They've always shown themselves as co/founders. Founder's Syndrome comes to mind. Regardless, the consequences a manager would face as compared to the person on his team causing the problem is usually different and far less extreme, assuming no evidence of collusion exists.
Absent collusion, managers will face termination if they failed to implement sufficient controls to detect activity outside of company policy, which in almost all cases is the most severe punishment a company is willing to impose.
Lauda went as far as to say that everyone engages in this type of behavior (allowing fraudulent statements to be made in a bounty campaign being run by him) by saying that this is a global issue.
Not sure what you are referring to here, Lauda's comment about the "global issue" I believe was about an idea of campaign managers putting a disclaimer on ICOs to provide more transparency, see below:
Maybe "vouch" is not be the best word, but without disclaimers disassociating a campaign manager from the ICO, it is misleading, certainly to new members who probably don't even know campaign managers exist. This may be more of a global issue with managers/ICOs though.
It is a global issue, thus we can't blame anyone individually for it.
Yes, that. There were clearly fraudulent statements in the bitblisscoin ANN thread that aTriz posted.
When you make a post from your own account, unless you give an indication you are quoting someone (or are otherwise relying on someone else), you are making the statement yourself. This is not a complicated concept, and if you were to reject this, you could not hold anyone accountable for anything, ever....someone who failed to repay a loan could argue they did were not the one who promised to repay what was borrowed, it was really this other random guy who is wanting to raise money via an ICO.
In the above quote, lauda was saying that aTriz should not be held responsible for statements made in ANN posts
he made.
this forum is filled with scammers, and I'd argue it's because of account sellers (like you) who have sold so many damn accounts to whoever would offer you money, but I digress.
Actually you are wrong. I checked up on the accounts I had sold many months after I stopped dealing in forum accounts, and the overwhelming majority of them were not involved in any kind of scam-like activity, and a fairly decent number of them reasonably played an active "positive" role in the community. If you don't believe me, you can go into the scam accusations section and see how many scams there are done by recently purchased accounts, it probably isn't very many.
Your statement also ignores basic economics. If someone pays $250 to buy an account, if they were to attempt to use that account to scam someone, they would be risking that entire $250, even if they are unsuccessful. They would need to successfully steal $250 just to break even. Someone who buys an account has a fairly strong incentive not to scam with it. Similarly, someone who is the owner of an account that
could be sold for $250 would be better off selling his account rather than trying to steal money from a NPV perspective.