Topic: marlboroza - about the red trust - Nel.network fake team (Read 2150 times)

Flag type 1 is created:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;addflag=798632

Ups, flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=83

Is ignore this way out? Always so squealing questions?
 where did you get that I'm a troll? I do not want to waste time on you, but I had to. If the problem had been solved, you would not have heard me.

Just ignore the troll and his bakery nonsense; your time is better spent elsewhere.

Thank you for showing that I found not all messages to delete, I was sure of the opposite. This I learned only today from you. I think it would be simpler if you helped us, and did not ignore.

You have been tagged because you promoted exposed scam in social network after yo...bee......warn.....ot.......to............sca......

Now, stop lying that you did something which obviously you didn't do.

---

Can you add something like "God's wrath will fall on them" on that signature? Thanks!

I agree that your side looks like this, but ......
I have a resource for which I select companies and this resource is used by a lot of people. Since January 25, we have not a single scam company. I myself have a bad attitude towards them. For 8 months, this is the first company that deceived my trust.
Yes, I did not see the message, but ......
I flipped through 5 pages in a branch before making a report, but the message turned out to be very far away. I always check companies with a red trust. Today I have only 2 companies with a negative trust and before all people take the report I check them every week.
Ok, I'm in trouble, but .....
Now it's not about this, but about the fact that I received a message from marlboroza what should I do so that I marlboroza  returned a neutral trust. I did it. Then he introduced me to the blacklist. I started writing to him in his branch on the return of the neutral trust. There, not explaining why I do not deserve to return the route, forbade me to write in the branch.
It turns out he directed me to action, but did not fulfill what he promised everyone.
Not only did he return the neutral trust, but for some reason he ignored me.
That's what I do not understand. Usually said - do it.
And I do not care much about the negative trust, since I do not make a pod. I'm worried that people like marlboroza  do not follow their words. They should not be at the helm.


Another time. If I were important, the rank or trust I gave would become Junior or Full. Yes, and I know that it is not difficult to buy them.
I'm against people who do not follow their words.

If you're known for tagging people for a particular thing, then people should *talk to you* (i.e. send reports your way). Similarly, account sellers should be sent my way (or to The Pharmacist).

Disclaimer: I have not looked into the specifics of this "platform" (website is dead anyways). You can make a "high return" project/coin without it being a ponzi by deploying POS (although 1-1.5% daily is too high for any sane POS). However, was it something with its own coin and POS then I wouldn't label it as 'obvious investment fraud'.
In this particular case: He should have known better given that there is a pattern.

---

This is an extreme example that tries to circumvent sane understanding of my initial argument as I told o_e_l_e_o earlier. The case being: BMs can protect themselves with disclaimers in most cases[1]; you can't expect a BM to come to the same conclusions about something as yourself in most/all cases; you can't expect a BM to find out proof of something being fake in the same time-frame as you.
[1] Meaning, you can't do that e.g. if you run a bounty for 'XYZ Ponzi Platform' and put a disclaimer on it.

You promoted scam which has been exposed, you ignored scam accusation thread, you ignored -ve feedbacks from 3 DT members and 2 non DT members, you ignored scam warning in that thread, you ignored their excuses in their topic in marketplace-->exchange, you ignored their lies in bounty topic, you ignored everything. And you keep following me around forum and posting lies:

I blocked your PM's after few times I've sent you what to do and after you lied couple of times. Besides, it was you who choose to promote exposed scam - so don't blame anyone else for your own actions.

---

Are you guys still talking about this account https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=1813710?


Talk to marlboroza? What's that suppose to mean?





Hashkon is ponzi

[BOUNTY] Hashkon- Only Staking Platform with Withdrawal Trust- 💲571k$ POOL💲

This wasn't example. Why is this extreme? They accepted to run campaign for investment fraud - and they have disclaimer. Should washib be tagged for running bounty for obvious investment fraud?

Your made-up-fantasy missed out the bit where someone comes in to the bakery, shows the seller with undeniable proof that the bread is non-consumable, puts up warnings in big red letters all over the bakery, but the seller ignores all this and continues to sell the bread.

You were not tagged for being part of the campaign. You were tagged for continuing with the campaign after it was proven to be a scam, exactly as marlboroza's post said you would be. The fact that you didn't bother to read it before posting your bounty hunting spam is no one's fault but your own.

Tell me. When the seller in the bakery sells bread. He must go to the factory and watch how bread is baked?
He should monitor the owner of the company to find out what kind of person he is? NO
And if the company was accused of selling non-consumable bread, the seller is not to blame for this.
He, as well as the buyers, was deceived by the company. He, as well as the buyers ate this bread.
Also, the seller has no competence in the study of companies.
Thanks to those who know how to do this, BUT, why the seller is guilty, and not the supplier, who also deceived the seller.
This is a standard form of prosecution. Blame the weakest and those who are the easiest to blame.
We are already paying time spent for work with a scam project, and then marlboroza deceives and we get negative trust instead of guilty.
marlboroza to this person a separate distrust. It's not right when a person says one thing, but does the opposite. And then ignores without explanation.

Seems about right.

I do not understand how marlboroza was allowed to perform or forgive.
And it's not about getting negative trust, but about deceiving us, and then ignoring.
He needs to paint trust. I will fight with him.

I'm not interested in tagging people for that; talk to marlboroza.

It is; user-decided (and *accepted*) forum policies. If it weren't, you'd fly out of DT tomorrow.

That doesn't even remotely apply. Please don't quote random things.

I have a couple of questions too.

If I help someone scam other people and get paid from the proceeds - can I legally keep the money ?

If I promote a scheme that turns out to be a fraud - should I be free to promote similar schemes without consequence ?

If I participate in promoting a scam but it gets stopped before anyone is scammed - am I trustworthy ?

