Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns

[Muhammed Zakir]

As long as you don't pay the participants yourself.

Confused.

If I am escrowing the funds

   -MZ

[1713555577]

1713555577

[1713555577]

1713555577

[1713555577]

1713555577

[1713555577]

1713555577

[Mitchell]

As long as you don't pay the participants yourself.

Confused.

If I am escrowing the funds

   -MZ

I mean that it would count as escrow as long as you don't touch the funds he has given you.

[sho_road_warrior]

There are 3 distinct roles the person that profits from the advertising (owner of service), the person that manages the campaign (sig operator) and the person that holds funds should one of the other two disappear (escrow).

If a single person does more than one role, there is a possible conflict of interest.

[marcotheminer]

There are 3 distinct roles the person that profits from the advertising (owner of service), the person that manages the campaign (sig operator) and the person that holds funds should one of the other two disappear (escrow).

If a single person does more than one role, there is a possible conflict of interest.

There is a possible conflict everywhere no matter the role.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I mean that it would count as escrow as long as you don't touch the funds he has given you.

Thanks, Mitchełł! You were helpful!

There are 3 distinct roles the person that profits from the advertising (owner of service), the person that manages the campaign (sig operator) and the person that holds funds should one of the other two disappear (escrow).

If a single person does more than one role, there is a possible conflict of interest.

+1. Thanks for the simple explanation, shorena. Now it is crystal clear.

   -MZ

[sho_road_warrior]

There is a possible conflict everywhere no matter the role.

Yes, every single person could be a scammer, but usualy at least the escrowing person is known to be trustworthy (at least for now).The point of this setup with three people is that the operator of the service and the manager of the campaign can run and participants still get paid.  If the manager does the escrow, well there is no escrow as the point of escrow is that its another person. I am sure you can find someone that is acceptable for you if you want that "Escrow: yes" in the table for your campaign.

[bitgeek]

There is a possible conflict everywhere no matter the role.

Yes, every single person could be a scammer, but usualy at least the escrowing person is known to be trustworthy (at least for now).The point of this setup with three people is that the operator of the service and the manager of the campaign can run and participants still get paid.  If the manager does the escrow, well there is no escrow as the point of escrow is that its another person. I am sure you can find someone that is acceptable for you if you want that "Escrow: yes" in the table for your campaign.

That trustworthy escrower could be asked to run the campaign and become a trustworthy manager and we could start the conversation all over again.
Dividing the campaign between the manager and the escrower is important only when the manager is a new guy that is yet to gain trust in the community.

[Quickseller]

There are 3 distinct roles the person that profits from the advertising (owner of service), the person that manages the campaign (sig operator) and the person that holds funds should one of the other two disappear (escrow).

If a single person does more than one role, there is a possible conflict of interest.

I would personally say as long as the person paying out the funds is not the same as the person who is receiving the advertising (the entity that is incurring the debt as a result of holding the signature campaign) then it should be considered as escrowed. The reason for this is that if a company were to have their services advertised, have an escrow both handle payments and escrow funds then if the escrow were to run away then the company receiving the advertising would still owe participants their payment. As long as participants do not edit their enrollment post then the owner of the service being advertised should have enough information to pay participants.

IMO the bit-x campaign is 100% not escrowed because funds are sent to bit-x addresses who then process payments therefore bit-x are effectively handling payments to participants. Marco holding funds on their behalf is nothing more then a device to install confidence that should not be there.

On the other hand the ocupy campaign is escrowed because if the owners of ocupy were to run away then they would still be 'protected' by marco (if you trust him enough, but that is another discussion) if the owners of ocupy were to run away, and if marco were to run away with his escrowed funds then the owners of ocupy would still owe the participants of the campaign.

[marcotheminer]

There is a possible conflict everywhere no matter the role.

Yes, every single person could be a scammer, but usualy at least the escrowing person is known to be trustworthy (at least for now).The point of this setup with three people is that the operator of the service and the manager of the campaign can run and participants still get paid.  If the manager does the escrow, well there is no escrow as the point of escrow is that its another person. I am sure you can find someone that is acceptable for you if you want that "Escrow: yes" in the table for your campaign.

No use in finding another escrow for the bit-x campaign anymore (perhaps could've been useful at the beginning if no one trusted me). Since this is (was) not the case, I think it is fine as is.

[shorena]

There is a possible conflict everywhere no matter the role.

Yes, every single person could be a scammer, but usualy at least the escrowing person is known to be trustworthy (at least for now).The point of this setup with three people is that the operator of the service and the manager of the campaign can run and participants still get paid.  If the manager does the escrow, well there is no escrow as the point of escrow is that its another person. I am sure you can find someone that is acceptable for you if you want that "Escrow: yes" in the table for your campaign.

