Re: YOBIT SCAM: x10 Banner Promoters Will Be Tagged For Promoting a Ponzi Scheme
⭐ Merited by iluvbitcoins (1)
but (presumably) he was entrusted with those funds, and he proceeded to act honorably. that seems fundamentally good, right? why would it matter what externalities led to the situation?
if not stealing from others despite the opportunity =/= trustworthy, what would you consider to be the basis of trustworthiness? what metrics do you use?
Right, and based off of this a lot of scammers were former kings of good, i.e. fundamentally good? if not stealing from others despite the opportunity =/= trustworthy, what would you consider to be the basis of trustworthiness? what metrics do you use?
Fundamental good almost never ever changes, and thus you need to question your own metrics first.just to clarify, i didn't say/mean that one trustworthy act makes someone fundamentally good. the act itself is fundamentally good. this was to meet your "proof of good" condition:
Doing good can be proof of good, not doing bad is not proof of good.
i just feel that acting honorably in all business dealings and squaring all obligations ought to mean something. can we agree on that? if not, what are the proper metrics, in your opinion?
it's like, you're a bank and someone with a perfect history of repaying every debt asks for a loan. is their perfect history a basis for their financial trustworthiness? or should they be looked at exactly the same as any bum on the street?