It CAN be verified manually. You speak as if in the current state, you can verify anything at all in trust ratings? It's impossible to fix that problem, people can just neg/positively trust each other and unless there's another person that verifies that trust behind the scenes it may as well go undetected. And I quote from that exact same post :



Is that really a bad thing? Name one reason where you would want to red tag someone without bias, that doesn't involve money.

It can easily be fixed by setting a default non-zero number for trust ratings that don't involve risked amounts, which is completely fine imo because any trust rating that isn't exactly this : "How much money I trust this user with", is honestly just a biased opinion that is the whole cause of why the first trust system is being binned.

EDIT : Regardless of how important I think risked amounts are, if @theymos would rather start with a less complex system first then you might as well just remove risked amounts, my system is still solid. The concept is similar to what he wants to do but won't require an exponential amount of time to calculate compared to the intractability of the current way on how he wants to calculate trust. If the list starts to have numbers in the triple digits, Trust will actually stop being updated instantly just because of the time needed to calculate propagation through the tree.