If a scammer steals money and leaves escrow to deal with the fallout (~) then I don't think this counts as the flagged user making the victims whole
That's the part open for discussion. You could argue the escrow was part the user planning ahead for contingencies.Maybe we need to have new flag type created for cases like this, because there is chance this could repeat again in future.
In that case, it may work to require 10+ Supporters for that Flag, to make it really a rare thing. But I doubt we'll see another Flag just for a once-in-4-years anomaly.This whole case just doesn't look anything like any other scam I seen in my life
Agreed. It's intriguing.I think it's better just to expand the operation of a 3 type flag on the situations like this one if they will ever again happen.
Any suggestion on a better wording for the Flag, that also still matches other existing Flags?I know this question is directed to Theymos, but let me also give my view.
I asked it in public for a reason 
Quote
This kind of business is based on huge trust since they handle a lot of money. If it wasn't for the escrow fund (which by the way is unusual since we see so many services around here not depositing any escrow fund), then there would be so many victims around and who knows how many more victims there might be.
Correct. I've seen arguments that the service used an escrow to "buy" trust. On the other hand, the escrow actually helped so the "trust" it may have "bought" was deserved in this case.Quote
I think this is similar to a person asking for a loan using collateral, but then they default the loan. You use collateral to get your money back, but your perspective and trust toward the borrower will definitely change forever.
Not really: a borrower who needs to send collateral didn't have any trust to begin with.