We need to tag people for not using escrow!

[digaran]

I want to know if any DT member would consider not using an escrow for large amounts in bounties as something untrustworthy and red tag worthy?
What these bounty managers are doing is not using any escrow to hold the coins/tokens, they expect you just to trust them to pay you at the end, they are not reputable forum members and sometimes they claim that they are paying Millions of dollars in coins/tokens to their participants.

Should we hold them accountable and ask them to put these coins in escrow and if they refused to do it should we have them tagged?

For example, [Bounty 150 ETH] SERVADVISOR.CO-DECENTRALIZED SERVICES RECOMMENDATION PLATFORM
⚡[BOUNTY] 🔥 LaborCrypto 🔥 - HOT BOUNTY UPTO 💰$175,000💰 TO SHARE!⚡ I would like to see tokens worth $175,000 for this one in a trusted escrow agent, is that too much to ask?

[1715130967]

1715130967

[endlasuresh]

Your Idea is good, but we don't find helpful admins here as they even won't lock the threads. These bounties are coming without any knowledge and most of them are using fake linkedin profiles etc.

[LoyceV]

There's no easy way for an escrow to decide whether or not the bounty manager did a good job. That means the escrow has to do the bounty manager's job all over again, checking thousands of entries to determine who should be paid.

[digaran]

There's no easy way for an escrow to decide whether or not the bounty manager did a good job. That means the escrow has to do the bounty manager's job all over again, checking thousands of entries to determine who should be paid.

Actually, there is an easy way to solve this, the manager does the job and only provides the escrow with a list of addresses and the escrow sends them all out to the participants at once.

[LoyceV]

Actually, there is an easy way to solve this, the manager does the job and only provides the escrow with a list of addresses and the escrow sends them all out to the participants at once.

Then people complain they didn't receive their tokens because they were rejected. The escrow will take the blame, and will be asked to look into it.

It would be much easier if people don't join campaigns from untrusted (or even Newbie) "managers". But the spammers don't care who's managing it, they spam the forum anyway.

[digaran]

Actually, there is an easy way to solve this, the manager does the job and only provides the escrow with a list of addresses and the escrow sends them all out to the participants at once.

Then people complain they didn't receive their tokens because they were rejected. The escrow will take the blame, and will be asked to look into it.

Well, that's the job escrow does, at least you'd have something which is better than nothing.

[erikalui]

I hope they start using escrow. Bountyhive escrows the bounty pool for its projects but others don't and rely on the project team to send bounty tokens and that's why big projects like LEDU and Token Pay scam their bounty users after earning millions in their sale. There should be no reason why they shouldn't keep tokens in an escrow.

[Patatas]

I want to know if any DT member would consider not using an escrow for large amounts in bounties as something untrustworthy and red tag worthy?

It's the participants who should be taking that decsion weather to join the bounty without an escrow. If participants are okay with it, DT shouldn't have any problems either.

What these bounty managers are doing is not using any escrow to hold the coins/tokens, they expect you just to trust them to pay you at the end, they are not reputable forum members and sometimes they claim that they are paying Millions of dollars in coins/tokens to their participants.

Bounty managers get paid anyway. The participants have to  suffer in any unforseen circumstances. Again, it's the participants that should demand escrow as they are the one's to slave for months for the tokens.

There's no easy way for an escrow to decide whether or not the bounty manager did a good job. That means the escrow has to do the bounty manager's job all over again, checking thousands of entries to determine who should be paid.

The escrow would just escrow the tokens and make sure everyone gets paid?

I hope they start using escrow. Bountyhive escrows the bounty pool for its projects

And why exactly anyone on earth trust them? They don't have a big of a reputation on BTCT as well.

[Welsh]

The escrow would just escrow the tokens and make sure everyone gets paid?

The escrow would then have to validate whether everyone deserves to get paid. There will be inactive users that don't fulfill the requirements, and I don't think the person hiring the campaign manager would be happy when their funds are given to users that aren't deserving.

Escrow should always be used. But, its not as simple as it sounds, and a lot of the escrows only hold the money currently, and still rely on the campaign manager doing their job. Which in the vast majority of the times they aren't. Especially, within the altcoin scene.

[Patatas]

The escrow would just escrow the tokens and make sure everyone gets paid?

The escrow would then have to validate whether everyone deserves to get paid. There will be inactive users that don't fulfill the requirements, and I don't think the person hiring the campaign manager would be happy when their funds are given to users that aren't deserving.

So it's like doing the campaign manager's job all over again? I bet that involves days of work which wouldn't be covered in the Escrow fees. Maybe the campaign manager should coordinate with the escrow per week and explain the stakes given. Either way, things would be complicated.

Escrow should always be used. But, its not as simple as it sounds, and a lot of the escrows only hold the money currently, and still rely on the campaign manager doing their job. Which in the vast majority of the times they aren't. Especially, within the altcoin scene.

Exactly!

[Welsh]

So it's like doing the campaign manager's job all over again? I bet that involves days of work which wouldn't be covered in the Escrow fees. Maybe the campaign manager should coordinate with the escrow per week and explain the stakes given. Either way, things would be complicated.

Pretty much. When someone is escrowing they should be verifying that the funds should either be released or not. They can't do that without checking the participants posts, and doing the campaign managers jobs. This is probably why only trusted campaign managers should be used, and maybe then we don't necessarily have to use escrow.

