<>
Two aims of theirs were exposed, firstly they wanted to participate in a particular signature campaign which in their own words was lucrative (make of that what you will) and second they wanted to present themselves as the champions of their local board users - again with an agenda where they end up sitting as some sort of power players on top of the pile in their local board.
<>
Neither of these issues are of particular concern to me. If a group of people want to pretend to more trustworthy than they actually are, I am not bothered with them stroking their egos. This does not mean that I condone this (I don't), nor that I would take seriously anyone who it is pointed out has done this (I wouldn't take them seriously). Where I draw the line is when a group of people tries to harm others by stealing money they have no legitimate claim to. This may be their long term goal, but I have not seen evidence they have tried this, and it would be speculation without basis that this is their goal, among recent groups.
I do think the risk of a group manipulating the system with the long term goal of harming others by stealing money is real.
I don't think the solution is to exclude people who are manipulating the system is the answer. My reading of the current
requirements is that DT selection is intended on being partially political. Over time those who wish to manipulate the system will get better at evading detection. There are some people (I will not name, privately, nor publicly) who I have noticed over the last few months that my personal intuition says are up to no good. There are also enough people that have (probably) legitimately earned a lot of merit and/or positive trust quickly that those who want to tinker with the trust system can study and emulate to eventually manipulate the trust system.
I believe the problem is at the protocol level. The current system is intended to be nearly 100% 'hands off' and reflect something close to a pure liberation system. The problem with this is that most people may 'play by the rules' but certain people may not 'play fairly' and take advantage of everyone else.
I am not sure what the solution is. I will think about what might improve the protocol and come back if I can think of a good suggestion.