No use in finding another escrow for the bit-x campaign anymore (perhaps could've been useful at the beginning if no one trusted me). Since this is (was) not the case, I think it is fine as is.

Yes that was not my point. Stunna did not use escrow either. Maybe I got it wrong, but I understood that you wanted to have you listed as escrow for a campaign you manage.

[lolled]

There are 3 distinct roles the person that profits from the advertising (owner of service), the person that manages the campaign (sig operator) and the person that holds funds should one of the other two disappear (escrow).

If a single person does more than one role, there is a possible conflict of interest.

I would personally say as long as the person paying out the funds is not the same as the person who is receiving the advertising (the entity that is incurring the debt as a result of holding the signature campaign) then it should be considered as escrowed. The reason for this is that if a company were to have their services advertised, have an escrow both handle payments and escrow funds then if the escrow were to run away then the company receiving the advertising would still owe participants their payment. As long as participants do not edit their enrollment post then the owner of the service being advertised should have enough information to pay participants.

IMO the bit-x campaign is 100% not escrowed because funds are sent to bit-x addresses who then process payments therefore bit-x are effectively handling payments to participants. Marco holding funds on their behalf is nothing more then a device to install confidence that should not be there.

On the other hand the ocupy campaign is escrowed because if the owners of ocupy were to run away then they would still be 'protected' by marco (if you trust him enough, but that is another discussion) if the owners of ocupy were to run away, and if marco were to run away with his escrowed funds then the owners of ocupy would still owe the participants of the campaign.

That is what I have always wondered as well. But have never got a clear answer.

[tspacepilot]

There are 3 distinct roles the person that profits from the advertising (owner of service), the person that manages the campaign (sig operator) and the person that holds funds should one of the other two disappear (escrow).

If a single person does more than one role, there is a possible conflict of interest.

There is a possible conflict everywhere no matter the role.

Hillariously unhelpful!   sho_road_warrior actually expressed the mathematics well, if any one person is involved in more than one of the three roles, that's your definition for COI.

What I thought was funny about this thread is how shockingly seriousl mitche?? is about the conflict of interest on this topic but how dismissive he was about sed's accusation regarding staff posting ads in the OP.

[Mitchell]

What I thought was funny about this thread is how shockingly seriousl mitche?? is about the conflict of interest on this topic but how dismissive he was about sed's accusation regarding staff posting ads in the OP.

Care to explain how that was a conflict of interest? Like I said before, I don't have the power to decide who can have ads in their thread, only BadBear and Theymos can. The only thing I can do is moderate the Dutch subsection, everywhere else I'm just a regular user.

I did remove the ad in the end, because I didn't feel like dealing with the bullshit that came with it. It's not worth the $3 - $5 I received every 10 days.

[shorena]

What I thought was funny about this thread is how shockingly seriousl mitche?? is about the conflict of interest on this topic but how dismissive he was about sed's accusation regarding staff posting ads in the OP.

Care to explain how that was a conflict of interest? Like I said before, I don't have the power to decide who can have ads in their thread, only BadBear and Theymos can. The only thing I can do is moderate the Dutch subsection, everywhere else I'm just a regular user.

I did remove the ad in the end, because I didn't feel like dealing with the bullshit that came with it. It's not worth the $3 - $5 I received every 10 days.

Please set up a donation address in the OP, so I (and hopefully others) can send you a little thank you from time to time.

[Mitchell]

Please set up a donation address in the OP, so I (and hopefully others) can send you a little thank you from time to time.

I have re-added that section. Thank you for reminding me. ^^

[blablaace]

That coffee thing is really nice

[baristor]

whoever made this thread  much thanks 2 him!

[fearlesscat10]

What I thought was funny about this thread is how shockingly seriousl mitche?? is about the conflict of interest on this topic but how dismissive he was about sed's accusation regarding staff posting ads in the OP.

Care to explain how that was a conflict of interest? Like I said before, I don't have the power to decide who can have ads in their thread, only BadBear and Theymos can. The only thing I can do is moderate the Dutch subsection, everywhere else I'm just a regular user.

I did remove the ad in the end, because I didn't feel like dealing with the bullshit that came with it. It's not worth the $3 - $5 I received every 10 days.

Kind of sad that you removed the ad. You deserved that bonus cash despite how small it was.

[1986]

I did remove the ad in the end, because I didn't feel like dealing with the bullshit that came with it. It's not worth the $3 - $5 I received every 10 days.

I wouldn't pay much attention to people complaining about this non-issue. They're free to have their opinion but it's not a big deal especially if you got the OK from staff. I'd just put it back up and ignore criticism. I think its perfectly fine for you to have it and obviously you're not going to get much in donations. You could also keep the add but give the money to a charity or something.

[victorhing]

Can OP update our status? We've already paid out all participants in the last 2 weeks since we started.