Who controls Bestchange's account?

[airfinex]

Is the Best_Change account actually linked directly to the https://www.bestchange.com/ site? It seems to me that one of the campaign managers is hiding behind a screen and not a support service.

• And this thought prompted me to the next thought, which can be formulated as "Can I really trust this account as the Bestchange support account?"
• Despite the fact that the account has a lot of positive feedbacks, I see that most of them have nothing to do with assessing the quality of the Bestchange service.

Solution options
If this is a corporate BestChange account, then he must clear his trust list, leaving it by default. This account will soon become DT1 and in the event of any dispute, this account will be able to use a preventive response.

If this is not a corporate account, but an account created only in order to manage the signature campaign (manager's account) then I would like to know who is hiding behind the control screen. I want to know who people really trust and I will hope that this person added people to his list of trust not only because they participated in the signature campaign.

As DT was organized previously, one or both sides of a dispute was usually unable to effectively retaliate to a rating, at least via the trust system itself. Now your ability to effectively retaliate will tend to increase as you become more established in the community, which should discourage abuse generally.

[AB de Royse777]

A long time ago I had a chat with the account Best_Change and my impression was that it is an official account of https://www.bestchange.com/ however I never asked to prove further. It never needed. The communication already built a trust at that time and it's still the same for me.

However, you have a good point.

If this is their official account and user Best_Change is the official from bestchange.com then I would suggest Best_Change to link up a bitcoin address from bestchange.com known address to make it official in public. And if this is someone who is just a manager to manage the campaign then of course he has nothing to do with bestchange.com officials. Besides, from the username it is assumable the Best_Change user is the official representative of bestchange.com.

[YOSHIE]

I saw in your trust profile full of question marks.....!!!!!!! Not fun.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=2467935



So, why would you be dying to know who controls the Bestchange account.
• What is your purpose...!
• For what do you want to know all that.....!
• And what is Bestchange's relationship with you ...!

So, once you find out that the Bestchange account is managed by the manager / team of the Bestchange company then what do you want to know more....!

And one more thing, who is behind your account .....!
You're not new here...are there any shrimp behind the rock.

[Csmiami]

I'm surprised it's taken so long before someone actually said nothing about this, but the way people have been acting towards Best_Change is far from good. Let me explain myself:

The trust system is not perfect, but it has its use cases. It's useful as we know, both with the feedback sent/received AND the one showed either by default or based on our custom trust lists.
BestChange is "just" a company; at the end of the day, the aim of that account is to build community around their bussines, and that's why they run their sig campaign, or sponsored the bitcointalk community awards etc, nothing wrong there. But the way users have been using the trust system regarding this account is a bit wrong.

As it is mentioned in OP, the trust list from that account is a bit unsettling.
First of all, the people trusting Best_Changes' judgement. The account has only sent 2 trust feedbacks; pretty generic if you ask me, and it's not a judgement worth trusting, to my eyes at least; so I'd consider it a wrong use of the trust system. Second of all, the trust list from Best_Change, on the judgementes they trust, there are many profiles that have left them positive feedback; although it's not a bad list if you ask me, so I have no complaint there.

There's plenty to be said about the feedbacks they have received too; but this could be applied to most signature managers, receiving positives (and merits) from the participants upon every payment.

My personal feeling about this particular user and campaign though, is that because they started as a rather fishy company and ended up being a legit one (and throwing a lot of money on the signature campaign), they have received a kind of special treatment. This again, is my personal feeling, as I wouldn't have sent that many (actually not a single one) positive feedbacks to a company promoting themselves (a neutral at a most) and even less added them to my trust list (but once again, personal).

However, the request OP does propose about wanting to know who is behind the account is plain stupid. Could there be a conflict of interest regarding feedbacks? Of course, and that has been addressed in this post; but there are very different concerns.

[examplens]

I'm not sure I understood where you see the problem here. Even if behind this account is a real person, they can create his own custom trust list like everyone else. A year ago there was a critical situation with scam accusations against them, I guess that's affected and that they expand his trust list, more to be sure about his own feedback rating here.
I add them on my trust list based on a conversation with the person who handles it and to his reactions on the forum in some specific situation.

If this is a corporate BestChange account, then he must clear his trust list, leaving it by default. This account will soon become DT1 and in the event of any dispute, this account will be able to use a preventive response.

BestChange account is trusted by 8 7 members, and they need much more to be selected into DT1, no matter what their DT list looked like.

btw. What is the difference between a corporate or personal account?

• Despite the fact that the account has a lot of positive feedbacks, I see that most of them have nothing to do with assessing the quality of the Bestchange service.

