Bitcoin Forum

Presently i detect that few bounties still allow red trust accounts to wear their signatures, i think this means the bounty project is been managed by bad bounty manager or what do you think? for example E3T bounty allows red trust account, is this normal ?

I saw E3T requirements and it is not stated that users with red trust cannot participate.
Their rules are simple. As long as they don't prohibit users with red trust to participate, users with red trust can participate as long as they want.
It is not against the rules. Rules are to be made by bounty managers, I don't know the campaign manager so I can't say if he is a bad or a good manager.

It is normal as long as they allow users with red trust to participate.

Its bounty manager's call for that, once the bounty rules doesn't say users with red trust can't join bounty then no problem at all, red trust users promoting the bounty is legit

I find the red trust rule is good, it gives less opportunities to the wrongdoers. And most businesses don't want their name associated with red-trust people.
But indeed, the rules are made by the business owners together with the campaign manager.
In that case, I think that best is to ask the campaign manager or, even better, the business owner (if it's active on btctalk), because it may be just a mistake / forgotten rule.

It is not about the manager of the bounty but the rules. If the company decides to allow everybody to participate in the bounty. The manager has no right to prevent them from joining the campaign. It is very normal because we have seen many projects did it before, of course, it would be best for the company to add a new rule to prevent the negative trust people from joining the campaign.

Maybe this is the primary reason, just to focus on the promotion of the project, they disregard and give an opportunity for users with a red tag to participate in their project. They most likely that desperate to expand the reach of their project just to increase their promotion rate and get enough investors for the sake of the success of the project.

There are still a number of bounty managers that allow members who are hit by red trust to participate in the promotion of the project, for me it is no problem as long as the observant manager of each account with red trust because it could be used again fraudulently in multiple accounts.

bounty managers should give suggestion to developers team about red trust participants.it will influence project image to their investor in my opinion and also projects quality  looks have low quality.if we look in this forum,many good managers didn't allow red member,and most of project have good quality.we could see many refference in past campaigns.

@Greatchu if you have an issue with the bounty manager allowing tagged users for previously cheating campaigns, it is best to bring the issue to the project team. Usually, they just give 100% authority to the campaign manager since they hired him for the job in the first place but it's possible that they may intervene if they found out that the bounty manager could be damaging their project by allowing red-tagged bounty hunters.


I wonder what the mods thinks of this particular bounty rule. Doesn't this fall under incentivized posting?

In my opinion, it is really a big downside on an account that has a red trust because a lot of signature campaign only allow account that have a great profile or doesn't have a red trust in their account. In my opinion the bounty manager is the one that is going to decides if red trust account should be accepted in the signature campaign or not but pretty much today it is now standard that your account should not have a red trust or else it will not be accepted in the signature campaign because it is not trusted anymore by the campaign manager.

Participation of red trust forum members in any campaign is normal. It's usually emphasized why and by whom red trust is given. This doesn't mean that the bounty manager is bad, it is just a little issues mentioned by someone for member are not a problem.

There were instance of bounty managers accepting red trust members as exception in the past specially during the trust war among DT members. But as most of the retaliatory trust of that time are gone, almost none of the legit project accepts a red trusted members.
Everyone can use a signature whether they are on the campaign or not and though using a red trust member to advertise doesn't necessarily mean the project is a scam but it would certainly create an negative impact on the viewers.

Why should it be the fault of a bounty manager or generally bad? Depending on trust, there can be accounts that were "stolen" and those that "cheated forum members". In my opinion those two definitions are completely different and I have nothing against the first one.

If you believe something is off, or not being enforced, then do not participate in said campaign. 95% of the time, you'll be wasting your time. These cryptos are dead-on-arrival, are crypto get-rich-schemes that prey on most of low quality and money-hungry B-hunters.

In the past, there were many who received and now there are only a few bounty managers who still maintain the rules, but I think if someone reprimands or advises them, I think this will disappear, it is strange to me if there are bounty managers who allow this.

Some of these bounty owners might not even be aware of what the trust system is all about.  They should, but they might now.  Or even worse, they might not care as long as they can get as many members as possible to advertise for them.  I don't trust these project devs at all, but I would trust them even less (were that even possible) if they allow red trusted members to join their bounties.  It's bad business practice and the fact that they don't care makes me question how serious they are about their projects.

it is the policy of the manager and each manager and also the project developer because they have their own criteria. but keep in mind that not all projects accept red trusts, take good care of your account by not making mistakes in the forum because trust is important in this forum besides the ranking of the forum

Why not bro lets everyone have the signature and lets everyone promote the projects. We only distinguish the market of crypto promotion in Bitcoin talk but actually everyone can wear the signature doesn't have any problem.
I suggest the bounty managers to accept even the negative trust members when there posting a legit posts with good quality. Let's everyone earn and stay peace.

Not good if they have negative trust feedback and the feedback said he is scammer do you still wanted to help them?
I don't like scammer to stay wearing signature and earn from them this should not be tolerated if they received negatively as scammer they should not welcome here on the forum.

I have many bad experienced on them even here on altcoin bounties we help them but in the end they turn into scam then sooner they will join in some campaign where they can earn few bucks that they can use again to buy a website and use for scamming purposes.

Actually it can't be said that a bad manager also has a signature that accepts a red trust account. Maybe because now fewer participants are participating in the signature project so there are managers who take the policy to accept red trust accounts.
But it is better if the red trust account is not accepted as a participant.

Depending on the company that has the bounty to make a rule that can be followed or not by the red trust, in my opinion, the job of the gift manager is only to examine the work of prize hunters and update the rules if the company wants to add or subtract rules.

I don't think the bounty manager is to blame. What if he refered this problem to the project management, but they still allowed users with red trust to participate? Nevertheless, the last word remains with the project team.

Not every red trust is bad, man. Some of the red trust is for fake or misuse of high ranked member's power! For example, Jamalazeez can't participate in any bounty campaign, because he has real red trust. But I am doing it even for a very good exchange and I have a red trust tag! It's because my red trust is false! At first bounty, managers verify the red trust and later they allow or disallow for red trust accounts. I hope you get it!

You are right. Especially bounty managers are not accepting a guy with red trust tag for scamming, or bounty abusing! But others red trust accounts like a shill, misbehave or for others reason, some projects are accepting the red trust. It's not to blame the bounty manager, it's a decision from the team actually!

Most bounty managers don't care who is participating in their bounties, nor do they have any interest in the quality of the posts participants make.

As far as I've seen, most bounty hunters only care about one thing: getting as many bounty hunters to join as possible.

In any case, I wouldn't say that allowing negged hunters to join is a big problem, so long as they're not multi-accounters then it should be fine.

Such bounties have existed for a long time, and this does not determine whether BM is good or bad. Obviously, for somebody red trust is nothing. If you are hesitant to participate, it is best not to participate. Factors like this are not the way to evaluate bounty. Firstly you investigate the project, and if it is good, there is no problem joining the bounty. Members already work separately.

I don't think that if a bounty manager allows participants with negative trust to participate, then he is a bad manager. I have an example of a project that is quite successful now, but in a bounty company they accepted participants with red trust. So I don't think it's a bad thing.

I think it's normal since It's depend on the team who choose the bounty manager. Then, the bounty manager create the rules. But i think it will be bad if the red trust join the bounty campaigns. Most of them got negative trust because of creating multi accounts. So maybe they will abuse the bounty too.

Given the fact that some Trustees of the forum can paint a person's trust just like that, without objective reasons, then I would not pay attention to it. Of course, most people get negative trust deservedly, but this cant be the main reason that would prove the incompetence of the bounty manager.

Maybe such bounty manager are considering the fact that some people with red trust have repented themselves over that they had do. Besides such people who have been marked like that doesn't mean that their journey will end. In addition they are an addition for campaign to grow. Maybe as well they make more quality post, fulfilling ideas other than those people who have not a red trust. On the other hand there are no problem adding people with red trust although it is bad for the image of the campaign itself for allowing such people.

