If you steal something it's a crime regardless if the victim gets an insurance payout.
Agreed. But "normally", insurance payouts come from all other insured people who pay their premium. In WWM's case, it comes from their own "jar". 
Topic: Trust flags (Read 12738 times)
Quote
Here is a different scenario - how would you deal with this:
Service loses money (hack, lost keys, whatever). No worries (for the customers), there is escrow. Service says "we fucked up, escrow please refund our customers". Escrow runs away with the funds and doesn't refund. Whom do you flag and why? Service? Escrow? Both?
That would be seriously fucked up. In this scenario, the escrow deserves a type 3 Flag for sure, to be created by the service. After that, I'd say the service should still refund the customers, or they can create a type 3 Flag against the service. Unless the customers agreed to only rely on the escrow before they paid the service, but that wouldn't make sense.Service loses money (hack, lost keys, whatever). No worries (for the customers), there is escrow. Service says "we fucked up, escrow please refund our customers". Escrow runs away with the funds and doesn't refund. Whom do you flag and why? Service? Escrow? Both?
So it sounds as if we would be flagging the service in this hypothetical scenario even though it didn't scam (in theory; assuming there is no collusion, lying, etc), and some argue that in the WWM scenario the service should not be flagged even though they (presumably) scammed or at least got hit by a bus and had no communication contingency.
There needs to be consistency in how we interpret these implied contracts. I think in both cases the service that took the money and didn't pay back needs to be flagged with one of the contract flags, regardless of what any escrow may or may not do. If you steal something it's a crime regardless if the victim gets an insurance payout. I don't think a new type of flag or even a change in wording is needed, but I'm not a lawyer, just occasionally pretend to be one.
Is anyone wondering what is going to happen with all that leftover money if we don't hear anything from ww owners in near future? Maybe bonus money for manager and everyone else who participated? 
In most escrow contracts, 1%-10% of the value of money is deducted annually, with the full amount confiscated after 20 years. I do not know what escrow conditions are in the case of WWM, but it is better for everyone who received compensation not to spend it.
This reminds us of 1.30807482[1] chipmixer escrow
, I think we need a separate topic.I can't imagine any scammer with half brain would leave all that money without explanation, it looks like obvious loss for them from every possible angle you look.
[1] https://mempool.space/address/1ChipWGhJtEWCeSq3cra4HmKhvYqe8Tvty
So far, yes. There's $17k remaining.
Is anyone wondering what is going to happen with all that leftover money if we don't hear anything from ww owners in near future? Maybe bonus money for manager and everyone else who participated? I can't imagine any scammer with half brain would leave all that money without explanation, it looks like obvious loss for them from every possible angle you look.
This is still not our money, I don't think it would be correct to manage other people's money even if these people are scammers. Moreover there could be uncovered other victims and if there will be no funds to resolve their problem because we will decide to take them for bonuses, how would it look like? I don't like the idea.
So far, yes. There's $17k remaining.
Is anyone wondering what is going to happen with all that leftover money if we don't hear anything from ww owners in near future? Maybe bonus money for manager and everyone else who participated? I can't imagine any scammer with half brain would leave all that money without explanation, it looks like obvious loss for them from every possible angle you look.
What is the actual contract? Is it a 3-way between the service, the customer, and the escrow?
I'd say it was implied: the escrow was hired to act as a backup in case the service can't be trusted.What are the exact obligations of each party?
I'd say the only remaining obligation is to reduce the clusterfuck.Here is a different scenario - how would you deal with this:
Service loses money (hack, lost keys, whatever). No worries (for the customers), there is escrow. Service says "we fucked up, escrow please refund our customers". Escrow runs away with the funds and doesn't refund. Whom do you flag and why? Service? Escrow? Both?
That would be seriously fucked up. In this scenario, the escrow deserves a type 3 Flag for sure, to be created by the service. After that, I'd say the service should still refund the customers, or they can create a type 3 Flag against the service. Unless the customers agreed to only rely on the escrow before they paid the service, but that wouldn't make sense. Service loses money (hack, lost keys, whatever). No worries (for the customers), there is escrow. Service says "we fucked up, escrow please refund our customers". Escrow runs away with the funds and doesn't refund. Whom do you flag and why? Service? Escrow? Both?
Make that actually 2. Not sure if you have been following the situation regarding Betnomi crypto casino, but one of the reasons why no one created or supported a flag against them is that there was not really a use case; either they weren't scammed (directly) or the old ones pointed to different situations.
