Re: If someone is a proven liar, do they deserve to be given negative trust?
Does lying indicate that the trade risk is higher than that of someone who is honest, thus requiring negative trust?
Depends on context. If someone says that is happy to see his wife's mother when he's not in fact, I don't think it anyhow corresponds with trading risk with him. And if someone sais he will return you 2 cents in a week and hasn't return in a month it is another kind if lie: maybe 2 cents is not so much, but if a persom declared a deal and didn't follow the rules he declared by himself, this will be a totally different case.
Lie as an idea by itself doesn't say enough about trading risk. So I suppose that no, it is not appropriate to leave a negative tag just for lying. The one should show how can it be projected onto trading. If it has too few connections with trade, than it's not a Trust case on this forum.
I concur with you strongly. Not everyone does things with the intents that appears. Certain factors that do not entertain their honesty towards a particular demand might be triggered leaving the person helpless and in a situation of a liar but in reality, it was never so.
Some business people do understand that customers are not concerned with the inbetweens of transactions but results, hence, they leave their customers out of the details but it doesn't entirely mean that the details will align entirely with their expectations. On this condition, I do not consider negative trust a befiting compensation. Just my 2 cent.