =/= research.

They should change topic to "I was given benefit of doubt for running bounty for ponzi before I received negative rating for running bounty for another scam because I didn't do research which I said I did and I promised to do".  


On side note  

Washib, is this you Yipdard?

My twitter name:
Yipdard.
Link:
https://twitter.com/Yipdard
Bitcoin adress:
3PGhMnpj2LQr1SeK2gbQbD8ajVEJ3RfCSC

Archived and also here

My twitter account:
https://twitter.com/Yipdard
Link to the tweet is:
https://twitter.com/Yipdard/status/739416883733139456
Username of Coinroulette account is:
Yipdard
Thanks.

Archived

Speaking of "can't and doesn't have time to do research", it seems they have time to steal other peoples ideas and clone their sites:

Re: BITCOINIZATOR: A new bitcoin faucet list (FAUCETBOX-HIGH REWARD-NO ADS)  
archived

I just figured out that I posted in that topic 2 years ago   I am not sure how I missed it  

Anyway, another negative tag missed. Even owner of correct site warned him about his actions.
You will also find both accounts and self vouching in that topic:

A NEW LOGO WILL BE ADDED SOON

BITCOINIZATOR/center]

I want to introduce for you a new bitcoin faucet rotator that can be really interesting for members that are willing to earn some coins with faucets.

http://www.bitcoinizator.cf

So you decided to copy my page,why you doing this?This is not way how things should be done,there is also Copyright note at the bottom of my page,this is not noticed by you?

Nice list, are you owner of gameofbitcoins? Site looks like copy of that one.

What a question,why would I make copy of my page under new profile?

i saw your faucet list, we can't say that he copied you, as there is just the box, where there is no copyright, it can be a box that he created, but similar to the box of your website.

(redacted a bit for better visibility)

Of course that is not all, there was one microtask:
Earn 0.20$ in Bitcoins for A DOWNLOAD (UNLIMITED)
archived

It is certified no virus (it's just a hitleap installation file) to download from an URL, please send me your Bitcoin address and when you download it.
https://www.up-4ever.com/dbsmjt7zr0tz
You can do it as many times you want, but with different IP, if you want to do it with the same IP, PM me for other URL.

It seems they didn't pay people money for their job:



And scam accusation against his alt account: New scammer is here ( take care while dealing with him )

I really want to know what was in that file but it was probably removed by up-4ever  

So how the hell they missed negative tags for this? And everything else? It seems this user has very long history of deceiving people and scamming them.

~

Washib can't talk or something?  
I will update this shortly(give me 10 minutes or so) you will love this
This was loan request:

Hello,
I need this fast loan for a purchase on Amazon, some things found at a very low price, I can repay 0.013 Bitcoins in some days.
Bitcoin address is:
18PuSSZeHfE24yTERsQvPjEcHXT9b75EJc
Thanks.

http://archive.is/FPyaA

Pay attention to address, it is all it matters:

DOPROFIT

DOPROFIT is a small platform of investment in which you have to send between 0.003 and 0.007 BTC to a specific address, like some other platform of investment in this forum.
Profit is between 8% and 15%, delivred after 24 to 48 hours.
ALL YOUR FUNDS ARE INVESTED ON SPECIAL WEBSITE, IT'S NOT A PONZI NETWORK.
MIN DEPOSIT: 0.003 BTC
MAX DEPOSIT: 0.007 BTC
We have an automated bot that will sent automatic payouts to everyone who deposit, when funds will be available after the investment on a specific website.
DO NOT send more or less then the requirements, if you did it, don't worry, funds will be refunded.
We have a fee of 3% on every investment you made.

NO NEGATIVE TRUST, THAT IS NOT A PONZI NETWORK.

Payments sent from services like Xapo are not accepted, as the address of the payment that you sent is not your receiving address, so if we repay to that address, it will not go to your account.
DOPROFIT NETWORK ADDRESS: 18PuSSZeHfE24yTERsQvPjEcHXT9b75EJc
Blockchain link is: https://blockchain.info/address/18PuSSZeHfE24yTERsQvPjEcHXT9b75EJc

DOPROFIT

Topic archived.

