Unlike most people in this thread, my views on issues and disputes do not change based on who is involved.

If you accept the presumption that not having a business license, nor a physical address makes your business untrustworthy, what Thule is advocating for is not outside of the mainstream, in fact some people in this thread who are opposed to what Thule has advocated for have essentially forced (or tired to force via the threat of negative trust) people to stop advertising other untrustworthy businesses, that are actually untrustworthy. I myself have messaged participants of a signature campaign I was running urging people to stop advertising for a business that turned out to be a scam, once it was confirmed it was a scam.

I previously explained why I don't think the lack of a business license makes a casino untrustworthy. There is perhaps a slightly stronger argument that the lack of a physical address makes the casino untrustworthy, however many in the crypto world have scammed whose identities were either public prior to the scam, or were dox'ed after the fact, and there are probably less than 5 who had anything happen to them, so I don't think a "physical address" will do much in terms of player/customer safety.

The argument that Thule is not going after *all* casino's without a license (and other scams in the ponzi section) and therefore his current argument against Hhampuz is a red-herring because he does not have the resources to go after every single scam business, and must use his resources efficiently. Similarly, the fact that Thule is not going to the authorities about these businesses is a distraction because he cannot force law enforcement to go after these businesses, and they may not if the business is not generating enough business to account for using law enforcement's resources, and law enforcement not going after a business is not an excuse for someone supporting said business if they are doing something harmful. Hhampuz is helping businesses referenced in the OP conduct business and generate additional business by running their signature campaigns, and if these businesses are actually doing harmful things to their customers, he should stop doing so as soon as practical.

Any argument other than the referenced businesses are not harming their (potential) customers (or something similar thereto) is invalid, IMO.

I think this rating is one more example of why you are a follower and not a leader. I do not doubt that you will be unwilling (or more likely, unable) to defend this rating in any way if/when anyone tries to call you out on it, or otherwise tries to discuss it with you. Thule calling someone out for helping a company advertise that he says he believes is untrustworthy does not make him a scammer. Any negative ratings given to him for this thread are an attempt to silence him from asking difficult questions -- except in this case, he is not even asking difficult questions (his arguments in this case are not difficult to counter), so perhaps it would not only be a sign of a lack of integrity, but also a lack of intellectual capacity.