Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns

[Mitchell]

I've updated the OP but excluded CGC for the reasons listed by Lutpin:

• Not everyone gets paid
• Not everyone gets paid in BTC

If anyone feels like this isn't justified let me know (with good arguments, please).

[1715253615]

1715253615

[1715253615]

1715253615

[1715253615]

1715253615

[1715253615]

1715253615

[FLoving]

I saw another campaign at services section.The campaign is names as XBTFreelancer and the manager of the campaign is 0day. the link is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1734027.0

[Juggy777]

I saw another campaign at services section.The campaign is names as XBTFreelancer and the manager of the campaign is 0day. the link is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1734027.0

I think they will have to wait to put this in the main list. Firstly the spreadsheet is yet to come. Secondly the escrow details are also pending to be updated. It's only when the Op will post this two and starts paying for a week or so then I feel it can be updated. Rates seem fair but only 30 posts that's less but then it's his decision. Let's wait and see when he updates the details.

[chixka000]

Currently crazybtrade is having a huge trust issue, so i advised him to closed the signature campaign until its fixed/or not. Thanks everyone keep up the good work and happy new year to all

[OmegaStarScream]

It looks like Spectre signature campaign is finished and the manager paid the users the final payment as mentioned here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1718571.msg17354245#msg17354245

[teddy5145]

I saw another campaign at services section.The campaign is names as XBTFreelancer and the manager of the campaign is 0day. the link is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1734027.0

Currently crazybtrade is having a huge trust issue, so i advised him to closed the signature campaign until its fixed/or not. Thanks everyone keep up the good work and happy new year to all

Happy new year to you too

It looks like Spectre signature campaign is finished and the manager paid the users the final payment as mentioned here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1718571.msg17354245#msg17354245

Updated with this pastebin
http://paste.ee/p/8gvm3#oREvCUIAWmQcJKdEsbhvOWOXTP4g8C0B

I saw another campaign at services section.The campaign is names as XBTFreelancer and the manager of the campaign is 0day. the link is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1734027.0

I think they will have to wait to put this in the main list. Firstly the spreadsheet is yet to come. Secondly the escrow details are also pending to be updated. It's only when the Op will post this two and starts paying for a week or so then I feel it can be updated. Rates seem fair but only 30 posts that's less but then it's his decision. Let's wait and see when he updates the details.

Added anyway because I'm sure they will start the campaign soon, XBTFreelancers seems serious to launch their signature campaign
Besides, putting them on the list right now is more time efficient compared to putting them in later time

[polynesia]

Rollin.io is full now.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=950982.0
They also have decreased their pay rates.

[ImHash]

If signature campaigns which pay in altcoins refuse to pay and scam their workers, any DT member cares to tag their managers and admins?

[shorena]

If signature campaigns which pay in altcoins refuse to pay and scam their workers, any DT member cares to tag their managers and admins?

That would be a topic for the scam accusation section. I personally would leave a negative rating, given there is enough evidence. Feel free to send me a link to the scam accusation thread and Ill take a look.

[casinobonusgiveaway]

Last payment in this year has been processed. We're running this campaign for a year an a half now

Txd: https://blockexplorer.com/tx/7885289a50c091394571055a371f0d00671a73aa83a2568087a35011ca7c0d81

Since bitcoin price raised for quite some, we lowered rates a bit:

Senior Member: 0.030 BTC per week
Hero Member: 0.035 BTC per week
Legendary Member: 0.037 BTC per week

Happy new year!

Crypto-games.net lowered rates, please update it, and 1 slot open for legendary, it is open again.

[ArdiPrabowo]

Last payment in this year has been processed. We're running this campaign for a year an a half now

Txd: https://blockexplorer.com/tx/7885289a50c091394571055a371f0d00671a73aa83a2568087a35011ca7c0d81

Since bitcoin price raised for quite some, we lowered rates a bit:

Senior Member: 0.030 BTC per week
Hero Member: 0.035 BTC per week
Legendary Member: 0.037 BTC per week

Happy new year!

Crypto-games.net lowered rates, please update it, and 1 slot open for legendary, it is open again.

I think althougt decraese
crypto game net, still good rate, the best rate , only lost rate fortujuejack signature campaign
is true crypto game 1 spot open but only acepted legendary

comment owner crypto game net

1 Open Legendary spot!

[casinobonusgiveaway]

the payment rate was changed as below from now.

★★★ Signature Rate ★★★
 JR Member :   0.00004 BTC per constructive post.              - payout changed as of 12/26
 Member :       0.00006 BTC per constructive post.                   - payout changed as of 12/26
 Full Member : 0.00019 BTC per constructive post.             - payout changed as of 01/02  
 Senior :         0.00023 BTC per constructive post.                     - payout changed as of 01/02
 Hero  :          0.00029 BTC per constructive post.      - payout changed as of 01/02            
 Legendary :    0.00031 BTC per constructive post.      - payout changed as of 01/02      


thank you.

