The members you call into question are real and different people, and arguing that "account creation" gives some sort of link to identity is a misnomer: account creation can be used to make an account for a friend without knowing the private key associated with the new account.
thats a gross misinterpretation of what i said.
Secondly, there is no express rule about having multiple accounts. Clayop below questions the identity of @aizensou and accounts they are connected to, but this is not a reason to witch-hunt them.
A point which i made in reply to him
I encourage you to read our guide on Identity, here, and give up the attempts at witch-hunting members of our community.
to my mind, your verification proves nothing. You have a conflict of interest. A behind closed doors verifiation by an organization that is the beneficiary of donations and support from the individual being verified (or from the individual being distinguished form the individual being identified) is not meaningful evidence, IMO.
I don't really care about your guide to identity verification. because this post has nothing to do with that. This post is about exposing facts about how the reward pool is allocated and about the links a controversial user has with his largest supporter, not verifying someones identity.
What youre attempting to do is supress facts and information that people can use to make an informed decision, not a witch hunt.
There is no relevant information. Digging into people's personal affairs, whether on a blockchain or otherwise, may well involve facts, but that doesn't make it any less invasive and inappropriate, especially when no strong or ultimately meaningful conclusions at all are ever reached, only speculation and suggested inferences.
What @steemcleaners is trying to do (and doing) is discouraging arbitrary invasive identity "investigations" which are divisive and create a hostile environment, while recognizing and encouraging the legitimate cases where identity and similar factors matter and are being used to mislead.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So whats going to happen when/if there's a marketplace. Just a revolving door for scammers?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I would imagine it will look a lot like other online marketplaces where people will provide information to establish their trustworthiness (sometimes verifiable, sometimes not), escrow will be used (apparently already exists on the blockchain, though I'm not sure anyone has ever used it), traders are evaluated by those who trade with them for reputation purposes, etc. And ultimately some people will still get scammed, but that is hardly equivalent to a revolving door.
BTW, I don't see anything about a marketplace on the 2017 roadmap so we probably wont be seeing that on steemit.com in 2017 and quite possibly not 2018 either. For now it seems the focus of the steemit.com site is to be mostly for social conversation and fun, not commerce.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit