[Doubt the possibility of a scam] BestChange Bounty and Signature Campaign.

[TMAN]

They refused to use escrow so they are untrustworthy. There is no two ways about it, why should we trust them and let them have the opportunity to not pay? What on earth gives them immediate credibility here?

Nothing at all wrong with us requesting they use escrow, more importantly why are they not willing to use escrow?

[efialtis]

They refused to use escrow so they are untrustworthy. There is no two ways about it, why should we trust them and let them have the opportunity to not pay? What on earth gives them immediate credibility here?

Nothing at all wrong with us requesting they use escrow, more importantly why are they not willing to use escrow?

Fine - thats your opinion - no need to get personal though when someone disagrees, dont you think? Why should they pay someone when they have in-house staff to be in charge of it? Just one possible explanation why they would not use an "external" manager and/or escrow. Oh and if it was my business - and if I was big - I would also be laughing about people asking to send money to some random external "escrow"... Not willing to use escrow is by no means untrustworthy.

Regarding "let them have opportunity not to pay": Thats about the only part I am kind of "splitted" because I am personally always pissed when thinking about the thousands of scam shitcoin projects posting their bounties here and all those victims promoting them - on the other side, most of them are spammers anyway but ok.... I really just cant compare this case with those though.

[DireWolfM14]

Meh,
I'm ambivalent about this particular drama.  Not using escrow is a "red flag," so I would expect some users to red-tag the account; that doesn't surprise me at all.  It's a decentralized trust system for a reason.  Some people are more concerned about some things than others, and that's why it's designed to work the way it does.

This particular business doesn't scare me the same way other non-escrow sig campaigns have in the past, so I personally don't feel the need tag the account.  But at the same time I don't see any reason to get worked up about others tagging the account.  It's just a tag, which should be taken for what it's worth no matter who left it, green, red, DT, or otherwise.  The other thing to keep in mind is that tags aren't permanent, they can be removed or replaced.  If the campaign doesn't pay you can rest assured I'll be there to red-tag them.  On the other hand, I doubt the current red-tags will remain once they pay the participants.

[efialtis]

Meh,
I'm ambivalent about this particular drama.  Not using escrow is a red-flag, so I would expect some users to red-tag the account; that doesn't surprise me at all.  It's a decentralized trust system for a reason.  Some people are more concerned about some things than others, and that's why it's designed to work the way it does.

This particular business doesn't scare me the same way other non-escrow sig campaigns have in the past, so I personally don't feel the need tag the account.  But at the same time I don't see any reason to get worked up about others tagging the account.  It's just a tag, which should be taken for what it's worth no matter who left it, green, red, DT, or otherwise.  The other thing to keep in mind is that tags aren't permanent, they can be removed or replaced.  If the campaign doesn't pay you can rest assured I'll be there to red-tag them.  On the other hand, I doubt the current red-tags will remain once they pay the participants.

The way you expressed this I am totally fine with - the way some people are being "attacked" I am not. And as mentioned before, I am one of these who really dont feel the need to tag in this case. Plus to me not using an escrow does not necessarily need a red tag. My post really was more directed to the "attacking" of royse and that really pissed me off, sort of...

Edit: Of course anyone can use flags, tag accounts etc - I couldnt care less and yeah, thats the system and I actually like it...

[YOSHIE]

Meh,
I'm ambivalent about this particular drama.  Not using escrow is a "red flag," so I would expect some users to red-tag the account; that doesn't surprise me at all.  It's a decentralized trust system for a reason.  Some people are more concerned about some things than others, and that's why it's designed to work the way it does.

I have a similar opinion, dangerous.
Everyone has their opinions, basically like @TMAN said (prevention is better than cure).
I did not sentence them not to pay campaign participants, on the contrary the pay was very high.

escrow, the right solution for this problem, given the allegations and complaints against their business (BestChange), more and more.

for payment Campaign participants are paid from their company, so what if their company experiences accusation after accusation, safe or not.

Additional proof:

Registrant Organization: Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)
Registrant State/Province: MA
Registrant Country: US

http://whois.domaintools.com/ecurrencyexchange.info

https://www.bestchange.com/e-currencytrade-exchanger.html ( There are many complaints )

Why did you use a very strange website like that?

