Bitcoin Forum

There are some campaign managers (and would-be campaign managers) that have dubious history. I cannot fathom the reason why any serious business would bother to consider hiring them (let alone really give them a job).

Keeping that aside, considering the fact enrolling accounts in campaigns is lucrative and basically the only reason why over 99% of the members visit this forum, I would not be surprised if some campaign managers have enrolled (with ease) their own purchased accounts, farmed accounts or alt-accounts in order to maximise their income (effectively cheating their employers).

If you were to take a guess, which percentage of accounts enrolled in a campaign are actually owned by the campaign manager? I will not mention names of the highly respected  campaign managers that I am certain do not cheat via this nefarious activity because the attention would fall on the managers I did not name (when attention should fall on them without me mentioning names anyway).

Nevertheless, participate in the poll  ;D

One is the account the campaign manager is using and another is the alt. One of the campaign rules is to not use alt to apply but if the campaign manager use his alt to apply but just one alt, that will not be considered as alt. Or you mean they use more than one alts to apply?

I have seen a case or two about managers enrolling their alt accounts in campaigns but they were mostly shitty ones like bounties and the managers were less reputable. These cases were discovered way after the campaigns ended.

For a reputable manager, it would be a very silly thing to do because if one is already earning from managing the campaign, why enroll alts? If the appetite for some sats is too much then why not use those alts to join other campaigns?

It's hard to tell or even suspect if there's any reputable manager who currently does such a thing.

Reputable managers understands how tarnishing their image will be before future clients so they will try to keep clean records. Most times managers who enroll their alts care less about what happens afterwards. And it's always difficult associating this alts to campaign managers.

 A serious business compares their returns made from their signature and most times the reason most campaigns don't last long even when the initial intent was for a long term advert. But overall I don't think the percentage of alts dubious manager enroll in sig campaigns exceed 1.

There's no proof on this one and just like on what others been saying above that no manager will definitely be that doing this because once they do get caught then it will be over of their managerial career on which we know that they are being paid some good amount on managing up the campaign. I do understand that sometime we can think off about this kind of possible exploit because it can be definitely be done but it is just that really hard to believe that it is happening as of today. So far most managers are doing their job well on handling up the campaign. If ever they are enrolling alts then there's no way to prove it out.

Assuming a decent campaign manager earns more than the users in the campaign, that would be a dumb thing to do. I also think that if it would happen on a large scale, it would have been discovered once in a while. So it can't be happening a lot.

I don't heard some manager could do this. Managing a campaign isn't easy and time-consuming, so I don't think if they have an alt account they are going to enroll them in one of their campaigns. I believe for reputable members it is not worth it.
Maybe they will do it if they need some quick cash.

I don't think campaign Managers will enroll in their alts account to their own campaigns they are managing in this forum, they fully aware the rules that governed their campaigns which it has affected many participants that enrolled with their alts, But greedy can force some campaign manager to enroll their alts in their own campaigns, I don't think will have such managers here.

If a campaign manager's job is to review posts within a single day, why would bother creating an alt-account and continue posting throughout the week?

So, theoretically, a trusted signature campaign manager would avoid doing this because of the significant damage it would cause, and it's possible for untrustworthy campaign managers.

Let's not forget that scammer who had three accounts in his Chipmixer signature campaign (900$/week.)

When I was made the campaign manager for a different website, I was given access to view IP addresses and all I can say is this community is MUCH smaller than people think it is.  No idea if people do a better job masking their IPs here so they aren't discovered or if the administration just doesn't care...  What I can say is that I was shocked at how many signature campaign participants were triple, even quadruple dipping in campaigns.  This was back in like 2018, so I can only imagine it is worse now.  Just be aware.  Not just for signature campaigns but for attacks on members here as well.  

Anything is possible even though it might seem unlikely here in the forum. It's risky to vouch that such may not be happening. It's their campaign and so it's easy to have their alt in the campaign if they do wish. But if it's a campaign where alts are allowed then that's ain't an issue though. And with what CM are paid by the brands for managing such adverts for them it should be sufficient for them not to peddle on their reputation by indulging their alts in their campaigns where he/she made the rules of no alt.

Even if it is just one alt account, that’s still considered cheating. And even the rule they set, which prohibits the use of alt accounts, is often violated by dishonest bounty managers. If you look at the reputation board here on the forum, you will see many threads where I have exposed these kinds of managers who manipulate spreadsheets, allocate large stakes to their alt accounts, or even take the entire campaign budget and pocket it without distributing rewards to participants.

In my opinion, bounties are dead now. Only a very few are worth paying attention to, and the rest are just garbage run by unknown new managers.

I don’t think any of the reputable campaign managers are doing it. First of all, most of them already wear a signature and they are making their weekly posts just like everyone else. That act alone is very time consuming. It is not easy to come up with 15-25 non-spam posts every week. And then create another alt and make another 20 posts with the same quality? That takes serious mental juice. You might say “who will question their post quality?” And you are right in theory but I am telling you that it is not sustainable.

Is it impossible? No. But very unlikely imo.

I guess we never know until they get caught if they did they seriously will get fcuked. ;D

I have been here for a long and I don't remember any campaign manager found doing that but it is possible and no one is stopping them if they decide to hire themselves.

