Do high-paying campaigns pose a threat to the community?

[Stedsm]

I'm not against high-paying campaigns, seriously but history has witnessed something different, something that tasted bitter in the end. Let's begin here:

1. YoBit.Net - Signature Campaign - Realtime Payouts (daily)

A campaign that started in 2015 which gave everyone the opportunity to earn up to BTC0.18 each month while letting the users spam the hell out here for years. It came back in 2019 with the same intention (probably) while allowing the same amount of BTC earnings per day here - YoBit Signature Campaign (Bitcointalk) Unofficial thread which got many spammers banned for spamming again to earn more. There are many scam accusations against this exchange to date.

Status:
Website - On
Signature campaign - Over


2. [BetKing] Signature Campaign | Fixed | Full Member - Legendary (Over/Closed)

One of the highest paying campaigns during 2016 paying up to BTC0.04 each week, Betking had their campaign closed due to some issues with their players. They came back later but went off early due to the fact that its admin scammed a lot of investors.

Status:
Website - On
Signature campaign - Over


3. ❃❃ ▶▷ BETCOIN.ag ◁◀ ❃❃#Signature Campaign-High Pay, Monthly Bonus, Special Award

Began in 2015, it gave everyone the opportunity to earn up to BTC0.26 (which lowered down later when it was turned into a fixed pay campaign but the pay was still good considering payments up to $170 per month. Everything was going smooth until a user won an exceptional amount and Betcoin changed their terms of service immediately so not to give the winnings to the winner, and are now proven scammers.

Status:
Website - On
Signature campaign - Over


4. [CFNP] LiveCoin Signature Campaign | Hero/Legendary Members | Up to 0.02BTC/Week

I don't think I need to give any big description about this as it's the most recent one that doesn't need an introduction. Livecoin started off great by giving the users of its signature an amazing BTC0.02 few days back, but the campaign went off once the curtains fell down off their villainous behavior.

Status:
Website - On
Signature campaign - Over


Do you believe that most of the high-paying campaigns have wrong intentions set behind their back and they start becoming shady after being set up fully?

Not bragging about, but I'm really glad as well as proud to be a part of one of the highest paying campaigns - Chipmixer as they've got no issues or scam accusations against them till date.

[Steamtyme]

I can't say it's just the high paying campaigns that should be labeled a concern. It really comes down to campaigns that com in and for 1 don't use an escrow or somewhat reputable/established member of the forum to manage the campaign. Unfortunately with every service out there they can become a scam in a heartbeat if things don't go their way - as evidenced with Betcoin as you point out.

Without standards and sureties in place any organization that runs a campaign here can turn out to be shady. It does make you wonder the type of traffic and fees some can pull in like yobit to afford paying that much out to essentially carpet bomb their adverts. I recall 2017/2018 when there were tons of campaigns active that once a week or so there was a new one not paying, and they had advertised comparable or lower rates than others. So I don't thin it's the payment structure to blame, as usual just people. The high paying ones just draw in more attention from people so they can become more memorable or be scrutinized earlier.

[LeGaulois]

I could say the same but changing the title with

"Do low-paying campaigns pose a threat to the community?"
You gave 4 examples I could give you thousands of examples about closed low paying campaigns but the website still ON

"Does Sylon pose a threat to the community?" Because my opinion is: a high paying campaign isn't a threat to anything but people managing the campaign can be (no matter high or low the campaign is paying btw)

[Stedsm]

I recall 2017/2018 when there were tons of campaigns active that once a week or so there was a new one not paying, and they had advertised comparable or lower rates than others. So I don't thin it's the payment structure to blame, as usual just people.

It'd be nice of you if you could list out a few more campaigns (even with less pay) which turned out to be scams (although, no bounties please) and / or didn't pay their users while declared as scammers.

The high paying ones just draw in more attention from people so they can become more memorable or be scrutinized earlier.

You're right. Actually, this thread is more focused on high-paying campaigns as it's easy to find them because more or less, these campaigns have been a part of our community and were always looked for by us at least once in terms of enrolling ourselves into them. I'm glad I was not a part of those projects that turned into scam sooner or later.

You gave 4 examples I could give you thousands of examples about closed low paying campaigns but the website still ON

Throw 'em on, I'm waiting for more.

"Does Sylon pose a threat to the community?" Because my opinion is: a high paying campaign isn't a threat to anything but people managing the campaign can be (no matter high or low the campaign is paying btw)

Lemme leave all old campaigns and take the most recent campaign as an example and ask you something (related to the bold part in your comment):
Hhampuz was managing the Livecoin campaign, should he be considered equally responsible for what Livecoin did?

[LeGaulois]

@Stedsm

I have read again and I realized I was thinking about something else while replying.
So my apologies

[Steamtyme]

I recall 2017/2018 when there were tons of campaigns active that once a week or so there was a new one not paying, and they had advertised comparable or lower rates than others. So I don't thin it's the payment structure to blame, as usual just people.

It'd be nice of you if you could list out a few more campaigns (even with less pay) which turned out to be scams (although, no bounties please) and / or didn't pay their users while declared as scammers.