You are right.  that is because there are various reasons why it was given neg trust.  and even then the assessment is quite subjective which sometimes for some people it is not a problem.  and I would say it's normal.  BM with negative trust does not mean she/he is a bad person, and it does not mean that all BMs with neg trust allow participants with neg trust join bounties.  if the OP is disturbed by it and worried about having an unpleasant experience with a BM like that, then just leave it, if I have no problem, as long as the project is good and the performance of the bounty manager is quite professional.

Many bounty managers do not allow participants with negative trust to participate and I think this is the right decision. I prefer to participate only in such projects.

Red trust rule is basically a sign of warning to the Bitcointalk public that the individual behind the account might have some questionable character and should be dealt with in care. Its now the user perogative in this case, the bounty manager, to decide what to do with the information. The bounty manager may not be good or bad but he may just be careless one.

I at all not see nothing bad in is, that participants with negative trust will promote what the project. And I will not be alarmed by it. I evaluate the project on other qualities and the fact that they can accept red participants means absolutely nothing.

Prohibiting the users with red-trust to join in the bounty is a good point and it will make the bounty to be better.
However, some bounty managers may not consider the trust, they only focus on how many people that can participate and help them promote their projects. It is no matter, however, in my opinion, you will be better to be more selective in choosing or making rules for bounty campaigns.

Actually this is common sense. Well E3t could exempt it since there is no mentioned in the rules not allowing red trust participants. But some manager, really accept red trust like, campaign handled by Jolin,who known to be good on handling projects. For me, its actually not good to allow them since they have been tagged for some negative feedback.

It's not normal but we can't interfere with a bounty manager's decision if he/she decided to accept participants with red trust rating. I don't think that kind of scenario were included in this forum's general rules. On the other hand, a bounty manager can be also tagged if he/she tolerate it because he/she can be considered as encouraging spam or whatsoever.

so what is your real goal ??
Do you feel jealous of rules like this ??
I personally will not mind things like this because everyone has the right to follow the bounty while he can follow the rules.

Its not really an issue unless it is stated that they are prohibited. Campaign managers compose their own set of rules when conducting a bounty, they can change the rules as well. If it bothers you that they accept negative trusted members then you have the freedom to opt out of the bounty otherwise just deal with it.

Uhm, it's not that common for bounty managers accepting red trust users. But some are okay with them. It might be the rules made from bounty manager and the project team themselves. Although some also not accept red trust users since they want a healthty bounty participants to not spamming the forum and all. But it doesnt change the overall bounty. But I do think that bounty manager needs to give them a fair warning. As to not spamming, using alt accounts etc.

if your joining bounty campaign with negative trust BM check the profile first where the feedback came from and what are their references,  what i mean if its true or not because for your information there are some user making false accusations with other BM.  So don't judge them if you have no such information why they owned negative trust. In fact owner of the project will not let bm with negative trust to handle it if it's true that they are not trustworthy member of btt, unless if the BM is the real owner of the scam project . Lol

I don't see any reason no to accept them too, we should give chance for as long as they are just using 1 account in one campaign, as long as they are not scammers, so it will be fine at all. Giving chance to everybody should be a must here, we are one big family, let's give chance to correct each other, once he committed crime or he did the same thing again then that's the time not to give chance at all.

Red trust wearing signature code is soley at the discretion of the bounty manger.  Some manager will specifically emphasise on the rule that Bitcointalk account with red trust are not allowed to wear signature code and participate in his bounty while some managers permits red trusted Bitcointalk accounts to participate,  so in all the bounty manager has the final say of whether to allow red trust account participate in the bounty or not. Some bounty managers also take out time to verify the cause of the red trust before allowing such participants to participate in the bounty campaign

We cannot say that a bad bounty manager is the one who gives access to red trust owners to be able to join the campaign.
It could be that the red trust is better at promoting a campaign than you. I think a bounty manager like this always thinks positively which he believes that the possibility is always there even in negative things. And that is not a mistake.

in my opinion a valid project and the responsible manager will not accept account participants with a red trust and vice versa for the project also will not accept managers with a red trust. and if other than that, you can redefine the meaning of the red trust account.