Additional evidence;







For that we will see later, the development of his campaign.

[Lauda]

Are you guys actually being serious? While I am really a person to support ANY possible scam attempt, that scam accusation is a complete joke and actually a desaster - sorry but thats my 2 cents even though I am still a very newbie in this forum.

You clearly have zero experience dealing with these matters, and as such your opinion on them is essentially worthless. Sig. spam I presume.  
This is not only proper use of the current, more lenient trust system, it is also proper use of the previous trust system. Therefore, stop wasting everyone's time.

[The Cryptovator]

Why should they pay someone when they have in-house staff to be in charge of it? Just one possible explanation why they would not use an "external" manager and/or escrow. Oh and if it was my business - and if I was big - I would also be laughing about people asking to send money to some random external "escrow"... Not willing to use escrow is by no means untrustworthy.

Escrow isn't not required for manage campaign if there is well established user or brand. I know there is no such as forum rules, and that's why DT system were implemented to protect forum user. Protect means save before happen something, I know everyone is mature whoever joined on their campaign. But sometimes people can't take right decision generally that's why we are talking about escrow. You might say they are well established, yea most likely, but out of forum. I didn't noticed them on forum before seen their forum ads, so for me they are not well established on the forum. I don't care if a company have multi million capital if they they are not well established on forum. You are talking about escrow fee, who are paying approx 1BTC then small fees doesn't matter for them. I believe if you want advertise your platform anywhere else they will ask payment first. The only signature campaign work due payment.

For all, red tag is just temporary warning and I am agree with it, I just express my opinion. If they release first week payment hope DT members will removed their feedback's as well. If not, then likely anyone able to counter. Since this tag isn't preventing participants to participate on their signature so nothing wrong with it. No one tagging participants for escrow reason. But for sure everyone khow very well about risk now due to red tag.

If someone is thinking TMAN forcing to Royse then most likely they are wrong. If Royse free to leave feedback or counter feedback's so why TMAN isn't free to exclude him? It's his trust list he can do whatever he like. And anyone could call other DT to distrust someone if anyone from DT do something stupid. So all DT together could exclude or include, if other DT think that Royse didn't something stupid then they will not exclude him, that's how work current trust system. If Royse is legit obviously other DT will not exclude him. Royse just excluded from TMAN trust list, no one tag him or force something for that. So nothing wrong with it. So many users distrusted me, but I can't blame them. Its means they do not trust my judgment, that's all. It doesn't mean they are forcing me somehow.

[stompix]

Are you guys actually being serious? While I am really a person to support ANY possible scam attempt, that scam accusation is a complete joke and actually a desaster - sorry but thats my 2 cents even though I am still a very newbie in this forum.

Am I the only one reading this wrong?

On the other hand, I don't understand the scam accusation mentioned in the first post, they are an index of exchanges comparing the rates, the same way asicminervalue is an index of mining gear sellers. This way Google is the biggest scam of all (which is quite a bit true  but I hope you get my point)

Proof:

Bestexchange has nothing to do as it acts just like a directory. I have checked the transaction id they sent, it really does not exist. Would suggest to open a scam accusation thread and inform shapeshift, hopefully they will not like the idea of being exposed publicly and resolve the issue.

This is proof? , Common yoshie.....

But this aside, they refuse to use an escrow, anyone can tag them if they see fit, and anyone can open a flag accusation, that's the purpose of the first flag.

They refused to use escrow so they are untrustworthy.

Did they say that though PM? I can't find anything in their post history.
If they did, then $#^% them!

[bitmover]

Are you guys actually being serious? While I am really a person to support ANY possible scam attempt, that scam accusation is a complete joke and actually a desaster - sorry but thats my 2 cents even though I am still a very newbie in this forum.

I can see you are very newbie then  

From the Trust Summary Page:

Code:

    Positive - You think that this person is unlikely to scam anyone.
    Neutral - Other comments.
    Negative - You think that trading with this person is high-risk. 

He is just saying that trading with this person is high-risk of losing money. He is correct, because they refuse to escrow, and that doesn't make any sense.

