I think the main problem is that the trust system has given members that haven't proven themselves responsible enough the ability to mark someone's account with negative trust, and essentially ruin the account. Even if 90% of the time the people are right, there's still a 10% rate that it will be abused. Given the weight that a trusted negative feedback carries (Warning: Trade With Extreme Caution!) it doesn't seem to me that the system would work in the long run as more and more people would start to gain this power, and it would become harder and harder to monitor and deal with.

I see a main problem is negative feedback is being given because of a personal view on things, and not having to do with scamming or potentially scamming. Even if 90% of everything is right, again it still opens up the chance for 10% abuse, which would be 1/10 times a reputable members account would be damaged. As the trust web grows it would be harder and harder to deal with this, and there's a lot of problems you could run into when removing it. In order for this to not happen I think it would be a good idea to keep the trust system in a monitored rate, where only people that have proven that their opinions are correct, that are willing to quickly correct something they did wrong, and that show the responsibility to not abuse the system and their power if something doesn't go their way or if they get mad are given the power to negative rep someone's account and have it show up on their main profile.


The Default Trust Members and people who carry the high feedback weight are like the Bitcoin Police. In a regular police force, a cop wouldn't be able to give a recommendation to someone and them become part of the team. Sure, the cop might personally know that person and know they're a good person, but they haven't gone through the process of being a cop. As more and more recommendations are given out, you'd eventually have citizens killing other citizens and making decisions that aren't really applicable to the law or what they are supposed to be doing. It would be hard to monitor because there would be so many people to deal with that finding the rights and wrongs would take more time than humanly possible. If the trust system isn't kept at a monitorable rate, pretty soon there will be newbies having more say in a situation than a reputable member who's been here for years (Which I believe is already close to what happened in Canaries case).