The high paying ones just draw in more attention from people so they can become more memorable or be scrutinized earlier.

You're right. Actually, this thread is more focused on high-paying campaigns as it's easy to find them because more or less, these campaigns have been a part of our community and were always looked for by us at least once in terms of enrolling ourselves into them. I'm glad I was not a part of those projects that turned into scam sooner or later.

Took me a bit to find some as I just randomly picked spots but here is 3 by 2 managers that ended poorly. I never looked into the services they were advertising for or what came of them. They all did have payment issues by the end, 2 of them run by the same "manager".
[FULL] CellBlocks SIG and Avatar Campaign
The Tip Token - Signature Campaign - 20 Members - Closed
BITTO.TECH - [PAUSED] FOR 2 WEEKS - SIGNATURE CAMPAIGN

I can't say what the intentions were of the projects behind these campaigns this could have all resulted solely from a poor choice in manager taking the funds. In most cases though I didn't see anything showing this to be true. I also can't really say how many scam projects may have run a quick campaign to promote their ICO or "service" before exit scamming. There was a lot of traffic and news to hide behind late 2017 early 2018, earlier than that I wasn't involved.

Having a descent campaign managers who researches their projects, and secondly will honestly call out shady behavior are the biggest steps to not advertising for a scammy service or getting scammed for payment.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Since we're generalizing it's safe to say the general answer would be yes as they do pose as threats in some way to the community in regards to scam or spam. Apart from selective few like Chipmixer (that only employs the service of quality/reputed members through the help of a reputed manager) others are either associated with scam or spam. Don't want to speak on the Livecoin matter because they did have a quality campaign manager but for the rest since most of them aren't properly managed the high rate of spam is the major threat they pose to the community.

[JeromeTash]

I think it's not just only high paying campaigns. Even less paying campaign pose a threat. Take an example of stake.com. They were encouraging people to spam the hell out of the forum at the beginning. Since they had no post limit, they were encouraging users to spam so as to get more pay since their pay per post was so low.

Higher paying campaigns usually get more attention from very many members around the forum including reputable members so if anything goes wrong, they would definitely be on the spotlight for a long time.
So to me I think it's just depends on how the service that is being advertised handles a crisis in case any comes up. Take an example of livecoin, what happened could have been easily resolved.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Yeah, I think this might be a simple case of observation bias. The higher paying campaigns generally enrol the highest quality posters, therefore getting the highest quality advertising and becoming the most noticeable. By enrolling the highest quality posters, this also often includes several DT1 or DT2 members. Therefore, if they turn out to be a scam or otherwise shady, they generate the most drama, the most discussion, and the most arguments, around not only themselves (because they have been widely noticed), but also around the users who were advertising for them, as has been the case in LiveCoin.

There are literally thousands of altcoin/ICO/IEO/STO/etc. campaigns which turn out to be scams, but because they largely enrol junior members whose posts are only seen by other junior members, no one starts a conversation when they do scam, and all these junior members just move on to the next one.

High paying campaigns which are going to scam in the future are a threat because they have better advertising, sure, but the simple fact that they are high paying doesn't make them more likely to be a scam.

[Patatas]

I'm not against high-paying campaigns, seriously but history has witnessed something different, something that tasted bitter in the end. Let's begin here:

Not bragging about, but I'm really glad as well as proud to be a part of one of the highest paying campaigns - Chipmixer as they've got no issues or scam accusations against them till date.

Hypocritical much?

You've based your decision by taking only a few selective occurrences into consideration. There were other high paying campaigns which operated smoothly and still continue to do so. As long as ChipMixer is concerned, I wouldn't be surprised if they disappear tomorrow considering the massive takedown of illegal bitcoin-related operations.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Yobit's campaign is definitely a menace to the forum, but I don't think the rate of pay is what accounts for the harm of any of them.  Consider the Chipmixer campaign.  DarkStar_ manages that campaign with an iron fist as far as who he accepts into it, and you're more likely to get rejected from it than accepted.  Post quality and forum reputation count for a lot as far as who gets into it.

If all campaigns were run like Chipmixer's, there wouldn't be a problem with shitposting.  In fact, there probably wouldn't be enough members to fill all the slots across the board.  And props to Yahoo62278 for managing his campaigns well, too.  I've certainly seen some stinkers in some of them, but for the most part he keeps tabs on post quality.

I think it's not just only high paying campaigns. Even less paying campaign pose a threat.

Yes, definitely.  Stake is one example, but all of those crappy-ass altcoin/token-paying bounties that sometimes end up screwing their participants over in the end are also a "threat" to bitcointalk.  There are a lot of desperate and poor members here who will take whatever they can get, and often they're the ones who try to post in languages they don't know and fill the forum full of spam.  It really has little to do with the payment rate.

