My major concern is that there are very few people who give negative trust to scammers and potential scammers. I would say that tomatocage and Vod are generally the only users that do this on a regular basis (I believe that John K. is also somewhat active in doing this but not as much). Looking at Vod's sent feedback, it looks like most of the users he has given negative trust to have a the 2nd number of -1 (meaning they only have one trusted scam report). The same holds true with Tomatocage's sent feedback (although there did seem to be more users with a -2 for their second score). Especially concerning is that tomatocage has given negative trust to a lot of imposters that have a 2nd trust number of -1. The new system is obviously a work in progress but it does not seem that it would even be a guarantee that either Vod or tomatocage would even be an option to use the checkboxes to add them to your trust list (a user would need to manually do this). I would say this will result in a lot of newer traders potentially only trusting people who are not very active in giving trust (positive or negative) or that no one who works hard in calling out scammers will be in their trust list.

A second concern is that I think this system is going to be slow to be able to react to someone who was previously honest and later turns into a scammer. Under the current system (especially with the addition of the new feature of being able to exclude someone from your trust list), if say TF were to suddenly scam (if you were to look at this as of prior to the inputs 'hack') he could quickly and easily be removed from anyone who uses the default settings' trust network. With the proposed system, each user would need to manually remove TF (in this example) from their trust network which will probably not be updated very often. Users may or may not set a trust network and "forget it" but I don't think they will, as a general rule check places like scam accusations on a regular basis to make sure a new scammer who was previously trusted is removed from their network.

I would say that the people who are trusted by default trust should have a somewhat large trust network and be active in adding (and removing as necessary) users to their trust network. I don't think it is necessary to have people like OgNasty and SaltySpitoon on level 1 default trust because they have a very small trust network, having them there doesn't accomplish very much (although they both should certainly be trusted enough to be on level two default trust aka default trust network). I also think we shouldn't have people like CanaryInTheMine who add everyone and their brother they have ever done business with as this will result in people in default trust network that should realistically not be there.

A last concern is one that was touched on before, but not heavily discussed. This system would not be difficult to manipulate, but it would be much more difficult to detect manipulation. One could quietly buy up a lot of accounts then buy a 2nd set of accounts they want to be trusted. The first set of accounts could all have the 2nd set of accounts added to their trust list which would result in them being often suggested for newer users to add to their trust list. More experienced users may not even notice when this is happening because they are not being asked to add new users to their trust list.