📝[Discussion topic] Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns📝

[snipie]

This is the unofficial discussion topic for "Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns"

Original topic by Mitchell (updates only): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.0

As you all know Mitchell topic is dedicated only for updating the table and local rules prohibit discussion.

Code:

Discussion about campaigns are strictly forbidden (unless it's really relevant, which in 99% of the cases, it isn't).

However, sometimes there is grey zone where discussion should occur to alert from possible scam running campaigns, protesting on low payments campaigns or some (hidden) rules imposed by other ones (KYC) and so on...

In order to keep this topic as clean and useful as possible, I call everyone to follow this form when starting a discussion (just an example, can be changed if anyone has better opinion):

Signature campaign name:
Overview topic link:
Signature campaign link:
Problem (title):
Problem (discussion):

Obviously responses to the started discussion doesn't require to repeat this form, only a quote (of signature campaign name) followed by the answer should be more than enough.

[icopress]

So, my 3 cents ..

[1] Regardless of whether my data ends up in the hands of a manager or a sponsor of a sig campaign - KYC shit^'
[2] In order not to be moved to the "Service (Altcoins)" section, the campaign must pay at least 50% of the reward in BTC^'
[3] For a campaign to be eligible to enter the register, the payment must be at least the average^'
[4] I am not impressed by statements like "what the fuck is the difference that a campaign pays 5 bucks if it pays in bitcoins" ^{[see point 3]}

[bitmover]

As you all know Mitchell topic is dedicated only for updating the table and local rules prohibit discussion.

Code:

Discussion about campaigns are strictly forbidden (unless it's really relevant, which in 99% of the cases, it isn't).

However, sometimes there is grey zone where discussion should occur to alert from possible scam running campaigns, protesting on low payments campaigns or some (hidden) rules imposed by other ones (KYC) and so on...

Good idea. I will follow the discussion here then:



Adding campaign details:

Campaign: Kardiachain Signature Campaign | Accesible Blockchain for Millions
Manager : Coin_trader
Who can participate : Sr.Member (5), Hero/Legendary (10), total 15 slots.
Payment : Sr.Member - 20$/week, Hero/Legendary - 40$/week, payment is made to your Binance Pay account.
Rules:At least 20 posts per week, at least 5 posts in Altcoin boards, at least 3 merit in 120 days.
Posts are not counted in: Off-Topic, Games & Rounds, Bounty/Signature threads and threads in which the signature is not visible.

On this campaign they are also not require any KYC directly. But the site or payment method they will use to send the payment require kyc as binance, bitsler and many more sites require KYC to make higher transaction on their website. So, I do not think they are doing something different than this.

Well, you are basically saying that you can participate the campaign without doing any KYC. But if you want to get paid, you need to do KYC. Lol

this is different from past campaigns i have seen...

[examplens]

Adding campaign details:

Campaign: Kardiachain Signature Campaign | Accesible Blockchain for Millions
Manager : Coin_trader
Who can participate : Sr.Member (5), Hero/Legendary (10), total 15 slots.
Payment : Sr.Member - 20$/week, Hero/Legendary - 40$/week, payment is made to your Binance Pay account.
Rules:At least 20 posts per week, at least 5 posts in Altcoin boards, at least 3 merit in 120 days.
Posts are not counted in: Off-Topic, Games & Rounds, Bounty/Signature threads and threads in which the signature is not visible.

Well, you are basically saying that you can participate the campaign without doing any KYC. But if you want to get paid, you need to do KYC. Lol

this is different from past campaigns i have seen...

I am not sure why the manager here complicated. Okay, he holds funds on Binance and maybe this is a method with a small fee, but as I know it's possible to have an account there without passing KYC and internal transaction are also free of charge fees.
So, Binance + internal transfer can be possible without fee and without KYC.

yet if we consider the very low payment rate, I guess the campaign owner doesn’t care much about the participants and the quality of the campaign itself.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

Campaign: Kardiachain Signature Campaign | Accesible Blockchain for Millions
Manager : Coin_trader
Who can participate : Sr.Member (5), Hero/Legendary (10), total 15 slots.
Payment : Sr.Member - 20$/week, Hero/Legendary - 40$/week, payment is made to your Binance Pay account.
Rules:At least 20 posts per week, at least 5 posts in Altcoin boards, at least 3 merit in 120 days.
Posts are not counted in: Off-Topic, Games & Rounds, Bounty/Signature threads and threads in which the signature is not visible.

On this campaign they are also not require any KYC directly. But the site or payment method they will use to send the payment require kyc as binance, bitsler and many more sites require KYC to make higher transaction on their website. So, I do not think they are doing something different than this.

Well, you are basically saying that you can participate the campaign without doing any KYC. But if you want to get paid, you need to do KYC. Lol

this is different from past campaigns i have seen...

As far as I remember too, I don't think campaigns where users received their rewards through gambling site accounts like Bitsler, Bustadice, Fortunejack or windice required the users to undergo KYC verification before cashing out, whereas for Binance Pay, it's going to be a must.

Maybe someone who participated in one of those past campaigns can confirm.