The victims were reluctant to even open up even a scam accusation. One of the victims who actually did open a scam accusation promised to create a flag, which he has never done to this date, even when members guided him on how to do it. Otherwise, Betnomi would be having an active flag by now. Their case is pretty direct. 
In that case, it may work to require 10+ Supporters for that Flag, to make it really a rare thing. But I doubt we'll see another Flag just for a once-in-4-years anomaly.
Make that actually 2. Not sure if you have been following the situation regarding Betnomi crypto casino, but one of the reasons why no one created or supported a flag against them is that there was not really a use case; either they weren't scammed (directly) or the old ones pointed to different situations. In this case I suppose that we should have a consensus that if conditions which led to a problem which was a reason for a supported flag were not solved, then the flag should not be revoked not depending on the efforts made for the exact victim.
How about (red part is new):Quote
decodx alleges: whirlwindmoney violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. whirlwindmoney did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act OR there's a large risk of recurrence. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around August 2023. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.
Why not? There also can be clarification like in the topic you quoted, that large risk in this case means that the one who got a flag didn't show that he made enough efforts to prevent recurrence of the same problem. Looks okay.
If a scammer steals money and leaves escrow to deal with the fallout (~) then I don't think this counts as the flagged user making the victims whole
That's the part open for discussion. You could argue the escrow was part of the user planning ahead for contingencies.What is the actual contract? Is it a 3-way between the service, the customer, and the escrow? Does the escrow have enough funds to make everyone whole? What are the exact obligations of each party? I don't see how the service could be off the hook here but perhaps this whole deal was structured in some bizarre way that I just don't understand. I think I saw someone mention that some escrow funds are multisig and no longer possible to access, which sounds like a major issue and contrary to contingency planning, but again - I didn't dive deep enough into this.
Here is a different scenario - how would you deal with this:
Service loses money (hack, lost keys, whatever). No worries (for the customers), there is escrow. Service says "we fucked up, escrow please refund our customers". Escrow runs away with the funds and doesn't refund. Whom do you flag and why? Service? Escrow? Both?
In this case I suppose that we should have a consensus that if conditions which led to a problem which was a reason for a supported flag were not solved, then the flag should not be revoked not depending on the efforts made for the exact victim.
How about (red part is new):Or, how about leaving the text as is and just replacing "AND" with "AND/OR" ?
Quote
decodx alleges: whirlwindmoney violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. whirlwindmoney did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND/OR it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around August 2023. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.
Members still have the discretion to decide whether or not to support the Flag, and in cases like this one, we wouldn't have to argue over semantics.
In this case I suppose that we should have a consensus that if conditions which led to a problem which was a reason for a supported flag were not solved, then the flag should not be revoked not depending on the efforts made for the exact victim.
How about (red part is new):Quote
decodx alleges: whirlwindmoney violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. whirlwindmoney did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act OR there's a large risk of recurrence. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around August 2023. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.
I think it's better just to expand the operation of a 3 type flag on the situations like this one if they will ever again happen.
Any suggestion on a better wording for the Flag, that also still matches other existing Flags?English is not a mother tongue for me so I'll hardly make a delicately precise wording for a flag.
In this case I suppose that we should have a consensus that if conditions which led to a problem which was a reason for a supported flag were not solved, then the flag should not be revoked not depending on the efforts made for the exact victim.
We all know that withdraw is still not working at WWM. So the problem caused victim's losses is not solved and can happen again. So the flag should stay supported anyway, not depending on if someone got some refunding.
If we have such a consensus we don't need even to change a wording for a flag. Or there should be someone with much better knowing of English to make a precise wording.
If a scammer steals money and leaves escrow to deal with the fallout (~) then I don't think this counts as the flagged user making the victims whole
That's the part open for discussion. You could argue the escrow was part of the user planning ahead for contingencies.Maybe we need to have new flag type created for cases like this, because there is chance this could repeat again in future.
In that case, it may work to require 10+ Supporters for that Flag, to make it really a rare thing. But I doubt we'll see another Flag just for a once-in-4-years anomaly.This whole case just doesn't look anything like any other scam I seen in my life
Agreed. It's intriguing.I think it's better just to expand the operation of a 3 type flag on the situations like this one if they will ever again happen.
