I do see your point here, and also agree retaliatory negative feedback serves no good, unless valid. To me it would be much more of an issue if legitimate complaints from bounty hunters were met with negative trust, but this doesn't seem the case (that I'm aware of). In this case, it just looks like pointless retaliation, that doesn't even show as DT either. It doesn't indicate to me that any bounty hunters would get negged for raising criticisms, which to me would make the team high-risk for sure, especially if account were DT. In fact, I see one cheater received neutral trust that proves otherwise to me, as well as other neutral trust that appears to be appropriate use of the trust system (an opinion, whether right or wrong).

I'd say risk(/reward) remains reasonable personally, a project might exit scam (of course), though high-risk to me implies most exist scam, bounty hunters get negged, or otherwise.


Yeh I noticed, I hope you're not including me in this list either! This will be my last post unless others engage in this discussion further with me, to enlighten me further. I can also understand bounty hunters coming to the support of their manager, it ironically tells me more that there are users that have received these bounty rewards, rather than the idea of being scammed. While it can be annoying, having an army of shitposters doesn't confirm someone is a scammer either, even if often enough this can be the case.


Ok, that's settled then. Thanks for explaining, I don't want to waste more time on this issue to be honest, I'll just keep eye on it.