Maybe they E3T bounty is pretty new because they might be more or less breaking btct rules as well:


In this specific quote they are breaking the rules of btctalk as they seem to link on their own ann thread and want to users to post there.
here's the rule they are breaking: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2559282.0

Red trust accounts can still promote bounty projects if the project teams allow them, it should be on the bounty rules and regulation if red trust account is allowed or not.

Generally a truly legitimate project will prohibit users with red credentials, but the example of the project you mentioned, I saw in the rules about their project mentioned that (there is no ban on red trust accounts). so I think this is normal and allowed by their project.

That means that they are eager to get mass promotion even if it is done by someone who is quite not trusted or have scammed someone earlier. There are many but some of the managers also allow them if some feedbacks are given due personal issues or spat which is not the correct use of trust system.

There are several types about negative trust, such as scammer, default loan, the user who has a lot of alternative account and the last account buyer. If there is a bounty campaign which promoted by scammer I just think that the end of the projret will end up being scam too.

It should be pay attention by bounty manager of this forum, because the risk that will be faced when they try to allow negative account that I mentioned above will be difficult to attract an investor. So, I can be disagree if there is bounty campaign which allow negative trust account being a promoter.

And I just believe, the trusted bounty manager won't be ever to allow negative trust account become his participant, because they will know its affect. Also, it seem like the developer of the project should give a requirement for their participant, because it will give many affect to the development of the project in the future. You can imagine how the affect it is.

They literally don't care about their participants, they just want to get more members for more exposure.

Most of the signature campaign does not accept accounts with red tag but there are still some who are accepting and I think its up to the investors now on how to decide as for sure if the company allows these members to be in the campaign, they have already evaluated that and might see some possible good result for allowing.

It's not unusual as well, some campaigns accepts red trust participants, some does not and that's normal.

not always bad projects allow red trusts to participate. like moozicore, where red trusts can participate in a signature campaign, and in the end their sales are good, judging from the current rate, the price on the exchange is quite satisfactory for bounty hunters, even though on November 14th the new tokens are unlocked

because a certain bounty allows hunters with red trust to join the bounty doesn't make the manager bad. The bounty has its rules and if the rule didn't state that, then there is nothing wrong with that

each project has its own rules, if the rules of a project do not mention the prohibition of red trust means they allow participants of the red trust as well. and I see in the E3T project spreadsheet there are many users with red trust, but you need to know that not all projects or managers are bad if they accept red trust participants.

Well since the trust flags are now introduced negative feedbacks are now just feedbacks so, some managers like yahoo himself are accepting participants with negative trust  in signature campaign except in cryptotalk campaign which negative trust aren't allowed to join. if you want to join in signature campaign you have let the manager reviews your profile and let them decide if you are accepted or not.

You must be new in bounty hunting my friend, this is normal here, some bounty managers allow negative accounts to promote their project and that's not against the forum rules, its their discretion and its their rules.

in my opinion it's normal, as long as the project team allows participants the red trust won't be a big problem. unless the project team bans it it will be a big problem.

That's correct and that's why they should be contacted, the things explained and asked if this was intentional or a mistake.
I mean that there should be the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

new developers who don't have experience or don't have a lot of lunge in project promotion, always don't care about redstrust participants, because the most important thing for them is that many participants are involved and can attract other users. that is normal in ICO advertising, it is important that users are more selective if they want to join such a project. what else do they plan to register token on the Dcoin exchange? isn't the Dcoin exchange very shady?

I think they are more interested in the promotion and don't bother have much restriction or quality of posts and it's quite obvious that the project might or might not be successful as they are not bothered about the basic requirement for the participants. It's time for the other bounty managers and owners to buckle up and have stringent rules if they don't want people to think their project as scam.