I also don't understand why they don't just deposit the rewards in the Binance accounts? it's just Bitcoin.
If they were aiming at promoting Binance Pay, then don't think anyone participating is just going to spend the rewards using Binance Pay anyway.

[Potato Chips]

Update for the kardiachain campaign

The Management decided to change the payment method to Bitcoin wallet after a series of discussion with me.

Another suggestion is maybe @Mitchell can link this thread in the MAIN (1st post in overview of sig camps) so it won't be easier to miss?

[AB de Royse777]

Now it's better. It was getting super annoying lately to see discussion on the other thread until this was posted by OP https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.msg57231606#msg57231606

I was reading about 1xbit and Kardiachain campaign to have KYC there.

I totally agree with you ralle14. I can understand the relectunace to add 1xbit, but we have the red asterik exactly for that reason. The whole point of this topic has always been to link all Bitcoin paying campaigns. In the end, it's up to the person to decide if they want to join or not. Not listing them won't prevent users from finding them (especially not now, since people have mentioned them in this topic).

Thank you for bringing up the situation though, that is very much appreciated and should warn people (at least to some extend).

1xbit knows we have limited tools and knowing that they are taking the advantages of it. When we are listing their campaign, then we are giving the users a false impression that this is a legit campaign (at least for long time I used to think that whatever we have in the list are controversy free and legit to join). We all know they are proven scammers. Let's not give them much exposure by listing them on this prestigious table.

[snipie]

Update for the kardiachain campaign

The Management decided to change the payment method to Bitcoin wallet after a series of discussion with me.

That's a good thing. KYC shouldn't be enforced in signature campaign payments even indirectly

Another suggestion is maybe @Mitchell can link this thread in the MAIN (1st post in overview of sig camps) so it won't be easier to miss?

Yes Mitchell add a link to the main topic. Thanks

1xbit knows we have limited tools and knowing that they are taking the advantages of it. When we are listing their campaign, then we are giving the users a false impression that this is a legit campaign (at least for long time I used to think that whatever we have in the list are controversy free and legit to join). We all know they are proven scammers. Let's not give them much exposure by listing them on this prestigious table.

I agree with you. I don't want to see them in the table but Mitchell and ralle14 expressed their point of view which I respect. The red asterisk should give a warning to users although I find it confusing since signature campaign with payments delay for example could have the same asterisk.
I don't know if it worth modify the red asterisk to

* means scam accusations against the campaign. Participants could receive negative red trusts for promoting it.
* means that the campaign is currently having some trouble. Joining is not recommended.

Otherwise, this topic, in addition to scam accusations, reputation and meta subs should point them and participants will learn it the hard way, unfortunately for some of them.

[Potato Chips]

I'd say, we should step up the precautionary measures

like
1. Adding a warning emoji (⚠️) alongside the red asterisk
2. The "having some trouble" could also be seen as something light, maybe we could add "/involved with scam accusations" or something
3. huge caution note on top that nothing is endorsed and users are advised to DYOR

At this point there's no way to actually miss it, and if someone still went their way despite the warning signs, then they did it deliberately, and ppl like that are out of our control...

[LTU_btc]

I think it's good idea to open discussion topic and keep Overview thread for updates only.
About KYC to get payment from campaign - personally I would never joing signature campaign which would require KYC in order to get paid. But if some people are fine with such rules, then it's OK. I saw that some people are ready to sell their sensitive private data for much less money. But it's good to read kardiachain campaign decided to change rules for payment after getting negative opinion from community.

[ChuckBuck]

oh, just in time, by the way, since this topic is open here, I would like to discuss a little bit about 1xbit.com's campaign. What do you think about the people who participated in the promotion for 1xbit? At first I saw that they offered too high payout, I thought they would scam into not making payment. But apparently, 3 weeks on, it seems the payments are still being made. However, it is bad to advertise a scam platform, so do people who participate in advertising receive negative feedback?

[icopress]

[...]

I didn't go into details, but I think it's pretty obvious that 1xbit.com is a campaign for the outcast. Who knows, maybe 1xbit.com has a new owner, maybe they even would like to settle all past disputes, but apparently the material costs of these disputes seem more costly to them than throwing a few thousand marketing dollars into the trash every week, (considering the flags and the fact that all campaign participants have red tags). As for the red tags, I noticed that everyone I saw under the auspices of 1xbit.com received their red tags even before applying for this campaign.

[ralle14]

oh, just in time, by the way, since this topic is open here, I would like to discuss a little bit about 1xbit.com's campaign. What do you think about the people who participated in the promotion for 1xbit? At first I saw that they offered too high payout, I thought they would scam into not making payment. But apparently, 3 weeks on, it seems the payments are still being made. However, it is bad to advertise a scam platform, so do people who participate in advertising receive negative feedback?

I remember there's a couple of users that received negative feedback for the first time after joining the campaign. And even if they're paying out for a long time they still need to clean their reputation.

I guess it depends from one DT member to the other since not all have the same views on tagging campaign participants. One recent case I can recall that's similar to 1xbit is probably the LiveCoin campaign and here's the thread discussion on tagging applicants.