If someone is part of a group when a crime is committed they can be tried as an accomplice - even if they didn't commit the crime.
People have been convicted of homicide for selling the gun to the gunman or driving them to the scene of the crime.

Fake team = investor fraud.

Investment decisions are made on the information provided. If you promote a fake team with the intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage then you have committed fraud.

Tagging isn't even about that person necessarily - it is a warning to others to be careful with dealing with them. A neutral simply does not give that warning.

It is also a message to others to be careful and not do the same.

Ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of law excuses no one)

Hello Mr. 2014, thanks for stopping by after 4 years of inactivity 

This is not true. Who said that?
It doesn't. Who said that?
If person A expose scam, persons B,C,D tag scam, persons E, F place warning inside bounty and person G choose to promote it after all that, person G shouldn't be trusted. Stop twisting facts. No one is tagging bounty hunters only because they are advertising ICO's.

To be honest accepting to promote obvious ponzi ICO's shouldn't be different than accepting to advertise any of these sites inside Investor-based games.

Why there is difference?

Why are you trolling?

Who will vote? Farming accounts who become senior/hero/legendary before merit was introduced[1]? Hacked S/H/L accounts[2]? How will you determine who earned rank?

I would go with KYC for AVC (anti-vote-cheating) because of MFA[1] and MHA[2] 

Think of any crime and imagine it on a billboard:




Nice straw man. Now lets try a full sentence:

"members are now considered not-trusted by some DT members for trying to make money from scam projects"

Nobody is forcing you to make money in scam ICO bounties.

So let me get this straight...members are now considered not-trusted for trying to make money? If they are getting paid by the bounty campaign, how does that make them a scammer? Are you saying the masses in the bounty section now have to risk the reputation of their account every time they participate in a campaign? That's absurd, imo.

If you want to label people for participating in suspicious campaigns, give them neutral trust as a warning that the user is participating in that campaign. This way people know where their moral compass stands. Just because you don't care about whether a project is a scam or not doesn't mean that you are a scammer, it just means the user doesn't care about whether other people perform their own due diligence or not. That's not anyones responsibility but the investor.

Soon 90% of the marketplace will have red trust, and the only ones without are the watchdogs calling everyone untrustworthy...eventually the trust rating will be meaningless in the future. You're shooting yourselves in the foot! I would recommend formulating a new strategy rather than the absurdity of negative trusting anyone participating in a campaign that may/may not be a scam.

This forum isn't a childcare centre, we don't need babysitters to sit the babies!

This is my alt account, as I believe my main account would quickly be negative trusted for having an opinion against the powerful players of this forum. I guess that is what this forum has come to.

So what are we to do, trust your power-hungry judgement?

Instead, fix that problem, set a ranking limit for polls that determine forum policy. Make a specific board accessible to those who earnt their rank. You can't censor and determine foreign policy based on yours and your common-minded friends. Because that is exactly what is going on here.

I highly doubt that your farming dilema will not be solved or you could continue using that excuse if you set a working ranking limit and beta tested with wide-member feedback over time.

Wondering why no one tagged him/her.

Suspicion thing is deserve for prove. Those is confirmed there "prove" word is useless.


Obviously I didn't. But trust isn't moderate by forum or forum policies.

Obviously that's it accordingly activity.

How do we know? Of course they are involved, it is their "project":

Not sure about second project  

---

I don't think anyone here is robot.

Bad idea. Stay on topic.

I would go one step further to say - in some cases a disclaimer is a legal hindrance for those that rely on them. If the disclaimer is seen as breaching consumer law, securities law or any other law that specifically prohibits or restricts the use of certain disclaimers it could be illegal to have a particular disclaimer because it misleads the consumer of their legal rights under the particular law / statute.

In some cases a disclaimer could be used as proof of legal non-compliance.

Under UK law -the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 - particular disclaimers could be deemed illegal

Most commonwealth countries have laws restricting the use of disclaimers.

Considering that a lot of ICOs now exclude USA residents from participating it is likely that prosecution would occur in the EU or a commonwealth country.

I don't need to prove wrong any suspicion. That is a weird question.


Who said he shouldn't be tagged for failing to act?

Point being: Polls are easily cheated and present a useless metric. You don't want random farmers to decide on forum policies.

Exactly.


Obviously exposer already notified him on his OP by reply scam warning. Than why he shouldn't tag ?

 
I don't think it's necesarry.

Prove what wrong, your suspicion of guilt?

There is a huge difference between thread posters which act as soon as they are notified, those that delay acting as long as possible, and those that act upon reading. In this case, the user is guilty for not acting post exposure.

Step 1: Get 100 accounts.
Step 2: Win poll.

Question to Lauda,
User Mocoinaire posted 2 ANN lately with fake team.[1][2].
Please take a look on accusation.
 1. Debreco - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/debrecoio-scam-fake-team-5008893
 2. Giantnova - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/giantnova-scam-fake-team-5029777

No one tagged him/her for first project or not yet tag him still now. Recently we found another ANN with fake team.
If I say he is involved with both project how you will prove me wrong in fact he/she have own ICO LAUNCH SERVICES.
Can you prove me wrong ? Even though we know he/she isn't involved but question is why he/she posting ANN continuously with fake team and still never locked thread even exposed.

And what's your opinion about this kind of user? We should leave them to bring more scammer . We should believe them them who use fake team from stock or Google and who plagiarized content & whitpaper ?

---

Personally I think I should open poll on meta instead of argument, we should know others people opinion about corrupted BM or ANN poster. If similar case I mean multiple case they should tagged or not.

What do you mean with promoting criminal activities?

This is, in Lauda's words, an extreme example. A more appropriate one would be this: is it ok (or even legal) for an ad agency to put up highway billboards promoting criminal activities, and how should we react if someone chooses to publicly shame that ad agency for such actions?

