Topic: hashforce101 - My suspicions about being bought account (Read 2156 times)

Sorry to hear that, sadly you didn't see that earlier. Let's hope that he pays back to you (even tho he just got tagged). He didn't even delete my reply from his thread before he got tagged. Im locking this thread, so if anyone has something to add to this, PM me and i'll unlock the thread. Thank you.

Sorry for bumping this topic, I just read this accusation. Hashforce used my service to make him signature design for Gazecoin. I finished the job and he hasn't replied my message yet until now. Our deal was on October 23rd, I finished the design on 24th, he asked some small changes, I did that, and he never replies me again. His last active is today, but never making any post. I thought he is being banned, so I added his skype to chat with him but he doesn't accept my request and seems he avoiding me. He is even using the avatar I made for him lmao. Well, he owes me 0.07 btc.

Seems like the user has still continued to ignore the accusations. I think it is obvious now that it is a bought account.

A free market with zero rules and regulation does not work, something that theymos apparently does not understand.

So what? Their complaints would be nothing more other than the unfounded whining that we see daily here.

Sigh. I think that Yahoo is pretty stretched thin with campaigns as is, so I don't see how this could be *for personal gain*.

Neither do I. However, let's be real here. (I'm going with your claim that Edwardard is good / have not stated my opinion on him) How many of them turn out to be pretty good like him? There is likely less than 10 people capable of properly managing campaigns. The majority: 1) Are low balling and not doing their jobs properly. 2) Something other malicious (see Windpower, CasioK et. al.).

I have left them a neutral rating. If they don't address this soon, I'll change it into negative. Better safe than sorry; lessons have been learned.

---

To be perfectly honest, managing campaigns is more of a *public service* than it is a job. The pay comes down to a low $/h rate if you're actually doing the job properly, which unfortunately is not something we see with plenty of these managers.

That's probably a smart move, because that's exactly what people would think.  I don't agree that managers should all be on DT, because some of them turn out to be pretty good, like Edwardard.  It's not a horrible idea at all, but it's an unnecessary limitation IMO.  I haven't looked into this joker, who's the object of this thread, but I'll take OP's word on it that he's a complete tool.  I stay far away from the altcoin bounties section and the altcoin ANN threads.  That whole area is nothing but a gigantic clusterfuck.  You're probably right on the money about the jobs going to the lowest bidder, and knowing this forum the way I do, that can only mean that the absolute worst members, the least qualified ones, are going to get the jobs.  You've seen how bad it is, with people fighting each other over the chance to earn 20 cents.  People snitching on people so they get booted out of campaigns, and then they apply for the open spot.  It's crazy.

That is true, when I was first starting off, I had to work for practically nothing and I was just stalking the announcement section of alt coins.

That is true, and mostly why CasioK was firstly hired from Give Coin and banana coin.

I understand your point of view, of course all DT members can be trusted, but people would most likely be thinking that you are monopolizing the campaign management industry.

I won't mind paying 0.1 a week. If this ever happens, please send me a pm to alert me. Feels like a way to stop people like Wizardaee, Windpower, Hashforce101 and CasioK from ruining this forum.

Sounds highly likely to me. However it just shows the real level of the projects, even a small thing like this can ruin their reputation. If i was ever to hire a campaign manager, first thing i would do would be to review their whole account as well as demand a signed message.


It's a great idea if you ask me, however it would feel kind of bad, because non-DT members can make up good managers too. But i guess it's either complete anarchy or having DT members only handling them.


I have posted a message on his thread as you can see from here. That was posted many days ago, and im pretty sure that he has seen it but does not want to answer. I didn't PM because i felt like a public warning would make him to answer the accusations, but that didn't happen. There's no way that he has not seen the message.

Most of the coins he is participating in are paying in token payouts, so of course they aren't doing any research. They are risking 0 and the campaign manager is holding nothing. A lot of these projects are getting stalked by these managers. I'm sure they get 3-5 messages as soon as they launch the project if not more. It's kinda sad. The job goes to likely the lowest bidder.

