Topic: Can a default trust member (Lauda) arbitrary destroy other people's reputation?? - page 6. (Read 5912 times)

True. I, and many others, did so of our own free will. We were pointed to this possibility by another member of the community.
I was never asked by rainbow to do this.

Regarding LAUDA, I find it concerning that it is that easy to have the DeepOnion dev downvoted. I took the liberty to write him a post :

" Dear Lauda,

I had the pleasure of encountering your name through the MinexCoin ICO, where you acted as an ESCROW Solution. (it appears that I was one of the 2 people who were looking for you, with hansen)

More recently, I am involved in the DeepOnion project and stumbled upon the scam allegation from DogeMajestic. I will not judge him, for this is not the issue here.

What DogeMajestic has wrote may have some basis in the sense that he is concerned with the premined coins and the current staking of said coins. however, he is jumping to conclusions and may be proven wrong in the coming months.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20555622

You will find on this link my answer to his post, where I do not give any opinion regarding DeepOnion but question the rigor and seriousness of his analysis and even more so, his conclusions. His approach is fundamentally flawed and he did not read the full content of the OP apparently (devs will distribute 70% of the coins in 40 rounds of airdrops, 1 per week and 20% for bounties).

May I respectfully ask you, before downgrading the trustlevel of crypto-rainbow and thus endangering the project's image, to dig a little further and see for yourself wether or not the project is trully a scam?
At this moment, such allegations are 100% impossible to verify for there is NO ICO to it and DeepOnion is not present on any exchanges. This means, there cannot be any scam by essence. Moreover, If the dev is legit, he will distribute the premined coin as said in the OP and what will be left to the team is :

-10% of the total amount
- reward from staked coins (which they are doing right now)

This information can be verified on the OP page : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.20555622

Lauda, if by chance my message has spread a little bit of doubt in your mind, enough to dig a little further in order to see for yourself if the project is a scam or not, may I ask you to do a proper research and find out?
If you do believe after that work that you were wrong, may I ask you to correct the mistake and upgrade his trust level again?

Thank you for the time you will allocate for this query of mine,

With respect"





This is the answer I received :

" The developer of that project is trust farming, thus he can not be trusted regardless of the accusations raised by DogeMajestic."



While I dot not know the guy and will not allow myself any judgment on the character, I do find the answer concerning. Crypto-rainbow didn't receive any positive trust rating BEFORE LAUDA downvoted him.
By nature, there was no trust farming. The community took the responsability to positive trust him to compensate for Lauda's vote.

In this matter, and given how poor the argumentation of Lauda is, both in the trust rating and in his answer to me, I still do not have a valid reason for Lauda's actions.

I will leave the judgment to the moderators of the forum to investigate and take the proper actions if an abuse of power was exercised (which seems to be the case here, if lauda doesn't justify his actions with additional reasons).

With respect,


POST 2/2

If you want to improve the situation, then do it.
Follow PROFILE>Trust>Trust settings>Add text below>Save
Text

I wanted to take the opportunity to join the discussion in this matter. First of all, here are the observations I can make regarding the project.

From the moment I joined the project, I have seen several things that stand out:

- The community is growing organically thanks to :
     °AIRDROP : No Ico which means the team had to find the fundings to proceed on their own. Far from being the easy way to go (especially with the
                       latest monstruous ICO's) => No money has ever been involved.
     °Scam allegation which reality can be quite easily dismissed, and auto-verified with time. => I will insist on this point since on its own, this part
       can dismiss all accusation of scam.
- The promises, all kept, that allows us to build a relationship based on trust, avoiding the fear and doubts by essence.
- The unplanned rewards, given as a token of appreciation by the team for our efforts in building the community with a positivie mindset. Who does
  that? We just received twice the amount!

As You can see, these are only facts and no interpretation. On its own, these facts are reassuring, enticing and strongly motivating.



Let me remind that the coin is 90% premine, and most importantly :

- 70% WILL BE DISTRIBUTED DURING 40 WEEKS OF AIRDROP : on its own, if the project was to be a scam, it is going to be fairly obvious (in the rich list, we can see if the accounts holding the premined coins is diminishing). SInce we can get that reach list, it would be incredibly stupid to attempt a scam..
- 20% FOR BOUNTIES : same anaysis as previously
-10% FOR THE DEVS: this is what will be left to the team. Again here, it will be pretty easyto calculate exactly how many coin this amounts to, and see that the promise is kept : time will tell
-STAKING OF THE PREMINED COINS : I don't understand why the devs staking their premined coin is a problem. Since in the end, the only thing that they will keep is 10% and the result of said staking. How does it relate all this to a scam?

As you did understand, the allegations of scam WILL BE UNVERIFIED with time. Anywy who believes in it just has to wait and see for themselves, checking the rich list.


