I am inclined to agree with you; not that it matters for this thread ain't about Lauda vs endlasuresh; it was just a side-track which was prima facie objectively handled by the aforementioned individual.
Glad that we are on the same page on this. I do hope that endlasuresh can prove o_e_l_e_o (dude! such a pain typing your name!!lol) wrong here by being a bit more receptive to my efforts.
1. When will aTriz refund all his ill-gotten gains as he has promised?
2. Will he implement the new guidelines that he framed and how would he do so?
This depends on him as an individual. The anonymity afforded by bitcoin ensures that nobody can hold him to his word if he is okay with leaving the aTriz account altogether. I do hope he can make the amends he proposed. Fact is, t there is nothing he'll get out of it considering the vitiated atmosphere.
Is there any precedent to someone losing rep and getting it back after refunding a bunch of people?? I saw a thread once where a previously trusted guy put up a list of people he was refunding one at a time. It was a long list. Maybe some of the old members remember what I am referring to. I am pretty sure he never got the rep back.
3. What action has been settled upon by ALU; also what will they do to avoid such an act in the future?
P.S. ALU hasn't still made it clear as to what their new criteria for projects is and what type of association they are; guess it would be better for them; but it is there decision to make.
ALU said he is out and Lauda has negged him. In terms of action, I don't think there is anything more they can do. It is our naivete if we expect there being any other possible option in this world of anonymity.
As far as the new criteria for projects is concerned, is there is anyone today who can objectively judge an ICO to be an exit scam or not? Apart from getting the funds escrowed beforehand, there is hardly any other judging criteria they can hold ICO devs upto. No individual or company managing ICOs can afford to hold these people to higher standards because then they simply lose business. This is a problem for the whole ecosystem and there is hardly anything ALU can do except putting up a disclaimer.
I see people saying great things about Amazix but they too have no control over whether the intended ICO is a scam or not. Infact, if a manager becomes too trustworthy, you can even find these ICO devs using their name to gain legitimacy. That is a dangerous trend in itself. There are still just two friends you have in the world of ICO investing:
- Do Your Own Research
- Never invest more than you can afford to lose
P.P.S. I do hope aTriz doesn't jump on to an alt account to make a mockery of this as he is apparently accustomed to skirt responsibility for his actions or is defended for his actions.[/b]
At such moments, rather than judging people, I like to ask what would I do? For example, I consider myself generally honest but never had to take a call on such a thing. We all are "generally honest" till we get a whiff of power and control. Power corrupts. You find a way to make some quick gains without anybody knowing and maybe take a quick decision. (Like Alia's code vouch, ignoring bitbliss' false representations). You do such things because you are in too deep. I like to draw the parallel to a lot of young Indians who are idealists when they join public services. But slowly the system takes a toll on you. Not everyone is a
Vinod Rai (Love his book) and most end up serving the system they dreamed to change.
I have seen people fall in real life before so I don't hold my hopes too high. Also, like i said, given an option of never having to come back and just leaving everything behind, what would any normal man do? I think if there is an alt account he can jump to, he already has done that.