Bitcoin Forum

Isn't it unfair?

Most of the bounty managers has red trust but they never accept red trusted participants mostly on their signature campaign. If ico making this decision so why are they hiring a red trusted manager?

People can get redtrusts for various reasons. Promoting scam projects, cheating bounty, etc.
In my opinion, a project is okay to hire a redtrust managers as long as the redtrust is not related to bounty campaigns. A redtrust managers that don't accepted redtrust bounty hunters must be because the bounty hunters has been bumped for cheating bounty or anyting bad regarding bounty campaigns. If not, then it's nonsense.

I think it's very important to check and see what that red trust is related to. If it's something related to bounties, campaigns or payments then you should definitely avoid that but if it something different than I don't think there should be any problem. Many projects are hiring people with red trust to manage their campaigns because they have previous experience doing this and their prices are also lower. The managers don't play such a big role in promoting the project as the members of the campaign and that's why they accept him with a red trust but.

A redtrust bounty manager rejecting redtrust bounty hunters is like a kettle calling pot black, no matter what reason the bounty manager get his redtrust, either by cheating bounty hunters or promoting scam bounty he's as bad as the bounty hunters with redtrust, they're both birds of the same feather

What ico are you referring to specifically?  Sometimes a manager gets red trusted after becoming the manager if the ico is determined to be a scam, and not before.

No project or any business using campaigns and bounties to advertise here should hire members with negatives from DT members.  It doesn't reflect well on them and I believe that's the most important reason why they don't.

Whether it's unfair or not, that's life.  We're all in the same unfair roller coaster ride, and complaining about it doesn't help and no one wants to hear it anyway.

 I believe it is totally unfair; but bounty laws are bounty laws

But I'm another angle, bounty manager get negative trust because of few projects that refuses to pay hunters, sometimes managers are faulty; sometimes projects dev don't want to pay

this is only purely for the reputation of the project. if the average "project promoted by the redtrus person can reduce the image of the project. however, not all campaigns are blocked, those who have redtrust can participate in social media, articles / videos and others that are not directly related to the bitcointalk account.

Hahaha.. This is just funny. It's just like a thief making noise or lamenting when he is stolen from. It's a shame if there are managers that do this.

Unfortunately, we can not determine conditions. BM has already proven himself with his previous works. And red trust is often given for reasons that do not originate from himself. But are hunters so reliable? abselutely no.

Maybe they think that participants with negative trust will have a bad impact on the reputation of their project.  
After all, bountists with a negative trust are equated with fraudsters.  
That is, it turns out that scammers advertise the project.  And who needs it?
This is just my guess.

There are no sane people who would hire negative members to manage their campaign if they knew he was cheating his own campaign or doing illicit activities unless the employers also want to fool people. If you ever came across one then that project or that manager conspire to scam the investors and should definitely be avoided. We and the managers are only humans that made mistakes, we get easily dazzled if we see big money is coming right through us. If they are still continuing such projects, whatever the costs you should just disengage to avoid being dragged into the mess. It is most likely you could get negative trusts ratings also so. Or you could report to the admins and let them fix the issues.

I think its a case to case basis and ultimately the BM has the final decision whether to accept a particular applicant or not because he/she is also constrained with agreements from project team members especially in not allowing red trusted participants. But ideally, its should be "compromise and not confrontation" mantra that will prevail so that hopefully, everybody will be in a win-win situation.

It sounds reasonable as one should always check why the redtrust is there for the bounty hunters. Its just that a lot of persons do not bother to check the reason for the red trust of the bounty manager,even when it is unrelated to the project, I am kind of weary of redtrusts

We know that even those scam managers are only accepting new participants with neutral trust caused by the fact that they don't wanna destroy their own credibility. It looks unfair because basically, they are holding everything. But move to another campaign if you are thinking if that's not unfair for you.

His campaign, his rules. As simple as that.

Managers may be red trusted but the reason why may be different from that of the would be participants of the his campaign.

