CRONYISM: A MAJOR ISSUE - Controlling The Trust System & Reputation Board ⚠️

[Kazkaz27]

☣️ Community policing has failed! ☣️

**Key Problems with the Current DT1/Trust System:**

• It rewards insiders and punishes outsiders who challenge, question or voice concern regarding protected members activities and status quo itself.
• Negative trust is frequently used as a weapon rather than a genuine warning.
• Members with clean financial histories can still be buried under coordinated negative feedback.

The system and the culture within has turned perverse and has created a culture of cronyism, shills, and various other forms of corruption.

This forum's narrative is controlled by a group in cahoots. I have exposed it through my interactions and involvement with those in "power."

The DT1 and trust system are broken beyond repair — raped and mistreated. The cronies support the status quo not because it works so well, but because it benefits them.

I suspect that this post will stir up the cronies. Idiots will point out my own reputation and the long list of negative trusts I have. That doesn’t work against me — it proves my point.

For the record, I’ve never had one bad financial transaction to date, on or off this forum. I’ve fought fire with fire and have exposed the crony behavior. Admittedly, I’ve crossed the same line that they have in an effort to showcase their hypocrisy. For this, I don’t wish to be viewed as a role model, as the cronies have claimed. They will do anything in their attempts to ignore, silence, and discredit me.

Here is a Grox independent analysis: BitcoinTalk is Full of Cronyism.


Edit/Disclaimer: This thread will be re-created and self-moderated because Vod frequently derails topics of those he holds grudges. Looking at his history, his grudges tend to make others uncomfortable and less likely to participate. I’m re-creating this thread in the reputation board for anyone who wants to interact without dealing with trolls, spam, harassment, or off-topic banter. I have him on ignore and won’t be engaging with any of his comments. I’ll also keep this  thread open so no one can claim my self-moderation has alternative motives.

Here is the self moderated version located in the reputation board: CRONYISM: A MAJOR ISSUE - (Vod not allowed Version)

[LoyceV]

The DefaultTrust system is a bit like a democracy: it's a terrible system, but it's also the best we have so far. Saying it's bad isn't going to change that, you'll have to come up with a better system to replace it.

Here is a Grox independent analysis

Output from a language model created by billionaires is neither independent nor worth reading.

[Bitcoin-Forever]

Life is not balanced on itself, remember that even when the sinner is being punished, the righteous will take part of it.

If we can have over 70% of accurate judgment with the use of DT power, then I think the remaining once left shouldn't be a concern, we are the enemies to ourselves, theymos is not moved by all these.

[Kazkaz27]

The DefaultTrust system is a bit like democracy: it's a terrible system, but it's also the best we have so far. Saying it's bad isn't going to change that, you'll have to come up with a better system to replace it.

Here is a Grox independent analysis

Output from a language model created by billionaires is neither independent nor worth reading.

LoyceV, I respect you for your acknowledgement that the system is terrible. You can rightfully so say “it’s the best we have”.

I’ve suggested legitimate changes to the system which was supported and would help in my view.

Example: I believe a new rule should be implemented regarding negative trust

I don’t wish to completely replace or reinvent the wheel here. I wish to make adjustments to our current system to combat some of the issues I highlight.

Lastly, billionaires certainly paid for the technology to be created but I’m nearly 100% certain that they aren’t the ones that actually created it. I certainly would argue that AI is a worthwhile tool and it’s worth utilizing/reading.

[nutildah]

I’ve suggested legitimate changes to the system which was supported and would help in my view.

Example: I believe a new rule should be implemented regarding negative trust

We went over this already. Negative feedback used to require a reference link. At some point that was considered too stringent of a requirement and it was dropped. Now you're advocating that it be changed back because you believe it will "help" the trust system, but you never really provided an explanation of how it helps. As was pointed out to you, instead of having 8 referenced negative feedbacks and 4 unreferenced, you'd just have 12 referenced negative feedbacks.

If someone really doesn't like unreferenced feedback, then they should exclude members who leave it. I've excluded several users for this very reason. But you can't force everybody else to adhere to your own personal standards.

