Bitcoin Forum

Today am making this thread to come over the point what do users here think when a site turns out scam ,so do you think user managing signature campaign is to blame?

Recent case : Oremine.org was siezed by United States Global Illicit financial team scammed(proof (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330768.msg13590466#msg13590466)). And campaign manager was given some negative feedbacks for that. Do you guys think that was right?

campaign manager yahoo62278 answered


So what do you guys think?

No, he is not to blame.
Don't deny the fact that if you were offered the job at the time you would have accepted it without looking back. You loved ore-mine, it scams, you decide to blame campaign manager. It's your own fault for losing money if you decide to be lazy and invest on sites for free money. He makes the thread, you sign up with your own free will. The site was legit for a year so he didn't think it would collapse this soln

Exactly it was running two years and no one would expect after that it would come out to be a scam. For the users who gave those feedbacks, i would like to point out something he was only a campaign manager and not the admin. And the decision of closing it or scamming it lies with the admin. See the campaign manager as an employee, so if manager scams out and runs away with the money,does it means that employee is also with him?.

Also i think someone had made the signatures for the oremine signature campaign. So as he made the promotion part for the site, does it means he was also with the scammer? Think!!!

Yep. Promoting = supporting. There're ponzi campaigns in the service board; people who incline to promote 'em get neg'd. Basically, yahoo did the same.
P.S. I'd entreat you to move the thread to reputation board.

I think it really depends on how the campaign manager reacts once a site officially scams. If a site scams then the manager attempts to get participants to continue to advertise the (what is now a) scam site, then the manager should be at least partially responsible. On the other hand, if they are neutral or encourage people to leave the campaign then I don't see any reason to blame them for something they have no control over.

There are a number of companies that have advertised via signature ads, and most likely many more will advertise in the future. Some of them will turn out to be a scam.

I assume this is about the "yahoo" situation involving ormine. I'm not sure if negative trust is appropriate in his situation, although I don't know much about the situation beyond that he was running their signature campaign. Unless there is evidence that he knew they were planning a scam, or if he tried to get people to continue to advertise after they scammed (like EvilPanda) then I would not leave negative trust.

I would agree there is not a cut and dry we can say yes they are or no.  I think it really depends on how they acted and what knowledge they had.  With being campaign manager I think you do have the responsibility as a ambassador for lack of better term to be in talks with the company and know how it is going.  You should know if buisness looks good or hearing things that are scary.

Now if business said all the right things and kept paying for campaign, and there was nothing to point to scam.  It's harder to blame campaign manager.   Also if everyone is paid or not I think is a factor.   If all that were part got paid... then it again leans to manager doing job right.  If they have anyone who was not paid... then it leads twords possible reason for neg as they should be keeping track of if they are able to pay everyone.

So i guess it comes down to if you trust the campaign manger did not see the signs of it coming, and was out of that loop.  Which I think is hard to prove in a lot of cases.  

Actually if someone want to manage sig campaign, first they must notice what kind of sig campaign that they want to manage.

If they aware that they are managing ponzi sig campaign or semi ponzi , they have some risk to manage it ( whenever they're responsible even they are associate with it )

No, I don't think he is to blame.

In my eyes the negative feedback need to removed by a admin. But he have to take his hands of that topic and don't manage anything anymore for ore-mine so far they not back online anymore.

No he is just the campaign manager for a signature campaign. The only fault I can think of is if you manage a campaign that has a high potential of become a scam. What yahoo was not his fault and he shouldn't get negative trust for that.

Why would he be the one to blame? He is not the owner of the website. He was just trying to make some extra money by managing the campaign.

He is to blame if he knew the site was a scam beforehand, I remember a mod that was participating in the cloudthink or some cloud ponzi signature campaign and someone made a post here on Meta to kick him out of the staff position and everyone agreed, he took the signature down.

He was dsserano5, he too wasn't given a negative nor removed from staff, and is currently the part of DefaultTrust level 1.

Well,yahoo seemed extra supportive of the owner and the campaign.

No, the manager should not be blamed for something he has no control over. His job is to make signatures, register users, count their posts and pay them, not to read in the business owner's mind to know his intentions. If he fails at his job he deserves red trust, if his employer scams someone only the employer is responsible.


Is that so? Then bitcointalk as a forum was supporting all the Bitcoin businesses that failed by showing their banners.

Only because he was already a staff member, people hesitated to give him negative trust and because he also stopped advertising the scam company, I'm sure if he continued, he would have gotten a negative rating, eventually... But as I said, if the campaign manager knows about the scam, then he is a bad person and basically a scammer himself.

They can't remove the negative, this is something they have stayed away from moderating.  It opens a huge can of worms if they start deleting feedback when requested.

yahoo can explain his side and ask people to remove.  But in no way do I expect forum to remove negatives.  For better or for worse.

In some case theymos has removed few neg. trusts (for example trust spammer, or hacked account used to leave negative trusts).

Most sig managers are hired so I would say no. If the manager is affiliated with the site then yes he has an idea of the inner workings.

Can you please do some research before saying things like this, the domain was not seized and the US government has nothing to do with this, the admin just put that picture up to fool people like you

The campaign manager definitely isn't to blame if the site turns out to be a scam.

