Anybody who questions his integrity clearly has a motive.
Are you talking about integrity such as accepting his friend who recently had plagiarized at the time?
It is actually sad, someone gave them second chance and then they choose to shit on that person.
Second chance? At what exactly? Speak slowly so I can understand.
I think I already know the answer....not criticizing you and your friends.
I continue to wear the signature to show there is no repetitional concern of my advertising for livecoin.
Don't try to spread that BS to thickly. You're still wearing the banners out of spite, and you know it. You have no altruistic reason to promote some new random exchange, and if the circumstances were different you would stop wearing their banners the minute you were taken off their payroll. All you're doing is flaunting your power struggle with Hhampuz. Shame on you for being such a bully.
You are correct I have no altruistic reason to keep my signature up, as stated the signature remained up because I wanted to point out there are no negative reputation harm to livecoin - the entity Hhampuz is ultimately getting paid by to maximize advertisements for -- of my wearing their signature.
Hhazmpuz's reply confirms that:
I removed you due to receiving messages from many members, yes. [...]
You are no longer being paid by me or by LiveCoin and this, the wearing of them, sees no benefit for you.
He confirmed the reason he did not want me wearing the signature was because I was no longer being paid.
it didn't surprise me at all considering your post quality
This is my point. Hhampuz is specifically declining to utilize the most effective advertiser, so to personally benefit. He also accepted a friend of his, who at the time had been caught (and had negative trust for at the time) plagiarizing in recent months. I am not calling him out on this because I am involved, I am more than willing to call him (or anyone else) out on this, regardless of who is involved. Neither of these things can align with any claim that Hhampuz is acting in the best interest of his client. The line that he has "full authority" or whatever over his advertising campaigns is BS because that does not give him a license to act to the detriment to his clients (who are ultimately paying participants), especially when he receives a personal benefit.