If they are willing to pay, why can't they pay upfront to a trusted escrow as they have no reputation? Actually, they have a BAD reputation.
Something "right" is clearly wrong here. If they want to advertise here, that is not the proper way.

If they are refusing to use escrow, there are 2 options:
1 - they are scammers and will never pay
2 - they are newbies, and newbies don't know what they are doing, so you may still not receive your money.

They refused to use escrow so they are untrustworthy. There is no two ways about it, why should we trust them and let them have the opportunity to not pay? What on earth gives them immediate credibility here?

Nothing at all wrong with us requesting they use escrow, more importantly why are they not willing to use escrow?

Why should they pay someone when they have in-house staff to be in charge of it?

Because I don't trust their in-house staff, I don't trust their house, I don't trust their staff, and I don't care about them. I don't want to trust them, I don't want to care about them, and I don't give a shit about them. I just want my money trusting the fewer people as possible. I know I need to trust someone, so I prefer to trust a trusted escrow than to trust an unknown exchange. This is how things works here.

[AB de Royse777]

Many do not seem to.

And you can not tell them wrong.

This is how things works here.

And it's not necessarily need to be right always. They PMed me and said they want to manage their campaign by themselves and I see nothing wrong there.

Am I the only one reading this wrong?

I did too but I ignored as I got the essence that he wanted to say. I am sure he missed a negative word there to add with the sentence, we all do this kind of mistakes :-P

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Just trying to air out my opinion here:

I think it's too unfair to leave them the red tags. Yes they have refused to use a trusted escrow around but it's probably because they just want it that way. They have been in business for a good period of time and coming out now to advertise themselves for at-least a week and fail to pay folks would totally be a stupid move for them.

If they have refused to use escrow then avoid joining their campaign rather than tag them for now until they have actually scammed someone. Those who have joined the campaign probably know the risk already.

Let's not leave an unfriendly and toxic environment for new chaps who are trying to advertise their services here where we have to dictate how they should use their money or else they get negative feedback.

[johhnyUA]

They PMed me and said they want to manage their campaign by themselves and I see nothing wrong there.

Of course they want to manage their campaign by themselves without escrow service. But what doest that means in normal language?
That means that they want to have opportunity to fool all their workers without any consequences. I see such kind of action a lot of time in 2017. Too many times, specially, from russian teams. They loved to change rules in the end of the campaign, or change reward and bounty pool or change anything they fucking want!

With full control of funds it's easy to do that. At any moment in fact. With some funds holding by forum escrow it will be hard to do. You deposit for example month budget to escrow wallet, and from now at least for this month you can't fool or change rules, because there still a chance that your funds will be lost to you.

So yep, many cunning guys don't like to use escrow. They maybe don't even want to fool you today. But without escrow, a guarantee
 that you will get your money for finished work, there still a chance that they will fool you tomorrow.

[YOSHIE]

~✓✓~

johhnyUA, what you say is not in doubt.
Now they have started working under the pretext of a PM.
One by one the campaign rules began to change.

Initial rule:

For the record we will not count posts in games and rounds section, Archival, off topic, politics and society. Posts in these threads and boards where the Signature is not displayed will not be counted as eligible.

http://archive.is/HnptG

Current rules:

Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217201.msg53614261#msg53614261

We have received several PMs and would like to bring Signature campaign participants to the updated conditon:

The posts in Local board will not be counted for this campaign.

Its target audience is English speaking users.

Thank you!

http://archive.is/wip/L1YBE

I still see the development where this campaign brings its participants.

[TMAN]

Why all the love for this site? They have 0 rep and the payment offer is far above the norm for non established campaigns, as I have said numerous times my tag is not set in stone and of payments are made then I will remove mine.

This isn’t toxic behaviour this is us protecting the community, if I am wrong then no harm done as tag will be removed, if I am right then more tags and flags will come down. Really struggling to see the issue here

[webtricks]

I have suggestion for ya all. Why not keep calm and let this thread rest in peace for a week. Let's come back on Wednesday next week and start this brainstorming session once again. Until then, there is no point discussing same point again and again.

Bestchange's profile already have 2 negative trusts which is enough to alert anyone joining the campaign for now. Other than that no one cares whether anyone posting in this thread support/oppose giving red trust as warning or consider Bestchange trustworthy or not. 

