At this stage, maintaining objectivity, I can't hold Lauda accountable for BitBlissCoin & aTriz's actions. In a somewhat similar way, why I do not hold OgNasty accountable for Pirateat40's scam. Keep in mind, I have no knowledge of how ALU operates behind-the-scenes. (nor do I know what was discussed directly between OgNasty & Pirateat40)

I've always assumed ALU was an organization formed between aTriz, Lauda, and Untold. It appeared that aTriz & Lauda were the main points of contact on the initial announcement, eventually becoming just aTriz. aTriz seemed to be handling main agreements with clients and [I assume] passing any needed tasks down to approved vendors (so to speak), whom I believe was just aTriz, Lauda, Untold, and the CET team (Blazed, minerjones, Mitchell, Lauda) handling potential services at the time of BitBlissCoin. It appears BitBlissCoin only used campaign management services. That's just my interpretation on what I've seen publicly. It appears now like there is a voting system and other structures of ALU that I am not familiar with, so I'm not sure if agreements were voted on or how that works.

A campaign manager should want to do this for transparency & protection. Would be great to see that transparency globally but nobody is required to do it.