Let's not forget aTriz is paid for promoting the ICO, you are essentially saying aTriz should have turned down payment because the ICO was shady? 80% of ICOs have shady practices going on, where do you draw the line? Most ICOs spend exorbitant amounts of money to drive up hype, pay members to join their channels and pump the ANN thread with questions. In my opinion, this is similarly as misleading as falsifying investment levels.
Personally I draw the line at "ICO". I think you're extremely generous with the 80% figure. I'd say it's in high 90s. The ones that are not scams should develop their product first and sell it later, not the other way around. But that's a discussion outside the scope of this thread.
I guess most people would probably draw the line at "lying", as in lying about their ICO funding progress and other basics. 80% ICOs being shady doesn't make it right. Being paid doesn't make it right.
I can't tell aTriz what he should do, I'm just saying that I can't trust him if he knowingly supports fraudulent ICOs. He can choose to continue on the same path and hope that the red tags won't affect him too much with regards to the shady 80% of ICOs. Or he can figure out a way to vet his customers.