[Kazkaz27]

I’ve suggested legitimate changes to the system which was supported and would help in my view.

Example: I believe a new rule should be implemented regarding negative trust

We went over this already. Negative feedback used to require a reference link. At some point that was considered too stringent of a requirement and it was dropped. Now you're advocating that it be changed back because you believe it will "help" the trust system, but you never really provided an explanation of how it helps. As was pointed out to you, instead of having 8 referenced negative feedbacks and 4 unreferenced, you'd just have 12 referenced negative feedbacks.

If someone really doesn't like unreferenced feedback, then they should exclude members who leave it. I've excluded several users for this very reason. But you can't force everybody else to adhere to your own personal standards.

I’m glad you see it as a legitimate reason for excluding users from your trust lists. That must mean the rule suggestion itself has validity, despite your opposition to it. How did I force everyone or anyone? You create false narratives in spite of me. (Nutildah is one of the cronies)

Now you're advocating that it be changed back because you believe it will "help" the trust system

I as well as many suggest so according to the poll.



I certainly did provide reasoning and examples of how and why it would help. Feel free to reread the thread: I believe a new rule should be implemented regarding negative trust.

This thread will be re-created and self-moderated because Vod frequently derails topics of those he holds grudges. Looking at his history, his grudges tend to make others uncomfortable and less likely to participate. I’m re-creating this thread in the reputation board for anyone who wants to interact without dealing with trolls, spam, harassment, or off-topic banter. I have him on ignore and won’t be engaging with any of his comments. I’ll also keep this  thread open so no one can claim my self-moderation has alternative motives.

Here is the self moderated version located in the reputation board: CRONYISM: A MAJOR ISSUE - (Vod not allowed Version)

[nutildah]

I’m glad you see it as a legitimate reason for excluding users from your trust lists. That must mean the rule suggestion itself has validity, despite your opposition to it.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. There are several accounts in my trust list that don't leave a reference for every negative feedback, and I'm OK with it, so long as they provide a net positive to the trust system, according to me. It is more nuanced of an issue than you want to make it.

How did I force everyone or anyone? You create false narratives in spite of me.

You want to take away people's choice to include a reference or not when leaving a negative feedback.

[Kazkaz27]

I’m glad you see it as a legitimate reason for excluding users from your trust lists. That must mean the rule suggestion itself has validity, despite your opposition to it.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. There are several accounts in my trust list that don't leave a reference for every negative feedback, and I'm OK with it, so long as they provide a net positive to the trust system, according to me. It is more nuanced of an issue than you want to make it.

How did I force everyone or anyone? You create false narratives in spite of me.

You want to take away people's choice to include a reference or not when leaving a negative feedback.

It’s forum etiquette to leave a reference. I want people who leave negative trusts to do so with a standard. On top of that, I would like to protect members from false claims without validation or references supporting the negative feedback they receive. Simple. We should not allow the choice to leave negative feedback without reference or validation because that leads to systemic abuse.

[nutildah]

The "Independent" Analysis is a Broken! The logic is broken, it relies on the perverse tactic of "keyword stuffing," with term "cronyism" that obsessive frequency to hijack the AI's indexing and force a specific, biased narrative into the search results. Other "evidence" provided by the AI is nothing more than a summary of the very threads the author inhabits. It is a parrot, not a prosecutor.

🤖 AI Utilized!

Freaking hilarious.

DT/Trust System Complaints: The Default Trust (DT) system is frequently accused of bias, clique behavior, and abuse. Recent threads (as of 2026) call out "Nutildah and his DT1 cronies," moderator favoritism, unfair negative trust ratings, and protection of insiders. DT1 status gives outsized influence (e.g., in scam accusations, campaigns, and reputation), and users allege it's used to target newcomers or competitors while shielding allies.

Kaz is using threads he created about cronyism as proof of cronyism.

