Should projects that knowingly employ proven untrustworthy individuals be viewed

[cryptohunter]

@OP, I was busy for couple of days, did some kind of truce happened between you and DT.

Just wondering if a known scammer started advertising a project then will you tag the project ?
If project denied that there is no deal between their project and scammer and scammer is doing on it's own?

What if deal is happened in private?

If we are going to tag by this logic might their competitor employs scammer to advertise for the legit project so that competition can be destroyed.

I think project need to evaluated first instead of who is advertising it for giving the tags

No truce. What leads you to believe there was a truce? I am just on vacation and don't have time to post as often right now.
Also I have decided to tone down my posts to presentation of fact and observable events ONLY

How would a known scammer get to promote a legit project most are not accepting even possible scammers? well that is what I have been told so far on this thread.

[1713983278]

1713983278

[1713983278]

1713983278

[1713983278]

1713983278

[HCP]

persons proven untrustworthy

To whose standard is the "proof" required? Your's? Mine? Theymos'?

This is an inherent problem we have... there is no defined standard. I see "red tags" being handed out to "alts abusing campaigns" because they all happened to deposit ERC20 tokens to the same address... In my mind, this is not definitive proof of accounts being alts. As I see it, it is just as likely (as is claimed by the "alts" in a lot of these instances) that it is simply a group of friends/family members all happily spamming away on FB/Twitter to earn some tokens and then consolidating them into one account to save on transaction/trading fees.

However, multiple BTC addresses "owned" by different accounts all being linked as inputs in a single transaction is definitive proof in my eyes that the addresses all belong to one person.

I've seen users here on various sides of various disputes claim (like your poll) that there are only 2 options... Yes/No, Black/White, For/Against etc... Unfortunately, in my opinion, the world we live in, isn't so neatly black and white... there are large areas of grey in various shades. So, attempting to define everything in such a binary manner is somewhat naive.

[cryptohunter]

persons proven untrustworthy

To whose standard is the "proof" required? Your's? Mine? Theymos'?

This is an inherent problem we have... there is no defined standard. I see "red tags" being handed out to "alts abusing campaigns" because they all happened to deposit ERC20 tokens to the same address... In my mind, this is not definitive proof of accounts being alts. As I see it, it is just as likely (as is claimed by the "alts" in a lot of these instances) that it is simply a group of friends/family members all happily spamming away on FB/Twitter to earn some tokens and then consolidating them into one account to save on transaction/trading fees.

However, multiple BTC addresses "owned" by different accounts all being linked as inputs in a single transaction is definitive proof in my eyes that the addresses all belong to one person.

I've seen users here on various sides of various disputes claim (like your poll) that there are only 2 options... Yes/No, Black/White, For/Against etc... Unfortunately, in my opinion, the world we live in, isn't so neatly black and white... there are large areas of grey in various shades. So, attempting to define everything in such a binary manner is somewhat naive.

If someone was PROVEN to lie for financial gain then to me they are PROVEN untrustworthy in a trading system. I mean anyone disagreeing with this should explain why.

You will find people that will state that raping  is not a BAD thing but then again those same persons arguing that point are likely not going to be the kind of persons that you would want to deal with very much or be left alone with if you are vulnerable. Or bring them over to baby sit for you.

People will always find some "reasons" to disagree with WIDELY accepted views on things and their arguments should be considered but when you are dealing with a simple SCORE then

1. do you want those persons that are proven to lie for financial reasons getting a positive score
2. do you want those persons that are proven to lie for financial reasons getting a negative score

I mean surely you want to TRUST what they say as being TRUE? right?

I mean you send them the goods first and they say - nope didnt get them so they gain by keeping the money? you are happy about this or not?

Let's be sensible.

But YES I agree with you we need some RULES or CRITERIA that all persons are measured against so we have a universally agreed upon scoring system that makes some sense.  Same for Meta what makes a "good " post?? as suchmoon told me the entire good post bad post is MEANINGLESS without some definition or criteria.

[HCP]

That's not quite what I was getting at... I'm not debating whether "proven scammers are bad" or not, but trying to determine what the standard of proof is to consider something as "proven" in the first place.

For instance, do you just need a screenshot of PM or do you need a PM that has been independently verified/corroborated by a 3rd party or do you need <something else>? Do you then need X members of DT to vote "guilty"? Do you need X "members" of the forum to vote "guilty"? etc

Does that make sense?

I am beginning to think that perhaps this might be a topic for a different thread. Apologies for the thread drift.