---

Yes, it is allowed. Forum doesn't restrict multiple accounts but participating with multiple accounts in a campaign where there is a rule saying that no more than one account is allowed will be considered cheating and deserves neg.

@Jollygood, you don't normally make a topic without already thinking someone or multiple someone's in this topic are doing what you're thinking, so I am more curious of who you think is cheating. Your question also I feel needs to be split up into 2 parts.

Do you think Bounty managers are enrolling alts or have ever?

Do you think sig campaign managers are or have ever enrolled alts?

Bounty managers are a dime a dozen and mostly unknowns and I believe it is normal in their minds to enroll their alts. Even some of the more reputable managers in that space could be guilty, but I have no proof.

I won't comment on sig campaign managers without proof as it could be considered a pretty hot topic and dramafest waiting to happen. No need to open that can of worms at this time. Could it be happening, yes. is it, I don't know. I wouldn't rule it out.

I have a hard enough time posting 25-30 posts in a week on 1 account, couldn't imagine trying to make posts on multiple accounts.

Though the probability of this happening is possible, but I doubt a campaign manager who manages lots of campaigns will engage in such dubious act of creating multiple alts, and accepting them in his signature campaign as an avenue to maximize profit, most especially when he manages lots of signature campaigns to manage and also has the duty to examine and count posts of it's numerous campaign participants. Because I think this can only be possible when a manager has fewer campaigns to manage like 2 or 3.

Asking us to guess what percentage of accounts been enrolled by campaign managers on their respective signature campaigns will be a mere speculation, until proven otherwise. Because I'm pretty sure not all campaign managers has an alt in all it's signature campaigns. Because if they do, it wouldn't be in all, but one in a few selected campaigns, since owning an alt account is not a crime, but joining it in the same campaign is it.

Well, I also wouldnt say its downright impossible for a campaign manager to secretly run an alt account pretending to be a genuine participant.  But it does seem pretty darn unlikely if you ask me.  Setting up and maintaining something like that would be a ton of extra work for them.  And for what - a couple extra bucks in their coffers? Doesnt seem worth the huge risk of getting caught and having their reputation shredded to bits.  Nah.  Just doesnt make much sense when theyve got so much to lose.

On this note I wonder why any reputable manager(s) would accept to manage a campaign where the campaign participants earn more than he does that's crazy if you ask me and if it's happening that means the attention of members have not been drawn to such things that's why it has not been exposed.

It seems to me that Jollygood already has some managers in mind to participate in their campaigns.

There are currently several active and proven managers, I don't think any of them participate with their alt accounts in them. I am referring to the BTC signature campaign. Just imagine how absurd it would be if someone who runs 5 campaigns needs to write 150-200 posts. At the same time, many managers hire assistants to make it easier for them to manage campaigns.

Maybe you mean managers who run bounty campaigns in the altcoin section, but I wouldn't even consider most of them managers, because it all looks quite uncontrolled, without a minimum of quality, and is full of spam.

I agree; it's too much work. They are managing campaigns, looking for new clients, and checking their participants.
Having four to five campaigns is too much; they cannot keep up with their numbers, following, and creating discussions.
A campaign manager can do that if he is only managing 1 or 2 campaigns, but more than 4, it will consume time and effort; they also have personal lives.

I think the same managing about 4 to 5 campaigns is really draining, they are careful to go though post count of all participants in each campaign and aside other reasons one is to ensure that participants are doing well in the campaign and not doing anything against the forum rule or something they might frown about and through this avoiding anything thing that would affect the campaign growth or their image.


The altcoin board is all uncontrolled, bounty managers are able to avoid scrutiny from the forum and then they are often free to do as they please and that's among the key reason we have seen many post here on the reputation board on recent times about a bounty manager stealing or cheating participants.

I can say the manager employs their Alt in the campaign they manage a percentage of 1-5%.

I once found a case like that.
Proof:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5187379.msg52550131#msg52550131

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5187379.msg52554800#msg52554800

But not all managers are greedy employing their Alt, only certain.

I don't understand how JG managed to come up with this. But I don't rule out the chances of this happening.
What I remember that one campaign manager was doing then was; putting himself in the spreadsheet of the same campaign he managed and also paying himself. Meanwhile he wears avatar and signature of the same project. That was fine and transparent I think. It was Soujinali that was doing that. I don't think I got the username right.

---

Meanwhile, has anyone heard from him? It's been some years.

There is proof that it does happen.

smartaction, BobK71 are Small rabbit's alt (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5351159.0)
Small Rabbit - Bounty & Signature campaign SCAMMER - 25000$ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5351377.0)
usekevin asking me to delete my post and his activity seems like a scammer (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5534256.msg65132770#msg65132770)

And yes, it does end their managerial careers.


Its quite easy to find out. Cheaters make mistakes all the time without even realizing it.

As far as the bounty/campaign managers themselves doing it is concerned, most managers that expect any sort of longevity in their careers wouldn't do this sort of thing.

I think campaign managers prioritize building trust and circle over making more money by using their own alts to participate in the campaign.

I want to discuss about this, is it wrong for campaign managers using their alts to participate in their own campaign? I know it's shady or bad thing to do, but isn't when the DTs want to paint the cheaters, they have to look on the campaign rules first?

