I don't mind this either, but I don't think every neg needs to be discussed and voted on.  If you're on DT, you ought to have good judgement to begin with and faith in the strength of your convictions--at least enough such that you don't need to seek advice for the feedback you leave (but there are times when it's necessary, and I've done it myself).  This issue is more complex than other ones IMO and it's good that advice is being sought.

In this case, I think LoyceV was pretty justified in giving a neg to someone asking for people's private keys.  That, in my opinion, is an even worse offense than being a newbie and asking for a no-collateral loan or to buy bitcoin with PayPal, both of which can and do earn those newbies negative trust (usually from Vod).

However, my ignorance of all things ETH-related kicked in pretty quick while reading that scam accusation thread.  But what grabbed me is that if this post is true (which was responded to by bountyhunters.io in the next post), then I would say the neg is completely justified and should stay because that would mean bountyhunters.io outright lied.  But the explanation they gave sails right over my head.  I do understand quite well that asking for someone's private keys is a big no-no, but in this case it seems like the suggested solution of creating a throwaway wallet would solve that problem.  The only thing with that is that we (and certainly bountyhunters.io) know not everyone will do it.

My current understanding is that they've fixed this issue now, is that right?  People no longer have to give up their private keys?  If that's the case and it's also true that they haven't scammed anyone, then feedback removal at this point might be appropriate.  It could be a case of them being naive about how their initial system that required private keys would be perceived, i.e., that people wouldn't think they were scammers.  Unfortunately it's impossible to know someone's intentions; we can only judge people by their actions.