Should such proof be valid for unusual suggestions?

[grimdercell]

Recently, I came across these two suggestions:

 

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/550460a2ba8d886d668b4bf0- GE harmburg

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/55016842ba8d88f4798b4d4b- Sunbeams Razor Cut

 

In both suggestions, the suggestor only posted one proof, which both happens to involve the same traders.

 

So heres the thing, the seller sold the unusual to the buyer and rebuys it from the buyer for something else. In the Hamburg case, the previous suggestion was at 4.6 buds (accepted 17 days ago) and no offers in that sole trade exceeded 5 buds pure. Then now the suggestor is suggesting a new price of 7 buds using a trade where the seller sold it for 7 buds pure, then repurchase it from the buyer for something else and now claims to be not selling that said item.

 

My question is that should this trade be considered a valid proof? I see an issue here whereby the buyer and seller could be helping each other to raise the prices of their unusuals. Take for instance, Buyer wants to buy an unusual for pure, but seller asked him to purchase his other hats for pure, then use those hats in a bulk trade to buy the original unusual that the buyer wanted. This allows the seller to then make a suggestion to increase the prices of his unusuals, and the buyer still gets his wanted unusual. Win-Win.

 

I'm not saying that the users in the above trade are doing this, but it certainly does raise a few doubts as to whether trades like this should be considered valid proof or not.

[The Penguins]

I suppose that is price manipulation by the sounds of it