And they will just lose money, because many will avoid projects advertised by red-trust users, thinking "if they allow scammers for advertising, what if they are also scammers?"

This had been happening for a long time.
Why the sudden brought up to this?  ???

It is the campaign managers take if he want to input it in the rules.
Mostly ICO's doesnt have much participants when it comes to signature campaigns.
Maybe that way they could add some more even though they are tagged with red. It doesn't mean though that the user is associated with them.
More like another help to advertise the campaign.

Nowadays the top priority of developers are how to advertise their project effectively with many bounty hunters to help them spread awareness.

Sometimes the manager are just following the team's condition when implementing the rules so its not always the manager's decision.

If you have doubt on those campaign accepting red trust account then simply dont join.

Is there any problem with that 'cause I don't think so. In the end they are still human, they can submit what the campaign may require as long as they passed the initial requirements. So, if there are no red trust issues on submitting an account requirement then they passed. The only thing that matter here is the appearance of the campaign itself 'cause they seemed as well not reliable.

It is expected if the project's only goal is to get their project to be promoted and nothing else than that.
They do not limit their participants just to make their project reach every corner of this forum including social media sites.

I have found a review about Dcoin, and I think it is not a good exchange
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/as0f6y/never_use_dcoin_exchange_they_dont_let_you/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/as0f6y/never_use_dcoin_exchange_they_dont_let_you/)

It's in the option or prerogative of bounty manager, two reasons I could think of is, there are lack of promoters and they want as many members to participate in their bounty campaign, so they include even with those red trust bounty hunters to join, the second one is bounty managers also has red trust and  he has no issue with trust rating so they allow it.

You are right about recruiting more members, their goal is to find more hunter and to advertise their projects in a wide range. However, I do not think this has anything to do with new developers. The developers of most projects are already new in the crypto world. This depends on the bounty manager himself, and we should not look for any reason behind it.

I thought manager came from  team but I saw it was not, because if it came from the team didn't know about red trust but it all depends on rules made by the manager himself, maybe the manager wants to make a full promotion so that it doesn't ban red trust accounts

I think the rules is up to the team and bounty manager on who joins the bounty. If they allow any red trust account to join the bounty,I don't see anything wrong with that

Allowing a red trust member to participate in a bounty campaign doesn't mean the manager is bad. The Bounty manager only runs according to the instructions from the developer team and I think as long as this forum allows, I don't think this is a problem

Bounty managers are those trusted to endorse here and influential user here in crypto currency community. Also they just refer as per instructions of the owner of the project, having a meeting first and plan their protection maps and schedules so if they include red trust user it's up to them as for the good of the project.

On the said campaign, bounty manager is not part of the campaign, and rules are to be made according to the instruction of the developer, bounty managers just guide to make rules and handle the bounty campaign itself.
In this case, maybe the team and bounty manager have discussed it and they have agreed to allow red trust users to participate just to promote the project.

Maybe, but for that rule given it still affect the project. negative feedback users are those who committed scam or promote scam projects. signature campaigns is a highest promotions in the forum and everyone are looking in it if that project run so good but with negative users and base on their feedback I didn't trust even the project. bounty managers are aware on it at first and give the project a proper criteria for users to see the project as trustworthy and intentional.

It's strange because I always see bounties state categorically that no red trust member is allowed to wear their signature. If it's happening now, it has to be a case of incompetent bounty manager.

if I were a bounty manager, I would look for why a person received red trust before allowing him to participate in his campaign. if he is a cheater and was caught cheating in participating in a bounty campaign, then, of course, such a person should not be allowed to enter the project

Yes, restrictions are coming from the bounty manager, it was the agreement of both part and if it is not prohibited, then it is fine.

Of course, allowing participants with red trust does not determine the legitimacy of a project.

If it is not the issue for the bounty manager in the first place, then there is no need to check for a participant with red trust.
Aside from cheating in the bounty campaign. I think it is a bounty manager's decision what he will do if he caught someone in the campaign.