What if the project manager/owner do allow campaign managers alts to participate?

I don't like cheating or supporting cheaters, but I just think objectively.

Is it really necessary to use alt for manager to participate their own signature campaign? It's hard to believe, especially from a reputed campaign manager. Because managers have multiple campaigns ongoing, they could enrol in different campaigns if they want. If someone were really doing this, it would be the worst decision ever. If someone is on your mind, hope he will notice this thread and behave himself from those shady activities. Otherwise, some days they would be exposed, which would lead to a lost reputation over the forum.

I don't know why we need to cheat when we can use alt to participate in different campaigns. But I believe it's hard to maintain an alt account when I am struggling to manage one account lol.

The most reputable managers already manage multiple campaigns and I assume they get a fee for each one. There really is no need to damage your reputation when you have a good thing going. I’m sure there are some sketchy managers that don’t get hired often that might do this because they have less to lose, but considering that application information is usually public and people are good at noticing similarities in how people write, there is a lot of risk in enrolling their alts.

Yeah, that's the thing though.  A lot of these "businesses" that hire campaign managers barely qualify as such, much less serious businesses, i.e., a lot of them are scammy as hell to begin with.  That being the case, why wouldn't they hire the least reputable managers presumably at the lowest cost to them?

I couldn't even begin to estimate how much cheating is going on, because I've been watching campaigns come and go (and campaign managers, to) for years--and if I've learned anything, it's that if there's any opportunity for scammers, cheats, and the like to weasel their way into positions that allow self-enrichment, they'll do it.  I'm pretty sure there have been some campaign managers who've been caught enrolling alts, though I don't remember any recent examples (and note that I haven't read this thread in its entirety, so somebody might have pointed out examples).

This is a forum that attracts shenanigans.  I'm not sure it started off that way, but ever since signature campaigns became full-time jobs for people all over the world, that's the way it's been.  Doubtful that's going to change unless campaigns get banned or regulated at the admin level, and Theymos probably won't step in to do anything unless it threatens the forum as a whole.

It will also be easy to raise money by accepting spammers for half of the weekly payments and without having to create any posts. Therefore, it's best for project managers to hire a good campaign manager and create competition among these managers.

Of course, it's not a problem for the project owner. But with the alt of the campaign manager itself, why should you use Alt instead of the main account?
A campaign manager account that has a good reputation with a high rank, the manager can get weekly payments like other participants, even with a possibly better payment rate.
I think it would be better than infiltrating his alt account in a campaign that is managed by himself. Unless the alt account has been marked as an alt manager account, it will look more transparent.

Greed can make people want more even when they have enough. If a manger is not content with his pay he might be tempted to enrol alt(s). Since the campaign management market is competitive, a campaign manager might want to charge lesser fees just to get a job. At that point he might start seeking for diverse means to increase his earning which night include enrolling his own accounts in the campaign. Just as others have stated reputable campaign mangers will not engage in such misbehavior because they are concerned about their brand/name. I also agree that this behaviour happens rarely.

I was alluding to percentages regarding campaign managers enrolling alt-accounts, farmed accounts and purchased accounts on their own campaigns to cheat their employers.

I can vouch for two campaign managers I have worked with and one I have not worked with that would not conduct themselves in nefarious conduct. As for the others, I would not put it past them especially if they have a dubious past (and feedback that raises questions).

It would be within the realm of non-reputable managers.

Several years ago members from one particular local board were creating havoc, complaining about not being selected for various campaigns and participating in merit abuse as well as other nefarious conduct. The next group that caused problems were a different local board members that create accounts to participate in merit abuse and join any giveaway/competition especially Pizza Day. They are in a rush to build up accounts and enroll them in campaigns.

As for the size of this community, you are absolutely right. It is not as big as people probably assume. If several industrial sized account farms were removed, the atmosphere would change for the better.

You certainly know me well enough to make that assumption  ;D

My question was about campaign managers (and more specific to certain campaign managers). I cannot recall when I even looked at the bounties board and would not consider them relevant as the problem would probably be at epidemic proportions there.

If you look at the selection process of some campaign managers related to the criteria they apply which results in highly dubious accounts being enrolled in their campaigns, it clearly points to either gross negligence or cheating.

That is what I believe too, certain managers are enrolling alt-accounts (or farmed/purchased accounts) in their own campaigns to cheat their employers. I like the fact you added a percentage.

So you're specific about the campaign managers who handle signature campaigns and pay in Bitcoin. I don't think the managers are that stupid to enroll their alternative account in their own campaign. Usually, the signature campaign managers are reputed and run several campaigns, which is time-consuming work. I think they make some good money as well. Why would they ruin their reputation by enrolling their own account? I don't think they have enough time to operate multiple accounts. If you talk about bounty campaign managers, I think this is possible.

Frankly, I don't have a reason to participate in this kind of a poll, it looks like a joke and an assumption to me, which could be a replica of our dreams and imaginations.

If you have proof against anyone, spit it out, otherwise, anyone choosing an option is an author of confusion because they will only state what comes to their mind and not a replica of the truth. I don't do that.

Well, I looked at some of the participants that were being enrolled in some campaigns and asked myself why I did not find it surprising. It has become synonymous with some managers.