When an account has a red trust, it tells that someone the person behind the account has a questionable character. Red trust accounts should be rejected because most times, the Bitcointalk trust system is a valid proof on character

its better not to join the bounty campaign when the bounty manager have red trust

this rule is the same as the rules about kyc, where kyc is only required for participants and managers do not do it and run away when their responsibilities cannot be fulfilled. not fair indeed, but the crypto industry which has not been legalized by the government is indeed still a lot that is unfair.

Who are you talking about anyway? I'm just curious. When I checked your feedback history, I'm not sure if you are part of that team but it's not that big of a deal. Maybe your quality of posts or for bounties, fewer followers or something.

I don't see how much "unfair" it is. If you don't want to accept the person because of his trust, then so be it.

Have you found a project that run like what you just said? Then you can complaint to the team and ask them why they are doing so. Your complaint might not be heard but then you can avoid a new project from that manager.

I disagree. It is absolutely fair.
It is the ICO owner's decision to hire a red tagged Campaign Manager. That is fair. They have all the right to hire anyone they chose to manage their bounty campaign.
It is the Campaign Manager's decision not to hire red tagged bounty campaigners. That is fair. They have all the right to reject anyone they deemed not fit for their bounty campaign.
You also have a choice. You have the right not to join a campaign managed by a red tagged manager for your own safety.

Your point is right and personally i too feel the same even i sometimes hesitated as well before joining a campaign from a red trust manager but such managers have their argument that they are flagged by bounty hunters if any bounty rewards are delayed or are not paid wherethey are not directly involved because they just manage the campaign and the real culprit is the team behind the project.

The manager who got the red trust, I thought it would be very difficult to get participants. And the projects they handle also do not accept participants with red trust. But there are various reasons why these managers get red trust, so they are trusted to be project managers.

I agree most people didn't get the red trust because of the bounty Scam , but it wasn't fair to me either , and I don't see why that's the case , maybe things will change in the future

Nice post, I'm confused as well but since I can't find the answer I decide not to join any bounties from bounty managers with red trust because I don't trust them ,even if they pay bounty rewards they will cheat, that's why they have redtrust in the first place

It is on manager's discretion, you don't have a say on this  ;D.  

---

Fact wise, many member here avoid managers with red trusts issue for the fact that most of their handled campaign either scam the participants or the manager themselves are manipulating the spreadsheet for their own benefits.

---

Most ICO project does not know Bitcointalk so they do not know about the trust rating here.


Is life fair?  :)

Lol, someone is looking for some people’s trouble. Should we call that a misplaced priority, if they don’t get to be judge by their own red trust, I see no reason why they should judge other accounts too based on them. They need to remove the stone in their own eyes first before removing the one in another man’s eyes.

Anyway, they are simply using their position the way they like it since they feel they worked hard for it, so for people that are yet to get to that stage, all we need to do if try as much as possible to at the top too where we can control things and make things right. It is only when you are at the top and show a good example that others will follow too.

Good simile, friend. I agree with you, this is really funny. However, because of this, many bounty hunters lose their jobs.

All managers have different rules and you just need to follow them, they are having a red trust for many reasons, well they trust for that manager even if they having a red trust because they believe that their platform would be successful and specially if that bounty manager has a big community then it was a big impact on their platform.

Yes they don’t
Neither do they accept newbies
It is one of bounty trivial that cannot be avoided but it’s still best to avoid any complicating

But check bounty terms before joining; saves us some strength

Nowadays it has become very common for the bounty managers to get red trust pasted on them by the DT members. Most of the times it is due to their own fault. After starting the campaign, many of these managers go AWOL for many weeks without any prior intimation. Sometimes they keep the spreadsheets not updated for long durations. Because of these factors, it is very difficult to find a campaign manager who has neutral trust.

There are some with green trust (such as yahoo62278), but they are expensive. And since the ICOs basically want the services from bounty hunters and bounty managers for free, they may not be interested in paying such managers.

I haven't seen any campaign manager that has a negative trust on their account, so can you give me an example of a campaign manager that has negative trust who don't want to accept participants with negative trust, the only way that could be possible is if the negative trust was given to the manager during the campaign which his contract has to be terminated before is contract as a campaign manager seizes, because no one will be interested in hiring a manager with negative trust.