I made the exchange with them for $5k+ I still stand behind the fact that they are trusted as I say in my feedback there.

[lovesmayfamilis]

And one more thing, who is behind your account .....!
You're not new here...are there any shrimp behind the rock.

Don't you recognize the one looking for scandals on the forum? Recently he did not like Ratimov, now he needs other proof. If everyone on the Bitcoin forum discloses their identity, would that make sense?
Why didn't you like Best_Change manager this time? Why should he, and not someone else, layout the documents in front of you?
It didn't work out with Ratimov, now you need to dictate to others what and how to do it?

[Bitcoin_Arena]

People will send positive feedback if they feel satisfied about a deal or service. If someone got paid for 10 consecutive months and on time, then what's wrong with leaving a positive feedback on the profile?

We have seen users leave positive feedback on profiles over a one time $20 deal. So what's so special about best_change's positive feedback?

Does it matter if you know the person behind the BestChange account or not? The point is whoever they are, they are doing the job well and handling large sums of money without being dishonest.

My personal feeling about this particular user and campaign though, is that because they started as a rather fishy company and ended up being a legit one (and throwing a lot of money on the signature campaign), they have received a kind of special treatment. This again, is my personal feeling, as I wouldn't have sent that many (actually not a single one) positive feedbacks to a company promoting themselves (a neutral at a most) and even less added them to my trust list (but once again, personal).

I didn't see anything fishy about their beginning or even the start of the signature campaign. Some people just rushed to crucify them just because they decided to run a signature campaign and didn't want to use an escrow service or trusted campaign manager. For a company that had already been operating for 13 years, it was a little sad that received a multiple negative tags in the first week when they decided to advertise themselves here. Some negatives turned into positives after some members realized that they were actually legit.

[magneto]

Unbiased opinion here.

I think that it doesn't matter. Bitcointalk reps are not mandated to represent the reputation of the whole company. They simply reflect whether or not the account itself is reputable/trustworthy or not.

Trying to moderate the trust system like this will create a slippery slope whereby the whole system may become centralised - which is precisely against the reason why the trust system is there in the first place and not forum bans for scammers.

[Laudanum]

People will send positive feedback if they feel satisfied about a deal or service. If someone got paid for 10 consecutive months and on time, then what's wrong with leaving a positive feedback on the profile?

We have seen users leave positive feedback on profiles over a one time $20 deal. So what's so special about best_change's positive feedback?

Does it matter if you know the person behind the BestChange account or not? The point is whoever they are, they are doing the job well and handling large sums of money without being dishonest.

My personal feeling about this particular user and campaign though, is that because they started as a rather fishy company and ended up being a legit one (and throwing a lot of money on the signature campaign), they have received a kind of special treatment. This again, is my personal feeling, as I wouldn't have sent that many (actually not a single one) positive feedbacks to a company promoting themselves (a neutral at a most) and even less added them to my trust list (but once again, personal).

I didn't see anything fishy about their beginning or even the start of the signature campaign. Some people just rushed to crucify them just because they decided to run a signature campaign and didn't want to use an escrow service or trusted campaign manager. For a company that had already been operating for 13 years, it was a little sad that received a multiple negative tags in the first week when they decided to advertise themselves here. Some negatives turned into positives after some members realized that they were actually legit.

People getting paid to shill them dont see anything wrong with them?
Lol who would have guessed.

I dont know if they are dirty I do know they pay proven untrustworthy financially dangerous people to shill them though.
See the evidence posted on the thread above in rep.

 If they are clean they need to distance themselves from this type of scammy member
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5306907.0

[Bitcoin_Arena]

People getting paid to shill them dont see anything wrong with them?
Lol who would have guessed.

There's a difference between shilling and advertising. As far as I know BestChange is paying members here to advertise their service in signature spaces. Why are you trying so hard to make it look like Bestchange is doing something wrong even when they have not?

If you have qualms with someone, then deal with that person directly. I don't think it's wise to drag bestchange into the battleground.

[cryptoaddictchie]

If this is not a corporate account, but an account created only in order to manage the signature campaign (manager's account) then I would like to know who is hiding behind the control screen.

Whether its corporate or not, we should not have any rights to know who is the owner of the accountl like literally he should disclose himself that he is a bestchange  head or any sort of representative cause its gonna be obvious that he is.

What's wrong if a manager becomes a DT1? I know there are some conflict but as far I see bestchange handles some issues about the campaign professionally. Anyway the only one who can response to you is bestchange but he is not necessary to answer your query honestly.