[buwaytress]

Yeah, I think this might be a simple case of observation bias. The higher paying campaigns generally enrol the highest quality posters, therefore getting the highest quality advertising and becoming the most noticeable. By enrolling the highest quality posters, this also often includes several DT1 or DT2 members. Therefore, if they turn out to be a scam or otherwise shady, they generate the most drama, the most discussion, and the most arguments, around not only themselves (because they have been widely noticed), but also around the users who were advertising for them, as has been the case in LiveCoin.

Great point, oeleo, and I hope those of us fortunate enough for the privilege to participate in these high-paying campaigns also recognise the privilege.

I think threats are all equal in terms of reputational risk and risk of fraudulent service, etc. It doesn't look at payment amounts, and I daresay (without actually looking) that the vast majority of scams are buried in Altcoin threads... but as you say, the ones with the highest profiles are because of their high-profile participants.

[Findingnemo]

High paying campaigns are not the real threat but the intention of why they were paying high rewards matters.If campaign chooses to reward the high quality poster then its nothing wrong but most campaigns on OP looking for quantity over quality that is why they had ban name over the community.

[aioc]

I think it's not just only high paying campaigns. Even less paying campaign pose a threat. Take an example of stake.com. They were encouraging people to spam the hell out of the forum at the beginning. Since they had no post limit, they were encouraging users to spam so as to get more pay since their pay per post was so low.

Higher paying campaigns usually get more attention from very many members around the forum including reputable members so if anything goes wrong, they would definitely be on the spotlight for a long time.
So to me I think it's just depends on how the service that is being advertised handles a crisis in case any comes up. Take an example of livecoin, what happened could have been easily resolved.

I agree that not all high paying campaign is a threat to the community, Stake.com is a big example of one low paying campaign that contributed to a lot of spam here, I stumble one thread where all I've seen are stake.com signature, they are full of them and most of them are not contributing at all, they are making the thread redundant.

[Findingnemo]

I think it's not just only high paying campaigns. Even less paying campaign pose a threat. Take an example of stake.com. They were encouraging people to spam the hell out of the forum at the beginning. Since they had no post limit, they were encouraging users to spam so as to get more pay since their pay per post was so low.

Higher paying campaigns usually get more attention from very many members around the forum including reputable members so if anything goes wrong, they would definitely be on the spotlight for a long time.
So to me I think it's just depends on how the service that is being advertised handles a crisis in case any comes up. Take an example of livecoin, what happened could have been easily resolved.

I agree that not all high paying campaign is a threat to the community, Stake.com is a big example of one low paying campaign that contributed to a lot of spam here, I stumble one thread where all I've seen are stake.com signature, they are full of them and most of them are not contributing at all, they are making the thread redundant.

It also happened because of their rules which forces people to post on the threads and section just for the sake of getting bonus.So manager also plays a role on setting what are the bonus boards.Giving freedom to post will reduce useless comments as well.

[examplens]

I think the weirdest campaign is ⭐ICOForums.net | Signature Campaign | ETH Weekly Payment⭐
A lot of participants and they have a solid payment(ETH) rate, at the time when there were very few opened campaigns.

Code:

Jr. Member = $10 Per week.
Member = $20 Per week.
Full Member = $40 Per week.
Senior Member = $80 Per week.
Hero/Legendary = $140 Per week

But after the signature campaign, website/forum turned off

[Findingnemo]

I think the weirdest campaign is ⭐ICOForums.net | Signature Campaign | ETH Weekly Payment⭐
A lot of participants and they have a solid payment(ETH) rate, at the time when there were very few opened campaigns.

Code:

Jr. Member = $10 Per week.
Member = $20 Per week.
Full Member = $40 Per week.
Senior Member = $80 Per week.
Hero/Legendary = $140 Per week

But after the signature campaign, website/forum turned off

Even remember that the admin of the website hired a scammer and he ran off with some ethereum, SO it just happened due to the wrong guidance about the signature campaign to the outside community.

[coolcoinz]

You've answered your question at the bottom of your post, OP. Since your campaign is also a high-paying one and at the same time fair and mostly clean of spam (mostly because there were people removed from it for spamming) there's no direct correlation between payment and damage to the community. It's all about how the campaign is being run, who is running it, etc. You can have a low paying campaign with no rules, run by a scammer and some damage will be done. People these days will work for a few shitcoins kept in manager's private address, so you don't really have to promise them $100 per week to make it work.

[bitcoindusts]

I would say high paying campaigns pose a threat to their participants and not exactly to the community. It endangers bounty participants since to be paid per post is becoming a bait for moderators to impose penalty on participants for spamming the forum. Who doesn’t want to be paid more? No one so everyone is trying to get as much as they can without minding what they are posting and at the end they are the ones being hooked by moderators.

[LTU_btc]

I don't see any relation between high paying campaigns and possible threats to community. If you want, you easily can find good and bad examples between both high and low paying campaigns. One of your examples - Yobit wasn't even high paying campaign. In 2015 when they started and Bitcoin was below $500 it was average paying campaign. They just never changed their rates until this year. Another example is Stake.com campaign. It was one of the lowest and one of the worst signature campaigns on Bitcointalk recently. So, I think that payments rates isn't main thing. Management and what kind of website/service is advertised is most important thing.