Who is sellaccountbicoin? Account reseller? Ponzi operator?
Selling bitcointalk member account (81 activity and 98 potential activity)
Archived

Self vouching(woshib - sellaccountbitcoin) for another gambling script https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1843746.msg18381827#msg18381827 archived http://archive.is/yy3Qv, and also lying:

I can guarantee you a profit, but sure more you invest, less risk you have.

I would suggest all DT members who left positive(and counter neutral rating) to remove it from Washib's account and tag them with correct one and to report this scammer to police - or maybe not, because there is disclaimer.

[Lauda]

Posting something =/= endorsing something, especially NOT when a disclaimer is present. If one fails to read or understand the disclaimer, then it is only their (the participant's) fault.

Let's say I'm a pharmaceutical company with this brand new, super-duper pill for...whatever and i have this little disclaimer at the end, stating that my
product may have side effects, such as bla-bla-bla, can also cause cancer and lead to death.
Hope my analogy isn't that hard to follow, do you think in case of death/multiple deaths and it's imminent civil lawsuit, the pharmaceutical company and
people who helped advertise this product would get away because of that disclaimer? Do you think such product should be even allowed in the first place?

Classic false comparison fallacy. Try (harder) again.

~

Washib can't talk or something?  

I will update this shortly(give me 10 minutes or so) you will love this

Well, you seem to have enough dirt on him to warrant a negative[1]. I'm not defending OP; I'm advocating against setting a dangerous precedence which would end up worsening the dire situation.
[1] Maybe it is time to rewrite the rating or add another one?

[morvillz7z]

Try (harder) again.

[suchmoon]

I'm advocating against setting a dangerous precedence which would end up worsening the dire situation.

I don't see any danger here, just some decent options for freedom of choice:

1) Bounty managers can choose to do or not to do due diligence to reduce their chances of getting into sticky situations. I doubt anyone would neg-trust a bounty manager if the ICO turned out to be an uber-elaborate scam, but something with fake photos or offering 10% a month is not hard to notice.
1a) There is also an easy way out - let the ICO scammers buy their own Copper accounts. There is no downside to this. The mild inconvenience of editing the thread is a non-issue. The bounty manager can PM the revised post to the OP, pretty much the same effort.
2) Bounty participants can choose to do their own due diligence or require escrow or none of those things and instead choose to bitch and moan about their losses.
3) DT members can choose their own threshold for neg trust regarding incompetence or negligence of bounty managers who choose "not" @ # 1/1a.
4) Everyone else can choose to pay attention to or disregard the red trust or exclude marlboroza from their trust list.

[Lauda]

I'm advocating against setting a dangerous precedence which would end up worsening the dire situation.

I don't see any danger here, just some decent options for freedom of choice:

1) Bounty managers can choose to do or not to do due diligence to reduce their chances of getting into sticky situations.

Precedence for existing and new BMs: Create new accounts solely for posting ANNs to avoid risking your main account for any single bounty[1].

1a) There is also an easy way out - let the ICO scammers buy their own Copper accounts. There is no downside to this. The mild inconvenience of editing the thread is a non-issue. The bounty manager can PM the revised post to the OP, pretty much the same effort.

It is not a mild inconvenience. Threads tend to be frequently edited depending on the situation and the time between point of contact and actual revision can be days (in some cases it is almost always days).

2) Bounty participants can choose to do their own due diligence or require escrow or none of those things and instead choose to bitch and moan about their losses.

They should be doing their own due diligence in the first place IMO.
[1] This is already the case to some extent. I guess that most people involved in the discussion aren't that present (or present at all) on secondary platforms (TG, Discord).

4) Everyone else can choose to pay attention to or disregard the red trust or exclude marlboroza from their trust list.

Too many choices is why we can't have nice things. There is so much wrong in this place that division due to something like this is pointless. In the case of OP, I'm waiting for mr. marlboroza to rewrite the rating so that I can apply mine as well.

I doubt anyone would neg-trust a bounty manager if the ICO turned out to be an uber-elaborate scam, but something with fake photos or offering 10% a month is not hard to notice.

The over-promising ROI part I can agree with. However, what about projects in which the team is anonymous?

[The Cryptovator]

snip

I wrote a topic regarding this on bounty board; Bounty Hunters ! Must read before join any bounty campaign. But unfortunately not much people interested to read it. No one want decent work. Everyone just need money, hunters are more greedy from managers. But eventually hunters and investors are getting scam due to irresponsible managers.