[notblox1]

There is no need to know exact name and identity of Bestchange campaign manager, I don't want that and I don't think he is hiding behind anything.
I remember when Bestchange showed up in forum first time and some people had doubts about them, but many months later they proved to be reliable service and good forum campaign.

If you want you can test their service like I did and give them your feedback, good or bad, and nobody is forcing you to do it.

[SFR10]

It seems to me that one of the campaign managers is hiding behind a screen and not a support service.

Care to explain what brought you to that conclusion?

• And this thought prompted me to the next thought, which can be formulated as "Can I really trust this account as the Bestchange support account?"

When it comes to representative accounts of certain projects, there are always mixed results of some being the support while others being a marketing guy of some sort but even in the latter case, they do forward issues to their respective support team and act accordingly...

• Having said the above things, you should trust an account based on its actions instead of the type of position they belong to.

This account will soon become DT1 and in the event of any dispute, this account will be able to use a preventive response.

When it comes to DT status, none of the DT1/2 members have their names engraved in stone ^{[a lot could change quickly if someone crosses the line (it will not go unnoticed)]}.

[Laudanum]

People getting paid to shill them dont see anything wrong with them?
Lol who would have guessed.

There's a difference between shilling and advertising. As far as I know BestChange is paying members here to advertise their service in signature spaces. Why are you trying so hard to make it look like Bestchange is doing something wrong even when they have not?

If you have qualms with someone, then deal with that person directly. I don't think it's wise to drag bestchange into the battleground.

They are doing something wrong if they are knowingly paying willing scam facilitators who attempt to delete their post histories to hide that fact.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

They are doing something wrong if they are knowingly paying willing scam facilitators who attempt to delete their post histories to hide that fact.

That's none of your business if they decided to use anybody to advertise for them. It's their money, and you have no say over how they should spend it or who they should spend it on. It's not like they are just paying Nutildah for nothing. He's advertising their service for F**k's sake.

[Laudanum]

They are doing something wrong if they are knowingly paying willing scam facilitators who attempt to delete their post histories to hide that fact.

That's none of your business if they decided to use anybody to advertise for them. It's their money, and you have no say over how they should spend it or who they should spend it on. It's not like they are just paying Nutildah for nothing. He's advertising their service for F**k's sake.

Well, let's suppose I say it is my business?
Then what?

So to be clear - you say that it is okay for projects to sponsor scammers or willing scam facilitators to post here?

I believe it is entirely unethical and disgusting to pay scammers and willing scam facilitators when there are honest members that cant get on to these campaigns.

I actually believe BESTCHANGE could be unaware of the types of scammers that their dirty campaign managers are wilfully and deliberately paying.

What if I told you that I don't feel it's any of your business to tell me it's none of my business ?
Does that bake your noodle?

[LTU_btc]

Why do you think that this account doesn't belongs to BestChange and is controlled by their campaign manager?  From what I saw, there is no signs to think so. If you will check history of this account, it's used for their communication since 2017, way before their signature campaign was started. But when they started campaign, not much has changed, they still communicate and provide support using this account.
About trust, personally, I don't think that corporate accounts should be involved in trust system. But I don't think it's big issue. I may be wrong, I haven't checked, but I believe that there was some corporate accounts on DT, maybe not on DT1, but still. Chipmixer maybe, for example?
P.S. Guys, I suggest not pay attention to Cryptohunter, don't feed troll .

[The Cryptovator]

Why its concern about green trust, many managers have multiple green trusts, does it really matter? Who knows if this account only for support forum users and manage their campaign? There aren't any restrictions that any companies wouldn't be DT members or they wouldn't get green trust. What I have remembered, they hadn't hired a manager out of their team, it's because they want to introduce their platform by themselves instead of hiring a manager. So, I believe the current manager belongs to the BestChange team, but his/her responsibility would be limited to the forum management only.

[airfinex]

A long time ago I had a chat with the account Best_Change and my impression was that it is an official account of https://www.bestchange.com/ however I never asked to prove further. It never needed. The communication already built a trust at that time and it's still the same for me.

However, you have a good point.

If this is their official account and user Best_Change is the official from bestchange.com then I would suggest Best_Change to link up a bitcoin address from bestchange.com known address to make it official in public. And if this is someone who is just a manager to manage the campaign then of course he has nothing to do with bestchange.com officials. Besides, from the username it is assumable the Best_Change user is the official representative of bestchange.com.

You are right, if BestChange signed the message using the Bitcoin address indicated on their website, I would be calm.

Marcel