If the project owner allows the campaign manager to add their farmed and alt-accounts in the campaign, then no cheating has taken place. Having said that, why would any business owner in their right mind allow for that to happen in the first place?

If you remember the "borovichok (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5481461.0)" account, quite clearly multiple people were logging in to that account to post. If certain campaign managers are farming accounts in order to enroll them in campaigns they manage, they are probably employing people to post for them in the same manner the "borovichok" account did.

That sums up the mentality. Always a pleasure to read your posts  ;D

I agree. When you stated there are members that will take any opportunity for self-enrichment, the first thing that came to mind was some of the lowest of the low newbie or low ranked accounts that were using the names of recently deceased members in the hope of getting merits. Disgusting.

There are people in lesser developed countries sitting at home earning more in a month here than they get working a real job. The competitive nature issue was always going to be problematic because of the limited number of campaign places available. I think we can agree if signature campaigns ever get banned, over 99% of the members will leave the forum.

The probability of a campaign manager accepting their own alt is there but I don't see a reason why someone would create rules for their participants and they would be the one to abuse the rules. This is never professional and it's contrary to the ethics of their own campaign. It is disdain for a manager to contradict his own rules to prevent future abuses of a campaign and at the same time, abusing the rules even though no one notice it.

From the information I've read from this thread, I can see that their have been so many managers that have involved themselves in this shitty practice which the community frown against. If the food is not meant for the dog then it shouldn't be given to the cat. The law is not only meant for the average  citizens alone but to every cabinet including the law makers and their offices.

There’s a lot of cases in the past that campaign manager enrolling their alts since it’s a guaranteed signature campaign spot while they are still being paid with their managerial fee.

On the other hand, most of the current active campaign manager are reputable compared before that many user can get signature campaign management job easily.

I believe there’s a small chance this is happening and mostly on bounty campaigns.

 If a campaign manager does enrol his alt into a campaign, then he's just plain selfish and using his hand to soil one of his rules where a person and his alt aren't supposed to be in one campaign so I feel he'd not be that naive or selfish enough to jeopardize his rep because if he's discovered, not only does he get tagged as an untrustworthy person who others won't like to do business with, it will be a stain on him in the forum as well so it's not even something we should contemplate.

You asked the question op, do you have any mild suspicions of someone who did this or you're just thinking out loud?

Yeah, that section of the forum has to be beamed searchlight on. There's a lot of untoward activities going on there unchecked. I know some veteran members here are of the opinion that those who participate in bounties there do so at their own risk but then we should know that not everyone has that discerning spirit/mind to sniff out a dead rat from a mile.

We are likely talking about hundreds maybe several thousands of dollars per week depending on the number of alts. It also isn’t very time consuming to setup at scale compared to maintaining a real job. There’s a reason a certain well known member here left the site for good with a farewell post shortly after the largest account farming ring ever was discovered…

Please elaborate on the name of the well known member and the situation surrounding the largest account farming ring. I cannot recall anything about this incident.

Funny what gets swept under the rug around here so people don’t end up with egg on their face. I won’t elaborate on the person’s name any further (c’mon it is obvious), but I will add they were a moderator at one point who used these farmed accounts to spam, would enroll them in sig campaigns, sell the account, then report all the account posts to a fellow accomplice moderator who would remove them, then split the earnings. The accomplice moderator ended up feeling bad about their role and contemplated resigning as a moderator (Which is how I’m aware of the entire scheme. I don’t know if he ended up resigning or not, I no longer care who the mods are and don’t follow them), while the main offender was fired for other wrongdoings.

It’s easier to just think I’m a crazy person though. Nothing wrong with the Admin, moderators, default trust or campaign managers. Nothing to see here.

It looks like many crazy things happened in the past here in the forum.
I have read that someone enrolled his main account and alt in chipmixer campaign and it took so long before he was bursted.
Now I am reading another one related to moderation, which I think also happened in the past.
Who knows if the forum is even getting better than before, unlike what I think.

This forum is so free that someone who is dishonest can do many insincere things.

There are some rules (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1684035.0), but I have not found specific references regarding alts.

If they exist, could someone kindly provide the link? Otherwise, there would be no reason to take risks; they could simply omit the rules about alts in their publication, thus avoiding violating their own guidelines. While this might not be well received, if it's not a rule, nothing prevents it, unless these rules come directly from the boss, in which case it would be a different matter.

---

At times, I notice illogical situations, such as accepting members who have not participated in the forum for a long time or who, in the past few months, have only obtained 10 merits, for example.

There are also members who post without any real purpose, and their responses often have no relevance to the thread they are commenting on.

However, I believe this is not being sufficiently monitored due to the hundreds of comments posted weekly.

My suggestion for this issue is to assign an additional campaign member to review the quality of the posts if the manager has too much workload within their SC.

For anybody managing 2 or more BTC based campaigns, I think it's too much work to say the least and probably not worth the time :P And unfortunately we can't say it can't happen..as this happened some years back and we lost some established CMs...As of the Bounty based campaigns, well let's just say if am not mistaken we might have over 20 bounty managers over there( experienced and inexperienced), how they get these gigs is a mystery and nobody is paying attention to how they manage them either, so the possibility is there.