[muratsink]

I have suggestion for ya all. Why not keep calm and let this thread rest in peace for a week. Let's come back on Wednesday next week and start this brainstorming session once again. Until then, there is no point discussing same point again and again.

Bestchange's profile already have 2 negative trusts which is enough to alert anyone joining the campaign for now. Other than that no one cares whether anyone posting in this thread support/oppose giving red trust as warning or consider Bestchange trustworthy or not.  

Maybe OP not accepted in Bestchange signature campaign where become most higher payment from other signature weekly by bitcoin, why not give one week before making discussion about scam or not with bestchange site, the OP look beginner in online world because he don't know about Bestchange, I have participated in this website last three years ago where giving reward for new participants.

[2double0]

They refused to use escrow so they are untrustworthy. There is no two ways about it, why should we trust them and let them have the opportunity to not pay? What on earth gives them immediate credibility here?

Nothing at all wrong with us requesting they use escrow, more importantly why are they not willing to use escrow?

15 * $90 = $1350
15 * $70 = $1050
15 * $45 = $675
15 * $30 = $450

Sums it up to $3525, around BTC0.42 at its current price and this is for the signature campaign alone. So, a big potential scam is underway to get a lot of 'free advertising' here with no reputed name adjoined. I guess the reason behind is the greed of each user who enrolled themselves in the project without any trustworthy user being behind this project. Let the time come, if they pay, it's for their own good and if not, well that's surely like hammering a rod on your head for the users enrolled with them. The reason here looks the pay rates which are probably higher than some campaigns here and the lack of new signature campaigns has given rise to these newcoming people being trusted without complete research about them and their project. For some of you asking to wait for a week, what will happen if this project comes out to be a scam with the owner not paying anything after a week? Are enrolled users ready to take red tags and flags for advertising it?

[LTU_btc]

You might say they are well established, yea most likely, but out of forum. I didn't noticed them on forum before seen their forum ads, so for me they are not well established on the forum. I don't care if a company have multi million capital if they they are not well established on forum.

Does it really matters? Do they need high ranked account with positive trust to start campaign without escrow? I would understand if it would be new, not well known company. But c'mon, Bestchange is old established company with good reputation, I don't see any reasons why they would need to hire escrow when they can make payments themselves. And it's obviously not about escrow service fee which they would have to pay. Do you really think that they are going to damage their reputation to get some  free advertising? It just doesn't make sense. What if huge company like Binance would start their campaign without escow, would you complain about it too.
I understand that you want to protect people from possible scams, and I obviously support it when there is real risk. But sometimes some of you go too far like in this case.

[2double0]

Does it really matters? Do they need high ranked account with positive trust to start campaign without escrow? I would understand if it would be new, not well known company. But c'mon, Bestchange is old established company with good reputation, I don't see any reasons why they would need to hire escrow when they can make payments themselves. And it's obviously not about escrow service fee which they would have to pay. Do you really think that they are going to damage their reputation to get some  free advertising? It just doesn't make sense. What if huge company like Binance would start their campaign without escow, would you complain about it too.
I understand that you want to protect people from possible scams, and I obviously support it when there is real risk. But sometimes some of you go too far like in this case.

Reputation? Are you talking about a reputation they gained by paying pennies to their users by logging on their website and visiting faucets? I haven't seen a user commenting on their monitoring services but most of them were just 'too happy' that they got paid a few satoshis every 60 minutes to use their faucet on their website. Do you call it a 'reputation built'?

[LTU_btc]

Reputation? Are you talking about a reputation they gained by paying pennies to their users by logging on their website and visiting faucets? I haven't seen a user commenting on their monitoring services but most of them were just 'too happy' that they got paid a few satoshis every 60 minutes to use their faucet on their website. Do you call it a 'reputation built'?

So, you want to say that most of reviews about them are just mainly from their affiliate program users? I doubt about it. They are in business for 13 years and if it would be shady service, internet would be fool of negative reviews about it and faucet wouldn't change anything in general. If you open other forums, review websites, you'll see mainly positive comments from people who actually using this service. But probably you chose to see what do you want to see...