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

[Lauda]

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.

It is not the responsibility of the managers, nor are they liable for the stupidity of the hunters and investors. Time to stop blame-shifting and accept responsibility.

[1714058455]

1714058455

[suchmoon]

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).

Not following you here. The bounty manager prepares an update and sends it over to the Copper OP, just like they would if the BM was the OP, except instead of directly updating the thread they put it in a PM. That's BM's job done. If the Copper OP delays or fails to post the update that's Copper OP's problem isn't it?

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?

If the BM is not comfortable with an anonymous team then they should not accept the job.

It is not the responsibility of the managers, nor are they liable for the stupidity of the hunters and investors. Time to stop blame-shifting and accept responsibility.

I view it more as an ethical issue than an outright blame for a scam. If the BM is ok with (or ambivalent to) working for a scam and putting their name on a scam thread - that's fine, but I also appreciate someone putting effort into uncovering such scams. I also prefer seeing trust ratings showing which BM's are not doing due diligence, just like I prefer seeing trust ratings on account sellers, trust/merit abusers, etc versus NOT seeing that.
 

[Lauda]

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).

Not following you here. The bounty manager prepares an update and sends it over to the Copper OP, just like they would if the BM was the OP, except instead of directly updating the thread they put it in a PM. That's BM's job done. If the Copper OP delays or fails to post the update that's Copper OP's problem isn't it?

No? Even though the OP would be at fault, it is the bounty managers problem. As an example, you can use a case where you are missing a rule for a certain campaign. That would cause issues for both participants and the manager.

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?

If the BM is not comfortable with an anonymous team then they should not accept the job.

I'm talking about trust ratings. Assuming the project has an anonymous team, and aren't promising crazy returns, how would it be handled in case that it ends up being a scam (given the precedence that is being set here)?

[The Cryptovator]

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

Fake team more dangerous from anonymous

We know so many scam ICO exposed with fake team lately. Just across my mind from defence of scammers. Few scammers defending on scam accusation that some ICO never used team. Also we are not exposing them who have no team on website.
Let me give answer who is like to defend fake team. To be honest Fake team is more dangerous from no team. Because no team already exposed themselves. Investors are able to see there is no team. I will not surprised if they scamed. Because investors known where they are going to invest. So we don't need to exposed ICO with no team as well.

For fake team, they will scamed and divert accusation to others. Becasue they already stolen picture and identity of others innocent people's. So this is a big crime. Investors are not aware about them that they are going to scamed. Because they will see there is a team. If investors  mistakely visit their ANN Thread than he will find great team, nice team, experienced team, potential team many more. That's why we need to exposed scam ICO's with fake team.

Create new accounts solely for posting ANNs to avoid risking your main account for any single bounty

Most of managers doing it as well or hire some low ranked account (IMO)

They should be doing their own due diligence in the first place IMO.

Obviously, they should. It doesn't mean managers should't.

It is not the responsibility of the managers, nor are they liable for the stupidity of the hunters and investors. Time to stop blame-shifting and accept responsibility.

Do you mean only count post and update spreadsheet is managers responsibility ? Of course they are stupid, otherwise they can't trust blindly without own diligence.

I'm talking about trust ratings. Assuming the project has an anonymous team, and aren't promising crazy returns, how would it be handled in case that it ends up being a scam (given the precedence that is being set here)?

If managers do it continuously ( multiple case ) than he deserve tag. On single case excusable, but shouldn't excuse on multiple case.  

[suchmoon]

I'm talking about trust ratings. Assuming the project has an anonymous team, and aren't promising crazy returns, how would it be handled in case that it ends up being a scam (given the precedence that is being set here)?

It's still a failure of due diligence on the BM's part so I'm guessing it would be treated the same way as a fake team. Perhaps even worse because the BM can't reasonably claim that they were fooled by cleverly photoshopped images.

Again, I think it's unethical for bounty managers to lend their reputation (real or perceived) to projects without at least the bare minimum of due diligence. I can't tell anyone how to make money here but I can appreciate when someone points out these cases, especially when they form a continuing pattern.

[Lauda]

Most of managers doing it as well or hire some low ranked account (IMO)

Which is what this precedence will do, create a stronger push towards that.

