So, when iotatoken and CfB are looking up the possible Scam of CH, what about other Scams that might have occured?
I know it´s wrong, but I also bought some IOTA without escrow, but not at CH.
I still believe I get my IOTAs, but what if not? After Start of Mainnet it´s too late.
So if you´re changing things before the Launch of Mainnet, you should implement all Sales that happened between ICO and Start of Mainnet. Not only CH´s.
It's not our role to be the police. It's quite extraordinary how people repeatedly manage to turn our altruism into some "THIS IS SOMETHING YOU OWE US" again and again, and it's really becoming annoying.
You bought without escrow? Your fault. Not ours, we told you explicitly not to do so 100 times, which was echoed ad nauseam by the rest of the community.
We don't have time to hunt down and freeze every single account that may have been involved in something shady, nor will we. It's not just as easy as "he said, she said" and then we can freeze the account. There might be legitimate reasons for why someone is AFK for a few weeks or months. Child_Harold is a unique case in that he was a known troll and liar, the fact that anyone even considered buying from him without escrow hurts my brain, but it seems he was a big seller, so easy to resolve. If you know of any other big scammer that scammed 10+ people, sure we might find time to look into it, but that is not our job. We got 100 tasks to be done before the imminent launch and babysitting people is not high on that priority list.
Let's all remember that this is a
very sensitive situation, and far from being an easy task:
How are the cases be fairly "judged"? What "clear and convincing proof" will be
enough as evidence to convince "beyond a reasonable doubt" the right of the self-proclaimed buyers against the sellers (thus considered "scammers")?
Of course,
if it is possible to fix the situation
without creating a bigger problem, that would be great. But what is being proposed creates the real risk that bad decisions will be taken that will worsen the community situation.
Let's be
cautious.
In dubio pro reo is the basic notion that sometimes it is better not to act if to avoid enforcing unfair irreversible solutions: solutions taken for the sake of
some may better not be taken if there is a clear risk that they can make the problem worse for
all.
I am totally favourble to help, as long as it will not jeopardise IOTA, the rest of the community or even the ones in charge of the decision,