[audaciousbeing]

I want to know if any DT member would consider not using an escrow for large amounts in bounties as something untrustworthy and red tag worthy?
What these bounty managers are doing is not using any escrow to hold the coins/tokens, they expect you just to trust them to pay you at the end, they are not reputable forum members and sometimes they claim that they are paying Millions of dollars in coins/tokens to their participants.

Should we hold them accountable and ask them to put these coins in escrow and if they refused to do it should we have them tagged?

For example, [Bounty 150 ETH] SERVADVISOR.CO-DECENTRALIZED SERVICES RECOMMENDATION PLATFORM
⚡[BOUNTY] 🔥 LaborCrypto 🔥 - HOT BOUNTY UPTO 💰$175,000💰 TO SHARE!⚡ I would like to see tokens worth $175,000 for this one in a trusted escrow agent, is that too much to ask?

You have made a valid point but not without the variances attached to that line of thought and taking a decision towards that. People joining all of these over bloated bounty campaigns need to be responsible for their own security and how do we complain about people who have not contributed anything to the forum than claim some bounties from every available opportunity, at the same time DT members who have been labelled several names for doing the right thing still protecting them. I personally feel its the height of ironical situations. 

Another angle to consider is who will pay the escrow manager for his service as the projects is not requiring their services in the first place and if the forum should enforce it, would that not amount to trying to stifle the alt section. Another important thing is the issue about bounty hunters is not really of getting payment but how worthwhile would it be? In the case the coin created is worth zero, by default the trusted escrow has attached his name to it and who will be held responsible? The point I am trying to make is we should focus more encouraging people to protect themselves rather than waiting on others to do it for them.

[digaran]

If we are going to let them decide on participating or not then we should also let others decide whether they want to lend money to newbies asking for a loan with no collateral, why do we have DT members tagging them?
IMO, only trusted bounty managers should hold the tokens, meaning if a newbie started to manage a bounty then they should receive negative trust for not using escrow because they are not trustworthy enough.

[Patatas]

If we are going to let them decide on participating or not then we should also let others decide whether they want to lend money to newbies asking for a loan with no collateral, why do we have DT members tagging them?
IMO, only trusted bounty managers should hold the tokens, meaning if a newbie started to manage a bounty then they should receive negative trust for not using escrow because they are not trustworthy enough.

- Anyone can lend money to a newbie if they are providing a valid collateral. It’s completeky upto ye lender. DT members aare just there to tag the accounts if a loan is asked without a collateral. Also, Vod is the only DT members who does it actively.

- What is a trusted bounty manager? Trusted just because he has a good rep here or trusted because of his work with the previous bounties?

- Also, there are a few good companies who have their own members of the team to manage bounties. Are you going to force them to use a trusted bounty manager?

[Silent26]

IMO, only trusted bounty managers should hold the tokens, meaning if a newbie started to manage a bounty then they should receive negative trust for not using escrow because they are not trustworthy enough.

Actually I like your idea digaran. I came up to this kind of proposal before that's why I really like it. But there are some disadvantages of tagging newbie managers. First is, not because the manager of a particular bounty campaign is a Newbie doesn't mean s/he is untrustworthy. We can say that "Yes" almost Newbie managers are untrustworthy but I can tell that "Not all of them". Second is, there are Newbie managers from some trusted companies and why tagging them from not having an Escrow if they're already trusted? This will only put some arguments between DT members and tye companies' side.

It would be much easier if people don't join campaigns from untrusted (or even Newbie) "managers". But the spammers don't care who's managing it, they spam the forum anyway.

Agreed. Everybody can avoid scam projects. It's really up to them whether if they want to risk or not.

[The Cryptovator]

Idea is good. But it will be little bit complicated. Escrow for btc or eth camping will working fine. As well as many managers using escrow for btc sign campaign. When you will come for token escrow, I think it will not effective. We know that before listed on exchange there is no value for erc20 token. And there is question of huge gas fee. Even ICO owner send escrow in token, I think it will not much useful. Scam means scam. It will be better option if they escrow by btc or eth. Unfortunately no one will do that. Bounty campaign system has been corrupted. Past reputed members have no much campaign recently you can see that. Most of Jr. Members making bounty thread. It's the main problem even they don't have much idea about crypto currency. And ICO owners choice the cheapest price or for token. At first there should be posting rule. Below member rank should not allow to post. So ICO owner can post himself or can't choice Jr. Member.  Then he will come to the reputed member's. But also it will not much effective if there is no managers community.

Regarding red tag, think it's not possible. Because no one forcing people to join their bounty. People joined themselves even they create multiple account. Bounty section is corrupted by some managers. It can't be recover .

[allahabadi]

Actually, there is an easy way to solve this, the manager does the job and only provides the escrow with a list of addresses and the escrow sends them all out to the participants at once.

Then people complain they didn't receive their tokens because they were rejected. The escrow will take the blame, and will be asked to look into it.

It would be much easier if people don't join campaigns from untrusted (or even Newbie) "managers". But the spammers don't care who's managing it, they spam the forum anyway.

And instead join trusted ones like aTriz who also scam them?

It's all equal mate... Trusting anyone out here is equal...

Better go for Bounty0x platform.