Obviously, they should. It doesn't mean managers should't.

A manager's due diligence is his/her own. If a manager wants to be at a higher risk of being scammed, it is their own choice/fault. You can't expect nor demand any manager to do a certain amount of due diligence.

Do you mean only count post and update spreadsheet is managers responsibility ?

Yes, exactly that.

If managers do it continuously ( multiple case ) than he deserve tag. On single case excusable, but shouldn't excuse on multiple case.  

Let me get this straight: You want to blame a victim for being the victim multiple times? That makes perfect sense. Not.

I'm talking about trust ratings. Assuming the project has an anonymous team, and aren't promising crazy returns, how would it be handled in case that it ends up being a scam (given the precedence that is being set here)?

It's still a failure of due diligence on the BM's part so I'm guessing it would be treated the same way as a fake team. Perhaps even worse because the BM can't reasonably claim that they were fooled by cleverly photoshopped images.

So you're saying that people who have made a *name* for themselves essentially aren't allowed to accept such a project (where allowed equals to 'no risk of rating')? How is this 'a choice'? Excluding certain project types does not help with the situation.

[Woshib]

Washib, is this you Yipdard?

Using someone else's name or Twitter account does not prove that I am the owner of the Bitcointalk account with that name, Yipdard is someone I know, but it's not me.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I don't think it's reasonable to hold a BM responsible for every project they are involved in. After all, the best scams are only realised long after the ANN/ICO phase.

However, I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to do the bare minimum research in to the project they are getting involved with. It takes less than 10 minutes to check out the team, review the website and read the whitepaper, which will expose most scams.

Particular to this case, the first accusation against Woshib was this one, a project promising 30-45% returns a month. I think if you willingly advertise an obvious ponzi, you can't really absolve yourself of responsibility with a two line disclaimer.

[suchmoon]

So you're saying that people who have made a *name* for themselves essentially aren't allowed to accept such a project (where allowed equals to 'no risk of rating')? How is this 'a choice'? That would be going towards censorship/privacy issues rather than helping remedy the situation.

We are still talking about ICOs, right? People asking for money on the internet? TBH their privacy doesn't concern me. They can go to a loan shark, finance their project to completion, and then make themselves rich anonymously by selling their completed product/service.

More likely though, they would just do an ICO without a BM or with a less scrupulous BM. Back to the topic - there is no harm in knowing which BMs are less scrupulous as it allows other users to factor that into their choices as well. So yes, it's all about choices, particularly informed choices - my favorite kind.

[The Cryptovator]

Do you mean only count post and update spreadsheet is managers responsibility ?

Yes, exactly that.

Noted your point.

If managers do it continuously ( multiple case ) than he deserve tag. On single case excusable, but shouldn't excuse on multiple case.  

Let me get this straight: You want to blame a victim for being the victim multiple times? That makes perfect sense. Not.

Victims and BM role aren't same.

However I don't want to more argument about this matter. Leave negetive feedback completely depend in who leave it. It's their own opinion. Like we can't argue with managers same thing we shouldn't argue who leave tag. I don't think some rag without reference. If managers don't care about his reputation than DT have right to tag them, depend on DT judgement. Everyone have different judgment.

I can't  not see any benefits or keep weight to discusse about this thread, marlboroza already said he isn't going to remove tag as well.

[Ludji]

Let me get this straight: You want to blame a victim for being the victim multiple times? That makes perfect sense. Not.

Why are you referring to the BM as a victim? He is the one actively promoting the ICO. No, you can not say his job is counting and managing spreadsheets only. Also, since when is a victim someone who gets paid while the people who he manages(bounty hunters) don't?

In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.

Which legal right was the BM deprived of here?

Also, the reason BMs aren't held responsible is that they would be out of their jobs if they had to check the credibility of every project since most would fail the check. Doing any job for scammers should be frowned upon by the community, so I don't understand why everyone is overthinking this.

[marlboroza]

Washib, is this you Yipdard?

Using someone else's name or Twitter account does not prove that I am the owner of the Bitcointalk account with that name, Yipdard is someone I know, but it's not me.

Does signed message proves it?

