The mistake in that information is that they gave you money then you gave them a trust rating. You nor the pool risked anything to receive that money, therefore no trust was actually involved.
This is incorrect. When someone says they're gonna do something involving money, and then they do it, that is reasonable grounds for leaving a positive trust. It demonstrates the ability to follow through on a financial obligation. It was already obvious from your posts about DT that you don't really understand how the trust system functions, but now your hatred is blinding your ability to think clearly.
So by your logic, I should be leaving a trust rating for betfury and ab de royse for my current campaign, and leave the brand and the campaign manager a positive trust rating for every other campaign I participate in as well, as should everyone else? As that is the same logic.
Do you not see a problem in allowing advertising payments to influence the rating that determines if someone is trustworthy? I am not blinded, I just see a very clear problem, that the current system allows people and entities to essentially purchase trust.
As for the posts about DT, remind me how long ago that was again? Seems like you're beating an old drum just to validate what you're saying and to discredit any opinion I have about the trust system.