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

[PX-Z]

... Governments don't really like all these crypto gambling websites who don't pay taxes because they're registered somewhere in offshore country.

That would be the main reason they will categorized and ban it (in the future), because who would not like to collect money tax for government anyway, if they cannot collect and control it, then better bans it, that's how authority think always. But technically, those bans are just shallow to prevent accessing them, theres so many ways to do that in todays era. So all the government can do is cry.

[Little Mouse]

I keep wondering, what if casinos are also banned from advertising campaigns here on the forum? Who will take the space left by them? Instant-exchanges, although great candidates, appear very little or don't last that long.

Legendary members will start getting a maximum of $30/week for 25 posts. 

[Free Market Capitalist]

I keep wondering, what if casinos are also banned from advertising campaigns here on the forum? Who will take the space left by them? Instant-exchanges, although great candidates, appear very little or don't last that long.

Legendary members will start getting a maximum of $30/week for 25 posts. 

It's a matter of supply and demand. When mixer campaigns were allowed, they competed with casinos and drove prices up, so if today's major advertisers were to disappear, it stands to reason that rates would go down.

What I'm not so sure about is whether high-quality posters would spend much time on the forum to participate in campaigns for $30 a week.

[joker_josue]

I keep wondering, what if casinos are also banned from advertising campaigns here on the forum? Who will take the space left by them? Instant-exchanges, although great candidates, appear very little or don't last that long.

Legendary members will start getting a maximum of $30/week for 25 posts. 

Do you think so? Well, you have more information than I do. But, in recent years, what we've seen is that campaigns that don't involve casinos pay more than those that casinos do.

Perhaps competition could decrease (fewer advertisers), leading to lower prices. But, as a rule, campaigns run by exchanges and similar platforms tend to pay more.

But that might be a mistaken perception on my part.

[Free Market Capitalist]

Do you think so? Well, you have more information than I do. But, in recent years, what we've seen is that campaigns that don't involve casinos pay more than those that casinos do.

Perhaps competition could decrease (fewer advertisers), leading to lower prices. But, as a rule, campaigns run by exchanges and similar platforms tend to pay more.

But that might be a mistaken perception on my part.

Your campaign pays up to $125 per week, while casinos typically pay a maximum of $100. But SageSwap.io pays $60, just like CCE Cash. So, based on the current payments, I don't think we can conclude that exchanges pay more.

Furthermore, if the casino signature campaigns ban were enforced, it would probably reduce the number of campaigns from 30 to like 10 at most. It stands to reason that payments would decrease.

[JeromeTash]

What I'm not so sure about is whether high-quality posters would spend much time on the forum to participate in campaigns for $30 a week.

Most of them would certainly leave or reduce activity in the forum, like it happened a few months after the mixers were banned. I think we even had members pull up statistics showing a reduced forum activity pre- and post-mixer ban. I know they were just general figures, but those included quality posters as well.

[joker_josue]

Your campaign pays up to $125 per week, while casinos typically pay a maximum of $100. But SageSwap.io pays $60, just like CCE Cash. So, based on the current payments, I don't think we can conclude that exchanges pay more.

Furthermore, if the casino signature campaigns ban were enforced, it would probably reduce the number of campaigns from 30 to like 10 at most. It stands to reason that payments would decrease.

I was looking at a broader view in time, not just actuality.

Now, if there are fewer campaigns, the amount paid will also decrease, no doubt
We have already seen this happen when mixers were banned from the forum.

[alani123]

I think that for these exchangers to pay more it's not just about advertising but also to make a point.

"We got cold hard crypto cash, we own it, we ain't afraid to dump it on a forum. Come trade with us, you will enjoy seemingly limitless liquidity for whatever reason you want to trade that many funds without kyc

[tabas]

I think that for these exchangers to pay more it's not just about advertising but also to make a point.

"We got cold hard crypto cash, we own it, we ain't afraid to dump it on a forum. Come trade with us, you will enjoy seemingly limitless liquidity for whatever reason you want to trade that many funds without kyc

I guess that any service or specifically the exchanges, instant and not that's into crypto would like to prove that point and they have budget set for these advertisements just for that point. That's the same with the mixers before to prove that they have cash for their service. Right now, it's with the proof of capacity that the users would like to look at although running ads and campaigns is also one way to get that trust.