Shortage of positions in bitcoin signature campaigns for good posters?

[Don Pedro Dinero]

I’ve recently seen people applying for signature campaigns and accepting positions below their ranks, which makes me think there might be a shortage.

Let’s see an example from the last one I’ve applied for:

Btctalk name: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=559335
Rank: Legendary
Current post count: 1209
bustadice Name: DarkDays001
Wear appropriate signature: Yes

Hey Yahoo, I know the slot is available for Sr. Member, I am willing to wear the Legendary signature and accept Sr. Member pay grades if approved.

Best of luck with recruitment to both you and Bustadice.

The former one I was a part of was the bitcloack mixer one and I also saw people applying and accepting positions below their ranks.

I wonder if this usual or it is happening just now with the current market and fewer advertisement as a result and I would like to hear from those of you who have been around longer than me.

[milewilda]

~snip~

You are actually right that there is already a shortage.If you have observed on previous years and on this year 2018- Bitcoin signature campaign numbers is really decreased. Companies didnt make any more advertisement due to ineffectiveness of this forum when it comes or getting potential investors or players thats why its no surprise that people even high rankings will definitely applied even for a lower pay.
Only a few campaigns is active upto this year and on a few decide to run for a few weeks.

[yahoo62278]

There is a shortage due to ignorance IMO. Most of the signature campaigns I have ran in the past were for ICOs. Now you have a load of scam ICOs popping up. All these ICOs can happen for under 200$.

I've seen some token creation services offered on the forum for cheap. Users just need to get a token created, come up with some bullshit ICO idea, and  begin marketing via "bounties". Essentially spending less than 200$ total for the whole thing.

Once they start this "bounty", all they offer is their token as payment. Token as payment includes whatever manager they got to do their marketing. They collect 1-100 btc and it is almost pure profit for them. They can rinse and repeat the whole process 20x a month.

They find some manager to work for tokens or an extremely small eth/btc payment and the manager will launch a SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN, twitter, facebook, reddit, and others. So most of your signature campaigns have now went to token payments.

I will not take on a company if they insist on having a signature campaign that pays in tokens in most cases. If they insist on a signature campaign in their bounty campaign i'll pass unless the asset is listed already. I like to think signature campaigns should be btc/eth paying since its forum related advertising, and social media should be for tokens or btc/eth.

If all managers used this philosophy then we wouldn't see as many bs ICOs popping up or we would see less signature campaigns as a part of them then. If companies/users see that they have to actually spend money to launch an ICO, then some of these scam teams might go away too.

[milewilda]

Once they start this "bounty", all they offer is their token as payment. Token as payment includes whatever manager they got to do their marketing. They collect 1-100 btc and it is almost pure profit for them. They can rinse and repeat the whole process 20x a month.

I heavily agree on this one, when it comes to bounty thing where scam projects comes to a point when they are already rampant or flooding out into the market.

One of the best managers of this forum had spoken so this would be an enough answer IMO.

[leowonderful]

Yup, I've only signed up for one token-based campaign during my time on this forum, and the one I happened to land on was the Moonlite ICO, which I still haven't gotten paid for months after the termination of their signature campaign. I understand that the manager of the campaign at the time was aTriz and he was under pressure around the time that the campaign was finalized, but considering what I've seen from many signature campaigns for tokens and how disorganized they are, I'm never going to join another one again; flooding of tokens on the market and lack of token listing is also a problem many token signature campaigns have.

[Findingnemo]

I like to think signature campaigns should be btc/eth paying since its forum related advertising, and social media should be for tokens or btc/eth.

If all managers used this philosophy then we wouldn't see as many bs ICOs popping up or we would see less signature campaigns as a part of them then. If companies/users see that they have to actually spend money to launch an ICO, then some of these scam teams might go away too.

Definitely this will make huge difference in the signature campaign and also will be really helpful for decrease the scam ICOs from the crypto community.But its sad that some members claiming that they were bounty managers and helping to scam the people for some pennies.They need to make change if we want to see the difference.

[shesheboy]

 Companies didnt make any more advertisement due to ineffectiveness of this forum when it comes or getting potential investors or players

no i dont believe you .  if advertsing on this site is ineffective , then why there are still lots of bounty ico campaigns on this forum ?  there are also lots of long term sig campaign that is running for almost 2 year now .  i think they are satisfied on the traffic that they get .

[vit05]

There is a shortage due to ignorance IMO. Most of the signature campaigns I have ran in the past were for ICOs. Now you have a load of scam ICOs popping up. All these ICOs can happen for under 200$.

I've seen some token creation services offered on the forum for cheap. Users just need to get a token created, come up with some bullshit ICO idea, and  begin marketing via "bounties". Essentially spending less than 200$ total for the whole thing.