This is the internet. Anyone can and does say anything. But without any substance to back it up, it means nothing. Mind providing the slightest bit of evidence of what you're talking about?

you guys are forgetting figmentofmyass Account-https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=136484

I think he is (not) trying to say “lauda”.

Or maybe I am getting it all wrong.

If he is saying what I think he is saying, that’s the first time I hear about that. Maybe that also explains why other wellknown accounts (I don’t want to point fingers) disappeared without waving a hand in that same time frame.

Am I hallucinating? Feel free to say yes if you think so.

He's a big boy. Let him respond for himself. If he can't, we'll just chalk it up as yet another instance of lying for the sake of lying.

I think a little differently. The manager may have an idea of ​​​​what country the application is submitted from. Often, accepting a person into their signature company is supported by the desire to help a compatriot, especially if the applicant lives in a poor country. For me, this looks more like help than independently managing a dozen alternative accounts. There is probably a Telegram group where the rules for not falling under the sights of DT are voiced, since many accounts have very similar behavior, especially the method of submitting applications.
Yes, I see unscrupulous managers who completely ignore warnings from negative tags and accept participants contrary to all the rules. Most often, these managers manage bounties, but yes, there are dozens of old accounts on the forum that write posts in the gambling section day after day and are members of one well-known company that requires a lot of posts. Some members of this old company probably own numerous purchased accounts with an old registration date and perhaps belong to managers who are employed by these companies. These are either separately hired people or alternative accounts. It's quite strange to see posts that don't get any merit from the word at all and regularly write in the same section.

1xbit is probably the best example here. Many hacked account suddenly woke just to join signature campaign then later on stop posting after the campaign ends.

Funny thing is they are always become active whenever 1xbit campaign is live again and keep getting the spot.

No one will purchased high rank account just to suicide on a signature campaign that pay less to the account worth itself.

If I could say on this view or point, I think it is because most of those accounts are having negative tags and would find it difficult to be accepted in other campaigns if not campaign run by 1xbit or affiliates. I think that is the most plausible reason that they suddenly wake up to apply there. Meaning that  ;D, they are also alts of some users here and maybe reputable members too  ;D

It would be great if everyone thought this way, but I increasingly notice a more elitist atmosphere. It seems they are trying to phase out Full and Senior members, and while this is not necessarily a bad thing, perhaps it is aimed at ensuring higher-quality posts. However, this could lead to a flood of spam from users desperately trying to earn more merits to reach Hero or Legendary rank.

The real solution to the issue of post quality would be to remove users from the signature campaign if they do not produce valuable content.

I know campaign managers reserve the right of admission, but I believe there should be an official public waiting list that managers follow, with minimum activity requirements for users. If a user does not meet expectations, they should be replaced by the next in line and moved to the last position. After all, this is a forum that advocates decentralization as a core principle.

This would also make it much harder to focus on alts, as users would be unable to post low-quality content, making it extremely exhausting for those attempting to manipulate the system.

Speaking of 1xbit, I remember one of our old friends, worldofcoins, admitted to being the campaign manager of 1xbit. Considering how many alts he had, I assume he scammed the scammers. If 1xbit comes again, I would assume our friend worldofcoin is back with another alternative account. He has been on the forum for a long time. I think he is already around us.

Based on what you have stated, I have recollections about something similiar I think. Anyway, as you have no elaborated I guess there is nothing more to add.

Using them as an example, the sheer number of accounts involved were too many for just a single person to control. It seems for at least some of them, the account farmer probably used others to login and make posts on his behalf. At the end of the day if there is financial gain, scammers will devise a way to scam.

- I do not take a feedback seriously when it was left by JollyGood. Most of his feedback are worthless. No one should take these feedback seriously.
In general, when I see a feedback especially a negative feedback, I investigate the account to make my own judgement. I don't depend on the feedback sender. But when I see the feedback left by JollyGood I don't even bother to investigate the user. I check their post quality and other factors that I consider to accept an application.
- A serious campaign manager with a lot of work does not have time to waste their valuable time for $100 or $200 a week. We even pay our helping hands more money than this per week.

This is how I saw the topic and today I thought let's reply the topic.
https://i.ibb.co/wF06H4jd/ss.png

---

Thought to post an update:
https://i.ibb.co/XfGkpgzt/ss-a.png

I have to pay over 100 forum members for their work of the last week so obviously I have no time to waste here for a worthless topic to discuss. Back to my work.

Cheers,

Well, it makes sense. I have a special rule for this and I'm always open to take a look at feedbacks regardless of who sent the feedback. If it's given for some nonsense reason, I would consider that person to allow in my sig campaign.

I may say we are assuming in this accusations or allegations to the campaign manager enrolling their alt to the campaign they manage, because theirs no one who can tender a prove of any manager that enrolled their alt to sig campaign they manage...I feel that most of the managers are contented with what they charge their clients before launching a campaign, and secondly, enrolling alt account is one of the rules given by all the managers, and they dislike a participants enrolling their alt account to one signature campaign, so for them to innate such rules I think they will also obey such rules innate by them...But it's prohibited if any manager caught by such act, and obviously any manager caught enrolling it alts to same campaign they manage, will lose its reputation outrightly.