Red trust means a lot of things, those who have red trust must either scammed someone, low quality posting, and other unforgivable act that is against the forum rules. In my opinion, bounty managers will not have a problem if they are going to let some people who have red trust as long as they didn't get that because of spamming, if they got it because they scammed someone, then it is not the problem at all cause he can't scam a project because he is the one who works for the project, and only the team could scam him.

On the other side, most of the bounty campaigns and managers doesn't allow red trust users to join their bounty, I guess it depends on who is managing the campaign or to the team but that doesn't mean that they are scam also.

it's still natural, there are even gifts that managers also trust in red, there is also success. so the red trust is not the main benchmark whether the project is a scam or not, in my opinion. then what if the manager doesn't have red trust but the project is a scam? Red trust is not the main issue in the prize, but a solid team is the main key.

I think allowing or disallowing participants with Red trust rating is a call of the bounty managers. Although it is important that bounty participants follow rules to sustain the bounty program and it is important that this restriction is stressed-out in the bounty instructions. 

I don't know why this user brought this up either. It is almost like they are trying to look for trouble. I don't bother about trust unless it is for a scammer. So many people get red trust for such light things and they are never given the opportunity to reverse it and it is permanent and that is not very fair. I think trust should be wiped clean after a while but if you scam then it stays because that is a thief and a crime. But if it is for some people having quarrels then it doesn't matter. If you think this is what is important when choosing a project then you going to lose all your money.

The main problem is that the red trust accounts for the most part belong to multi accounts, which means that taking on such accounts,
the manager runs the risk of launching all multi-accounts associated with a particular account in the company.

This is normal if the rules do not prohibit the use of multiple accounts by one owner, but I have not seen such a permit in any company.

What impression you are giving if someone with red trust is carrying your project signature? Definatly a bad image. Bounty manager need to be careful while designing the policy, so that red entries are not carrying your signature. A small mistake can turn out to be disastrous.

It is not necessary that the impression will be bad. It is important for project developers to advertise a project by any means.
The more often the project signature will appear on the forum pages, the better, the more people will see it, and the more potential investors will come to the project.

But only on condition that the owners of accounts with a negative trust will not be abusers who write shit posts and spam.

It is the bounty manager and the team's decision if they will allow users with red trust to join signature campaigns. And it doesn't directly reflect how hood or bad a manager is. Some projects doesn't care about the participants post or trust, what they care about the traffic and # of participants who will promote for their project.

Indeed, it totally depends on the rules of the team and the manager.

What matters to them is to get a number of participants who will advertise their project regardless if the bounty hunters has a red trust or not.

I think if the team has no problem having a participant with red trust then its fine. This doesnt reflect the manager's reputation because they are just following the instruction of the team.

every bounty manager always has a different set of rules, so in my opinion that's normal, and the bounty manager has the right to have strict rules should not accept redtrust accounts

Exactly some of the bounty managers are accepting negative trust user because they want more participants to promote the project,
While others have limited spot in order for their participants to receive a good amount of reward.
But accepting negative trust user doesn't really mean that the project is bad or something.

it depends on managers because they have different rules that they have. so I think it's also normal for that as long as it doesn't violate the rules that have been made, if allowed then it's a separate policy from the bounty manager

Red trust account only con joined campaign where allowed for red trust participant bounty, maybe many bounties campaign have stop for accepting red trust account but you can find little campaign allowed red trust participants, you can get back your account from red trust by helping from moderator of bitcointalk.

I don't see any harm in this case.
Because redtrust is not always taken for the same reason. Sometimes you get redtrust if you are defeated in the bureaucracy inside bitcointalk.
This does not mean that the user is unreliable but only shows that he was defeated in bitcointalk's politics.
That's why everyone in the forum has a say.
Besides, Donald Trump's use of Iphone does not harm Iphone's brand value.

There is no harm to the bounty companies only if the red accounts are each owned by its owner. Or at least one person.
But the vast majority of red accounts have become so solely because of their activities in the bounty, and this is usually associated with multi-accounts.
Thus, letting in the company accounts with a red trust, there is a risk of letting all their multi-accounts in the same way, which will have a detrimental effect on the distribution of rewards.