I was considering making a post in Meta proposing only DT members be allowed to be managers. I have not because I don't want users thinking I am only making the post for personal gain. True and not true I suppose. My reasoning behind it though is the simple fact that DT ratings are seen by all. We tag the cheaters 1st hand and the scam projects as well.

I would also toss in maybe a monthly fee to even be a campaign manager that goes directly to the forum. .1btc/month or something. Not trying to kill everyone but I think its fair to say 200-400$ a month job fee. That along with charging these token ICOs to list would help stop the million per week listings.

Now back to the main point, has anyone messaged Hashforce in reference to this thread? If so and he is refusing to answer it might be a case for a tag. I'd really like more opinions on this before I proceed

Up! User keeps taking part in new campaign managament, without answering these accusations.
I hope that we can get some kind of progress on this, since it is getting pretty threatening.
You can see it from here.
What i am more surprised of, is how do not the coins check his feedback at all? Are they on purpose doing their jobs so badly that they don't do any kind of research  on who they hire?

What scares me is that he completely ignores the accusations, also on his thread. I think this is a clear sign, that it is a bought account, because he completely ignores the problem and does not bother to even comment with one word to the case. I think this should be enough evidence for tagging, but that is up to you to consider about it.


Exactly. Of course it brings down the reputation of a project, if they hire someone that actually has no reputation whatsoever and has bought someone elses work. It just makes me sad to see legendary accounts going to waste.


If someone wants to be trustworthy, they earn the reputation rather than buying it. Only buying an account to me would be enough to tag someone (if i was on DT), because it's extremely shady and you don't give the impression that you really want to be reputable. Even Jr. Member can act as a manager (however they do not get to touch the funds at any point), but Legendary members have alot bigger chance for that. Im not sure why you are trying to reason something that encourages scamming, account farming etc. which is really bad for our community and leads into alot of low quality posts and overall a mess.

It's the ICO's fault that they didn't research who they hired despite having financial incentive to do so (unlike onnz423). Also, if they don't want their reputation tainted, they can simply fire him and hire someone else. Being affiliated with a company/group doesn't and shouldn't prevent you from getting untrusted.


At least 98% of the forum started as a Newbie - even satoshi IIRC. You started, I started, yahoo started, e.t.c.

I think this is the problem here, and I can't vouch and won't vouch that hash won't pull some dodgy shit in the end.

I think this issue has raised a new question in the community, and that's something about rank and the trust system. Obviously hashforce has only bought the account since he feels a legendary Member would attract more attention than a newbie. Is this the way the forum should work? Newbies get no chances and laughed out of here?

Look at all the threads on services that offer campaign management services, all of them, except the big managers of course and maybe the exception of decoded, get 0 to no jobs, and they hero+ members.

Why am I getting attacked now?

Honestly, it wouldn't be fair to all the icos he's managing and there reputation would be tainted... But I guess it's DT-2's call and maybe this is why I'm not DT.

The fact that you find the behavior OK puzzles me and makes me question your trustworthiness. What other then a negative rating should be applied? Obviously you feel it's a bought account. You do not deny that. If it is in fact a bought account, then all the trust that users feel by dealing with that account is false, therefor warranting a negative rating. You never know what that account is going to do once it builds up enough trust in the community.

If someone wants to be a campaign manager, that's 100% fine. I'm not against it, but I do feel that if said person wants to take his/her chances with this sort of job, that they should be legitimate. Buying an account like that, for the sole purpose of managing a campaign shows little faith in their own morals or skills IMO. A person who buys an account is starting out by being dishonest. They were in too big a hurry to actually build their own reputation and try to get a job in a legitimate way. The trust from the bought is obviously not legitimate. They bought the account to get a jumpstart in making money and build off of the reputation someone else has already created for the account.

Sure / not that I care about that. I've encountered people that got busted for X complain that they'd starve or whatever, and I find those excuses as emotional bribery.

Not really, no. I could evaluate all participants of a random campaign of a random manager and could easily asses* (in the majority of cases, but not all) whether the manager is doing his job properly or not.