Managers can get red trust for different reasons for example managing a campaign which does not pay the hunters or turn out to be a scam. It can happen to each manager even if they do deep research on the project. It does not mean that he is not capable to run other campaigns successfully.

This might occur due to an agreement from the manager and the ico team. but indeed things like this cannot be protested too far because we are only participants. if indeed you cannot follow these rules then you can leave the projeck.

This is the basic problem with bounty campaigns. There are too many bounty hunters around and they have hardly any bargaining power. The team can change the rules whenever they want and no one is going to say anything. If they are not interested in hiring a good bounty manager, then that is the first sign that something shady is present.

It is fair for the bitcointalk community. Most of the red trust participants are alt accounts and that is unfair. Even if the bounty manager's reputation is bad he/she doesn't tolerate those red trust participants to abuse the forum and I think that's better.

"Guiding others to a treasure the red trust bounty manager cannot possess."

This is a stupid paradox, but it has a place to be.
After all, the bounty is configured not only by the manager himself, but also by the ICO managers, as they say - this is what the manager should do.

For sure it is unfair, I cannot get such bounty managers, because if you have a red trusted account, you should take part in bounties held by a manager that has a red trusted account as well. Otherwise it does not make sense for me at all.

No matter how you guys discuss is, at the end of the day it will still be the project owners who will decide if they hire those bounty managers. For bounty hunters having a red trust is up to the decision of the bounty manager and the project owner so I don't think bounty hunters will have rights to complain. I those people are the ones using their account so it's due to their actions which got themselves having a red trust. And there is always a way to bring the trust rating back to green by doing good deeds or proving something.

It's their choice, you can't force them to accept negative ttust users. I think people don't have a look or barely look at a signature of negative trust users. I personally too wouldn't accept negative trusted user.

You simply compare the participant with a negative trust and the participant is different things managers usually get a red trust from dissatisfied participants and participants for fraudulent actions so everything is fair.

What I see is that most managers who have red trust are new managers on the grounds that the campaigns they manage are not in accordance with predetermined rules, and there are also managers who don't pay participants and various other reasons that I think are managers like that deserves red trust because it harms participants who really work well.

That is privacy for dev team to choose who will be manager.and how about their rules.but for me i just choose bounty program that manager handling hvnt red trust and popular manager at bounty program..very important if we choose that have high rank on bitcointalk forum.i think is ok for choose high rank BM on bounty program

If the bounty manager was hired by the team, it certainly say the campaign manager was entrusted by the team. He must set the rules for it and what he sets are just as what he wants, you can contest but its still going to give you a hard time winning. The forum users somehow we can say dislikes projects accepting red trusted users though, this will affect the project's reputation.

Red trust given for different reasons by DT members so you can't say that red trusted members were just scammers.

Why they don't want to hire red trusted participants because it can create some bad reputation for that project,the decision of picking red trusted manager is on the hands of project team.

It is a nice question actually.

I think just not accepting all negative trusted people is not the right way. I think red trusted people should accept or deny by why they got that red trust.

Managers with red trust don't accept participants who have trust in their accounts while some bounty managers who don't have red trust but accept participants with red trust. so in my opinion it's fair because we can't do anything

you have to accept it, there are rules that you do not like yourself. even if it looks a lot unfair, there are managers who also accept people with red trust. people without red trust find something like that maybe unfair too. so you should just accept that every bounty manager does it differently.

There are no official rules that red trust managers can't handle bounty jobs.

However, ever since bounties/campaigns have started in this community, red trust are not accepted because it is what it is. That's why you need to be very careful of your account not to be tag because it will be hard for you to join bounties or btc paying campaigns.

Life is unfair.


I suspect it is because the ICO teams don't know or maybe even don't care about Bitcointalk politics. To them, delivering results is what they concern themselves with. In fact, if you don't log in, you don't see these red tags. Only the managers want clean profiles because they want to avoid cheating members from signing up.

Well is their choice, no one can make them to accept red trust, but in my opinion their should not be red trusted managers, because people maybe will not invest on that coin, is just my opinion.

