It is one way to earn trust but probably the most difficult and as a result the most valuable. You have to spend money first of all which ties you to a blockchain address, then you have to give a physical address to receive goods and a name. I think that is what makes feedback valuable. Useless feedback would be what we see mainly today, where people label themselves scam busters and then get trust for leaving others red trust. They pay nothing, give no personal information, and can be tied to no address on any blockchain.
This is something I completely agree with. If it was a well thought-out process that was patient but secretly designed to be a scam for the long run to take place
after gaining trust via buying items in the Collectibles board. The biggest claim for it not being a scam would be that a physical address was given to receive items therefore it would not be a scam.
Had howardsentell not created threads in the Reputation board that were effectively unnecessary, his account would not have come to my attention and both his positive/negative trust would also have remained unnoticed. The content of the threads he created are not normal for new accounts that are new to this forum and that adds to the suspicion of his motives.
The most annoying thing both howard and Kaz do is change the emoji they have in the title as a means of vying for forum users attention. It's probably not against any rules, and it probably shouldn't be. But holy fuck it's annoying. They do it once or twice a day sometimes.
Suprised no one has commented on their practice of doing that yet, lol.
If they are both vying for attention at the same time using the same tactics, they clearly have a very deep relationship. It does seem very odd though.
2 cents of my opinion, i decided to mostly ignore him after he did massive spam.
The spam you encountered by howardsentell (along with the negative and neutral tags on both Kazkaz27 and howardsentell accounts) show there are clear warnings associated with them regardless of the number of positive feedback they have. Maybe it is a good idea to take precautions in the event that a member is involved in a trade and never send funds to either of them first.