You used this address 1MDqDQQrLhQYTDMfvSFMLbdYLFpUC5zsLi here http://archive.is/HL4Aj and here http://archive.is/Qp5Kd#selection-2409.0-2409.6
You signed message from this address here http://archive.is/cEtwe#selection-5257.20-5220.19

Address is part of this wallet https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/18276a7ce24def5a/addresses together with:

Code:

18PuSSZeHfE24yTERsQvPjEcHXT9b75EJc	
1MDqDQQrLhQYTDMfvSFMLbdYLFpUC5zsLi	
1HwTjSw7oK49x6iBaZDUczDHRbcz16Cq5a

Sellaccountbitcoin and Yipdard both used 18PuSSZeHfE24yTERsQvPjEcHXT9b75EJc, while 1HwTjSw7oK49x6iBaZDUczDHRbcz16Cq5a was used by Yipdard here

Try harder. Also explain "working gambling script where you have to invest more money to get better results"

Do you mean only count post and update spreadsheet is managers responsibility ?

Yes, exactly that.

Why needmoney is tagged? Did they fail to count posts and update spreadsheet?

The over-promising ROI part I can agree with.

How so? If there is disclaimer, BM's shouldn't be held accountable  

However, what about projects in which the team is anonymous?

Anonymously running ICO to collect millions of dollars? Don't you think it is something which should be avoided in first place?

Bounty managers should do at least basic research on project IMO. If they keep accepting to run bounties for scams over and over again(example - Woshib) then tagging them is appropriate. BM's can't hide behind disclaimers.

I also agree with this:

I don't think it's reasonable to hold a BM responsible for every project they are involved in. After all, the best scams are only realised long after the ANN/ICO phase.

I think if you willing advertise an obvious ponzi, you can't really absolve yourself of responsibility with a two line disclaimer.

This topic actually distracted me from tagging scammers https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0 I believe there are at least 20 topics to check. Will write new feedback for OP later.

And again, why Woshib is not discussing his issue?

[Woshib]

Washib, is this you Yipdard?

Using someone else's name or Twitter account does not prove that I am the owner of the Bitcointalk account with that name, Yipdard is someone I know, but it's not me.

Does signed message proves it?

You used this address 1MDqDQQrLhQYTDMfvSFMLbdYLFpUC5zsLi here http://archive.is/HL4Aj and here http://archive.is/Qp5Kd#selection-2409.0-2409.6
You signed message from this address here http://archive.is/cEtwe#selection-5257.20-5220.19

Address is part of this wallet https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/18276a7ce24def5a/addresses together with:

Code:

18PuSSZeHfE24yTERsQvPjEcHXT9b75EJc	
1MDqDQQrLhQYTDMfvSFMLbdYLFpUC5zsLi	
1HwTjSw7oK49x6iBaZDUczDHRbcz16Cq5a

Sellaccountbitcoin and Yipdard both used 18PuSSZeHfE24yTERsQvPjEcHXT9b75EJc, while 1HwTjSw7oK49x6iBaZDUczDHRbcz16Cq5a was used by Yipdard here

As I said, Yipdard (or any other account he could create) is a person I know, and creating a shared wallet on a trezor/ledger is not something complicated, but it does not mean that I'm involved in his shady activities, which means that yes, I signed a message with an address created on his wallet.

This topic actually distracted me from tagging scammers https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0 I believe there are at least 20 topics to check.

During this time, you dwell on the case of someone who has not scammed anyone and who has helped the community for more than 2 years.

[marlboroza]

During this time, you dwell on the case of someone who has not scammed anyone and who has helped the community for more than 2 years.

You helped community by managing bounties for scams?

I will leave this here for reference, obviously you can't read:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027738.msg45629632#msg45629632
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027738.msg45691954#msg45691954
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027738.msg45701781#msg45701781

[Lauda]

So you're saying that people who have made a *name* for themselves essentially aren't allowed to accept such a project (where allowed equals to 'no risk of rating')? How is this 'a choice'? That would be going towards censorship/privacy issues rather than helping remedy the situation.

We are still talking about ICOs, right? People asking for money on the internet? TBH their privacy doesn't concern me. They can go to a loan shark, finance their project to completion, and then make themselves rich anonymously by selling their completed product/service.

Two points:
A) Not all projects with anonymous teams are ICOs.
B) Not all projects are asking for millions.

Victims and BM role aren't same.

Absolute nonsense. In most of the cases, the BM is a direct victim and often suffers greater financial damage in comparison to any participant (you could even argue that the manager suffers damage that is greater than the sum of the participants' damage, which is zero if you argue that tokens are worthless until the market gives them a value).

Why needmoney is tagged? Did they fail to count posts and update spreadsheet?

Running a fraudulent bounty =/= running a bounty for a project that ends up being a scam. To this date, needmoney has not acted upon the allegations that were brought up which makes the situation completely incomparable.

The over-promising ROI part I can agree with.

How so? If there is disclaimer, BM's shouldn't be held accountable  

They aren't, especially not legally. That's what a disclaimer is for.

However, what about projects in which the team is anonymous?

Anonymously running ICO to collect millions of dollars? Don't you think it is something which should be avoided in first place?

Read my response to suchmoon in this very same post.

BM's can't hide behind disclaimers.

They can and they will. If they can not, this will be yet another incentive to never post a bounty from your own account but rather use shills[1]. Stop making up fictional rules that will only re-enforce current problems.
[1] It would be pretty trivial to create a non-discoverable shill that solely posts ANN threads / switch whenever something goes wrong. Strong incentive, minor cost, huge obstacle in tracking down the actual BM.
Note: Nevermind; not really applicable.

[allahabadi]

Washib, is this you Yipdard?

Using someone else's name or Twitter account does not prove that I am the owner of the Bitcointalk account with that name, Yipdard is someone I know, but it's not me.

A family member; cousin; uncle or some poor friend whose life you revolutionaly changed by introducing them to BTCTalk. Let me guess the guy has a pregnant wife or the gal is pregnant and can't afford hospital bills and so decides to use your wallet to save some costs?

Do you mean only count post and update spreadsheet is managers responsibility ?

Yes, exactly that.

Why needmoney is tagged? Did they fail to count posts and update spreadsheet?

I think becoz he and jamal were ALU's competitors.


EDIT:

I think becoz he and jamal were ALU's competitors.

2018-07-03. Doesn't surprise me from a chronic liar.

If anyone got this obfuscated reply; do enlighten.

[Lauda]

I think becoz he and jamal were ALU's competitors.

2018-07-03. Doesn't surprise me from a chronic liar.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I think becoz he and jamal were ALU's competitors.

2018-07-03. Doesn't surprise me from a chronic liar.

Can you provide proof where he lied to you? I have seen all the time lies from you even in this thread.
A bounty manager should stop scammers by locking thread, although how about your friend Wapinter scammer and aTriz?

Oh dear lord.

We are discussing an important issue here - can we please not derail it with personal vendettas?

They aren't, especially not legally. That's what a disclaimer is for.

BM's can't hide behind disclaimers.

They can and they will.

I don't think posting a disclaimer should be a get-out-of-jail-free card for any and all scams and shadiness. What if I posted an account sale with a disclaimer that said "I am only hosting this sale, am not involved in the sale, don't endorse this sale, and won't be held liable for this sale"? What if I hosted a Bitcoin Doubler with a similar disclaimer?

As I mentioned, I don't expect BMs to be infallible, but they should be able to avoid ponzi and obvious scams with minimal research.

[Lauda]

I don't think posting a disclaimer should be a get-out-of-jail-free card for any and all scams and shadiness. What if I posted an account sale with a disclaimer that said "I am only hosting this sale, am not involved in the sale, don't endorse this sale, and won't be held liable for this sale"? What if I hosted a Bitcoin Doubler with a similar disclaimer?

There is really no need to appeal to the extremes. I'm sure that you've understood what I meant.

[o_e_l_e_o]

There is really no need to appeal to the extremes. I'm sure that you've understood what I meant.

Apologies. Not my intention, and I accept a disclaimer is fine when the project wasn't obviously a scam.

Taking this case again as an example, however - the first project he was promoting was an obvious ponzi. A disclaimer should not be enough to absolve all responsibility. People have been tagged for joining a ponzi signature campaign - I fail to see how we can't then tag someone for running one.