Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns

[Mitchell]

OP has been updated.

[1714137005]

1714137005

[1714137005]

1714137005

[1714137005]

1714137005

[avatar_kiyoshi]

Humanresource campaign by SFR10 looks like Full and not accept new participant. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1305559.0

[SmartIphone]

Humanresource campaign by SFR10 looks like Full and not accept new participant. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1305559.0

It's full but as the owner said that campaign will be closed so basically it should be removed after the payment is made.

THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE CLOSED IMMEDIATELY AFTER PAYOUT PENDING CONSOLIDATION.

[shorena]

Humanresource campaign by SFR10 looks like Full and not accept new participant. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1305559.0

It's full but as the owner said that campaign will be closed so basically it should be removed after the payment is made.

THIS CAMPAIGN WILL BE CLOSED IMMEDIATELY AFTER PAYOUT PENDING CONSOLIDATION.

removed -> http://pastebin.com/k0DwK5nR

[u9y42]

Here's another signature campaign: BetKing.io.

The campaign will be managed by yahoo62278. However, he seems to feel there is no need for there to be escrow for this campaign, apparently.


The Simple Table entry should be something like this:

PNYC

|

BetKing.io

|

post/weekly

|

0.0012

|

0.001

|

0.0008

|

0.0005

|

x

|

x

|

x

|

10/w

|

50/w

|

N

|

Code:

[table][tr]
[td][i][color=orange]PNYC[/color][/i][/td][td]|[/td]
[td][url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1331786.0]BetKing.io[/url][/td][td]|[/td]
[td]post/weekly[/td][td]|[/td]
[td]0.0012[/td][td]|[/td]
[td]0.001[/td][td]|[/td]
[td]0.0008[/td][td]|[/td]
[td]0.0005[/td][td]|[/td]
[td]x[/td][td]|[/td]
[td]x[/td][td]|[/td]
[td]x[/td][td]|[/td]
[td]10/w[/td][td]|[/td]
[td]50/w[/td][td]|[/td]
[td]N[/td][td]|[/td]
[/tr][/table]

And the Detailed Information:

BetKing.io (Thread)
Payment period: Weekly
Payment method: Will be paid to your website account.
Minimum posts: 10 posts per week.
Maximum posts: 50 posts per week.
Payments:  F: 0.0005BTC per post, S: 0.0008BTC per post, H: 0.001BTC per post, L: 0.0012BTC per post.
Escrow: No.
Miscellaneous: Posts must have 75 characters minimum. Posts in signature campaign threads, sports tipster threads, Games and rounds, Off topic, Beginners and help, Meta(unless constructive), Investor based games, Micro earnings, and Local boards don't count.

Code:

[b]BetKing.io[/b] ([url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1331786.0]Thread[/url])
[i]Payment period:[/i] Weekly
[i]Payment method:[/i] Will be paid to your website account.
[i]Minimum posts:[/i] 10 posts per week.
[i]Maximum posts:[/i] 50 posts per week.
[i]Payments:[/i]  F: 0.0005[BTC] per post, S: 0.0008[BTC] per post, H: 0.001[BTC] per post, L: 0.0012[BTC] per post.
[u][i]Escrow[/i][/u]: No.
[i]Miscellaneous:[/i] Posts must have 75 characters minimum. Posts in signature campaign threads, sports tipster threads, Games and rounds, Off topic, Beginners and help, Meta(unless constructive), Investor based games, Micro earnings, and Local boards don't count.

[Quickseller]

Betking.io has a fairly long history of paying out gamblers, sometimes paying out thousands of BTC. I would put their trustworthiness in the same league of primedice.

I don't think using escrow is necessary in this case, although things can obviously change in the future.

[Your Point Is Invalid]

Betking.io has a fairly long history of paying out gamblers, sometimes paying out thousands of BTC. I would put their trustworthiness in the same league of primedice.

I don't think using escrow is necessary in this case, although things can obviously change in the future.

ore-mine was paying for ~2 years,

I believe that just as how scam campaigns arent listed here, campaigns without escrow also shouldnt be listed

[DarkStar_]

Betking.io has a fairly long history of paying out gamblers, sometimes paying out thousands of BTC. I would put their trustworthiness in the same league of primedice.

I don't think using escrow is necessary in this case, although things can obviously change in the future.

ore-mine was paying for ~2 years,

I believe that just as how scam campaigns arent listed here, campaigns without escrow also shouldnt be listed

Most campaigns don't have escrow and you are participating at your own risk.
Ore-mine collapsed probably because it does not have a stream of income other than investors, while gambling sites make long term profit.

[Quickseller]

ore-mine was paying for ~2 years,

This is exactly why yahoo shouldn't be blamed for the ormine fiasco. He now has a history of only running signature campaigns of longstanding companies that have positive reputation.

Escrow is also not a guarantee. It is possible that the escrow ends up running away with the BTC when they are holding funds in behalf of a signature campaign.