[snipie]

There is a new campaign [OPEN]BETJA Signature Campaign | Hero/Legendary only ($50 Per Week) and immediately the topic was closed. A strange situation, the manager wrote that it is possible to submit applications, but the topic is closed, and there is no explanation anywhere.

This is the first time I've seen this.  

I remember seeing a situation in the past, I might confused it with another topic but I recall it was a signature campaign also and it was a mistake where OP forgot to unlock the topic. BetJA appears to be a new service but Little Mouse is running the campaign and holding the funds. Until now I don't see red flags at least for the campaign. I will send pm to Little Mouse to inform him about this.

Edit: Thanks Royse777 for the quick answer moment before sending the pm. Case closed

[AB de Royse777]

There is a new campaign [OPEN]BETJA Signature Campaign | Hero/Legendary only ($50 Per Week) and immediately the topic was closed. A strange situation, the manager wrote that it is possible to submit applications, but the topic is closed, and there is no explanation anywhere.

This is the first time I've seen this.  

I remember seeing a situation in the past, I might confused it with another topic but I recall it was a signature campaign also and it was a mistake where OP forgot to unlock the topic. BetJA appears to be a new service but Little Mouse is running the campaign and holding the funds. Until now I don't see red flags at least for the campaign. I will send pm to Little Mouse to inform him about this.

I had a quick chat with Little Mouse earlier, and he said they are updating the sig code design. So there are no red flag and sorts of things. It's very usual in my opinion.

[bullrun2024bro]

There is a new campaign [OPEN]BETJA Signature Campaign | Hero/Legendary only ($50 Per Week) and immediately the topic was closed. A strange situation, the manager wrote that it is possible to submit applications, but the topic is closed, and there is no explanation anywhere.

This is the first time I've seen this.  

Same here. I have to admit that I was also a bit confused when I saw the thread.

I had a quick chat with Little Mouse earlier, and he said they are updating the sig code design. So there are no red flag and sorts of things. It's very usual in my opinion.

Ah, that explains it. Of course, it doesn't make a very good first impression if the thread is closed again straight away, but if the signatures don't work properly, there is no choice. It's probably because @LittleMouse has only managed a few signature campaigns before.

A small advice @LittleMouse: Just create the thread in Archival first and test everything there and then post it/move it to the appropriate section. Good luck with your bounty campaign!

[Little Mouse]

Thank you Royse.

The signature design was working fine on PC but it was looking weird on mobile which is why I had to lock the thread and contact the designer. Now, everything is fine, the campaign is live and accepting new participants.

A small advice @LittleMouse: Just create the thread in Archival first and test everything there and then post it/move it to the appropriate section. Good luck with your bounty campaign!

Thank you for the kind advice but the signature was working fine on my end as I was on PC but later, we notice it was not fine in the mobile version. And yeah, experience makes a man perfect. Thank you.

[Kakmakr]

The Changelog says "Moved Duelbits" but it is not in Mitchell's list of Signature campaigns? Can you please check the post to display the change?

These are the latest updates from Hhampuz from their Signature thread :

Round 36 Payments have been sent out!

Thank you all for yet another great week, keep it up!

We have 1x Sr. Member position open, apply now!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5280190.0

Round 37 Payments have been sent out!

Thank you all for yet another great week, keep it up!

No new positions have opened up.

Adding it here too, because it is still not added to the list.  

[ChuckBuck]

As for the red tags, I noticed that everyone I saw under the auspices of 1xbit.com received their red tags even before applying for this campaign.

It is clear that people who already have negative beliefs will not hesitate to participate in such campaigns, because they are no longer worried about what they are facing. I'm talking about the members who are completely pure and what they are about to face. And do people with negative beliefs really deserve to be paid for their spamming work?

I remember there's a couple of users that received negative feedback for the first time after joining the campaign. And even if they're paying out for a long time they still need to clean their reputation.

It's also hard to judge who is wrong in this matter. But I remember very well, when people promote Yobit, all the promoters get negative trust, so in this case perhaps the same would apply, or not? I'm curious to see how the DTs will act 

[snipie]

I remember there's a couple of users that received negative feedback for the first time after joining the campaign. And even if they're paying out for a long time they still need to clean their reputation.

It's also hard to judge who is wrong in this matter. But I remember very well, when people promote Yobit, all the promoters get negative trust, so in this case perhaps the same would apply, or not? I'm curious to see how the DTs will act 

Yobit was running in this forums for years. Although all blames about lack of management, the amount of spammers participating there, almost no action was taken until hilarious involved and somehow regulated it and locked the topic. Once Yobit started running a ponzi-like scheme, among its shady tricks, and asked members to advertise it in their signatures, DT decided finally to move and tagged people red. Obviously this led to some collateral damage and some serious posters received a negative trust.
The case of 1xbit is different since there is scam accusations against it before running the campaign twice. People were warned about the risks but many of them ignored it (since they were involved in a way or another with them for example). In that particular case, DT moved fast and tagged almost all participants red.