Any campaign manager enrolling their own farmed/owned accounts in campaigns deserve to lose the campaign and have their reputation affected accordingly. The truth is businesses that pay to run campaigns should not be cheated by the campaign manager they unfortunately trusted in the first place.

When it comes to mentally unbalanced individuals, that very toxic combination of narcissism and an overinflated ego (along with envy), will cause them serious mental damage (as can be seen for a certain lunatic campaign manager).

---

The idea would be good if implemented but there is zero chance on getting any form of consensus. When it comes to mentally unbalanced individuals, that very toxic combination of narcissism and an overinflated ego (along with envy), will make consensus impossible.

Any campaign manager enrolling their own farmed/owned accounts in campaigns deserve to lose the campaign and have their reputation affected accordingly. The truth is businesses that pay to run campaigns should not be cheated by the campaign manager they unfortunately trusted in the first place, but it happens.

As for the poll, the general consensus is that certain campaign managers do cheat by enrolling their own farmed accounts to cheat the businesses that employ them. 59% have voted to support the view certain campaign managers are cheating their employers and I am not surprised by the how forum members feel about this.


[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

OP I don't think you are a very important user of this forum but it looks like you are trying to promote yourself as a very important user. Campaign managers are very important group for the forum economic which brings the traffic. Users like you and me, we do a little for this place compering to the managers.

That being said, what is your purpose of this topic and the poll?

As far as I understood, you want to praise some managers you personally like and using an insulting tone to the managers you don't like.

How would you even know and certain that those managers you like do not do what you are imagining for the managers you don't like? A completely BS topic to read and reply.

I guess you meant. sujonali1819 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=961008) if I'm not mistaken, because I just checked his profile and saw that he is currently active on the forum at the moment, but it seems he was inactive for a period of 6 months, that is, judging from the gap difference between his last post that was made on 25th November 2024 and his first post of 2025 that was made on May 1st 2025, which means he was offline from the forum for a good period of 6 months. And right now he seems to be working with Blackjack signature campaign as a promotional manager. However, in regards to the issue of signature campaign managers employing itself on the same signature campaign, it is actually a common practice that I have seen lots of managers do on this forum, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Hey, what's wrong :))) Why am I tagged here?

Btw Sujonali1819 is not Sujonali1819's alt.

That is the ideology of the forum: freedom.

You don't have to know why OP starts the thread; he is exercising their right to express themselves. We shouldn’t politicize everything.

From a realistic perspective, people do stupid things out of greed, so it’s not far-fetched to think that what he is saying might be happening.

I also notice inconsistencies, like users who are always accepted and move between campaigns, even when their contributions are questionable.

As you can see, I’m also not afraid to express myself, even if it might land me on blacklists. But as the saying goes, "You can't please everyone".

Imagine if the forum simply assumed that everyone was honest, what would happen?

The result would be a space filled with scams, spam, and people doing whatever they pleased. As a consequence, no one would want to promote themselves here.

But speaking in terms of metrics, do you really think advertising is a pillar of the forum?

Let’s not be hypocritical, just because advertising exists in the forum due to admin approval doesn’t mean the forum itself couldn’t exist without it. There are real forum members, people who genuinely enjoy being here, individuals offering other kinds of services.

Signature campaigns can be a great incentive for the forum, especially if you come from a third-world country like me, but everything must have its order.

In summary, I believe it’s good to question things from time to time and not take everything at face value.

Speaking about politicizing, this topic is a good example of politicizing. 

Problem: OP is certain that the managers he like does not have alt account to abuse. How? Only make sense when you involve politics.

OP has some doubts about campaign managers. Royse believes OP's words are questionable, you think campaign managers shouldn't be questioned, and I believe it's good to ask questions and not take everything at face value.

As you can see, everyone views the issue from different perspectives, so it shouldn't matter what we think or who OP favors.
The important thing is that debate opens the door for everyone to find their own truth.

Likewise, those who act in good faith shouldn't worry about being questioned.

I guess that such things happens, probably not every person who runs campaigns is fair. But I doubt that happens at big scale. I just have nobreasons to suspect one or another member. Maybe it's not good thing, but I tend to have good initial opinion about people.

Yeah, I also think so. These accounts with red tags is basically worthless and only way to monetize it is campaigns like 1xbit. But I guess that some of these members have alt accounts which are clean and enrolled in other campaigns. They stay active on forum and this is how they notice that 1xbit campaign is available.

Of course, I actually know you are not an alt of yourself, and sorry by the way for mentioning you here, but however, I was just only trying to proof a point to him and let him know you are still active on the forum, because he was asking has anyone heard from you? As it seems you were inactive on the forum for a good period of 6 months, (i.e from 25th November 2024 to May 1st 2025). And I'm happy to have you back, wishing you all the best Sir.

We do not know how big the scale of deception is. If campaign managers have purchased the account they are using to manage the campaign or if they have been caught using alt-accounts, then there is no reason they would stop their deception when they have ample opportunity to deceive their employers.