Once they start this "bounty", all they offer is their token as payment. Token as payment includes whatever manager they got to do their marketing. They collect 1-100 btc and it is almost pure profit for them. They can rinse and repeat the whole process 20x a month.

They find some manager to work for tokens or an extremely small eth/btc payment and the manager will launch a SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN, twitter, facebook, reddit, and others. So most of your signature campaigns have now went to token payments.

I will not take on a company if they insist on having a signature campaign that pays in tokens in most cases. If they insist on a signature campaign in their bounty campaign i'll pass unless the asset is listed already. I like to think signature campaigns should be btc/eth paying since its forum related advertising, and social media should be for tokens or btc/eth.

If all managers used this philosophy then we wouldn't see as many bs ICOs popping up or we would see less signature campaigns as a part of them then. If companies/users see that they have to actually spend money to launch an ICO, then some of these scam teams might go away too.

But why other services are not interested in these marketing campaigns?

Today we have successful campaigns that have been going on for more than a year. They offer services using BTC. Mixer, casino, and dice. Why are there no other companies competing with them? ICO's campaigns, even when it comes to serious companies, take place for a very short time. More casinos and other companies that use cryptocurrencies should invest in this type of marketing. Since here it is one of the biggest niches of people who read, invest, negotiate and use cryptocurrencies daily.

[figmentofmyass]

The former one I was a part of was the bitcloack mixer one and I also saw people applying and accepting positions below their ranks.

I wonder if this usual or it is happening just now with the current market and fewer advertisement as a result and I would like to hear from those of you who have been around longer than me.

it's just supply and demand. the hype from last year died down, and it's a bad environment to raise funds in. as a result, there are fewer well-funded ICO projects that are running BTC-paid campaigns. less available campaigns means an oversupply of posters looking to get paid.

Companies didnt make any more advertisement due to ineffectiveness of this forum when it comes or getting potential investors or players

no i dont believe you .  if advertsing on this site is ineffective , then why there are still lots of bounty ico campaigns on this forum ?  there are also lots of long term sig campaign that is running for almost 2 year now .  i think they are satisfied on the traffic that they get .

the bounty campaigns are only paying in ICO tokens. there's no real cost for advertisers there. i think the influx of bounty campaigns lowered the overall value of signature advertising on the forum. there's a lot more spam to compete with now.

[palle11]

less available campaigns means an oversupply of posters looking to get paid.

Nope...and I don't think this is really correct. If there are numerous posters looking to get paid, is there no selection process? Or are they all going to be accepted at once?

We all can confirm that the rate of availability of signature campaigns have reduced drastically from what we use to know at least last year. For instance, we know how many signature campaigns managers like yahoo62278 controls at same time with very large number of participants, sometimes above 100 participants in one signature campaign and he could be running three or four of such large campaign at a go excluding the smaller number signature campaign like bustadice and bitsler.

I support what yahoo62278 said as the issue, which is ico scamming. They are running into token payment where they don't get listed but go away with investors money.

They should organize their advertisement with either btc or etheruem rewards if they want to be fair with advertisers.

[Mpamaegbu]

They find some manager to work for tokens or an extremely small eth/btc payment and the manager will launch a SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN, twitter, facebook, reddit, and others. So most of your signature campaigns have now went to token payments.

Wow! Now I see! I get the drift and can connect the missing link to this shortage of signature campaigns paying in btc. That's some crazy move by some of these devs and most of their coins are already shitcoins. I still got some of them not even yet listed several months after ICO ended. I think people should just avoid these ones to mitigate time wasting.

[Yarsk]

There is a shortage due to ignorance IMO. Most of the signature campaigns I have ran in the past were for ICOs. Now you have a load of scam ICOs popping up. All these ICOs can happen for under 200$.

I've seen some token creation services offered on the forum for cheap. Users just need to get a token created, come up with some bullshit ICO idea, and  begin marketing via "bounties". Essentially spending less than 200$ total for the whole thing.

Once they start this "bounty", all they offer is their token as payment. Token as payment includes whatever manager they got to do their marketing. They collect 1-100 btc and it is almost pure profit for them. They can rinse and repeat the whole process 20x a month.

They find some manager to work for tokens or an extremely small eth/btc payment and the manager will launch a SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN, twitter, facebook, reddit, and others. So most of your signature campaigns have now went to token payments.

I will not take on a company if they insist on having a signature campaign that pays in tokens in most cases. If they insist on a signature campaign in their bounty campaign i'll pass unless the asset is listed already. I like to think signature campaigns should be btc/eth paying since its forum related advertising, and social media should be for tokens or btc/eth.

If all managers used this philosophy then we wouldn't see as many bs ICOs popping up or we would see less signature campaigns as a part of them then. If companies/users see that they have to actually spend money to launch an ICO, then some of these scam teams might go away too.