[u9y42]

Betking.io has a fairly long history of paying out gamblers, sometimes paying out thousands of BTC. I would put their trustworthiness in the same league of primedice.

I don't think using escrow is necessary in this case, although things can obviously change in the future.

I noticed PocketRocketsCasino made the same point; however, the truth is things can, and often do, go wrong for a number of different reasons - sometimes because someone scams; sometimes because of simple miscommunication; sometimes because it was just a bad day.

That's why it helps having a trusted third party, not directly involved in the exchange, just in case (and yes, escrows can also scam and run away, but that's no excuse not to take precautions).

[Bitinity]

Betking.io has a fairly long history of paying out gamblers, sometimes paying out thousands of BTC. I would put their trustworthiness in the same league of primedice.

I don't think using escrow is necessary in this case, although things can obviously change in the future.

ore-mine was paying for ~2 years,

I believe that just as how scam campaigns arent listed here, campaigns without escrow also shouldnt be listed

The "non-listed" campaigns in this thread are those which come from a HYIP or ponzi site not because they are using escrow or not.
If you dont believe in non-escrow campaign so dont join it.

[Lutpin]

ore-mine was paying for ~2 years,
I believe that just as how scam campaigns arent listed here, campaigns without escrow also shouldnt be listed

Setting campaigns without escrow at the same level as campaigns for e.g. DoubleBot or 12coins is ridiculous.
Some campaigns without escrow are really stable, running for a long time and paying on point every week.
Also, this overview would be down to 4 capaigns, with 2 of them being LuckyBtcCasino, and all of them being closed for new participants, if you would remove non-escrow campaigns.
If you don't like them, don't join them, easy as that, that's why the fact whether or not a campaign escrows funds is listed in OP.
But removing them would be removing the "overview" character of this thread, as 80% of campaigns would be missing in this thread.

[shorena]

added -> http://pastebin.com/UtNembBv

[Bitinity]

Bitin.io seems not active anymore, no update from LL since long time ago and as I see there is no one wearing their signature.
Regarding the mark of bitvest, I think 777coin should be marked as well because they have some problems (delay post count and payment)

[pawel7777]

Betking.io has a fairly long history of paying out gamblers, sometimes paying out thousands of BTC. I would put their trustworthiness in the same league of primedice.

I don't think using escrow is necessary in this case, although things can obviously change in the future.

ore-mine was paying for ~2 years,

I believe that just as how scam campaigns arent listed here, campaigns without escrow also shouldnt be listed

You're overestimating the role of escrow. It's a good practice and brings comfort to participants especially when signing up for new campaigns operated by new/untrusted members.

But it's not a guarantee of anything. The amounts escrowed are rarely enough to cover max possible expenditure (especially where there are delays in payments) and using escrow doesn't mean the business can't be a scam. There's also always a risk that escrow provider will run away with the funds (not sure whether it has happened before).

In judging campaign's credibility, it's best to look at the bigger picture and previous history. In case of betking (formerly PRC), they've already run 2 sig campaigns, have done number of high-value promos, they hold the biggest investment fund of all BTC gambling sites (around 3k). So the risk of them defaulting on signature payments is close to zero.

[Mitchell]

The amounts escrowed are rarely enough to cover max possible expenditure

The times I've escrowed a campaign I've always made sure that I had more than enough to pay out every single person (even if they hit the maximum amount). If other escrow agents don't do that, it's their mistake and users shouldn't accept that. I know I wouldn't.

[shorena]

Removed bitin.io, Added warning asteri[sk|x] for 777coin

-> http://pastebin.com/FtRyK194

[Mitchell]

OP updated.

[pawel7777]

The amounts escrowed are rarely enough to cover max possible expenditure

The times I've escrowed a campaign I've always made sure that I had more than enough to pay out every single person (even if they hit the maximum amount). If other escrow agents don't do that, it's their mistake and users shouldn't accept that. I know I wouldn't.

But that's easy to bypass. Campaign manager could announce that there are only 10 open spots, escrow sufficient amount, but after a week they could extend to 20-30 spots. Same goes with increase in rates, delayed payments, payments to site accounts etc. And if you act as an escrow, there's not much you can do. You can't really demand more money (unless you have the detailed escrow agreement).

[shorena]

The amounts escrowed are rarely enough to cover max possible expenditure

The times I've escrowed a campaign I've always made sure that I had more than enough to pay out every single person (even if they hit the maximum amount). If other escrow agents don't do that, it's their mistake and users shouldn't accept that. I know I wouldn't.

But that's easy to bypass. Campaign manager could announce that there are only 10 open spots, escrow sufficient amount, but after a week they could extend to 20-30 spots. Same goes with increase in rates, delayed payments, payments to site accounts etc. And if you act as an escrow, there's not much you can do. You can't really demand more money (unless you have the detailed escrow agreement).

Sure you can. You can resign from the position due to the changed circumstances.