Any suggestion on a better wording for the Flag, that also still matches other existing Flags?I know this question is directed to Theymos, but let me also give my view.
That's why I asked it in public Quote
This kind of business is based on huge trust since they handle a lot of money. If it wasn't for the escrow fund (which by the way is unusual since we see so many services around here not depositing any escrow fund), then there would be so many victims around and who knows how many more victims there might be.
Correct. I've seen arguments that the service used an escrow to "buy" trust. On the other hand, the escrow actually helped so the "trust" it may have "bought" was deserved in this case.Quote
I think this is similar to a person asking for a loan using collateral, but then they default the loan. You use collateral to get your money back, but your perspective and trust toward the borrower will definitely change forever.
Not really: a borrower who needs to send collateral didn't have any trust to begin with. I think the type 3 Flag can't be Supported in this case. But I also know it's one large deposit away from someone losing their money. It needs a big red warning banner, but (the way I read it) can't get one right now. It's a rare case that doesn't seem to fit the Flag system, and a Newbie warning Flag seems insufficient.
I know this question is directed to Theymos, but let me also give my view.The flag should stay. This kind of business is based on huge trust since they handle a lot of money. If it wasn't for the escrow fund (which by the way is unusual since we see so many services around here not depositing any escrow fund), then there would be so many victims around and who knows how many more victims there might be. I see some three user deposits 4 hours and 13 hours ago, eventually that escrow fund could get depleted.
I think this is similar to a person asking for a loan using collateral, but then they default the loan. You use collateral to get your money back, but your perspective and trust toward the borrower will definitely change forever.
I think the type 3 Flag can't be Supported in this case. But I also know it's one large deposit away from someone losing their money. It needs a big red warning banner, but (the way I read it) can't get one right now. It's a rare case that doesn't seem to fit the Flag system, and a Newbie warning Flag seems insufficient.
Maybe we need to have new flag type created for cases like this, because there is chance this could repeat again in future.I am staying neutral in this case, and I speculated earlier that some outside factors (maybe arrest) could affected what happened with ww owners and their website.
This whole case just doesn't look anything like any other scam I seen in my life, and I would like to hear what theymos thinks about this.
Entity multiplication makes things just more complicated. I think it's better just to expand the operation of a 3 type flag on the situations like this one if they will ever again happen. It is a right flag, we just have some ambiguity of interpretations. So it's better to overcome the ambiguity then to make many new flags to mess in them.
I think the type 3 Flag can't be Supported in this case. But I also know it's one large deposit away from someone losing their money. It needs a big red warning banner, but (the way I read it) can't get one right now. It's a rare case that doesn't seem to fit the Flag system, and a Newbie warning Flag seems insufficient.
Maybe we need to have new flag type created for cases like this, because there is chance this could repeat again in future.I am staying neutral in this case, and I speculated earlier that some outside factors (maybe arrest) could affected what happened with ww owners and their website.
This whole case just doesn't look anything like any other scam I seen in my life, and I would like to hear what theymos thinks about this.
Question @theymos: what if a custodial website owner ended all communications, disabled withdrawals, still accepts deposits, but had enough money in escrow to cover all current victims?
If a scammer steals money and leaves escrow to deal with the fallout (correct me if I'm wrong but that seems to have happened here) then I don't think this counts as the flagged user making the victims whole, like the flag description says. If the scammer themselves had communicated/refunded/etc then it might make the flag invalid but skimming the thread I can see that even the escrow refunds were not "whole" so it's a moot point. The flag seems to be valid IMO.
Question @theymos: what if a custodial website owner ended all communications, disabled withdrawals, still accepts deposits, but had enough money in escrow to cover all current victims?
I'm talking about the whirlwindmoney case. As far as I know, this is the first time this happened since the Flag system was created.
Based on this:
I'm talking about the whirlwindmoney case. As far as I know, this is the first time this happened since the Flag system was created.
Based on this:
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements.
I think the type 3 Flag can't be Supported in this case. But I also know it's one large deposit away from someone losing their money. It needs a big red warning banner, but (the way I read it) can't get one right now. It's a rare case that doesn't seem to fit the Flag system, and a Newbie warning Flag seems insufficient. 
Can someone clarify, why is it that a withdrawn flag still remains active?
The same rules still apply: as long as it gets enough Support, it remains active. In a way that makes sense: whoever created the Flag doesn't decide on his own.Jump to: