Oh some very different speculations on my point of starting this thread..... interesting.
Look to every person here it is a very simple challenge - well perhaps not for most of you but still..
1. examine the OP
2. bring forth a rebuttal based on fact.
I see nothing but an opinion of a person but if they would engage me in a real debate it would prove impossible to maintain this those opinions using
1. the accepted definition of a scam
2. the observable events.
The only part of Theymos reply that is possible to entertain in light of the facts and the definition of a scam
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scamIs that Lauda (although by suchmoons and my own definition is untrustworthy/scammer needing red trust)....by Theymos definition (who does not for some reason accept darkcoin/dash as a scam or believe maybe that lauda was part of an extortion attempt or believe his escrow actions are negative or negative enough to counter his good works.) may choose to believe Lauda is up for debate weighing his bad and good deed against each other.
This is a possible view point to take. However for me TRUST is different from net postive or net negative in terms of you can not do untrustworthy things, then do some useful things and become trustworthy again. Well not worth risking if you have people that have never done anything at all untrustworthy and done some good things.
I mean for sure if you can find some rebuttal - bring it and we can debate it.
This is what forums are for debating. Let's see.
I mean If I am keeping you from making some merit stats or whatever no need to reply.
I see no rebuttal only opinions.
GO VISIT WHAT MAKES A HQ AND LQ post get an idea of what your post should contain.