I don't see any options other than a negative rating. I'm open to (useful and working) suggestions.

I'm not sure why you'd quote a PM in here, but okay.

Well, one can still survive of the money per managing campaigns, bounties, or just btc signature campaigns. The real problem here is that the hours are not being lodged, and since it's just contract work and also online, it's quite easy to say  I did that while you only did that.

So, we can't tag hashforce with a neutral trust, since as you said it's useless, what you think would be the next course of action, in my opinion a negative is still to harsh, but that's just me.

I didn't make up the quote, it's from a pm you sent me.

They pay horribly in terms of $/h, unless you are scamming the service/user who employed you by being too lenient. Now, you don't want to discuss how I know this or try to claim that it isn't true as then I'd have to analyze each manager independently (and in depth). This would push the community towards a new question: Should we be tagging campaign managers pretending to work, i.e. essentially scamming their employer by: 1) Misrepresenting/exaggerating their skillset. 2) Not spending the time and effort that was paid for? It should be obvious that people who are very much strict as I am would answer that with a yes, even though properly executing without abuse wouldn't be easy.

Those are pretty much useless.

I have not written that in this thread. Why are you making up quotes?

Well, as a fellow bounty manager I feel like I should shed some of my thoughts on this issue, and here it goes.

1. I think that the community right now is just really sensitive towards these management jobs, from my personal experience they do pay out quite a lot and having a high rank does help sometimes. But, man after windpower and wizardee, this? Worst possible time to do this sort of stuff.

2. I have worked with hashforce101 together on the Litra bounty program, and I can personally vouch for him, that he did quite a good job, so he definitely has the skills, but he came across this wrong. Litra raised almost 10 mil, and I feel some of that was probably hash.

3. Here the problem now: Hashforce101, is managing quite a lot of bounties now and even though it's quite obvious he's a bought/hacked account he has been doing a good job lately and doesn't look like Windpower v2 is going to happen anytime soon. Negative trust doesn't seem fair, but just leaving him alone doesn't seem fair either. Negative trust may also cause a lot of ICOs to have their reputation damaged, and that ain't good for anyone.

Solution
Here's what I suggest:

I think Hash's account, should be painted with a neutral trust by Lauda, or any other DT-2 Member. Negative trust doesn't seem fair at all, especially with the pretty good jobs he's being doing. Maybe something like "Likely a hacked/bought account, but doesn't look like he's going anyone harm, deal with caution anyways"

Anyways, I'll like to hear your points on this, let's continue this conversation, I honestly don't feel like a negative is correct here, but once again leaving him alone isn't fair anyway.

PS: Before you guys start looking through my posts, I've already signed a message and sent it to omnz423 a couple of hours ago from a staked address back in 2013.

PPS: Sorry for the bad grammar, anxiously waiting to start boarding my delayed plane, but I had to get this out there.


Maybe I should, huh.

Just came across this and looking at the way that he has responded to OP he is extremely likely to be a hacked account. His excuse of having his English speaking friends do it for him just does not stack up.

He's still running several campaigns i think.

Having a random legendary that is likely to be a bought account managing campaigns isn't the way to do business, Litra.

Yep, and he even personally admitted it being a bought account (although deleted the reply, but it got archived and i cannot find it).


I do not think that anyone who has a bought account should even be allowed to post on this forum, this encourages account farming and like you said, terrible post quality, since most campaign managers do not care about their participants replying to every thread with something like "me like. bounty dev?" and they get paid for that post. There should be some kind of standard for quality posts that applies forumwide to those who enroll in campaigns.


This can be fairly dangerous, and should be avoided because not being able to provide a signed message is shady. However i guess that you still did have the same kind of grammar and post quality still, even though you lost the private keys.


Exactly. Since we should be able to assume that most legendary members are the original members behind the accounts, instead of someone who just bought the account and is about to use it for scamming.

You don't have to explicitly offer escrow services. He is trying to (quote from OP) "whom started offering project managing services lately." which can often end up being a bundle of holding campaign funds and managing it.