Does it really make sense to mention his name here? The question was, Do you think campaign managers enrol their alts in their own campaigns? And you said you know one manager was doing it and sending payment to his own address, and his name was in the spreadsheet. How the hell is Sujonali his alt account? Every manager who is in a campaign that they are running gets paid for the signatures they wear. Most managers move the funds from one wallet to another or are directly paid by the company. Even though you did not accuse him of wrongdoing, it does not make sense to mention him here. Sujonali is not his alternative account, and he is not enrolling multiple accounts in his own campaign. This type of comment can create chaos.

so I'm about to say something stupid, try to understand

I have always been a guarantor type, that is, we are all innocent until proven guilty.

otherwise we are truly finished if we have to think badly of every little possibility

I was saying I'm about to say something stupid ON PURPOSE then we could think that theymos can also create accounts, give themselves merits and participate in campaigns
The only thing you can do if you have suspicions is not to participate in the campaigns of those you consider unworthy.

I know all the biggest managers and they are all super serious people, I don't know who hangs out in altcoins, that's for sure

I've seen this plan years ago:

Seriously though: theymos stopped ad sales (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407725.msg60976136#msg60976136) which paid a lot more than signature campaigns. That doesn't strike me as someone who's shitposting in alt accounts for money.

sarcasm
I hope I guessed right this time  8)

Did you follow the training (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZW-AZ2mNeA)?
I'm still waiting to buy my Ultra-Legendary status :P

Glad to know you are still around in the forum Sujonali1819. I was wondering that it's been long I came across your username anywhere in the forum.
Nothing serious, I remembered you as one of the transparent campaign managers I know. You used to promote the project you also manage, which is a good gesture as opposed to those who do so with their alts.
It is God of thunder that deliberately decided to misunderstand me.

The poll is a brilliant indicator to show how members feel about this subject.

According to the poll, over 55% of those that participated have basically concluded certain campaign managers have enrolled their own farmed/alt-accounts to cheat their employers.

As hard as it might be to believe, 33% of the votes are because they believe more than 1 in 5 of the participants in any campaign managed by certain managers are owned by those campaign managers.

https://i.postimg.cc/CKY83D08/poll1-Copy.png

These 27 voters do not represent the entire community. I am sure most people do not want to participate in this thread because you created it.

You should have explained the poll in your OP better so people understand that better. From the voting result, I can say that 33% of voters believe there is a 20% chance that the campaign managers are enrolling their alternative accounts in their campaign. I saw that your poll question was clear; I misunderstood that.

I even wonder what this thread stands to gain altogether. It will only make some people run their mouths like water. Some people like to talk without knowing when to put the brakes.

I don't see any issue here at all, oh yes-- the manager may bargain a special deal and gain in three ways, which may not be privileged by the common campaign participants. They could gain: 1. From their managerial activities, 2. Wearing the Signature and 3. Wearing the avatar.

If established members are benefiting from most of these on a special package, how much more the CM? And I call it transparency for including it in the spreadsheet to make it accountable.

you use percentages very conveniently I see, that's fine I can't say no
I repeat, I know most managers very well, they are very serious and meticulous people
I trust them
unless you have proof of what you say

you know instilling suspicion without proof is not very nice, at least in my opinion but I also trust your judgment, so I honestly don't know what to believe

OP stuff as old as the world i would say, where there is money there is shit to step on. You have to be careful where you walk.

The poll was not based on facts, it was based on opinions  ;D

None of the members (including myself) are obligated to produce evidence of certain campaign managers cheating because they (and I) are expressing opinions. Believe me, if I had evidence that a certain manager was cheating his employers I would have posted it.

I cannot speak for others but in my opinion just by looking at some of the participants selected by a certain campaign manager in a recent campaign raises questions.

Don't worry, I was just talking, I don't care, I was also giving my opinion.
Everyone has and should have their own opinions and that's right.

Telegram bot notifier helps me and saves my life, thanks for your reply.
In any case, it is legitimate to have doubts, it helps to understand and improve.

It's actually a greedy act for any campaign manager to enroll their alts in their own campaigns.A reputable manager would never do such.Come to think of it,it will be stressful too for a CM to carryout such activities,for example counting constructive posts and marking spreadsheets and many other duties of a campaign manager, don't you think it would be cumbersome for a campaign manager to enroll their alts and still carryout the duties of a manager.Just imagine if a manager has 5 alts and all 5 alts are in he's campaigns and it's expected of all he's employees to make 30 eligible posts weekly in all he's campaign, meaning the manager will make 150 posts weekly, that would be too stressful for any unreputable campaign manager to make such decision to maximise profit.

You raise valid concerns but without evidence nothing can be stated as a matter of fact. That was the reason I created the thread with the question asking members if they thought certain campaign managers were enrolling their alts in their own campaigns. As the poll shows, over 55% believe certain campaign managers are cheating their employers.

Operating an account farm is usually the work of more than person therefore if a dubious campaign manager enrolls alt-accounts in their campaigns, the chances are they are operated by others on their behalf.

They don't need to. Most campaigns usually pay out a bonus to the manager that is larger than what a participant would get. Why would anyone want the extra work of having to make 30 more posts a day?  :)

They don't need to, but some of them probably do that, and more likely those are considered as "low level' managers that accept basically any offer and don't choose much. So when they get to manage ionce, why not maximize the profit.

Having said that, I don't think that happens often, at least not in bitcoin signature campaigns, while I can see it happening en masse in altccoin bounty campaigns.