[Kazkaz27]

The "Independent" Analysis is a Broken! The logic is broken, it relies on the perverse tactic of "keyword stuffing," with term "cronyism" that obsessive frequency to hijack the AI's indexing and force a specific, biased narrative into the search results. Other "evidence" provided by the AI is nothing more than a summary of the very threads the author inhabits. It is a parrot, not a prosecutor.

🤖 AI Utilized!

Freaking hilarious.

DT/Trust System Complaints: The Default Trust (DT) system is frequently accused of bias, clique behavior, and abuse. Recent threads (as of 2026) call out "Nutildah and his DT1 cronies," moderator favoritism, unfair negative trust ratings, and protection of insiders. DT1 status gives outsized influence (e.g., in scam accusations, campaigns, and reputation), and users allege it's used to target newcomers or competitors while shielding allies.

Kaz is using threads he created about cronyism as proof of cronyism.

Fire Vs Fire 🔥 I respect it. Although, if AI was utilized, you essentially defeated your own point. Pure comedic gold to criticize someone for using a calculator and then pulling out your own calculator to do the math in your response.

That’s right nutildah, several of my threads do serve as evidence. Glad you pointed that one out.

[nutildah]

Fire Vs Fire 🔥 I respect it. Although, if AI was utilized, you essentially defeated your own point. Pure comedic gold to criticize someone for using a calculator and then pulling out your own calculator to do the math in your response.

How convenient to live in a world where you always come out on top thanks to AI's your ability to twist any conversation in your favor. First, the author was responsible about their disclosure of using AI. Second, they used it to prove an important point about biasing Grok output to get a favorable response.

Their AI output wasn't biased whereas yours was. Ergo, they demonstrated correct use of AI while you continue to demonstrate discernably incorrect use of it. If anything you're just using it to continue to prove you shouldn't be trusted.

[Kazkaz27]

Fire Vs Fire 🔥 I respect it. Although, if AI was utilized, you essentially defeated your own point. Pure comedic gold to criticize someone for using a calculator and then pulling out your own calculator to do the math in your response.

How convenient to live in a world where you always come out on top thanks to AI's your ability to twist any conversation in your favor. First, the author was responsible about their disclosure of using AI. Second, they used it to prove an important point about biasing Grok output to get a favorable response.

Their AI output wasn't biased whereas yours was. Ergo, they demonstrated correct use of AI while you continue to demonstrate discernably incorrect use of it. If anything you're just using it to continue to prove you shouldn't be trusted.

It’s a wonderful world we live in that’s for sure. I appreciate the compliment and your acknowledgment you just can’t beat me. I know your ego desperately wants to destroy me. You don’t got anything but hurt feelings against me. Rightfully, so.

[JeromeTash]

This thread will be re-created and self-moderated because...

I am not sure whether you were here during the times of Thule, Cryptohunter and a bunch of his alts, but your current trajectory reminds me of them. They always complained about the forum's trust system and created thread after thread about the same thing but with no viable solution.

Maybe you just enjoy complaining, but every day you create a new thread and then a Re:... and then a self-moderated one, discussing the same thing. People stop taking you seriously over time.

[nutildah]

I appreciate the compliment and your acknowledgment you just can’t beat me.

You're right, you've clearly outsmarted me at every angle. I will take my L and refrain from commenting in your threads in the future.

[KWH]

This thread will be re-created and self-moderated because...

I am not sure whether you were here during the times of Thule, Cryptohunter and a bunch of his alts, but your current trajectory reminds me of them. They always complained about the forum's trust system and created thread after thread about the same thing but with no viable solution.

Maybe you just enjoy complaining, but every day you create a new thread and then a Re:... and then a self-moderated one, discussing the same thing. People stop taking you seriously over time.

I agree, these threads are getting long in the tooth and.........unentertaining. IMO, they are approaching spam status.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Using my alt, not as a way to “subvert” my ban but to announce that I will be back in 30 days! I have a feeling that my account was banned not because of the reason stated but rather because I upset and exposed the cronies to a point of no return.

Like I said…

They will do anything in their attempts to ignore, silence, and discredit me.

