Created in the heart of the Crypto Valley, Gremis (LLC / GmbH) is a startup based in Switzerland and specialized in providing communication services to businesses with a digital presence, notably to companies in the field of financial technologies such as blockchain.

Promoting a unique work etiquette, the company is principally composed of freelancers and digital nomads with extended knowledge in their respective fields, resulting in the formation of a reactive and adaptable team.

---

Bounty Campaign Specifics

The Bounty
Through this campaign, Gremis seeks to reach more cryptocurrency users wi an agency and does not facilitate an ICO of its own, participants in this campaign will be rewarded in ETH directly.

Detailed information about our bounty activities is listed below.
We are allocating <> ETH for the following bounty activities.
Because the total number of bounty campaign participants is ever-changing, the distribution of tokens will be based on a preordained amount allocated to each group listed below.

Bounty Rules:

• We are looking for active and informed posters. Posters must have read the whitepaper to participate, and comments must be informed by the whitepaper and/or ANN post.
• Only constructive posts will be counted towards this campaign. We are not looking for fluff comments, e.g. “This project looks promising.” or “This is big for sports” or “Wow, good luck to the dev team.” Instead, we are looking for substantive comments - comments that move the needle either positively or constructively/critically  - it’s up to you.
• Negative trust (Trust from DT2 or above) members are not allowed to join this campaign.
• 1 account per user. Any user found to have alternate accounts in the campaign will be kicked and denied payment. IP checking is in effect.
• We don't pay for posts less than 80 characters in length.
• Users found to spam will be banned from the campaign and payment will be denied. Posts that are poorly crafted, deemed templated or fluff will not count.
• Only posts in English will be counted.
• It is on the user to check if their links work. Any user with improper links will be disqualified and not paid out.

BOUNTY ACTIVITIES:

Social Media Campaigns —  100% of <> ETH

---

Please join our Twitter, Facebook & other bounties at the bounty portal.

Guidelines:
Participants are encouraged to draw inspiration from Gremis' website, and more specifically the about section and Blog. Use of the engaging and inspiring content is always preferred. Participants should try to utilize the positive points of Gremis when engaging with its social media and always produce unique content.

An important rule to take care: Do not post copy-pasted or plagiarized comments. All comments should be unique and of high quality. Otherwise, we have a very strict policy for participants not following this rule. Posts under the character limit, post of low quality, and copy-pasted comments will result to your account being banned from the platform and being ineligible to receive rewards.

Social media bounties include

• Facebook [Like, sharing, comments, and posting]
• Twitter [Like, Retweeting, comments, and Tweeting]

Specific Rules:

Facebook

- Like our Facebook page: Rallyairdrop Facebook page
- You must have at least 50 real Friends to be accepted in Facebook campaign
- The limit for likes and shares is 3/ day and comments 1/ day.
- For Comments, minimum of 75 characters or more are required OR they won't be counted. **User found out copy/pasting comments will be banned.
- Make a post with #rallyapps hashtags plus add a link in the post: https://www.rallyairdrop.com/
 
Twitter

- Follow Rallyairdrop Twitter page
- Your Twitter account needs to have at least 100 real followers.
- Retweets are limited to 3/ day

---

Bump

Not quite. Exchange data is quite public, but if captured consistently the dataset is valuable. 

A trusted contact of mine is looking to acquire high accuracy for their organization, dedicated historical exchange data.
More specifically, they're mostly after trade data and/or minute level OHLCV metrics.


Exchanges data would be needed from:

Bittrex, YoBit, Cryptopia, Kucoin and Huobi.
The age of the data should be from 2016 onwards.

If you, or anyone else you know could provide such data, contact me on bitcointalk or PM https://t.me/O6hdh on Telegram.
Please include as much information as possible on your message. I will go through responses I get, maybe ask some questions too. If I deem that sufficient information has been provided, we may proceed to setting up a deal with my contact for the acquisition of data.

'Destined to fail' isn't something verifiable.

There are verifiable metrics that would make out a clear cut case of a scam. F.e.:
Stolen team portraits
plagiarized whitepaper
stolen assets for web-design
lack of attributions & licenses in open source code use
and most importantly fake claims for funds raised.

But other than that, the "uselessness" of an ICO is something subjective.

Look at pretty much any ICO that went past the TGE and you'll see that the what's put in practice deviates greatly from the vision most of the time, even most big ICOs have yet to prove themselves in being 'useful'. And still the initial investors believed in their usefulness and had the opportunity to profit greatly. The most successful projects in terms of total fund-raising are arguably performing terribly in delivering any promises in practice (namely and not limited to IOTA, EOS, NEO, VEN). Should people that marketed those be held liable just because there (yet) isn't any real use for those tokens? I think not.
Probably no investor would try to hold an ICO team liable for over-promising while tokens trade above ICO price. So utility in crypto is entirely subjective. 

In the past, people have gotten bad ratings for promoting projects that knowingly used lies for their promotion.

My personal opinion is that managers should do some initial checking to see if the project they're taking in make any outrageous or fake claims: f.e.: A new ICO claiming to have raised 10m USD while on pre-ico or fake team members/partnerships. But anything beyond that isn't the manager's responsibility.

