Gotta say it all feels a bit 'Coin Telegraph' to me if you're not going to discriminate between obviously shady operations wanting to leach off your good reputations and legitimately trustworthy businesses and services.
That 'Legends of Tomorrow' you're currently wearing reeks of scam. They talk a huge game about not needing any investment funds and how all deposits will remain in their deposit address, only for them to then move the money they had there with some excuse about how they used it for trading!
If I recall didn't somebody like OGNasty recently get in a kerfuffle over refusing to remove a scam signature because he said he'd been paid for it and so was going to wear it until the paid period had ended, right? Well if you receive money to advertise a service which you then learn is shady as fuck, you are perfectly entitled to remove that advertisement without reimbursing the scammers. So I don't understand the logic of his refusal to do so in that case and in this case I don't understand why you're so willing to sully your own names for a clearly shady operation.
By choosing the morally-bankrupt 'CT' standard of advertising you just end up becoming mired in one scandal after another with people who lose money blaming you for encouraging them to trust in the shady operation you were promoting which ended up running off with their bitcoin.
You'd be far better off operating on the principal that any valid concerns raised about a service you are advertising needs to be objectively countered by the operators of that service or you will remove the signature until they offer up a sufficient degree of proof they are running a legitimate and trustworthy service.
This way the value of your signature space as a group will increase exponentially as it will be far more trusted than most.
It's win-win for you.
That 'Legends of Tomorrow' you're currently wearing reeks of scam. They talk a huge game about not needing any investment funds and how all deposits will remain in their deposit address, only for them to then move the money they had there with some excuse about how they used it for trading!
If I recall didn't somebody like OGNasty recently get in a kerfuffle over refusing to remove a scam signature because he said he'd been paid for it and so was going to wear it until the paid period had ended, right? Well if you receive money to advertise a service which you then learn is shady as fuck, you are perfectly entitled to remove that advertisement without reimbursing the scammers. So I don't understand the logic of his refusal to do so in that case and in this case I don't understand why you're so willing to sully your own names for a clearly shady operation.
By choosing the morally-bankrupt 'CT' standard of advertising you just end up becoming mired in one scandal after another with people who lose money blaming you for encouraging them to trust in the shady operation you were promoting which ended up running off with their bitcoin.
You'd be far better off operating on the principal that any valid concerns raised about a service you are advertising needs to be objectively countered by the operators of that service or you will remove the signature until they offer up a sufficient degree of proof they are running a legitimate and trustworthy service.
This way the value of your signature space as a group will increase exponentially as it will be far more trusted than most.
It's win-win for you.
We've not found them to be a scam. Nobody has complained to us, or to anyone, that they're a scam. Let me know why you think they're a scam and please try to show some evidence or good reasoning.
Sending terrorists was an obvious joke gonna get all politically 