I used to run the Rollin signature campaign and have no financial investment or ownership in the website. I simply ran their signature campaign for them under their rules. If Rollin turned into a scam, why should I be to blame? Sounds like you'd be grasping at straws to blame the campaign manager for anything, unless people find out that the campaign manager was affiliated with the website, and was in on the scam (ex. the guy running the GAW signature campaign - he was in on the GAW scam and received negative trust). From what I've seen it doesn't sound like the Oremine campaign manager was related to the website at all other than running their campaign, so people leaving him negative trusts are definitely leaving negative trusts on the wrong person - leave them on an official Oremine account instead.

Yahoo was definitely not to blame in this case.  He ran the sig campaign and by all accounts did a fine job and I'm sure he didn't know they were going to turn out to be scammers.

Edited to add:  Just saw the new feedback for Yahoo62278.  Those users are fucking idiots anyway, looking to heap blame on someone for their own idiocy.

Actually i made the post before the proofs provided wpstudio and i already knew that it was a picture but needed a proof to explain that i cannot get assuming that he has putted that picture and he has scammed. No problem am re editing the main post

If it was seized then it would have been moved to new IP address
Read this:- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=759702.msg13578902#msg13578902

Also some more proof: - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=759702.msg13578902#msg13578902

no campaign manager just doing their job,
as a manager they need to manage post quality, not like encouraging people to join campaign to promote scam site.
so thats my opinion.. if you invested thats your own fault.. if you join the campaign its also your own fault.
campaign manager just check quality or your spam post.. :D

Was the site a scam website when he "yahoo" started as a manager? If not, I don't think the manager is liable for the website's crime as he was seeing to the fact that the users get paid which is the only duty of the manager. I can see the campaign is closed now and yahoo has received ratings from non-DT members and hence it doesn't matter as yahoo still holds his reputation in the community.

No offense meant to yahoo, but he was actively promoting it via his signature even when warned it is highly likely a ponzi. And continued defending it in the past.
P.S: Those are two DT-4 ratings, not that it matters.

@bold: I don't think this proves much as many other campaign managers have done the same in the past as they communicate with the owners and build a certain trust level when they get hired as a manager. Defending your owner is just because they have known the owner but this no way proves that "yahoo" is equally responsible for the scam. It's just like when one works in a company, the person has a trust built for the company and dismisses any speculation of it being a fraud one until PROVEN that the  website/company is FRAUD.

DT-4 members aren't taken into consideration while evaluating a person's trust here. It's usually only upto DT-3 level.

True thats why neither I or any of DT 3+ members(DT 2 and DT 1) tagged yahoo(I believe), as he immediately removed the signature after Ore-mine started acting shadily and later scammed
I'd say anything less than DT 2 is as good as DT 10.

As far as I know ,they all have been neg'd,there are a few exceptions but recently DT members are quite serious about it.You could see doublecoin or whatever ,its running since a month with negative to all the participants.


Not quite well...from the comments made by yahoo ,he seems extra supportive of the owner and the campaign,he mentions it,that he had done his part of research before becoming the manager.


Take example of xyz financial scheme company.Assume the company runs away with people's investment.The people who lost their funds won't care if you're the manager or just a level 1 employee as long as you have the company's name associated to you,you should be equally blamed.

I don't think he can be blamed for supporting something that is "likely" some kind of scam. When someone says that a site is "likely" a scam then that person is giving an opinion. In other words, the person is saying that they do not like the business practices of a site.

If yahoo strongly believed in this website, I don't know what research he did to find it legitmate. However, it doesn't prove anything as that's his belief. It does sometimes make people defending a "wanna be scam/scammer" look like alts or a person promoting a scam but for me if "yahoo" did not himself encourage scams/scammers and have a share in the investment, he cannot be blamed for the same.


The people who lost their money can blame anyone but that does not mean they can sue or file a case against the employees of the fraudulent company if the employees have not been a part of that. The employees cannot be tagged as well as scammers/fraud.

Well if you are a person who does not like the business practices of a site why would you promote them? It's like hey look at this site is great but they are probably a scam. That doesn't make any sense to me besides he is already a campaign manager for a lot of other campaigns, did he really need the dirty money from ore-mine? In my opinion if you promote a scam you are a scammer as well.

The manager did not warn but was warned.
If you were managing a campaign and got such warning would you resign? Should a person resign the moment someone accuses the company of stealing money or any other dishonesty? A huge number of these accusations is usually false.

Actually that depends, pretty much all websites that were accused to be ponzies by highly trusted members here turned out to be ponzies because it's not that difficult to spot a ponzi scheme however as you said that doesn't mean the site is a scam so if he didn't know for sure I would say he shouldn't be blamed.

If you promote a site in your sig, then you are putting your reputation on the line. You need to be sure that it is honest and of benefit to forum members. If you just want the money, then be prepared for people to be cautious about your trading ethics.

Just my humble opinion. :)

Exactly. It's one thing to be an impartial manager, escrow, etc. The above statements go too far beyond that.

If the campaign manager is a trusted, high reputable member that runs multiple signature campaigns, but has nothing to do with the service provided by the sites, then there is no one to blame other than the admin of the site.
However, there are some Jr. Members or even Newbies that claim they are only "sig campaign managers" and have nothing to do with the site, that definitely is fishy. Why would a site admin let their site advertised by a member that has no reputation at all? So the sig campaign manager is probably an alt of the site admin or vice versa.

Why you people complicate things? If the compagn manager didn't pay the participants in the middle of the period or continued to promote the site which turned scam then he should be negged otherwise NO!