Quote from: Thule on March 15, 2019, 09:24:13 PM

Quote from: hulla on March 15, 2019, 09:14:36 PM

Quote from: LoyceMobile on March 15, 2019, 04:49:41 PM

Thule, I have only one question: if you want physical addresses and government approval, why are you in crypto?

Never mind this guy I think he want to be notice because the last time I checked Hhampuz told him to reach out on their ANN thread if he have any questions regarding the company and until now no scam activities was said to have happen through the company.
So what's his stress.

What are you smokin ?When did i ever talked with Hhampuz on any thread on that forum ?

So many false accusations coming now from people with casino signatures.

This is not an accusations or what so ever. What I'm trying to point out is that I don't see any reason why you still have to create a thread if your planned was not about creating some drama despite Hhampuz respond to your claim. However, crypto community don't mind a project with good record which didn't provide any information than giving false information and I'm saying this because I have seen a ICO project which didn't provide any information but provide good record and the investors are fine with it.

if you guys have a problem with Hhampuz take it out on him not the project he handle.

Quote from: cryptohunter on March 16, 2019, 07:29:21 AM

I do not trust hhampuz.
The reason for that is quite simply he supports proven liars and trust abusers on DT. That alone is reason enough to doubt him. I do not say he is as bad as some but merely supporting them is enough to create sensible suspicion and caution.

I think Thule does have a clear point here after reading through the thread.

If ico's were demonstrating these clear and obvious ID avoidance tactics they could be presumed "possible" scams.
Many DT's would be slapping red on them and anyone that supported them.

I mean ask yourself what means of retribution would you have if these casinos did scam you?

I observe clear double standards once again. On the one hand they fight against the implementation of criteria that would mean red trust can be applied ONLY to scammers or those STRONGLY likely to scam. Rather they are claiming it is too late by then and a preemptive strike against them is required to save people from these "possible" scams.

However, here I notice the same people demanding to see proof of scam before any action or criticism is forthcoming from them. Almost defending the ID avoidance tactics now it suits them.

I say that a "responsible" member would not be promoting nor enabling these types of casinos if they want to take the "preemptive" action they advocate for everyone else and any project they are not making money from.
If they believe innocent until they scam or try to scam then fair enough, but their prior arguments suggest this is clear selfishly motivated double standards.

It all boils down to making some btc dust.

h
When six people agreed with something, what can a single man do to oppose it? When we both know that majority win vote under majority rule and last time I checked Hhampuz didn't give you any red trust. Why should be blame for the what others did?