Escrow Obligations?

[Decoded]

Hey guys, I was escrowing for the OneCrypto signature campaign. The owner decided to conclude the campaign after the first week, however 0.01 was left. OC is asking for it back. Technically he only replied after the second week started. So do I distribute the remaining to the participants, or do I return the funds back to OC, as asked?

Thanks.

[1714160408]

1714160408

[1714160408]

1714160408

[1714160408]

1714160408

[1714160408]

1714160408

[Lauda]

This really isn't a forum related problem (Meta); remember, trust isn't moderated nor are there any "obligations" under the forum rules when it comes to escrow. This may be better fit for reputation or another section. Anyhow, you need to elaborate on the following:

Technically he only replied after the second week started. So do I distribute the remaining to the participants, or do I return the funds back to OC, as asked?

What exactly happened, i.e. that you labeled "technically"?

[Decoded]

This really isn't a forum related problem (Meta); remember, trust isn't moderated nor are there any "obligations" under the forum rules when it comes to escrow. This may be better fit for reputation or another section. Anyhow, you need to elaborate on the following:

Technically he only replied after the second week started. So do I distribute the remaining to the participants, or do I return the funds back to OC, as asked?

What exactly happened, i.e. that you labeled "technically"?

Will move. Maybe technically isn't the best word, but he told me to refund a day after I told everyone about the problem. Supposedly he wasn't receiving my Skype messages so I only ended up getting to him two days after the campaign week started.

[Lauda]

Maybe technically isn't the best word, but he told me to refund a day after I told everyone about the problem. Supposedly he wasn't receiving my Skype messages so I only ended up getting to him two days after the campaign week started.

Does it really matter with such a trivial amount? We are talking about ~$12. What do the participants think about this? Considering the number of participants (which I did not look into), they'd all be getting amounts that aren't even enough to buy a single beer. I don't understand why anyone would bother with this (including the service owner and the participants).

[Decoded]

Well, despite trivial amounts, we see people rushing for a free 10k Satoshi in the Games & Rounds section

I received this message from a user, obviously quite unhappy.

Apologies. I would be more than happy to, however OC has told me to return the BTC that is not my share to him.

Sorry.

As I see it, you need not and should not return the funds that should be paid out to the campaign participants for their posting up to the moment of campaign closing. Otherwise, you wouldn't be fulfilling your escrow obligations. If you do return the funds, you may get negative trust from users. If you get negative trust from the owner, you could raise a scam accusation against him and your negative trust will be removed by a DT member

Hewent as far as to mention a neg. I've also received another PM from another user in the campaign. I'm pretty stumped.

[Lauda]

Well, despite trivial amounts, we see people rushing for a free 10k Satoshi in the Games & Rounds section

Poor people wasting time and bandwidth for peanuts.

Hewent as far as to mention a neg. I've also received another PM from another user in the campaign. I'm pretty stumped.

Their PM is full of subjective bias. Why not open a "scam accusation" against the users that leave the negative rating? Obviously you can't blame the service for the communication errors either, can you now? The real question is why does the service care about $12?

[Decoded]

Well, despite trivial amounts, we see people rushing for a free 10k Satoshi in the Games & Rounds section

Poor people wasting time and bandwidth for peanuts.

Hewent as far as to mention a neg. I've also received another PM from another user in the campaign. I'm pretty stumped.

Their PM is full of subjective bias. Why not open a "scam accusation" against the users that leave the negative rating? Obviously you can't blame the service for the communication errors either, can you now? The real question is why does the service care about $12?

That however I'd something different. $12 can buy you more than a beer

Still don't know which way to go. I could leave a service annoyed or a group of users butthurt...

How about a compromise? I can keep the funds for myself

[Lauda]

That however I'd something different. $12 can buy you more than a beer

$12 is really useless and irrational if it's going to cause a lot of trouble.

Still don't know which way to go. I could leave a service annoyed or a group of users butthurt...

I'd say go with the users, then again I don't know the exact details nor the owner of the service. You should tell them to give input in this thread.

[Decoded]

Just received a message from OC, demanding the funds back.

Technically as an escrow, I'm not to be swayed by threats or commands, only to follow the logical path.

I'm swaying towards the users.

[Lauda]

Technically as an escrow, I'm not to be swayed by threats or commands, only to follow the logical path.

That is correct. In the case of any disputes, you're the one who should make the resolving decision. Just because one side may disagree with it, that does not make it wrong.

[bitkilo]

I don't know the full story only what i see here but i would pay the participants for all post up until the time of the campaign being publicly closed.

[SaltySpitoon]

So the first week was paid out, the second week started, and they wanted to cancel partway into the second week? Have you considered a partial payout to the users? If they canceled 1 day into the week, pay 1/7th, 2/7ths, etc?

Obviously, the best thing to do is figure it out with the people running the campaign. Your obligation is to keep the funds safely and then distribute as necessary in case of a conflict. Seeing as a conflict has arisen, I'd say the best course of action is for you to act on behalf of the participants, and negotiate a fair deal.

[Decoded]

I, being the escrow in this deal, sadly will have to pay the users, as they were told to stop posting only after the first week started. My responsibility is to a fair trade.

I will distribute the remaining 0.01 amongst the users based on their post count, with a max 0.001 per post.

Sorry OC :-/

[Avirunes]

I, being the escrow in this deal, sadly will have to pay the users, as they were told to stop posting only after the first week started. My responsibility is to a fair trade.

I will distribute the remaining 0.01 amongst the users based on their post count, with a max 0.001 per post.