In that case, it will a hell lot of works for the bounty managers because they need to check the reason for the red tag and later verify the reason. In bitcointalk, some people are unlucky that got negative trust for almost no reason. Bounty managers can't verify that you know. That's why it's better to avoid them.

I never joined any more with bounty campaign manager have red trust score in their account, I can trust him because never paid for bounty campaign participants and I ask you the same thing with never joined their campaign.

most of that, even though there are some who accept participants with red trusted. but it is indeed unfair when the bounty manager has red trusted and rejects participants who also have red trusted.

it has become the rule of the manager and inevitably we must be able to follow it because the protest will also not change the rules. some managers must have reason for what he decided for the projeck

It goes back to the marketing team of the company of an ICO.

There must be a reason behind it. Some users here do have a red trust but their case is still in pending. I mean, they may have an appeal for it but is still in process. If those can be proved then a manager can still keep on going like a normal member here.

Do you have a specific name? Maybe we could do some research in the Meta section for us to know if they really scammed or stolen something from another user to deserve a red trust.

Well its really up to them, and i think what really matters is actually not people having a red trust, but WHY they are having a red trust
Somehow i've seen one with red trust and it is marked for sub account verification from their main

Thus, its back to why and managers do have the rights to reject any participants.
(It may sound unfair but yeah, the are the managers, we can't do anything. Was once accused i copyright other's article and not paid $4,000 in tokens, such a douche)
and know what, the project is not a fake, copy pasting project, but a genuine project and it's currently in the top 100 Rank NOW)

So yeah, life is somehow unfair, good luck and go over it!

The Managers also needs consultations with the developers, they can't give instructions alone as they are just relying with how the teams wanted the outcome results of the projects, it's also possible that the team itself didn't wanted to have negative trust hunters, they have everything in terms of controls of the given project to the managers.

Same deal with others have already been said, Managers campaign, managers Rules.

The reason why participants may not have a red trust may be because the members in the forum will not read our comments that have been written in the forum, they think because we already have less trust, and maybe also because if the signature we use will affect the results that will be obtained by the ICO project,

For me, i think its unfair, they should accept red trust participants too, because the manager itself has red trust, and if all members has red trust, who can join then the bounty?

I think its depending the menagers to meke a rules. Everything depends on the perspective of each. The manager has reason not to accept bounty hunters who have redtrust.

Red trust is not always obtained because they are evil but maybe because they are not careful about what they do or promote so they get red trust because the project is fraudulent, even though BMs have red trust they are not necessarily bad and commit fraud to the bounty hunter. they also retain their principles as BM who have rules in what they do so they still want the people who participate to have a good reputation for taking work

Sounds weird

Usually there are reasons for the red trust right? Normally it is not a good sign, although sometimes it happens unexpectedly to them. Make sure the project is serious that you are trying to join.

There are some red trust bounty managers that have got red trust for working for scam ICOs (which may because of their irresponsibility to check the campaign) and I don't think that's a valid reason for them getting negged as they did not scam themselves but may have not known about the ICO they are managing and hence they get hired but they don't accept negative trust members who have valid feedback (like scam accusations) against them. They should accept users on case-by-case basis but it doesn't always happen as they need to consider more than 200-300 applications and plus the ICO team may not accept these users.

Red trust means they already broke the forum rules, but sometimes they don't. I do not know why most of the bounty managers only accept high trust and normal trust users. :/

It's a bit hypocritical, but it's the norm in the industry so I can't fault any bounty managers engaging in this practice. The only thing people can do is avoid behaviors that might earn them negative trust!

Hehehe, I see mate. But there are various reason behind red-trust, I guess the team also made a research before contact the red-trust manager. And for the red-trust manager who didn't accepted red-trust participant, I guess yes it's not unfair (IMO), it would be good if manager not make that terms but manager also should to make a research before accept the red-trust participant, and never accept scammer, multi-account, and content thief.

we cannot equate managers who get red trust with thieves like you say, Remember Red Trust has a variety of reasons, not always those who get red trust are thieves. different when managers reject participants who get Red trust for theft or a spammer.