They would probably want to do it because they can enroll their own farmed accounts and take the money instead of hiring worthy accounts and sharing the payments with fellow members. If they follow the "borovichok (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5481461)" farmed account process, it is very easy to do.

Interesting results in the poll. The farmed and alt accounts voting for 0% while those who see through the veil voting 20%+?

I think it's less likely that a single campaign manager is enrolling their own alts in campaigns, and that it's more likely that a group of people affiliated with campaign managers/trusted members of the forum are cheating campaigns.

I think what could be quite confidently said is that there is a problem of farmed accounts on the forum, and that the corruption that exists within merit sources and trusted members has enabled this problem.

I think you don't know what you're talking about and are just making stuff up. For the 5th or so time, your assumption about "corruption" would be more convincing if you actually bothered to provide the slightest shred of evidence that supports your accusations, but yet again, you refuse to do so; I'm guessing out of sheer laziness. You want to just talk shit with zero recourse. So there's absolutely no reason to take anything you have to say seriously. Anyone can make any kind of accusation, but without something to back it up, it means nothing.

Time will show that I am not making anything up, and for anyone who can not wait and wants to use their eyes (which for some reason you choose not to do), they can see the corruption (account farming, campaign abuse, merit abuse, and so on) happening by merit sources and trusted members of the forum, if they look closely enough using a tool like bpip.

I don't refuse to provide evidence, I am just refusing to do so prematurely. I don't want to post something with holes in it, I want it to be indisputable (especially due to it lacking blockchain evidence in some areas, given the sophisticated nature of who is involved). There's a very big difference between refusing to publish something and not being ready to publish something. I have compiled enough to be certain enough in what I am saying, though have not completed the full extent of work to present it publicly. It's also not laziness, I've said the latter and the following reasons why I have not posted dozens of times before too:
1. There are several cases I am building which all involve members/entities that have a lot of power on this forum therefore the threads need to be delicately presented and indisputable, otherwise it will backfire and my ass will be handed to me from people like you who would purposefully find holes/missing info in order to invalidate the claims.
2. I am time poor. I do not spend an awful lot of time on this forum and the task of getting the threads into a presentable and indisputable form is one that takes time and effort that ultimately does not serve me in the slightest, other than the satisfaction of taking down some assholes that are exploiting the forum, and to prove the 20+ (maybe 30+ at this point) quotes of yours wrong.

Why you won't accept these answers and continue to post the same thing over and over and over again still bamboozles me, because each time you post the same thing, you are making it clearer now and in the future that you are someone who is willing to leverage their name and trust in attempt to hurt the credibility of others.

You may feel like you're successfully leveraging your name and status to invalidate mine with each of your posts, though you should be aware that it will all backfire when a wall of 20+ quotes from you posted denying the problem is posted alongside the main topics, showing that you not only denied existence of a big problem on the forum, but you did so in such an extensive way that it is one reason (among others) that show you may even be involved in it (another reason being that you have investigative ability and yet refuse to use it for this topic).

You should realize that when this is all over, someone (or I) will reference the wall of 20+ quotes of you denying existence of a problem, trying to take away someone's credibility, labeling them as a troll and so on, just as you are doing to me. I almost want to delay this process further than circumstance just so you can continue adding to the quotes (I won't, I'm working at the pace my time allows).

I should note too that I am speaking to you as if you are innocent. I still highly doubt you are based on the way you are behaving. You have shown that you are an investigator and that you can easily see a problem like this one if you wanted to, though it seems you're choosing negligence instead. The question I ask myself is if it's out of spite for me (I find it unlikely as this problem existed long before I pointed it out) or if it's due to involvement/protecting people who are involved/profiting from the issue.

Blah blah blah... this is like the 10th time you've said the exact same thing, just giving excuses for talking trash with nothing to back it up. I'm putting you on ignore as you're clearly wasting everyone's time. I suggest everyone else do the same.

---

Edit: I know I rip on this guy a lot but I haven't seen this level of hubris on display in quite a while. When anyone makes shitty claims against anyone here, accusing someone of wrongdoing or basically attacking their reputation, we as a forum should demand proof to back it up. If such proof isn't provided, then we should just assume the person is lying and their words should be deemed non-credible.

"Blah blah blah"? How old are you ::)
My response can't be much different when you follow me around just to instigate the same debate, and then never respond to the replies.


You see it as ripping, I see it as setting yourself up for damaging your own credibility. Yes, I am certain in what I say, because I have all of the necessary proof to prove what I'm talking about - it just hasn't been posted yet. You are only posting what you are posting to try and trick readers into thinking my word is not credible in advance, so that when the proof is posted, you can try to dismiss it once it is posted. I am not lying, and I will provide the proof. I've already explained the reasons why it has not been provided. You are dismissing those (quite valid) reasons so that you can call me a liar.

Also, let me ask you, who specifically am I attacking in my more recent posts? I've asked you and other specific questions so that I can get answers and yet I've been left unanswered or answered in a way that only incriminates you/who I've asked further in most cases. Though recently, when you come here to respond to me (for example in this post), who's reputation am I attacking in my original post?


I don't see any names here. Is it because you already know the names? :)