Quote from: Quickseller on April 07, 2018, 04:36:56 AM

Quote from: ibminer on April 06, 2018, 04:29:42 PM

At this stage, maintaining objectivity, I can't hold Lauda accountable for BitBlissCoin & aTriz's actions.

In the workplace, it is the norm to hold a manager and partner accountable for the performance of his team, including to an extent any actions a team member does that might violate company policy, be illegal or unethical, the only exception might be if a manager followed company established procedures to prevent said negative activity that was insufficient.

They've always shown themselves as co/founders. Founder's Syndrome comes to mind. Regardless, the consequences a manager would face as compared to the person on his team causing the problem is usually different and far less extreme, assuming no evidence of collusion exists.

Quote from: Quickseller on April 07, 2018, 04:36:56 AM

I would also point out that lauda pushed back strongly against calling what aTriz did as being wrong (let alone being scammy etc) and continues to do so.

I didn't feel a strong pushback after aTriz made his comments. It felt more like how Lauda would handle embarrassment or some sort of effort to avoid personal embarrassment. For me, it is a somewhat understandable behavior in the situation.

Quote from: Quickseller on April 07, 2018, 04:36:56 AM

Lauda went as far as to say that everyone engages in this type of behavior (allowing fraudulent statements to be made in a bounty campaign being run by him) by saying that this is a global issue.

Not sure what you are referring to here, Lauda's comment about the "global issue" I believe was about an idea of campaign managers putting a disclaimer on ICOs to provide more transparency, see below:

Quote from: Lauda on April 05, 2018, 07:20:18 PM

Quote from: ibminer on April 05, 2018, 07:13:12 PM

Maybe "vouch" is not be the best word, but without disclaimers disassociating a campaign manager from the ICO, it is misleading, certainly to new members who probably don't even know campaign managers exist. This may be more of a global issue with managers/ICOs though.

It is a global issue, thus we can't blame anyone individually for it.

Quote from: Quickseller on April 07, 2018, 04:36:56 AM

Although I cannot affirmatively say what the relationship between the ALU partners is, however I can say that at the very least, lauda indirectly benefited from aTriz scams because it would have drawn additional business to ALU, some of which would have been handled by lauda. I would note that various contact methods point users to contact specific members of ALU and their ANN thread implies campaigns will be handled by both lauda and aTriz jointly.

I never saw anything that said they would be handling campaigns "jointly" in either announcement threads I've seen, multiple contact points doesn't mean much. Also, indirectly benefiting from a scammer doesn't make someone guilty of scamming or even supporting the scammer if they did not know the person was a scammer. Again, I'd refer to other situations like Og/Pirate, but there are better examples where people have gotten tangled up with scammers and could be seen as indirectly benefiting, because this forum is filled with scammers, and I'd argue it's because of account sellers (like you) who have sold so many damn accounts to whoever would offer you money, but I digress.

However, why am I responding to you, when you haven't responded to me?