It sounds really funny, probably they think that they are better than that, but I don’t think that it’s right, but in general I think that red trust is given for the cause, therefore the reasons for which it is given are unequivocal.

You need to understand that the bounty managers do not write from their main accounts. Many developers and organizers of the ICO to buy a bitcointalk account for their actions. Yes, most of these accounts have a good title but have a red trust. And participants who have a red trust he is often scammers.

In fact, this is a very relevant topic. Now, if there were rules that a person with a red trust could not be a bounty Manager, then they would study the project more carefully before they start supervising it.

Trust system is not moderated and there is so many discussion around the trust system. It affects the reputation and low reputable users can't take advantage of being part of the signature campaigns.

I think this is the decisions of the owner of the project and maybe they have assigned that manager because of that someone recommended to them, and as a mandatory rules having a negative trust should not participate in signature bounty.

I think that is indeed unfair. But that's the name of the rule, if all who get the red trust can follow it, then everyone will go around on their own.

Why do you want to join a campaign managed by a red trust manager? Doesn't it say a lot about the ICO? If they are willing to let a red trust manager run their campaign, they cannot be trusted. Do not waste your time on them. There are lots of campaigns run by a good manager, join them.

The rules that have been made by the team may not be changed, managers with red devices can pass and this is a policy by the team. For gift participants whose red rank is prohibited, chances are the team only wants to limit the undesired things. All returns to the team and its policies.

Some bounty managers got red trust for the project team's scam so he ca't do anything to remove it but it doesn't mean that he can't manage the bounties anymore.If a project team trust his bounty management skills then he can be hired but when it comes to participants it will be different scenario.

yes, I also think about it, it seems that it is unfair for managers and participants if in the same situation but we do not know further whether it is appropriate or not in accordance with their respective judgments and for me for managers with red trust that they have bad experiences and same as participants if in the same situation.

Basically in the first place, we cannot blame the bounty managers as they are not really responsible on how the projects will going through on the entire process. But to consider the fact that they are tasked to run a bounty that is filtered out and have a standard, they need to do such things and limiting the participants to make the process better.

No, it is fair enough. Red trusted bounty manager should prevent spammers to joining their campaign.
They red trust maybe will be lifted if they don't allow red trust members to participating.
Im afraid if the manager allow red trusted member to join, they trust maybe getting worse later.

This really is, but I think that all this is due to the fact that people can really set their own rules, because these are their projects and they have the right to make such conditions, but I agree that this is not entirely fair, but it is.

Yes it’s a puzzling matter for me as well! It’s unfair with that red trust and moreover,  it makes you think they are better than you just because they are at a managing position.

I think it all depends on the reasons why the red trust was given. If developer and team decided to hire a red trust manager, it is justified.

yes, they should not be compared on the basis because they have a higher position, if they have red trust it is clearly bad. so if management or participants are clear in the same situation it must be fair. but the facts are different.

It is surprising that some bounty campaigns accept a manager with red trust in the first place.

Many managers are here for long and managing  lots of campaigns and some of them can turn out a scam and they get negative trust. So, they can earn negative trust without having bad intentions. On the other hand if hunters get red trust usually it happens with reason. We cannot compare these two situations.

right. managers who have negative confidence I will not participate in their bounty. You can know now that many projects are fake. So choosing a project, the manager is also an important factor to choose a good project

It's not about fair or unfair. The campaign is their and they make the rules, if you join, you must follow the rules. Remember that dealer always wins. Sometimes managers get red trusted but they did nothing wrong, i met some cases like that.

some red trusted managers are not scammers their just only promoting a scam ICO but the fault is not with them is with the ICO company. and when the managers get red tag it is almost impossible for them to remove it. but in most cases they are the one can decide if they want to hire a red tag participant or not but most of the time they will not hire those users with the red tags.

It is only natural that red trusted bounty hunters will not be accepted in any signature campaign. Though there are very few campaigns that I saw in the past that they accept red trusted one.

