If I'm not mistaken, I think I voiced some disagreement about that feedback on mdayonliner.  I happen to believe he wasn't intending to scam but wouldn't rule out the possibility of it happening if someone actually sent him that $100k (or whatever the number was).  I also think he's learned his lesson about doing stuff like that and don't think that feedback removal by hilariousandco would be a bad idea at this point--but there's also the ponzi stuff that other members feel strongly about, and I don't think that feedback is going to be removed.

Most of you may not believe this, but I do believe in second chances and removal of feedback if the member has learned his lesson.  I've removed lots of negs from account buyers/sellers if they've not repeated the behavior and have shown evidence of being a valuable member of the forum. 

I may not have made myself clear in my previous post, but I am not arguing that LoyceV should remove his feedback.  I'm saying I don't understand the explanations given by bountyhunters.io enough on a technical level to judge whether what he was doing was the only option (which is what he initially seemed to be arguing) or whether he was caught in a lie.  I get that asking for private keys is a no-no.  I also get that a member with no escrow history who's not on DT offering to escrow $100k is a no-no.  Both of those things are huge red flags.

In my previous post I said that if bountyhunters.io changed their method to one that doesn't require private keys and if they haven't scammed anyone, LoyceV's feedback might be worth removing.  But suchmoon's point I hadn't considered before writing my post:


If they've got a bunch of people's private keys, they still could scam if they wanted to.  It does make sense to me now to leave the neg intact.