Sir yahoo have said it all, the major reasons for the drastic reduction in the number of signature campaign is mostly as a result of ICO scams, and also most new companies wanting to advertise they projects always want to do that paying their they own token's in other to reduce cost.

[gantez]

always want to do that paying their they own token's in other to reduce cost.

What cost are they reducing when they eventually scam people by not being listed, some you can't trace the developers again, you get tired of waiting and that is waste of time and very bad. If icos paying in their tokens could be stopped and changed to recognize and established coins like bitcoin, eth, litecoin etc, then icos would be taken as being serious. I also think such step will grow cryptocurrency because it is likely to reduce scam.

[olubams]

Basically, the ICO market has been the source of major campaigns on the forum in the past and that market has really been faced with challenges in recent times to the extent that its being turned to a joke. The market has been infiltrated by majority of people who are bent of turning it as an avenue to make quick bucks forgetting the damage that they are doing to the entire market. And for others like us, we have contributed to it by making it our slogan that ICOs is scam. This has in no small way affects that fortune and its not expected to reduce in the nearest future. Post and contribute to the forum that is the slogan now.

[carter34]

Basically, the ICO market has been the source of major campaigns on the forum in the past and that market has really been faced with challenges in recent times to the extent that its being turned to a joke. The market has been infiltrated by majority of people who are bent of turning it as an avenue to make quick bucks forgetting the damage that they are doing to the entire market. And for others like us, we have contributed to it by making it our slogan that ICOs is scam. This has in no small way affects that fortune and its not expected to reduce in the nearest future. Post and contribute to the forum that is the slogan now.

But like some people have said, except you have not had to wait for a token distribution and never get it, then you might not really understand. If we start talking about icos running there business with btc in payment for members who help to advertise their token, I think they will change from token payment that are even more of shit tokens.

I hope people behind this projects will begin to have nice project, commit to it and pay as signature campaigns and not bounties.

[Koadharber]

There are 2 types of signature campaigns.( BTC payment or Altcoin payment)

Since its being mentioned about signature campaigns that pays on bitcoin then we haven't seen anything new and if there's one we will see tens of pages when it comes to application.
This is already signifying that there are lots of people waiting up for it but sadly the numbers of advertisers wont decide to spend up bitcoin but rather they would stick into paying altcoins.

[figmentofmyass]

less available campaigns means an oversupply of posters looking to get paid.

Nope...and I don't think this is really correct. If there are numerous posters looking to get paid, is there no selection process? Or are they all going to be accepted at once?

you point out yourself how the availability of [bitcoin-paid] signature campaigns has reduced drastically. since there are so many posters looking to get paid and so few available spots, you have legendary members applying to take senior member pay---this is what the OP was asking about.

how is the above quote incorrect?

I support what yahoo62278 said as the issue, which is ico scamming. They are running into token payment where they don't get listed but go away with investors money.

you can call it "ico scamming" if you want, sure:

the bounty campaigns are only paying in ICO tokens. there's no real cost for advertisers there. i think the influx of bounty campaigns lowered the overall value of signature advertising on the forum. there's a lot more spam to compete with now.

[pinkflower]

There should be a rule that the only cryptocurrencies permitted to be used for campaigns should be BTC and a few good altcoins. It would not only help stop useless token bounties but additionally help some good altcoins circulate in the forum.

[Mpamaegbu]

But like some people have said, except you have not had to wait for a token distribution and never get it, then you might not really understand. If we start talking about icos running there business with btc in payment for members who help to advertise their token, I think they will change from token payment that are even more of shit tokens.

I hope people behind this projects will begin to have nice project, commit to it and pay as signature campaigns and not bounties.

This really is hitting the nail on the head. Nothing could be more apt than this. I know there are numerous campaigns springing up on this forum every week. So, it isn't that we do not have campaigns at all. The issue is that those campaigns have gone to the Altcoins section where they are at liberty of rewarding participants with their own coins which are in most cases shitcoins. Sometimes, the devs go away through soft exit scam strategy.

[olubams]

There should be a rule that the only cryptocurrencies permitted to be used for campaigns should be BTC and a few good altcoins. It would not only help stop useless token bounties but additionally help some good altcoins circulate in the forum.

This is a nice suggestion in that even if you cannot pay in BTC, then other top altcoins should be considered. I have even wondered why there is no campaign paying in ETH, XRP or LTC. But again implementing this rule would also open up.some new set of controversy which would include but not limited to

1. How the forum began to censor projects.

2. How its about the protection of bounty hunters and not those who are genuinely interested in the project considering the abuse which has led to various reforms that have happened on the forum.

3. The lack of support to new projects coming up with the policy of not paying with their own coins.

So, its two sides that needs to be thought of very well not to create more problem in trying to solve one.