But most of the bounty campaigns right now they want to eliminate the spammers, cheaters and etc. so they are upgrading their terms and conditions.
It depends also to the project owner what type of bounty manager they hire. In some cases also, there are few bounty managers that received negative trust because of competition as there are other managers that wants to eliminate their competitors by giving negative trust.

Very ridiculous but I think its for our own good. Red trust manager knows what red trust members are capable of. But I think it to place limitation on the number of participants and also bring some level of sanity and trust.

Hah it is interesting... One scammers do not allow to join other scammers in the scam bounty projects :) I think it is very funny :D

It's fair for me. Fyi there are so many accounts get red trusted because of cheating multiple accounts on the same signature or bounties and it's good, so these accounts can't join bounties anymore. They are hiring a red trusted manager because of his/her record manage previous bounties.

This isn't entirely correct. I have seen redtrusted members getting accepted by redtrusted managers and even managers who don't have redtrust. It would be hypocrisy if redtrusted CM don't accept redtrusted posters just by the virtue of the negative trust on their profile without clicking to read why a poster got redtrusted in the first place. Sometimes, redtrust are given for flimsy reasons other that scam it was originally set up to curb. We all know howr insensitive some DT members can be most times with the trust thingy.

A bounty managers have a red trust because of dissatisfied with the payment to bounty hunters. But the bounty manager can not know what awaits the project, he only does his job, the payment is carried out by the developers of the project. So do not blame the bounty managers in injustice.

the blame is on the developers of the ICO's, they are not thinking logically, I never trust bounty managers with red trust, even if the project is good  it cast doubts if the dev is honest in establishing a good and legit ICO, bounty hunters should stay away with red trust managers they scam you and there are bounty hunters that are also scamming bounty hunters.

There are so many reasons why people get red trust in this forum which also include what you have said but not limited to that alone. Sometimes, the same reason why a bounty manger has red trust on their badge, probably through a little mistake is same way hunter to get red trust bad.

So it should not really be a criteria for them rejecting hunters in participating in a campaign, what the hunter needs are the social media tools and as long as those tools has not rejected them from promoting these companies, why should they also reject them? What is not right is not right, the platform is for everyone.

It should be a criteria, but maybe it should be carefully reviewed why the red trust rating actually came into existence.

I can see your thoughts mate since I have also asked this in my mind how a red tag manager managed to deny applicants that has red tag as them

But when I get deep to th conclusion,there’s a thing that I understand because it’s their reputation again that at stake if they take those red tags account because this will reflect to the company they represent,the managers usually don’t wear the signatures and avatar of the company so I think it’s won’t damage the reputation

But there are some managers that accept some tagged account depending to their respective cases,because I saw some signatures that has red tagged members until now actively campaigning

Im fine with bounty managers with red trust but devs should not give red trust bounty managers projects to manage for them because it can stain the projects reputation too but for me i will like to check why the bounty manager have red trust because we have many reasons why someone gets red trust.

Everything falls on the developer teams themselves. At the end of the day, the decision will be theirs to make. If they give paramount importance to their brand, they should try to avoid managers with red trust and promoters with red trust as well. This is very basic here, at least on this forum.

Some mangers have been given red trust when project team changed the terms of bounty engagement, and for not doing a good research before accepting to manage a bad project. If a BM is good at the job, I vote it should be given the bounty management regardless of the red trust. Although I personally avoid red trust manager. I fear the project might fail or hunters will run into problem.

If the red trust of the bounty manager comes from DT1 or DT2 then it's cast to his credibility as a bounty manager, and if the red trust has something to do on how he did his campaign, then we should stay away with that kind of manager, some red trust are not worth it, some of them are fake just to get revenge.

If a bounty manager who owns Redtrust and holds a signature campaign and forbid a participant who also has Redtrust, I think it's only natural. because he was in charge of this bounty manager's campaign. and he has the right to determine the rules and who has the right to participate in the signature campaign he held.

It is very unfair, because if you was marked as a red trusted member, how you can require normal trust rating from your participants. Be honest with hunters and accept negatives as well, because as we all know, it is very easy to get marked on Bitcointalk.