Actually no, they are red tag for a reason and in my opinion, they don't deserve any privilege that the good users have. Even if they put a signature on their space, people would assume that they cannot be trusted (at least that's what I see it). There's no peace since they are the first one to break it by either scamming or doing something illegal. The manager is risking their campaign by accepting this users.

Yes, they keep restrictions for the Red trust rating and they will not allow them to participate in most of the Signature Campaign. We should follow their Bounty instruction because if they announce that they are not accepting any red trust user means definitely it is impossible for us to participate in it.

Having negative trust doesnt mean they are bad persons . Maybe they just make a mistake before that why they got that , something like selling account . Other manager do not look for negative trust since they are looking for promotion not the issue you have been done before.

No it isn't being managed by bad manager's some red trust is not as a result of a person's personality most of it are mere accusations and speculations of code of conduct. Red trusts almost never get lifted even when those involved appeal for it.

Every bounty manager ultimately decided how they want to handle their bounty campaign, welcome to the world of decentralisation. Some bounties are even managed by managers who has red trust so this shouldn't come as a surprise, many people in this forum keeps breaking the rules and has not been red trusted yet, so I tend not to think less of those who has it, they have just been caught, there are those that are doing worse but has not been caught yet.

A red trust does not really reflect the behaviour of people whose accounts has it, while some are truly terrible people, I believe that some of them has just made a mistake or two.

I think having an account with a red trust participating in a project does not mean that the manager handling the bounty is bad. For me it is certainly the desire of the company not to prohibit accounts with red trust from participating in promoting the project and there may be other reasons that are the reason why accounts with red trust are allowed to participate in the projects they run, and I think this is something that depends on how the conditions have been determined by the developer.

there are many developers who only concentrate on the number of investors who enter, and for promotion, they look at how often their signatures are read and remembered by potential investors. So the focus on quality lies in projects that are read by investors afterwards. Then for the bounty manager I think he has communicated with them about the rules used and fulfilled the agreement. The rules for campaigns in the altcoin section are a bit more lenient due to differences in marketing strategies.

Campaign rules are made by the team and the bounty manager as well so if that bounty campaign the rules don't disregard red trust account from participating then i guess they can participate as well. lets not forget they are still part of the community and committing a crime does not mean they can not represent any project again.

I think this is very normal, because the EZ365 campaign you are part of also received a red trust account, so there is nothing wrong with the bounty manager, because the bounty managers of E3T and EZ365 are both good managers, not bad managers.

I think it depends on the project manager not bounty manager, i'm sure the bounty manager ask for the participant requirement before he started a bounty thread and all the rules on the bounty thread is accepted by the project manager. So i think it depends on how the policies of the project manager and i think it's okay to let red trust to promote a bounty they also need rewards , in case they have to do the same thing like normal trust or plus trus

not all managers who give free red trust to the bounty signature are that they are not good for the project they are working on. all that is the policy of each manager how they apply the rules.

They needed some traffic in their websites as well supporters, if the red trust is not related into scamming project it can be accepted like selling or etc. provided that no alt joined the same and if a quality poster like having merit and been active in forum. It's still good to accept but all should be check before participating since it's the post quality that is needed in promoting.

but indeed only a few projects allow red trust to participate. all this time after my account got a red trust prize, it was hard to join the signature campaign, and there were several projects that allowed it, but the results were not optimal so far.

I think it is none of your business :)

I don't have personal issue about this too, if they were given chance by the team and the bounty manager, then who I am to judge them, will just do my part and that is to promote and to help the project, and not to criticize and judge other people. Everyone of us has chance to earn while we are learning here, if I will be the bounty manager, will be glad to accept them for as long as it is not a serious offense.