Sorry OC :-/

I guess that would be more fair. I think that you should have asked OC about starting second week but if there was enough fund to start the second week then there was no need. Since OC was also late here requesting to stop the campaign I guess what you did is the best and fair decision.

[bitkilo]

I, being the escrow in this deal, sadly will have to pay the users, as they were told to stop posting only after the first week started. My responsibility is to a fair trade.

I will distribute the remaining 0.01 amongst the users based on their post count, with a max 0.001 per post.

Sorry OC :-/

Sadly have to pay the users?
That's a bit odd, they were never your bitcoins to begin with so nothing should be sad about sending them to others.

Do you get paid your fee in full for managing the campaign?

[yahoo62278]

I, being the escrow in this deal, sadly will have to pay the users, as they were told to stop posting only after the first week started. My responsibility is to a fair trade.

I will distribute the remaining 0.01 amongst the users based on their post count, with a max 0.001 per post.

Sorry OC :-/

Sadly have to pay the users?
That's a bit odd, they were never your bitcoins to begin with so nothing should be sad about sending them to others.

Do you get paid your fee in full for managing the campaign?

I think he is referring to paying users from his own pocket, ive done it a couple times myself. As far as his fee goes he was silly and offered a free week for campaign managing(trying to get exposure and experience i suppose), and was used for the 1 week and the company now stopped the campaign. They got what they needed free.

Now mr Decoded let me say in my opinion what should have been done in the 1st place. ! you should have asked the owner how long the campaign was gonna run and got enough funds to cover the full length of the campaign. If the company wouldnt give you a clear answer on the length of campaign or transfer you ull amount of funds, you decline the job.

Second thing you should have/could have done is after week 1, pause the campaign since you had no clear message of what was happening, nor did you have funds secured.

Rookie mistakes but youll learn

[Decoded]

I, being the escrow in this deal, sadly will have to pay the users, as they were told to stop posting only after the first week started. My responsibility is to a fair trade.

I will distribute the remaining 0.01 amongst the users based on their post count, with a max 0.001 per post.

Sorry OC :-/

Sadly have to pay the users?
That's a bit odd, they were never your bitcoins to begin with so nothing should be sad about sending them to others.

Do you get paid your fee in full for managing the campaign?

I think he is referring to paying users from his own pocket, ive done it a couple times myself. As far as his fee goes he was silly and offered a free week for campaign managing(trying to get exposure and experience i suppose), and was used for the 1 week and the company now stopped the campaign. They got what they needed free.

Now mr Decoded let me say in my opinion what should have been done in the 1st place. ! you should have asked the owner how long the campaign was gonna run and got enough funds to cover the full length of the campaign. If the company wouldnt give you a clear answer on the length of campaign or transfer you ull amount of funds, you decline the job.

Second thing you should have/could have done is after week 1, pause the campaign since you had no clear message of what was happening, nor did you have funds secured.

Rookie mistakes but youll learn

1. I am not paying from my own pocket. The trivial amount of 0.012 BTC which OC demanded back has been paid to users, as they were left unwarned and started posting before they were alerted. I am doing something that OC doesn't want, in fulfilling my responsibilities as an escrow.

2. I didn't do it for free, I still got my week's cut. The free week is only if you escrow the max payout for three weeks minimum with me or another escrow.

3. I did ask him those two questions. Originally he said 2 weeks to last on $100 funded in $50 bursts. He however withheld the $50.

Yes I did not pause the campaign, as I should have. I only merely posted in the thread and alerted applicants. I couldve handled the situation better.

[bitkilo]

I, being the escrow in this deal, sadly will have to pay the users, as they were told to stop posting only after the first week started. My responsibility is to a fair trade.

I will distribute the remaining 0.01 amongst the users based on their post count, with a max 0.001 per post.

Sorry OC :-/

Sadly have to pay the users?
That's a bit odd, they were never your bitcoins to begin with so nothing should be sad about sending them to others.

Do you get paid your fee in full for managing the campaign?

I think he is referring to paying users from his own pocket, ive done it a couple times myself. As far as his fee goes he was silly and offered a free week for campaign managing(trying to get exposure and experience i suppose), and was used for the 1 week and the company now stopped the campaign. They got what they needed free.

Now mr Decoded let me say in my opinion what should have been done in the 1st place. ! you should have asked the owner how long the campaign was gonna run and got enough funds to cover the full length of the campaign. If the company wouldnt give you a clear answer on the length of campaign or transfer you ull amount of funds, you decline the job.

Second thing you should have/could have done is after week 1, pause the campaign since you had no clear message of what was happening, nor did you have funds secured.

Rookie mistakes but youll learn

1. I am not paying from my own pocket. The trivial amount of 0.012 BTC which OC demanded back has been paid to users, as they were left unwarned and started posting before they were alerted. I am doing something that OC doesn't want, in fulfilling my responsibilities as an escrow.

2. I didn't do it for free, I still got my week's cut. The free week is only if you escrow the max payout for three weeks minimum with me or another escrow.

3. I did ask him those two questions. Originally he said 2 weeks to last on $100 funded in $50 bursts. He however withheld the $50.

Yes I did not pause the campaign, as I should have. I only merely posted in the thread and alerted applicants. I couldve handled the situation better.

You had mentioned previously that there was 0.12btc left over so i assumed that you would use that to pay the participants, you did the right thing.
Sure you could have paused the campaign but you didn't let it get past 1 week due so don't be so hard on yourself, consider this a cheap lesson to learn.
The participant should be happy with the outcome and so should you, screw what OC thinks he broke the deal.

Best of luck in the future!