POST 1/2

The trust vote is a fairly democratic procedure.
I did so in the trust settings
I hope that he will receive negative trust from me.
~ sign means this 

Relax guys, here's a fun video to enjoy. Make sure you turn on the subtitle (lower bar, left corner, after start on the lower right corner)  

http://www.captiongenerator.com/632602/Fuding-from-the-bunker

Well this is the question: people in default trust group has the trust of the forum, so they should do things in a reasonable and justifiable way. Can they do whatever they want? Can he just destroy the reputation of anyone he does not like? or potentially has conflict of what he does? I don't care for whatever reasons he did it. But does he have the right to do so??

If a judge in a democratic country can do that, then it's no longer a democratic country, it is an autocratic country. This forum will not be like that...

From the start it was very clear the onions are pre-mined. Let there be no mistake: everyone knew this. This is not an argument imo.

You know: it is a bummer to have to witness these attacks. You don't like a project: move along.
Why on earth would you give negative rep? I have seen FUD on multiple occasions: Minereum, Timereum. All based on bs reasonings.
Giving a neg rep is new to me though; it takes things to a next level.

This is far from random trolling. Hell; it can be fun to stir shit up a little bit. But to try and destroy a person's work? Or the work of a community?
Doing that requires motives. Motives here are unclear, but do "taste" highly emotional. Arguments were never proven, but repeated multiple times and sometimes in capslock. As if that proves accusations...

All I can say is I vow for rainbow and he really doesn't earn this crap which is being poured over him. Even so the dev team.

As an early follower of this project, a translator and an active community member it hurts me to see people like Lauda are trying to do this. In effect it has negative consequences for me too, as I would like to see this project can grow as it had in mind and as it deserves. I, with my good intentions, would benefit.

I am all in for feedback, but please do so reasonably.
This Lauda thing is far from reasonable.

Please follow the chronology of this issue: from fud to neg rep and see for yourselves.
Then I hope you can see the unfairness and will remove the neg rep.

/my2cents

Proof?

Lauda is a very bad person, and would not be surprised by this, but I need to see evidence before I would believe it.

it turns out that lauda is a dev of a competing coin,so it was in his interests to spread false fud and scamm accusations at crypto-onion. deeponion has so far delivered everything promised and more. crypto-rainbow has shown himself to be a trustworthy and very very active dev and has my full support

Exactly. They have been very upfront about their intentions for this coin. They have delivered airdrops on time, have settled discrepancies on time (I can personally attest to that) and are always wanting more input from the community.

I am fully committed to helping this project in any way I can, and believe it will do very well.

There needs to be some sort of control, or moderation possibly before those posts on positive or negative trust become public.

How can the dev prove that the coin is not premined? It IS premined, or at least 90% of the coin is premined. That is the whole purpose of this coin. Premine 90% and distribute to the community.

They can, but without talking to anyone in the thread, and posted 2 consecutive negatives on the same thing, is a clear act to abuse his power, and try to destroy another person's reputation. Those who abuse the power should be removed. They don't worth the trust from us the community members!

Lauda is on the default trust network because of hilariousandco and blazed. Both are effectively endorsing any activity that Lauda engages in, especially that regarding trust ratings.

If you do not agree with Lauda's trust ratings, then I would advise that you warn others against trading, doing business with, or entrusting to moderate the forum with either of these people.

Everyone in the DefaultTrust list have their own judgments and can cast their feedback on users they think will have positive/negative impact in the bitcon society. Also, seeing the reference of the neg trust, there is an extensive amount of evidence and proofs to support Lauda's judgment. I would not dip my feet into the waters but unless the dev proved that the DeepOnion project is not a premine coin, then the neg trust would (?) be removed by Lauda.

Lauda recently without any reason posted two negative feedback on the dev of DeepOnion coin, while the dev has overwhelming positive support from the community (see his full trust feedback):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=321080

DeepOnion is a recent launched altcoin with free airdrops and no ICO/crowdfunding. It received a lot community support since start.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-deeponion-tor-deepvault-cryptopia-airdrop-2440-we-dominate-2006010

Lauda, who never posted a single comment on the DeepOnion thread, and without any contact and discussion with the dev or the community, posted two negative trust on the dev of DeepOnion. Since he's from the default trust group, the negative trusts was displayed to everyone while other trust feedback are hidden. This seriously impacted the dev credibility of the DeepOnion.

The DeepOnion thread is a moderated thread, therefore dev deleted a few fud/garbage comments, but there are at least 6 different threads created that expressed different opinions on the DeepOnion.

I saw many people complained about Lauda's behaviors before. Here is one example:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/theymos-this-is-the-lauda-you-protect-while-she-ruins-others-reputations-1905242

My question is this: does he has the right to do so? In this forum we have a small group belonging to the default trust group, where we put trust on them to be fair and make the right judgements. Do these people have the right to destroy other people's reputation at will, and in a hostile way? I think he abused his rights, and I request forum mods to investigate this matter. Thanks.

PS I am just one of the supporters of the DeepOnion.