There are some bounty project that their admin has red trust and they are the ones managing, giving rules and information about the bounty project on ANN and altcoin bounties thread. What happens to their red trust, does it mean people won't join the campaign or the project is a scam because of that.

managers bounty affected by red trusts usually they have a belief that bad in this forum plumpness manager bounty they get red trust because they commit fraud and do not pay the amount corresponding to the bounty hunter they also commit fraud by creating multiple accounts to get a great gift they greedy want to enrich themselves.

Many bounty campaign manager never allowing for red trust account participated at their campaign but not worry if you have red trust account you can participated with bounty campaign allowed for participants have red trust, maybe you can check spreadsheet or bounty campaign rule first before you joined, when you get participants have red account accepted you can join.

All of us make mistakes and pay the price for them. I am not against the rule of banning people with red beliefs from participating in signature campaigns but if possible give them one more chance.
I think as long as they do a good contribution to the community and do not violate the rules of the forum, the signature they absolutely deserve.

don't look at it from the manager's side, because not all managers with red trust produce bad projects too. and on the one hand no one will know about the success of a project. but I say this does not mean that red trust managers are good. my suggestion is to take the time to research in more detail about the project you want to follow including the developer background.

the manager's job is simply to take a position in the project that they consider potential, and then manage the campaign in this forum, the altcoin campaign is not limited in terms of the participant's reputation because they pay in stake. If in BTC, the quality of participants will be prioritized. Provisions for a red trust account are the authority of the project team, the manager only offers terms and conditions (including trust and merit), this is a summary after I communicate with the existing manager.

It is also quite confusing if there are obstacles such as red trust, because if it is seen it also happens as if it is not in accordance with clear reports. so there is actually no problem if the project is carried out by the manager with these criteria as long as he can be trusted with the previous project.

I seen a notification from Maggiordomo, that I allow red trusted in Signature Campaign, well, not anymore, in my last campaigns they are not allowed.

Bounty which don't care about their reputation,all they want exposure.

Bounty manager lazy to check the participants individually so they allowed such accounts.

Some managers also prohibit participants with Redtrust to follow the campaign signature, so this is not very much related to the campaign, the trust is another person's judgment on one of the accounts where they may have covenanted or Violation.

This is not normal at all. Accounts should not be entrusted with their signature red as this is not really secure. When the bonus project is managed by the bonus manager, I agree.

We can not say that the bounty manager is bad. It's a common thing that might be bounty manager forget to add this rule & for me if the bounty is running successfully it does not matter whether red trust account holder doing signature campaign. If further bounty manager adds this rule automatically all red trust signature campaigners will be out from the campaign.

depends on the rules of the manager   .  most bounties allow red trusted accounts but that does not mean that the project is scam but i think its still not approriate becuase this affect the image of the project  .  other projects hire negative trusted accounts becauase they are also scam and will not pay the particpants  . they knew that these red trusted participants will just join and wont complain too much  compare to those who have clean forum account  .

It really don't care whether the participants have red trust or not especially if they are accepting by the bounty manager, so I really don't care at all, I will accept them and let them enjoy the benefit in participating besides everyone of us have the chance to earn here. So, for me this should not be our focus, but our main focus should be how are we going to help the project to become successful.

With this topic, I am not trusting any accounts that has red trust because it is the symbol in which they committed that are not obeying the rules, most of them are scammers. Every signature campaign should not accept accounts that have red trust because it may be a big threat to any other participants. They used to scam other people they can do it again with that account. Maybe they have some warning if they really want to accept accounts that have red trust or a condition in which if that particular condition is not obeyed, banning is the perfect solution.

That must be the reason but in my own opinion, bounty managers should not allow red trust participant on signature campaigns as this is the penalty to forum members for doing mischief on their accounts and you already mentioned that it could ruin the projects image since it was advertise by red trust accounts.

I would also give them chance if they are not accused as scammer but just spammer or what will be forgiven, still they can play a big role in the bounty, as every person can contribute thru sharing the project, so for me, there is nothing wrong with it for as long as they will not cheat in that campaign, that they will not create  a lot of account just for them to get more tokens.