I don't know about any recent account selling, Blazed has only confessed about the one for 3 years ago. you want Lauda to give Blazed negative trust for something he did 3 years ago or you want Blazed gone? this is the solution.
You misunderstand me. I was not insinuating that I think Blazed deserves negative trust. I was simply pointing out I do not agree with your proposed solution. If the community deems that a $200 fine is sufficient to warrant the removal of negative trust, so be it. I, however, think the exact opposite; paying to hide the fact you are untrustworthy is even more untrustworthy.
There are, however, other ways to prove that you are trustworthy. Blazed has done just that, which you can see with even a brief glance at his trust page. He is not comparable to some shitposter trying to buy their way in to a signature campaign. Leaving negative trust for the latter and not for the former is a perfectly logical position to hold.