Bitcoin Forum

Hello guys, as you can see, i have already started a scam accussation against a project, and it's bounty manager, that has deceived more than a thousand participants and has a debt of a bunch of tokens, that is probably not gonna be paid soon.

He want to be a "Source of merit" But he is a well-known scammer, so how in the earth is someone going to give him those rights? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5054536.msg47116098#msg47116098) <- Thread of the merit source application

---

Here is the link, and all the proofs that will show you how this "respectful bounty manager" that has said that has a "huge reputation" in here, has forgot about all the people that worked for him.

better to check it out.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5058020.msg47304834#msg47304834

Irfan_pak10's profile link

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=350580

You seem to be "shooting the messenger"... unless you have some evidence that Irfan_pak10 was actually directly involved in the project. Which I can't see from any of the links... ???

Like most "Campaign Managers", they're simply a 3rd-party that is hired by a project to run their promotion... The managers generally have no direct involvement with the project itself, they've just been paid to do advertising.

Unfortunately for these managers, they're also the easiest (sometimes only) target for all of the "hard-working" ::) spammers campaign participants when the project turns into a giant "scam" and no tokens are issued and/or the participants only get paid pennies for wasting all their time retweeting twitbookface posts... even though the campaign manager generally has zero control of the issue of tokens etc.

Basically, if the project collapses and the scammers disappear... the only person left is generally the campaign manager... so people start pointing the finger at them.


Should managers be held accountable for projects gone scam? Unless they were directly involved in the project, I don't think so... Should they be more picky about which projects they choose to represent? probably... will they? I doubt it... they want to get paid like everyone else...  :-\

I am not sure about Irfan_pak10 and his/her reputation in this forum but just want to mention that some of the campaign managers had been tagged by DT members because they have run scam ICOs or not paid their participants as they mentioned here also they don't have any direct involvement with that project they had just hired by the ICO team for promotion.

There must be a reason for that.

In fact, they are also bounty hunters (Higher level). When the project becomes scam in the end, they are also victims.
Although I don't think the Bounty Manager is responsible for the failure of the project, I just suggest that the Bounty Manager should do some screening before accepting a project.

For bounty managers read this topic： To Bounty Managers - How I do my due diligence for ICOs (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027813.msg45607767#msg45607767)

I don't think so, either, unless they knew the project to be a scam and didn't blow the whistle on it.  I agree that (most) managers are much like the bounty participants in that they're just employees of the project and if the project devs run away with the money in the end, it's not like the bounty manager gets a big share of that.  I think a lot of managers get screwed as well when the project turns into a scam.

This has been discussed before, and I'm of the opinion that it isn't reasonable for a campaign manager to vet the legitimacy of the project and put his reputation on the line before accepting the job as manager.  Managers IMO do have a duty to pull the plug on the bounty if the project gets exposed as a scam by the community detectives who do a great job of scrutinizing these ICO ANN threads.  A bounty manager might be able to be trusted with funds for the bounty and might be a reliable manager (paying participants on time, being fair with them, etc.), but that doesn't mean they have the ability to do the work needed to figure out if a project is a scam.  Some people just aren't good at detective work, aren't thorough, or may have some other impediment that keeps them from being able to tell if a project is fishy.  So ultimately I don't hold them responsible when things go bad--in most cases.

That would be a good start for aspiring bounty managers.

When I saw the trust history of Wapinter it says Promotes multiple scam ICOs, rejects the idea of due diligence or responsibility.

And another campaign manager Wipro also got Negative feedback for Promotes scam ICOs.

I am not sure they have involved in that project other than campaign management but they have been negged for being campaign manager and promoting scam ICOs.

This has been discussed over and over and every time it ends with the same conclusion: Bounty whores are equally responsible for promoting a scam project when they don't do their 'due diligence' before joining a bounty.

Says who? A scammer himself?

Are you sure? Some managers are paid with a weekly base, so in the end, if the Ico is a scam they earn something.

I mean I am no Sherlock, I have been approached by a couple of "ICOs" who didn't have their story straight or were just a copy of something which was already done. I will also give credit to Loyce here by making me see things which I wouldn't have otherwise. I think the managers do/should have a moral duty towards the community. I mean why work with a project which has already been done and isn't doing something "unique". The chances it will end up as failure/scam are quite high TBH. I mean these managers should be able to make the call if you ask me. In my book, if I see the chances of the project failing are high, I usually decline to work with them. I mean I get it that they want to get paid but they are getting paid at the expense of other people getting scammed/losing money in a shit project? But hey that's just me.


Yet anyone who tries to promote a Ponzi gets tagged. Isn't he just a "Messenger"??

This I think everyone will agree on... and is, for me, the defining line where a manager will move from "unknowing victim" to "actively promoting a scam".



That's actually a fairly valid point... I wonder if the "Bounty whores" screaming "scam" when they don't get their shit tokens, realise that there are possibly ICO investors who consider them to be part of the scam as they were spamming/promoting said shit token everywhere? ???



A commendable attitude... #kudos

I get your point... I guess it's a very grey area (as a lot of things tend to be).  :-\

Perhaps the the defining line is whether one is knowingly promoting a (known) scam/ponzi... as opposed to being paid to help promote a project... that later turns into a scam? ???

I mean Ponzis do pay up initially before running away with the user funds. In my book they both are same. I mean if you can feel that the project will end up dead then why work with it? I mean people who invest in Ponzis don't know that whether they will get scammed or not. Only the guy "promoting" it knows the real risk. Why can't it be the same with these lousy managers?

P.S I am in no way defending Ponzi "Promoters". They deserve every bit of the red trust they have got.

I've negged both Wapinter and Wipro (and perhaps a couple of other bounty managers) for what I consider repeated and willful negligence. I don't know if that's the case with Irfan_pak10 here and I don't have time to look into it but it seems to be different from merely fake team pictures or other obvious scams.

As I said I am not sure he is involved with the scam projects just like the Wapinter or other BMs you have negged but if Irfan_pak10 also involves the same kind of activity he will be tagged by you or not?

I think Irfan_pak10 also one of the reputed community member then why he should not research much about the team before taking the bounty management!

I can't really answer such a hypothetical question - it depends on the circumstances. The thread linked by the OP says "AS OF NOW, EVERYTHING IS SOLVED" so I don't think this counts as a credible accusation. I'm not aware of any other problems with Irfan_pak10.

That's an intuitive conclusion here.

He did not? He isn't a god that he will be able to predict before time if the project's going to be a scam in the future. Fake team pictures and other lame stuff isn't the case here. Why you don't think that the bounty whores are equally responsible if they get scammed? Only an idiot will blindly participate in a bounty without doing a bit of research himself.