Nobody's getting sentenced here. Marlboroza has expressed a strong opinion, which this forum sorely needs on the account of it drowning in this ICO sewage. And if bounty managers figure it's worth spending 30 minutes on due diligence to avoid getting tagged by marlboroza then more power to them. I also hope they would spend another 5 minutes posting negative findings publicly.

Last time I checked, bounty managers are not the ICO's partners and thus partnership law doesn't apply.



Disclaimers absolutely mean a lot. You just cherry-picked something that suited the argument. You can do the same with FTC regulations on endorsements to support the counter argument. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

---

Anyhow, this is just a lawsuit. The outcome is TBD.

https://www.silvermillerlaw.com/current-investigations/bitconnect/
https://www.silvermillerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-7-3-DE-48-THIRD-AMENDED-CLASS-ACTION-COMPLAINT.pdf

You will get to youtube part in second link(and people who advertised it on youtube)

According to youtube's ToS:


The same can apply to twitter promoters, facebook promoters - that is why social media is banning crypto advertising, they don't want to  face law suit because of actions of other people.

You see, when it comes to trial, disclaimer really means nothing.

---

Ok, I see your point about bounty managers don't have to do due diligence - you are right about this, they don't.

Ponzis are just a form of fraud. New investors are paid by the money of the old ones. The moment new investors stop coming in the chain breaks and the owners make a run for it. Bitcoinnect was literally the definition of a ponzi scheme and it wasn't at all hard to realize that since there are countless examples like it. 

I may have expressed myself wrong, a better way to say what I meant was stop being influenced by an opinion of a higher ranking member. If you were not influenced I apologize, although it seemed to me like you were and without a need for it since you are in the right while the other user is clearly in the wrong although they won't admit it.

Except I didn't. My first statement was (emphasis added):


My second statement was (emphasis added):


These two statements are entirely compatible. Allow me to elaborate.

Most scams are obvious. Some are ponzis, which can be discovered in 5 minutes of reading their website. Some have fake teams, which can be discovered in 5 minutes of looking at LinkedIn. Some are plagiarized, which can be discovered in 5 minutes of reading their whitepaper. If a scam is this obvious, then a disclaimer shouldn't be enough to absolve a manager of all responsibility. They should be doing a minimum level of research. If they promote such an obvious scam, they should be tagged.

Some scams are not obvious. Take Bitconnect for example. Bitconnect fooled a lot of people for a long time, and they made millions. I don't think you can blame a manager for being involved with a project they didn't know was a scam when no one else knew either or it couldn't be reasonably exposed. In those cases, provided they break off all ties once the scam is exposed, a disclaimer is fine and they shouldn't be tagged.

I would echo that disagreement does not equal bullying

Scam agents? If you mean auditors, they helped build the case and got a reduced sentence. You can also bet they got a hefty fine and can't do business in the branch anymore.

Still, it's beyond me how you can use Madoff as an example and how you can compare a business that operated for decades before being exposed to these scam ICOs. Also, one important thing you fail to realise, we are talking about the reputation of a member, not about banning him from the forum. All of the Madoff employees and partners(since you're using them as an example) do have a bad reputation after the scandal, wouldn't you say so? Would you hire someone that worked with them? Would you like to know whether a person worked for Madoff before hiring him? Would you like a warning before conducting business with that person? If the answer is yes, then congratulations, you see my point.

Nobody is holding you back, you can work with Woshib all you like, but other users deserve a warning in the form of red trust and reference.

Regarding your question, a project with "a page or two on social media" shouldn't be launching an ICO now, should it? There is no need to check the "whole marketing" as you put it, just check the team behind it and whether the project lies on their website(which it often does), simple as that. They should protect themselves by doing the research since it would be the best course of action for both their reputation and the well-being of the investors.

Thank you actually for elaborating my point.

The scammer was sentenced for over a century in jail, yeah.
What about the scam agents ? And this is state justice, not some internet board with "wanna-be ICOs", like you say.
Which one is the most "critical" ? Were there consequences for the agents ?

Now that you repeated that, in your view, managers have responsability, can you please address my first point ?
What do you recommend to do this ? Let's find practical solutions that BMs can use.
How can managers protect themselves from a team that appears legit at first glance, with only a page on 2 different social networks at start.
Only then, they add more and more bullshit, make Linkedin plagiarised profiles, and update the project OP (that has been accepted by the manager) since they can do that.

Except from checking the whole marketing of every project that is managed on a daily basis to prevent scams, which would take forever, what do you recommend ?

I have no better solution to provide, this is why I think they shouldn't be held responsible. But meh.. difference in points of view etc ...
Since you think otherwise, what do you recommend, practically ?

The example was a clear appeal to extremes. Get a hold of yourself; the above conjecture is just pure silliness.

They are not[1][2], the same way that no hunter nor investor is required to do this. Whether they should or should not do it is another thing.

Correct, because nobody sane would go after a subset of the victim pool.

"Disagreeing with someone's opinion == bullying someone" is your classic liberal, whiny bullshit. There are plenty of disagreements among DT members (including child-and-parent DT positions), and that is fine.

---

[1] They might be if we collectively go on a power-trip.
[2] This doesn't mean you should promote this as a valid project. <- another example of appealing to extremes.

First of all, my recommendation has been the same from the start of this thread. Bounty Managers have to accept responsibility for their actions. They are getting paid to manage bounty campaigns and they should do their due diligence on who they are working for.  Projects that don't pass the test can manage their own bounty from their own account(which is usually new, low ranking, no rep - since they don't deserve to have the reputation of an established bounty manager tied to their project.

Secondly, I won't even address the fact that you compare a 65 billion dollar scam to wanna-be ICO scams. Madoff managed to scam auditors who do checks for scams, false records, manipulation for a living, as well as the SEC. Compare that to barely literate ICO scams with fake teams behind them and yeah... you get the point.

Can you please explain how to prevent an edit function from being used by the team running the project ?
Other than, having to check every other social media page they advertise, on a daily basis, consistently, during the whole life of the bounty ?
And make sure this is still legit. Can you just estimate the time this would take ?

