Quote from: DarkStar_ on July 17, 2019, 04:04:56 PM

Would it be wrong to leave a negative trust feedback afterwards, now that negative trust doesn't mean that someone is a scammer?

I think it would be wrong not to. Kenzawak has shown (and said) the security of his account is not crucial. He pretty much admitted as much:

Quote from: kenzawak_alt on July 17, 2019, 03:07:34 AM

I contacted kraken via chat, they locked the account but I guess there's nothing left on it.
As for binance, I don't see any chat option, I sent them an email.
These accounts are my main worries, not the one here.
Actually, I don't know if it can be locked but if that's possible, it would be safer.

That post has since been deleted, but it was quoted by hacker1001101001 here.

Quote from: suchmoon on July 17, 2019, 04:40:51 PM

Quote from: hacker1001101001 on July 17, 2019, 04:26:59 PM

anybody could get a victim of such attacks unknowingly, it doesn't make one a high risk to trade with really IMO.

Once - maybe, but getting hacked (or "hacked") twice in a short period of time - yes, that makes it high-risk.

I think it's fair to give the real Kenzawak the benefit of trust. It's an extraordinary claim that he was hacked (or "hacked") twice. It's certainly possible that he was never hacked at all, and is using this as a ploy or an excuse to perpetrate a couple of scams. I don't know Kenzawak personally, but I think some community members do, and given their support I would tend to doubt that he's stooped so low.

None the less, I feel a red-tag is warranted in this case. If the real Kenzawak has no intention of trading on this forum a red-tag shouldn't bother him. Until he takes the security of his account seriously my review will stay.