For example: If the project goes on to scam after the manager takes it in, this was beyond the manager's control, so in my opinion the manager shouldn't take the blame unless there's good indication that he knew from before.

  the spammers aren't giving up... Third time the above campaign re-surfaces:

This time it's a different OP than the original. Perhaps a ban is warranted for evasion.


Edit to add some context:
Obviously the #join messages are still played out as a 'must' to join the campaign in order for the thread to get bumps.
It's a misleading practice to help promote threads as it clearly has nothing to do with bitcointalk when it comes to tasks like telegram so it is obviously not required, yet some dishonest managers use it for bumps, and it also leaves space open for automated bumps as under this format there would be no way to distinguish between human of machine posts.

Mods should be stricter with this type of activity. Since here it's been evaded as much as three times perhaps a ban is warranted.

.

Seems like the bounty manager from above didn't learn their lesson, same rules broken again:

This 1000 times. Simply put, there's no safe heaven while still using the banking system. I don't know if I should be surprised that this discussion keeps coming up in Bitcoin talk, of all places.

Thank you very much for the clarification.
But I think we've got a serious issue here based on the above case... An entire bounty management platform is breaking the rules with all of the campaigns they manage. And they've had it as standard practice for a long time.

EVERY single campaign ran by bountyplatform.io has incentivization for those "#join" posts. Their system is made to track tasks automatically & requires registration with forms and yet they mislead users to believe that they have to make those #join posts on bitcointalk for their work to count on any bounty, even though the work tracked has nothing to do with bitcointalk.

Users just post their username which is against the rules as clarified above, resulting in a ton of spam and bloated threads. From my understanding, they provide their platform as a service and as a result, dozens or potentially hundreds of campaigns are currently in violation of the low effort rule.

Most campaigns listed on their site explicitly asks for #join posts, others get such responses even without asking likely both due to the memory of users as well as bot promotion. Some examples:



And the thing is, even if the thread's text doesn't explicitly ask for such post, the platform's rules supposedly require it and it's listed on the 'rules' for each campaign on their website. See:

Just to be clear, is encouraging this type of 'join' message allowed? I've seen it all over and it is always followed by loads of spam while serving no purpose.

Why is this project claiming to have raised over 40,000,000$ while nothing sits in its smart contract and the sale hasn't even started yet?
https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x862b68e75f038e8a288897d7d27fa10bd174665f

Claim: http://archive.is/9Z3Lg

There are certain managers that abuse this with all of their campaigns.

Certain managers allow for a lot of spamming to take place under their threads. In my view, it's in their interest to allow for the facilitation of such spam because it simply gives their threads more visibility. I know thatthis keeps being abused as we speak by many campaigns.

Even though they have means to track tasks for the bounty automatically they prompt users to post under their threads with fake "verification" messages that only include a username. My question here is the following: Who's to blame? Is it the manager or the users?

Points on the manager:
- Benefits from responses, good or bad quality -> more visibility to the thread
- Has means to track work with forms or even automation
- Misleads users to believe that they need to post in his thread in order for them to join the campaign and get rewards, even though the supposed "proofs" involve accounts that have no connection with bitcointalk like Telegram, twitter, FB...

Perhaps the only acceptable reason to asks for proofs on bitcointalk would be use involving bitcointalk accounts like signature/avatar campaigns. Everything else is unnecessary. But the state of requesting such posts allows for many faux 'join' messages to be posted for the purposes of spam-bumping. Potentially even utilizing automated posts with bots or whatnot. This is easy to miss between hundreds of such posts.

I know that 'Joined' type posts are prohibited as well as unececerry posts as per the rules bellow:
Users posting "joined" type posts when not required or allowed will be BANNED
Incentivizing posting via low effort tasks (likes, follows, etc.) is NOT allowed

But I don't see those being enforced as it should.
Currently, join type messages on campaigns that encourage this type of spam (f.e. this one) are being deleted but this is really the hard way to approach this.
I believe that mods should FIRST trash campaign threads that are seen to encourage 'joined' type messages as a stark warning and only then go after accounts that post them. So basically go after the cause before the effects...

Tox is used for anonymous chatting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tox_(protocol)

I might take a look @exbase. Sounds kinda interesting.

Do you have a bitcointalk thread? Who are the cards issued from?

Did I phrase it wrong? I meant to say that in the list of questions of the medium article I posted above everything has been spammed in the forum.

Examples:
1. What is your competitive advantage?
2. Who will want to buy this coin?
3. Who is/are your competitors?

Many plagiarized replies are sourced from sub-headings in this medium post. I guess Loyce could look into it as well to find more spamming accounts.

---

Those accounts are clearly utilized to bump threads to bring them in the front page again. Removing bump-powers from members up to the Jr. rank would remove the incentive from that. New accounts would be able to respond but their responses just wouldn't bring threads to the top. Simple and effective. I've talked about doing this again, but I'm not sure if it could be programmed into the forum.

I don't want this to feel like I'm Hijacking LoyceV's thread but I had done some similar checking and was quite disappointed that the accounts I reported were not nuked. In fact, I see many of them still active today with the offending posts still up.

Collection of my reports here and here. If any mod could glance over the reports and give me their thoughts or even nuke the accounts it'd really motivate me to continue with this type of activity.

Edit: Also here.