As far as I'm concerned, BM aren't responsible for the teams actions.
Were the agencies used by Madoff to advertise sentenced to anything ? No.
These topics weren't even brought on during trials.
Hey hey heeeyy.. what about Carlos ?

We take all your criticism, but what are you recommend ?
Of course, a disclaimer isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card, but there must be a right balance between immunity and blatant thievery. Where is it, in your opinion ?

OK Boss, Since you had met most time in the threads.
Please make decision for Bounty managers and Scam Managers. I will be waiting for your answer after 5 days.

Discuss more with BM's

I was talking about o_e_l_e_o changing his statement after Lauda's post.

I don't think marlboroza is being bullied and I for one respect his decisions, even if I don't agree wholeheartedly with them.  I don't think anyone is screaming at him to reverse his feedback, simply disagreeing with him.  Members here are on both sides of the fence when it comes to this issue, and I think both sides need to be heard.  

I wouldn't suggest marlboroza remove any feedback he left, nor would I counter it in a case like this.  Not all DT members agree with one another.  Oftentimes there are issues nobody can reach a consensus on, but it's not bullying to express an opinion.

My bad.  He's not getting bullied either, though.  He's just being polite.

What are you even talking about here? Obviously, he didn't take the job knowing it's a scam(I hope). Disclaimers are not enough, in no line of business is working with scam projects legal, knowingly or unknowingly. Everybody should do their own due diligence if they are putting their name and reputation on the thread. Disclaimers mean shit when you're getting paid for it.


Here you're back on track. Most of the scams are obvious to people who do the research and especially to experienced bounty managers.

By the way, stop being bullied into an opinion by higher ranking members. You were right and there was no need to apologize, extreme or not, your example was spot on. Scams are scams, be they elaborate or simple.

I don't.

Why is this extreme?

Someone accepted to run campaign for investment fraud - and they have disclaimer. Why is this different than anything else with disclaimer?

Crossposting:

Are they required to do due diligence or not?

Apologies. Not my intention, and I accept a disclaimer is fine when the project wasn't obviously a scam.

Taking this case again as an example, however - the first project he was promoting was an obvious ponzi. A disclaimer should not be enough to absolve all responsibility. People have been tagged for joining a ponzi signature campaign - I fail to see how we can't then tag someone for running one.

There is really no need to appeal to the extremes. I'm sure that you've understood what I meant.

Oh dear lord.

We are discussing an important issue here - can we please not derail it with personal vendettas?

---

I don't think posting a disclaimer should be a get-out-of-jail-free card for any and all scams and shadiness. What if I posted an account sale with a disclaimer that said "I am only hosting this sale, am not involved in the sale, don't endorse this sale, and won't be held liable for this sale"? What if I hosted a Bitcoin Doubler with a similar disclaimer?

As I mentioned, I don't expect BMs to be infallible, but they should be able to avoid ponzi and obvious scams with minimal research.

2018-07-03. Doesn't surprise me from a chronic liar.

A family member; cousin; uncle or some poor friend whose life you revolutionaly changed by introducing them to BTCTalk. Let me guess the guy has a pregnant wife or the gal is pregnant and can't afford hospital bills and so decides to use your wallet to save some costs?


I think becoz he and jamal were ALU's competitors.


EDIT:

If anyone got this obfuscated reply; do enlighten.

Two points:
A) Not all projects with anonymous teams are ICOs.
B) Not all projects are asking for millions.

Absolute nonsense. In most of the cases, the BM is a direct victim and often suffers greater financial damage in comparison to any participant (you could even argue that the manager suffers damage that is greater than the sum of the participants' damage, which is zero if you argue that tokens are worthless until the market gives them a value).

Running a fraudulent bounty =/= running a bounty for a project that ends up being a scam. To this date, needmoney has not acted upon the allegations that were brought up which makes the situation completely incomparable.

They aren't, especially not legally. That's what a disclaimer is for.

Read my response to suchmoon in this very same post.

They can and they will. If they can not, this will be yet another incentive to never post a bounty from your own account but rather use shills[1]. Stop making up fictional rules that will only re-enforce current problems.

---

[1] It would be pretty trivial to create a non-discoverable shill that solely posts ANN threads / switch whenever something goes wrong. Strong incentive, minor cost, huge obstacle in tracking down the actual BM.
Note: Nevermind; not really applicable.

You helped community by managing bounties for scams?

I will leave this here for reference, obviously you can't read:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45629632
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45691954
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45701781

As I said, Yipdard (or any other account he could create) is a person I know, and creating a shared wallet on a trezor/ledger is not something complicated, but it does not mean that I'm involved in his shady activities, which means that yes, I signed a message with an address created on his wallet.


During this time, you dwell on the case of someone who has not scammed anyone and who has helped the community for more than 2 years.

Does signed message proves it?

You used this address 1MDqDQQrLhQYTDMfvSFMLbdYLFpUC5zsLi here http://archive.is/HL4Aj and here http://archive.is/Qp5Kd#selection-2409.0-2409.6
You signed message from this address here http://archive.is/cEtwe#selection-5257.20-5220.19

Address is part of this wallet https://www.walletexplorer.com/wallet/18276a7ce24def5a/addresses together with:

Sellaccountbitcoin and Yipdard both used 18PuSSZeHfE24yTERsQvPjEcHXT9b75EJc, while 1HwTjSw7oK49x6iBaZDUczDHRbcz16Cq5a was used by Yipdard here

Try harder. Also explain "working gambling script where you have to invest more money to get better results"

---

Why needmoney is tagged? Did they fail to count posts and update spreadsheet?


This topic actually distracted me from tagging scammers https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0 I believe there are at least 20 topics to check. Will write new feedback for OP later.

And again, why Woshib is not discussing his issue?

Why are you referring to the BM as a victim? He is the one actively promoting the ICO. No, you can not say his job is counting and managing spreadsheets only. Also, since when is a victim someone who gets paid while the people who he manages(bounty hunters) don't?


Which legal right was the BM deprived of here?

Also, the reason BMs aren't held responsible is that they would be out of their jobs if they had to check the credibility of every project since most would fail the check. Doing any job for scammers should be frowned upon by the community, so I don't understand why everyone is overthinking this.

Noted your point.

Victims and BM role aren't same.

However I don't want to more argument about this matter. Leave negetive feedback completely depend in who leave it. It's their own opinion. Like we can't argue with managers same thing we shouldn't argue who leave tag. I don't think some rag without reference. If managers don't care about his reputation than DT have right to tag them, depend on DT judgement. Everyone have different judgment.

I can't  not see any benefits or keep weight to discusse about this thread, marlboroza already said he isn't going to remove tag as well.

We are still talking about ICOs, right? People asking for money on the internet? TBH their privacy doesn't concern me. They can go to a loan shark, finance their project to completion, and then make themselves rich anonymously by selling their completed product/service.

More likely though, they would just do an ICO without a BM or with a less scrupulous BM. Back to the topic - there is no harm in knowing which BMs are less scrupulous as it allows other users to factor that into their choices as well. So yes, it's all about choices, particularly informed choices - my favorite kind.

I don't think it's reasonable to hold a BM responsible for every project they are involved in. After all, the best scams are only realised long after the ANN/ICO phase.

However, I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to do the bare minimum research in to the project they are getting involved with. It takes less than 10 minutes to check out the team, review the website and read the whitepaper, which will expose most scams.

Particular to this case, the first accusation against Woshib was this one, a project promising 30-45% returns a month. I think if you willingly advertise an obvious ponzi, you can't really absolve yourself of responsibility with a two line disclaimer.

Using someone else's name or Twitter account does not prove that I am the owner of the Bitcointalk account with that name, Yipdard is someone I know, but it's not me.

Which is what this precedence will do, create a stronger push towards that.

A manager's due diligence is his/her own. If a manager wants to be at a higher risk of being scammed, it is their own choice/fault. You can't expect nor demand any manager to do a certain amount of due diligence.

Yes, exactly that.

Let me get this straight: You want to blame a victim for being the victim multiple times? That makes perfect sense. Not.

So you're saying that people who have made a *name* for themselves essentially aren't allowed to accept such a project (where allowed equals to 'no risk of rating')? How is this 'a choice'? Excluding certain project types does not help with the situation.

It's still a failure of due diligence on the BM's part so I'm guessing it would be treated the same way as a fake team. Perhaps even worse because the BM can't reasonably claim that they were fooled by cleverly photoshopped images.

Again, I think it's unethical for bounty managers to lend their reputation (real or perceived) to projects without at least the bare minimum of due diligence. I can't tell anyone how to make money here but I can appreciate when someone points out these cases, especially when they form a continuing pattern.

Fake team more dangerous from anonymous


Most of managers doing it as well or hire some low ranked account (IMO)

Obviously, they should. It doesn't mean managers should't.


Do you mean only count post and update spreadsheet is managers responsibility ? Of course they are stupid, otherwise they can't trust blindly without own diligence.


If managers do it continuously ( multiple case ) than he deserve tag. On single case excusable, but shouldn't excuse on multiple case.  

No? Even though the OP would be at fault, it is the bounty managers problem. As an example, you can use a case where you are missing a rule for a certain campaign. That would cause issues for both participants and the manager.

I'm talking about trust ratings. Assuming the project has an anonymous team, and aren't promising crazy returns, how would it be handled in case that it ends up being a scam (given the precedence that is being set here)?

Not following you here. The bounty manager prepares an update and sends it over to the Copper OP, just like they would if the BM was the OP, except instead of directly updating the thread they put it in a PM. That's BM's job done. If the Copper OP delays or fails to post the update that's Copper OP's problem isn't it?


If the BM is not comfortable with an anonymous team then they should not accept the job.


I view it more as an ethical issue than an outright blame for a scam. If the BM is ok with (or ambivalent to) working for a scam and putting their name on a scam thread - that's fine, but I also appreciate someone putting effort into uncovering such scams. I also prefer seeing trust ratings showing which BM's are not doing due diligence, just like I prefer seeing trust ratings on account sellers, trust/merit abusers, etc versus NOT seeing that.
 

It is not the responsibility of the managers, nor are they liable for the stupidity of the hunters and investors. Time to stop blame-shifting and accept responsibility.

I wrote a topic regarding this on bounty board; Bounty Hunters ! Must read before join any bounty campaign. But unfortunately not much people interested to read it. No one want decent work. Everyone just need money, hunters are more greedy from managers. But eventually hunters and investors are getting scam due to irresponsible managers.

Precedence for existing and new BMs: Create new accounts solely for posting ANNs to avoid risking your main account for any single bounty[1].

It is not a mild inconvenience. Threads tend to be frequently edited depending on the situation and the time between point of contact and actual revision can be days (in some cases it is almost always days).

They should be doing their own due diligence in the first place IMO.

---

[1] This is already the case to some extent. I guess that most people involved in the discussion aren't that present (or present at all) on secondary platforms (TG, Discord).

Too many choices is why we can't have nice things. There is so much wrong in this place that division due to something like this is pointless. In the case of OP, I'm waiting for mr. marlboroza to rewrite the rating so that I can apply mine as well.

---

The over-promising ROI part I can agree with. However, what about projects in which the team is anonymous?

