I would expect, or hope, that if any DT member would take that deal they would not be swayed by the amount received in order to give an honest review. If there ever comes any point where they (the ones asking for the review) starts talking about receiving trust that would be the big no-no. But just for a review, why not? As long as it is objective I don't see any big issues with it.
Well, I guess I could put up an honest review like this "This site was offering to pay default trust members to review it, which I consider shady AF."
Seriously, there is no reason to want
default trust reviewers unless you want something only default trust can provide... likewise, if you want an honest review of a gambling site you'd be looking for known gambling experts, etc.
Imagine if someone put up a sig campaign or an auction allowing only DT members to participate. I think that would be fishy too.
I would argue that it depends. Perhaps they've just been lurking for a few weeks/months and now decided that they wanted to launch a project and get reviews on it. There's a lot of attention towards DT lately, and it's members so naturally they'd want high profile users. If it would be reworded to "Top Users according to Bpip.org", would that be better? I'm just saying I get where they are coming from and it doesn't necessarily have to be shady although I see your point as well.