They decreased the rates again, hilarious.    The rate of hero is lower than nitrogen's full member pay rate(0.0003 BTC). I am speechless.

[poptok1]

I think Mitchell should remove the red mark * from signature that I'm wearing.
There where never any problems in the campaign itself.
No delays, no post miscalculations, no strange and unnecessary bans for participants.
Owner and manager never broke any promises or forum rules etc.
Its just an ordinary signature campaign, one of the best, if you ask me
I think its not fair that its the only one with special warnings. coinroll was a lot worse this month, with super delay and post summary problems, deserves warning more just saying. 
 

[shorena]

I think Mitchell should remove the red mark * from signature that I'm wearing.
There where never any problems in the campaign itself.
No delays, no post miscalculations, no strange and unnecessary bans for participants.
Owner and manager never broke any promises or forum rules etc.
Its just an ordinary signature campaign, one of the best, if you ask me
I think its not fair that its the only one with special warnings. coinroll was a lot worse this month, with super delay and post summary problems, deserves warning more just saying. 

I agree its reasonable that coinroll gets an asterisk.

I dont agree that betcoin should get it removed, due to the issues with the service itself. You probably read the trust ratings left by the person running the campaign, so why do you think this should be seen separately?

[poptok1]

-snip-

I agree its reasonable that coinroll gets an asterisk.

I dont agree that betcoin should get it removed, due to the issues with the service itself. You probably read the trust ratings left by the person running the campaign, so why do you think this should be seen separately?

Because its all about signature campaign here, not the obvious trust issues.
Campaign was never affected, never have had problems that's why I'm suggesting the change.
Maybe more detailed warning about trust would do better, current *mark could be taken as misleading as its relates to campaign not the red trust.
It's not a matter of life or dead, I just wanted to provoke discussion about how extremely popular threads influence the rest of the forum. (no flame wars)

[Lutpin]

Because its all about signature campaign here, not the obvious trust issues.

What you advertise is as much a part of a campaign as how the campaign is run is.
Maybe you don't care about it, but a lot of people do.

Maybe more detailed warning about trust would do better, current *mark could be taken as misleading as its relates to campaign not the red trust.

People interested can quickly find out what's the asterisk is about.
So you do agree there is a problem with Betcoin.AG, you just don't agree about how it is pointed out?

It's not a matter of life or dead, I just wanted to provoke discussion about how extremely popular threads influence the rest of the forum. (no flame wars)

And it's good they got the mark.

[poptok1]

People interested can quickly find out what's the asterisk is about.
So you do agree there is a problem with Betcoin.AG, you just don't agree about how it is pointed out?

Well, if you put it this way than, yes I do see the problem and I don't agree about how it is pointed out.
We have to remember that 99% of red trust at betcoins profile are coming from resolved jackpot case, jason case, if I'm not mistaken.
It was huge for a moment because of how big the stake was, not the bad behaviour of the casino.
I have decided that the problem was at the games provider side, the betsoft, not the betcoin itself.
So here I am, still wearing the sig.
All in all it's Mitchell's thread, its for him to decide. I just wanted to say that there is nothing wrong with betcoins signature campaign.

[minifrij]

We have to remember that 99% of red trust at betcoins profile are coming from resolved jackpot case, jason case, if I'm not mistaken.
It was huge for a moment because of how big the stake was, not the bad behaviour of the casino.
I have decided that the problem was at the games provider side, the betsoft, not the betcoin itself.

Regardless of who supplied the money for the jackpot, it was Betcoin that advertised such reward and therefore Betcoin's responsibility. Betcoin failed to deliver this reward, and therefore should not be trusted to deliver on any other reward. This rightfully shows in their feedback.
In addition, there are many more things wrong with Betcoin than just the jackpot issue. As a company, they are extremely shady at best.

All in all it's Mitchell's thread, its for him to decide. I just wanted to say that there is nothing wrong with betcoins signature campaign.

I don't think anyone will disagree that Betcoin's signature campaign is ran well in terms of payment, however it should still be marked red simply for it's trust.

[0day]

New campaign has been appeared on the services section. The campaign is from orocoin. The thread is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1738572.0 .

After completing the selection they have locked the thread which I think is not favorable.

[shorena]

People interested can quickly find out what's the asterisk is about.
So you do agree there is a problem with Betcoin.AG, you just don't agree about how it is pointed out?

Well, if you put it this way than, yes I do see the problem and I don't agree about how it is pointed out.
We have to remember that 99% of red trust at betcoins profile are coming from resolved jackpot case, jason case, if I'm not mistaken.
It was huge for a moment because of how big the stake was, not the bad behaviour of the casino.

Betcoin did handle the issue rather unprofessionally and tried to gag the winner via contract. The person representing betcoin here is the same running the campaign, its - at least for me - reasonable that they would act similarly should issues with the campaign arise. Thats why I consider the warning left on the account as well as the campaign justified.