Quote from: Hhampuz on April 23, 2018, 12:04:06 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on April 23, 2018, 12:01:22 AM

Quote from: amishmanish on April 22, 2018, 04:27:23 PM

ALU said he is out and Lauda has negged him.

The fact that aTriz started bounty threads after lauda made this statement disagrees with this claim.

Has he started the new campaigns under the ALU name? Has Lauda endorsed these campaigns? Just because they've worked together doesn't mean that Lauda can/will control anything and everything that aTriz does.. does it?

Quote from: actmyname on April 23, 2018, 12:05:49 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on April 23, 2018, 12:01:22 AM

The fact that aTriz started bounty threads after lauda made this statement disagrees with this claim.

I don't think so. aTriz can deal with bounty management on his own, yeah? All it means is that ALU is no longer associated with them.

From a technical perspective, yes it is possible aTriz opened those threads not as a member/partner of ALU, but as an individual campaign manager, however realistically this was not the case.

Further evidence that aTriz was not removed from ALU is the fact that he was not removed from any of the ALU related materials, such as the website (now taken down), and the thread (now locked), as well as that fact that none of the other ALU "partners" have made statements that they are taking over the campaign management of any of the campaigns aTriz was previously running (unless you are going to argue that aTriz was/is running all of the bounty campaigns in the threads he opened, which would be a ridiculous argument).

I would also point out that Lauda said upthread that the person who opened campaign threads (which in almost every case was aTriz) was not necessarily the person who was running the campaign. This was clearly done to 'muddy the waters' to distort who was ultimately responsible for each campaign.

Another interesting fact is that aTriz opened several bounty campaign threads for what was arguably obvious ICO scams while he also opened a scam accusation against an ICO who attempted to use ALU's services whose shadiness was uncovered during some kind of due diligence that aTriz claimed to have been performing. This might imply that someone other than aTriz was the one who made the decision to allow the what I would consider obvious scam campaigns to continue unabated. This is far from proof that lauda was the one who made this decision, however the intentional muddied waters should give (additional) doubt to lauda's integrity (assuming of court you are turning a blind eye to his prior extortion attempt).