I don't see any danger here, just some decent options for freedom of choice:

1) Bounty managers can choose to do or not to do due diligence to reduce their chances of getting into sticky situations. I doubt anyone would neg-trust a bounty manager if the ICO turned out to be an uber-elaborate scam, but something with fake photos or offering 10% a month is not hard to notice.
1a) There is also an easy way out - let the ICO scammers buy their own Copper accounts. There is no downside to this. The mild inconvenience of editing the thread is a non-issue. The bounty manager can PM the revised post to the OP, pretty much the same effort.
2) Bounty participants can choose to do their own due diligence or require escrow or none of those things and instead choose to bitch and moan about their losses.
3) DT members can choose their own threshold for neg trust regarding incompetence or negligence of bounty managers who choose "not" @ # 1/1a.
4) Everyone else can choose to pay attention to or disregard the red trust or exclude marlboroza from their trust list.

Classic false comparison fallacy. Try (harder) again.

Well, you seem to have enough dirt on him to warrant a negative[1]. I'm not defending OP; I'm advocating against setting a dangerous precedence which would end up worsening the dire situation.

---

[1] Maybe it is time to rewrite the rating or add another one?

I am pretty sure Woshib knows where to look. Besides, they said they did research their linkedin profiles.
Clicking on linkeding accounts and closing them =/= research.

They should change topic to "I was given benefit of doubt for running bounty for ponzi before I received negative rating for running bounty for another scam because I didn't do research which I said I did and I promised to do".  

---

---

On side note  

Washib, is this you Yipdard?

Archived and also here

(redacted a bit for better visibility)

Of course that is not all, there was one microtask:
Earn 0.20$ in Bitcoins for A DOWNLOAD (UNLIMITED)
archived

Washib can't talk or something?  

---

I will update this shortly(give me 10 minutes or so) you will love this

---

This was loan request:

http://archive.is/FPyaA

Pay attention to address, it is all it matters:

Topic archived.

Who is sellaccountbicoin? Account reseller? Ponzi operator?
Selling bitcointalk member account (81 activity and 98 potential activity)
Archived

Self vouching(woshib - sellaccountbitcoin) for another gambling script https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18381827 archived http://archive.is/yy3Qv, and also lying:


I would suggest all DT members who left positive(and counter neutral rating) to remove it from Washib's account and tag them with correct one and to report this scammer to police - or maybe not, because there is disclaimer.

Let's say I'm a pharmaceutical company with this brand new, super-duper pill for...whatever and i have this little disclaimer at the end, stating that my
product may have side effects, such as bla-bla-bla, can also cause cancer and lead to death.
Hope my analogy isn't that hard to follow, do you think in case of death/multiple deaths and it's imminent civil lawsuit, the pharmaceutical company and
people who helped advertise this product would get away because of that disclaimer? Do you think such product should be even allowed in the first place?

---

I'm not sure why you mention jr.members or bounty participans, or are they getting paid and what's their forum contribution. I don't get your point either, quoted text is about non-regulated ICOs and BMs hiding behind self made-up disclaimers with no consequences in case of scam.

---

And who encourages these so called clueless jr.members to spam the forum with the expectation of receiving a reward? Scam projects endorsed by ignorant bounty managers, no?

Yes, that's the point I always try to highlight. But the problem is most of managers just think their work is only manage the campaign. They never care they have more responsibly. On the other hand I noticed most of managers are Jr. Member. I am not sure how experience they are. I don't think they are able to investigate an ICO or just avoid it. Still I can't see managers not much encourage to investigate or search about project before start the work.

You are not paid for posting a thread; also posting a (bounty) thread =/= product endorsement. In the super-majority of cases, you end up posting the thread because the team does not have a sufficiently ranked account (yes, it can be bought, and no this isn't a counter-argument to this). Meaning, you are not being paid to post it; you are being paid only to manage it. You end up posting it because it is more convenient than the alternatives (waiting for account to rank up; buying c. membership; paging someone else to update the thread each time you need to change something).

---

This isn't a discussion of whether you are liable or not, but rather whether posting a bounty is equal to product endorsement or not. Hint: It isn't.
Note: There is a distinct difference between posting an ANN and posting a bounty. A bounty thread does not mean automatic product endorsement.

I respectfully disagree with people who say managers shouldn't go and check for fake teams and stuff like that. A campaign manager's only job isn't just to count posts and reward participants for their work. While this maybe a tedious task, they should at least take certain precautions(mentioned by suchmoon),it should take a couple of hours. Or if you want hire a Private Investigator sort of a person to take care of it.

Most people don't have a proper/any disclaimer. When you make an ANN thread/run bounties for an ICO, you're endorsing them,because you're getting paid for that. Uunless there's a disclaimer that says: "I do not endorse this project"(which is even worse for the company that paid you to represent). That makes them less of a victim or whatever. But that disclaimer shouldn't protect them,they were still paid for that.


This wouldn't have been the case had it been a bitcoin paying campaign. That's double standards.

Yet its acted like that is the case.

Posting something =/= endorsing something, especially NOT when a disclaimer is present. If one fails to read or understand the disclaimer, then it is only their (the participant's) fault.


Exactly. The current super-majority are jr. member spammers; thus the damage (not being paid out fictional tokens) is negligible when you look at the big picture.

---

Luckily none of you are lawmakers anywhere.

They should take a lot more than 10 hours before endorsing projects, unless they don't care whether or not their name and bounty services are being associated with scam.

---

In this particular case, it took me 15 minutes to find the fake photos, additional 15min. for stolen LinkedIn profile descriptions, i would guess you'd need no more than 30 more minutes to find plagiarized whitepaper or any other copied content on their website.

Okay, 10 hours is hypothetical but you get the point that it is a tedious process and forces a manager to learn additional stuff like stock image searching. I don't know how much a trusted manager gets paid. Would it be enough to involve themselves in the basic due diligence? It's subjective again. My only point is, manager will be getting paid anyway so the bounty participants should make sure they do their homework before blindly following a manager.

