Should we red tag and create a flag for ICO bounty managers that do not escrow

[tvplus006]

Unless the bitcointalk staff makes Escrow for bounty hunting compulsory and the bounty manager did not comply. That is when we can admit that the bounty manager has breaking the rule and can be red tagged. Since nothing like this exist, there is nothing anyone can do to them. Many of them do write disclaimer post at the bottom of a bounty post, stating that they are not part of the team

There are no rules for conducting a bounty campaign on the forum, including one that provides for escrow. However, escrow is common in signature campaigns where payment is made in BTC. If escrow is not provided for by bounty, then each bounty hunter must independently conduct research on the campaign they want to join. In addition, they should pay attention to whether the Manager has experience in conducting bounties and how successful they were in the past.

[reza7777]

100% I support if a manager who doesn't use Escrow must get Redtrus, it aims to reduce projects that are unfair to hunters and reduce managers who manage bounties, of course this will be better for bounty hunters in the future

[disconnectme]

I  don' think it makes any sense to give any bounty manager red trust because hey fail to escrow the bounty payment, you can only do that if after the campaign the project fail to pay. I have seen manager pay from their own pocket bounty campaign fund when the projects ended up being a scam, we don't see that again in this space

[Twinkledoe]

Unless the bitcointalk staff makes Escrow for bounty hunting compulsory and the bounty manager did not comply. That is when we can admit that the bounty manager has breaking the rule and can be red tagged. Since nothing like this exist, there is nothing anyone can do to them. Many of them do write disclaimer post at the bottom of a bounty post, stating that they are not part of the team

There are no rules for conducting a bounty campaign on the forum, including one that provides for escrow. However, escrow is common in signature campaigns where payment is made in BTC. If escrow is not provided for by bounty, then each bounty hunter must independently conduct research on the campaign they want to join. In addition, they should pay attention to whether the Manager has experience in conducting bounties and how successful they were in the past.

Seems unfair also to the bounty manager if he will get the red trust from a situation he has no control of. Sometimes even if they are doing their job and defending his participants, the final call is still from the team's end. So it is up to the bounty hunter how to choose the project that he will promote of. The BM can't do anything when and how the tokens allocated will be distributed. He can push the management but that's it.

[abdulodoi]

Firstly,  escrowing of funds doesn't guarantee a success of project or increase value of the token.

Secondly, giving a red trust to a Bounty Manager who has also worked his/her ass off to setup a bounty and manage all the stake process and numerous questions, team gives pressure of better result then they either turn scam or delay distribution isn't fair at all as BMs are also victim.

Most genuine projects will be reluctant to send huge sum of token to a BM actually as they will try to protect the value of their token as well.

The best bounty hunters can do is to do their own research and make an informed decision as to whether they want to join bounties. Joining bounty for valued token is always a gamble. Noone can guarantee the success of a project hence won't be fair on BMs to receive such damaging flag to their name unless the BM abuses the system by misleading hunters and proofs should be provided

[Coin-1]

If the rewards are escrowed in Bitcoin, Ethereum or other cryptocurrency from the TOP-20 of CoinMarketCap, all bounty hunters who participate in this campaign can be assured in receiving their payments. But escrowing funds in worthless tokens (or coins) is almost pointless. Of course, bounty manager will fairly and honestly distribute all tokens after the end of the campaign, but there is no guaranty whether this project is fraudulent of not.

Secondly, teams usually don't want to send a large amount of tokens to one person they do not trust. Moreover, some projects often launch TGE (Token Generation Event) only after a successful ICO, so it is impossible to escrow funds in tokens that have not yet been issued. Therefore, I am against this harsh proposal.

[pixie85]

I understand red trust as a way to tag dishonest people, scammers, thieves, but only when you know they did something wrong. People should not be tahhed because you suspect they could scam you.

A bounty manager who doesn't escrow can be honest and pay up in which case he will not deserve a tag or he can scam and deserve it. Tagging him before he was able to do you wrong is an abuse of the system.