There has a reason for every red trust. If it relates any kind of cheating, scamming, multiple activities in bounties then bounty manager can easily reject them! For example, Wapinter is red trust tagged bounty manager but there is no doubt that he is a reputed bounty manager and he is running many bounties successfully. But you will find in his every bounty that red trust people are not allowed! It is because they can cheat again, or the ICO owner doesn't allow this, but yet they hired wapinter because he has many successful campaigns, he has an active community and for others reason!

Most bounty managers now are accepting red trusted participants but it depends on the reason why they get the red flag.
This is much better than before which you can't join most of the campaigns once you are marked red.

Yeah it's unfair but We need to accept the reality, we can't command the choices of the project owner who manager they want to handle of their project to advertise.




Agreed some of the manager they get red trust because didn't pay to participant for their participation, but we can't force ut because simetimes manager is also a victim of the fake project.

Yes, you are right. After the new color in red trust accounts, most of the bounty managers are accepting them. Personally, I think this is a good move, they are getting the second chance to be loyal and real! Crypto needs supporters, only red color can't stop many people! Though we have to be strict against scammer.s.

Well, because ICO team doesn't care about bounty manager's trust, they may be totally unaware of this feature :)
And bounty manager is professional here and he knows the rules. And he sets such a requirements in his campaign, because he thinks that this is important.

The managers that got red trust for a reason and if they are promoting any project why would anyone join their campaign to begin with, we have already seen a ton of scam projects that were promoted in this forum and if a project manager is involved in any of these promotions in the past how would you trust them and waste your time promoting a project that would end up scamming people. It is better to avoid promoting these dubious projects and that will help in reducing the scams in the ICO market.

Yes, I thought so. If the bounty manager does have red trust on his profile, then he should have accepted red trust participants because they fall on the same category. It seems unfair, but that how it is. We cannot do about it. Anyway, there is a lot of bounty campaigns that accepts everybody.

Red trust members are mostly not allowed to participate in signature campaigns. But they can participate in other campaigns without any problem. The main reason why bounty managers dont accept red trust members is because they believe it will affect the brand value.

They are the one that manage the campaign so they should be the one to accept a participant or not whether they have red trust on their own. You can find any project that accepts red trust but I don't think they are reliable projects.

yeah right, this sounds pretty weird and unfair. I am also not sure they did not accept participants with the red trust as an association of the project TEAM, but only the rules of the bounty manager. I think this needs correction.

Even when it was getting red marked and then that's still fair consider about the bounty managers are only running what already ordered by the team. Remember this any bounty campaign will put the rules of the team or bounty campaign can add or change the rules anytime.
This is the bounty participant's risk.
But the red trust of bounty manager gives bad credibility for ico or bounty campaign.

it depends on how the manager previously managed the project if they get red trust over and over again of course they have a bad reputation, but I see not all projects can accept managers and participants with red trust, but the point is if the project is really legitimate it will not accept managers or participants with red trust.

Pay attention to what is written in the red trust. I will not say that someone is abusing these inscriptions, but sometimes they do not refer to abuses during bounty campaigns or other economic frauds.

one doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.
there are also bounty managers who have been badly rated for decisions made by the team.
the manager has no influence on that but is liable for it. so the 2 topics must not be mixed. ;)

May I know how many are they? Since I know the bounty manager who got red trust only wapinter who still active in managed bounty program.

Also, if I become bounty hunter and there is bounty program who managed by bounty manager who has red trust and even their rank are full member and below I won't ever to take part with. Unless bounty campaign who managed by legendary account and he is trusted person before and he got red trust I'll still followed him because he is trusted person and I can believe him.

I also think so, negative beliefs can be just an unnecessary thing. Bounty managers should be more selective and try to be better at managing. because the most important thing is the quality of the members in doing the work, not the red trust. so maybe it can be considered for bounty managers

Do you have negative trust? I do not see.
Do you have more accounts? Probably because you are interested in this problem.
I do not see any "red trust" members, I see only their behavior, if they behave correctly then it is a good member for me and I would never have any problem to take him into my campaign, if I manage some.  :D