I doubt it takes 10 hours to do basic due diligence on team's background, photos, plagiarism, etc. And even if it does - they shouldn't take the job if it's not worth it. Ignorance of course is a big part of it but it's also a fact that many of those noobs see a trusted (or "trusted") name on the thread and think it's going to be ok. This is not that different from other activities that are frowned upon here: account trades, trust farming, etc.

To what extent? Putting 10 hours into research is just isn't worth their time considering they will be getting paid anyway. That should be the other way around. Moreover, the bounty participants can demand escrow services from the project if they think the project could be a scam. Relying completely on a bounty manager is ignorance.

Your point being? 99.9% of bounty participants have 0 contributions to the forum.

Nope, that is just blaming managers for managing the campaign. It's not worth their time or costs.

Do we have somewhere written, maybe mentioned in the rules, what bounty manager responsibilities/duties are? I struggle to find any info on that matter,  all i read is various interpretations, apart from obvious - counting stakes, make sure rules are not being broken, dealing with complaints etc.

I can't understand why bounty managers are not being held responsible for endorsing a scam project aka 'simply posting a bounty'?
They are being paid, isn't that type of contract (even if it's informal) between the manager and the project?
In my eyes, they are absolutely required to do their due diligence before accepting the job. Otherwise it's just willful ignorance and they should
be viewed as an accomplice to those who commit fraud.

Since there are little to almost no regulations for ICOs, does that apply to bounty managers too? They can get paid with no repercussions whatsoever, if a
project turns out be scam. Hide behind a 'Disclaimer'...that's it?

My point is, wouldn't it be easier to have clear cut requirements/rules/ and possibly penalties for those who want manage bounties? I see a different
position taken toward different members, that ain't right either.


Disclaimer  : I'm not talking about anyone in particular, just trying to find some answers.

You know, when someone runs out of things to say they deflect or become primitive like in your case. My brain is fine, but your mouth(or in this case fingers) is running faster than yours.  

Removing previous positive =/= leaving negative =/= countering negative. You brain is clearly unable to comprehend this. Now go back to your little account-selling dungeon, 'jeet.


Not even a neutral is required. A positive can be placed once a sufficient sum has been traded/risked.

Wait, you wrote this literally a few hours before:


So you wanted to give him positive trust to counter the negative? Now you want to leave the negative and remove the positive he has already received? Maybe you should refrain from commenting on posts until you form a concrete opinion on the topic instead of being stubborn and arguing with others. I've seen you post very intelligent things on this forum, but I've also seen you post shit just so you can argue with someone.

Strongly agree with it. I have seen lot of positive rating only for trade. I don't think it's necesarry. But leave a neutral feedback for such as trade appriceated.

I advise others to do the same or completely pull their feedback. We really need to stop giving out 'positive trust', which is obviously seen as something *prestige* (unfortunately), as references to successful trades. Positive trust from DT for e.g. 0.01-2 BTC trades is ridiculous at best, naive and stupid at worst[1].

---

[1] This is IMO - readers: do not get triggered if you see the 'trust system' as a *trade system*. 

I did, but my comment was specifically about his responsibility as a bounty manager, not the other questionable stuff you pointed out.  He did stop the bounty once the project was exposed, and I stand by my opinion that it isn't the manager's responsibility to vet the project before starting a bounty.

That said, I'm going to change my feedback on him to a neutral, since in the deal we did he was the one to send funds first and thus I didn't really risk anything.  There's enough doubt in my mind about his other actions that I don't think he needs a DT positive for that.

I messed up something while editing. Shouldn't sound like that - but it did, unfortunately 

He was given benefit of doubt 2 months ago for running bounty for ponzi(2 ponzi's).

Have you actually read one word I posted here and went trough all topics and posts?

Then counter it.

We had this exact discussion a while back, i.e., is a bounty manager responsible for vetting the legitimacy of the underlying project.  If I recall correctly, the results are much what we're seeing here--managers shouldn't be held responsible if a project turns out to be a scam but that the manager is responsible for terminating the bounty as soon as the project is exposed.  Other managers in the past have done this, including yahoo62278 and some have not, like aTriz.

I think Woshib is a stand-up guy, and I don't think he's to blame in any of this stuff, so I'd also respectfully disagree with marlboroza's feedback.  I do think there's way too much shenanigans going on in the ICO world, based on the number of fake projects and whatnot, but I don't think the bounty managers should share the responsibility for that unless they either had prior knowledge of a scam or allow the advertising to continue once the scam is uncovered.

So, the current sentiment is stronger than the reason behind the initial rating.

Sigh. I don't really know OP, but you will see how this pattern (applied to others) will make matters worse in due time. Hint: It's already very bad if you start looking through other platforms.

He never was. People need to stop leaving trust ratings for $5 deals.

OP forget to mention this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hashkon-ico-is-ponzi-4655987 and this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ethconnect-coinfacebook-and-twitter-campaign-up-to-00005-per-day-closed-paid-2329309, but it is all ok because he is only bounty manager.

https://www.hashkon.com/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi

They are probably still looking for legal papers, as Woshib mentioned:
Would legal papers make ponzi - not ponzi? I am really confused with this statement.


How many times someone has to give you benefit of doubt to wake up and stop promoting scams? 2? 3? 10?

I would really like Woshib to say something about this:

---

Shell we do more investigation about Woshib?

MANY SATISFED CUSTOMERS VOUCHED 5$ IQOPTION earning method can you say who satisfied costumers are, except accounts with negative feedback (account trades, asking loan without collateral, ponzi operators, tagged for scamming someone, (selling script for gambling site))

Now look who was given vouch copy(this won't be taken for any kind of evidence, as it is probably random user posting):





Whoshib's response to review:

BUSTABIT 2$ SCRIPT TO FOLLOW SOMEONE not only gambling scripts are available for free, they will make naive people to lose money, and, also, there is always that well known "stealing balance" part.