Disclaimer: This is the last post of mine for the next 30 days. Enjoy your shit eating crony echo chamber. I’m sure you’ll be at peace sucking each other off and discrediting anyone outside of your cock sucking circle.

So you are admitting that you are evading the ban by using an alt account? You have been in the forum for a while, and you know the rules. You do realize that the alt account of yours is also going to get banned if reported to the mods?

The mods just don't ban based on emotions. They follow the forum moderation policy, and the reasons you were banned can be seen in the screenshot.

Can't you just serve your ban and then come back with a much calmer mind? Because honestly, you need a break.

[philipma1957]

Hey we should give the op 23 merits so he makes legendary while he is banned.

BTW I have 1 neg trust that would be taken off so I am mentioning it so as to not be hassled,abou5 giving him some merits.

Personally I am not a big fan of the trust setup but asking for a reference is kinder and gentler than forcing a reference.

I gave him 3 merits so he is at 980.

[MoparMiningLLC]

I really try to ignore OP because imo he is a detriment to the community. Always complaining about how he is wronged etc etc

says he has "never had one bad financial transaction to date, on or off this forum" I can think of a few....


1. Selling private keys by the sheets - later claims the keys are shipped between layers of cardboard sealed with tamper evident holograms, this was not mentioned until much later. Even then that still would mean 2 people have seen the keys. No keys should be used if more than one person has seen them. Then claimed each key was covered with a hologram - I have peeled many of his coins and have never seen a hologram under the hologram... Another attempt to back pedal to cover their ass when they should have just learned from the experience and should not sell keys for others to use. He now claims to have sold  thousands and thousands of private keys - I am curious as to where - he released very few coins - that I am aware - since being here on the forums and as of mid 2024 - not even 2 years ago - he was asking fellow members how to even generate keys securely. Is the claim just another falsehood to try and project a presence that he really does not?

2. He goes to a mint - it happens to be the same mint Smoothie used (creator of Lealana coins) and somehow manages to walk away with unreleased coins - gets them graded and puts them up for auction. This is the equivilant of selling stolen merchandise - he did not have the creators permission and he knew the mint did not either - he even stated he knew it was wrong but his temptation to get a hold of the coins won out over doing the right thing.

what happenned? Stacks Bowers was informed of the situation and immediately pulled the coins out the upcoming auction - in the end, the coins were returned to smoothie.


and now he is banned - appears to be for AI/low quality posts. Also, it is a well known rule that you are not to use an alt account to post and avoid the ban - yet he knowingly states that he is doing so.  Just permaban both accounts and nuke em both imo - he will make another acocunt though - we all know it - but will he act different? will he be able to avoid the temptation to point out it is him and thus avoiding the ban yet again?

My guess he will remain the same and still blame everyone else instead of himself.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

That's brilliant, OP. I remember when you only had 7 red tags on your profile and started this thread.

The reason is that any negative trust should be backed by something justifiable — such as evidence or legal grounds.

And as a result, you’ve got what you wanted. Five more red tags with a reference link (only one without a link, which you’ve also started whingeing about).

Your way of handling criticism has been to first distrust people (simply out of spite, not the way it should be done, by looking at trust feedback and lists), then keep bitching and moaning with more new threads.

At least you’ve left us funny comments like this one:

Don, I’m not sure what you look like but when I think of you this is what I think of.

But other comments weren’t quite so funny, like when you recently clearly twisted a quote from Vod and, after he replied warning you of legal action, it was obvious how you’d shit yourself in your replies.

Yes, I am talking to him directly because even though he is banned I am sure he is reading the thread.

[Vod]

But other comments weren’t quite so funny, like when you recently clearly twisted a quote from Vod and, after he replied warning you of legal action, it was obvious how you’d shit yourself in your replies.

The liability he faces is insane!   If I'm approached or injured because of those quotes, he will go to prison.   I've been told the FBI acts quick on violent cases like this by first contacting (Theymos) to preserve then remove the posts before they are indexed.    I won't even ask him personally - I want everything done legally with as little disruption/involvement to the forum as possible.