Wait, I have more on this account:


archived topic 0.00015 bitcoins bonus for everyone who deposit a good feedback about this bonus
This won't happen. Not with all these things I have just discovered.

Then counter it.


Edited - links.

How you expect payment for participant if ICO team or ICO itself if fake from began? Will you join any bounty if you know the team is fake & plagiarized whitpaper , steal content from others website. Is it trustable, even no one can say exactly they will scam. Will you like to buy this token or will you like to join bounty? Thats I mean minimum responsibility. We can't check their physical location but we can check on web about their face. We can't realized they will scam but we can check their website content whitepaper they did steal or not. I expect you got my point it will take max. 1 hours but it can minimized scam. Whatever I exposed fake team most of them skip with fund. So how can we believe them ?

I am not blaming only managers, I have a thread about it. Please read it : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45272968

And how do you define minimum responsibility? Using google search for the picture or reverse image matching doesn't count as 'minimum responsibility'.More than the managers it's responsibility of the participants to do all that knowing managers will get paid anyway but if the project turns out to be a scam, it's the bounty whores who'd suffer. I get it obvious stuff should be taken care of but usually these scammers are well spoken and professional with the managers. I wouldn't participate in a random bounty knowing if it turns out to be a scam, I wouldn't get paid but the manager would. Stop depending on spoon feeding.

So who is responsible?
To be honest I can't agree with this sentence. You don't think a managers should have minimum responsibility? I am agree if it's exit scam. No one can stop exit scammers , not important team how potential. But before start any project should search minimum. At least use Google search for picture. Just forget about marlboroza and woshib case. I am not against OP or not just blindly supporting marlboroza. I am also not much interested to tagged any managers for first mistake especially higher ranked. I don't know OP previous case. However tell me honestly, you never think about your hunters ? You never care about them? Who are trust you blindly and joined your campaign? If a project become scam is it good reputation for a managers ? So how can skip a managers that he has no any responsibility. I noticed you had tagged also new OP of bounty. That's called responsibility.


Simply you can do it. Still you are in DT 2.

You may not aware that for marlboroza time is not relevant (possibly), place is not relevant (s/he mentioned several times), evidences do not count. For marlboroza sentiment is everything. When someone is too senti then things like this will happen very often. OP would be warned with a neutral tag instead of red. Painting red is too easy now a days. People forget that there is a neutral tag as well.

I don't have any personal problems with the OP. I am just sick of all the scams around here and would like to combat that as much as possible. What's "your concern" is totally irrelevant to this topic, the user received red trust for organizing bounty campaigns for scam projects multiple times and I don't see why you are so actively combating that. Marlboroza did what he thought was right, I agree with what he did, while you may not and that's your opinion.

It does not. Your emotional argument against OP is your own thing that is not of concern of me. Based on past ways of settling similar situations, Marlboroza should remove his rating or someone should counter it.

Oh but it does have a positive effect, you can bet that he, and others who find out about this, won't slack off when it comes to doing their due diligence. There's nothing "narrow-minded" about this, it's simply a punishment to him for endangering members of the forum and actively helping and working for/representing a scam project. I don't see any situation in which this wouldn't be considered worthy of a punishment.


Lower-ranking accounts don't advertise themselves as "trustworthy" and don't enjoy the reputation an established bounty manager does. New users trust bounty managers, they don't trust "random lower-ranking accounts".

That is not his responsibility.

This "measure" does not have a single positive effect, but will rather lead to more and more BM work being settled via 3rd party communication platforms and posted by random lower-ranking accounts.

---

Whether it is Woshib or someone else, it doesn't matter. It's time to stop viewing things from a narrow-minded perspective.

Do bounty managers have no responsibilities? I have seen multiple people receive negative trust for participating in a scam bounty campaign, wouldn't the bounty manager be subject to the same treatment? Or is he allowed to "back out" when he learns they are a scam?


Once again, if he can receive money, he can do a background check on them. It's not his first time, that's for sure. There was no need to "monitor every page or paragraph" an initial check was sufficient and he failed to do it. Also, he advertises himself as "trustworthy" so it's about time he starts acting like he is. If we want to fight the root of the problem(scam projects) then we should start with bounty managers, since that's the first door to knock on for any scam project. Accomplice to scam in any real-life situation is a serious offense, that's why people carefully watch what they sign and who they work with. Negative trust is a good wake up call for Woshib, the consequences could have been much larger if members didn't out the scams early on.

I have the same opinion. The flame focus should be on the malicious project, once discovered.
Woshib stopped all activities with them when as soon as this has been brought to his knowledge.
Also, he is managing a couple of other, legit, bounties and he's good at it.

I think this negative feedback should be turned to neutral.
You can't humanly monitor every page / paragraph, and check every day if there have been a change or not ...

What Woshib did here by withdrawing from the agreement is the expected behavior after the issue has been brought to his attention.
There is no malefactor association here, and Woshib helps to spread wealth to some people taking time to translate things and do stuff.
In the end, all balanced out, is the negative feedback really the way to go here ?  

There is , ANN thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/deleted-5006712 ( locked )

Bounty thread : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bounty-nelnetwork-microfinance-platform-1000000-fixed-pool-5027551 ( running )
Both is by team.

Perhaps this is his second mistake.

I am not sure why OP opened this thread. Accusation against you was valid, for your info others people opened scam accusation against you, not by marlboroza. From your statement marlboroza excused you before.  This time people's make sound against you. Others managers also got tagged for similar case. That's why also you got tagged accordingly. Perhaps he can removed if you work decently on future ( IMO).

You shouldn't receive red trust for something like this as long as you stop everything related to the project as soon as you're notified/you found out.

---

Was there no ANN thread/official team account?

Ok, so why the post?

Concretely I have nothing to say, I will not deny the accusations of marlboroza, yes I was not careful enough and I was wrong to not have deepened my research about Nel.Network

I think this post summarizes my intention to never make the same mistake again: