Icopress ' Merit Source Application 🚩

[criptoevangelista]

Even though I'm a relatively new user here on the forum (I've only been here for a few months), I always see @icopress participation as a positive contribution to the entire bitcoin talk community, which is why I support him in this candidacy and I'm absolutely certain that he will do good work, contributing and encouraging all good users to contribute even more.

[BenCodie]

I support this application.

As a campaign manager, icopress does a fantastic job in making sure advertisers get good value while participants are fairly paid. As a community member, I find it often that when I hit the "+Merit" button, icopress has done the same thing with high quality posts. I trust icopress to appropriately and responsibly use the power of being a Merit source to help reward users who are contributing impeccable quality content to the forum. Based on support and your profile icopress, I am sure it's a matter of when and not if. Good luck!

I retract this support.

Since supporting icopress, I have only noticed more and more that he is here to favor his own interests with advertisers and that the community is not truly first priority for him. It is fine to make a business from bitcointalk. If you want to do that and prioritize the business over the community however, then you do not deserve to be a merit source...

If icopress is made a merit source, you can be very sure that merit distribution will be biased and influenced by icopress' business interests. There is no way that it will not be influenced by their business interests, and it would be naive to think that icopress will take an unbiased approach to merit distribution.

There are many better members out there to support or to encourage to make an application for being a merit source over icopress.

[Poker Player]

Since supporting icopress, I have only noticed more and more that he is here to favor his own interests with advertisers and that the community is not truly first priority for him.

Do you mean that you, with your (supposed) super high IQ, do put the interests of the community first by wearing a casino advertisement in your signature, while saying this?

As for the question if gambling is unethical - it undoubtedly is. Casinos, gambling, etc have always been unethical. Why do you think some countries outright ban gambling activities? Because it's exploitative.

...

If you really think the gambling board is as ethical as other boards this forum contains, you're out of touch with basic ethics and probably lost in the casino sauce.

You're not here to give many ethics lessons yourself. I'll summarize it for you in a sentence, which is not mine:

Lol, guy that is willing to promote something that he thinks is highly unethical and exploitative for a little bit of bitcoin will teach us about ethics.  

[m2017]

It is fine to make a business from bitcointalk. If you want to do that and prioritize the business over the community however, then you do not deserve to be a merit source...

I am of the same opinion that there should be a clear distinction between the business role (bounty manager) and the merit-source (volunteer activity) to avoid conflicts of interest. In my opinion, combining the role of a company manager and a merchant will inevitably lead to abuse of power opportunity. Should clearly separate flies from cutlets / bees from honey.

I am firmly convinced that in the conditions for the appointment of a merit-source there should be a clause "a candidate for the role of a merit-source must NOT have any business-related activities".

[BenCodie]

Since supporting icopress, I have only noticed more and more that he is here to favor his own interests with advertisers and that the community is not truly first priority for him.

Do you mean that you, with your (supposed) super high IQ, do put the interests of the community first by wearing a casino advertisement in your signature, while saying this?

As for the question if gambling is unethical - it undoubtedly is. Casinos, gambling, etc have always been unethical. Why do you think some countries outright ban gambling activities? Because it's exploitative.

...

If you really think the gambling board is as ethical as other boards this forum contains, you're out of touch with basic ethics and probably lost in the casino sauce.

You're not here to give many ethics lessons yourself. I'll summarize it for you in a sentence, which is not mine:

Lol, guy that is willing to promote something that he thinks is highly unethical and exploitative for a little bit of bitcoin will teach us about ethics. 

I'm not giving ethics lessons...I'm stating the change in my opinion..

As for the rest of your post, this has already been discussed elsewhere. If you want to rehash that conversation, you can go to the relevant thread. I personally have already responded to it, the community and I have moved on...otherwise it'd still be a conversation.

I must say that I do like that the best you can do in attempt to invalidate my opinion is a set of quotes from August of 2023. That says a lot in itself. You're a very cute member and I enjoy your ongoing entertainment.

It is fine to make a business from bitcointalk. If you want to do that and prioritize the business over the community however, then you do not deserve to be a merit source...

I am of the same opinion that there should be a clear distinction between the business role (bounty manager) and the merit-source (volunteer activity) to avoid conflicts of interest. In my opinion, combining the role of a company manager and a merchant will inevitably lead to abuse of power opportunity. Should clearly separate flies from cutlets / bees from honey.

I am firmly convinced that in the conditions for the appointment of a merit-source there should be a clause "a candidate for the role of a merit-source must NOT have any business-related activities".

I 100% agree with you and I am pleased to see a fellow member sharing their honest opinion. Refreshing, and very well said. Kudos!

[fillippone]

I vouch for this application, as I think I already stated.
Also, given recent events, I guess at least a couple of (quite Heavy) merit sources have been demoted.
There might be space for a new one, and I think @icopress ticks all the boxes. 

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Also, given recent events, I guess at least a couple of (quite Heavy) merit sources have been demoted.

Don't know how far out of the loop I've been, but what events are you referring to, and who are these 'heavy' merit sources that might have been demoted?  O_e_l_e_o was one if I'm not mistaken, but he left the forum of his own accord and that wouldn't qualify as a demotion (but it would leave an open slot as far as I'm concerned).

I am firmly convinced that in the conditions for the appointment of a merit-source there should be a clause "a candidate for the role of a merit-source must NOT have any business-related activities".

Em, again....did I miss something with icopress mixing his campaign management with something he shouldn't have?  Is there any substance to the argument that he'd misuse the source sMerits he'd be allotted were he to be made a merit source? 

As far as that proposed requirement above, a lot of members have some sort of "business-related activities" and if Theymos were to assume that there would automatically be a conflict of interest, that there would be merit abuse because of those business activities, the list of merit sources would likely consist of drooling morons below Full Member rank who couldn't tell what a good post looks like.  In other words, it's not a good suggestion.  No offense.

[fillippone]

Also, given recent events, I guess at least a couple of (quite Heavy) merit sources have been demoted.

Don't know how far out of the loop I've been, but what events are you referring to, and who are these 'heavy' merit sources that might have been demoted?  O_e_l_e_o was one if I'm not mistaken, but he left the forum of his own accord and that wouldn't qualify as a demotion (but it would leave an open slot as far as I'm concerned).

Yeah, I have been referring to o_e_l_e_o. Of course he wasn’t demoted, but practically the effect is the same.
As far as I know after Ratimov also gave up his status, only a small Merit Source has been appointed (or someone had his stash improved by 200 or so)
 
The situation is the following:

Merit sources

There are 109 merit sources with a total merit generation of up to 33140 sMerit per 30 days

[m2017]

Em, again....did I miss something with icopress mixing his campaign management with something he shouldn't have?  Is there any substance to the argument that he'd misuse the source sMerits he'd be allotted were he to be made a merit source? 

I have nothing against @icopress personally and his activities as a bounty manager. It is his personal right to choose what type of activity to engage in and what projects to promote on the forum. But if my voice could influence anything, then I would vote against his (as well as any other forum member involved in bounty campaign management) candidacy for the role of merit-source while he is an active bounty manager.

As far as that proposed requirement above, a lot of members have some sort of "business-related activities" and if Theymos were to assume that there would automatically be a conflict of interest, that there would be merit abuse because of those business activities, the list of merit sources would likely consist of drooling morons below Full Member rank who couldn't tell what a good post looks like.  In other words, it's not a good suggestion.  No offense.

Not all good proposals will have a positive impact on the community, and not all bad proposals will be harmful. I’m not saying to ban any business activity (other types of activities should be discussed in a separate topic) for merit-sources, but only the role of a bounty manager. I consider the activities of a bounty manager with merit-sources unacceptable.

I don't claim to be the only correct and true opinion/suggestion, but only an honest one. I expressed what I thought about this. Some will agree with me, some will not. This is normal. The purpose of a forum is to speak out and discuss, and then on the basis of this the best solution for the community will be formed.


There is a simple and effective way to check the trustworthiness of intentions any candidate for merit-sources. If the user is ready to give up the role of bounty manager completely (at least for the period of assignment assumes the role of merit-source), then he is worthy of this role. This will demonstrate the “purity” of intentions for the period of service in the role of merit-source, for this is in a sense a volunteer activity.

[philipma1957]

Em, again....did I miss something with icopress mixing his campaign management with something he shouldn't have?  Is there any substance to the argument that he'd misuse the source sMerits he'd be allotted were he to be made a merit source? 

I have nothing against @icopress personally and his activities as a bounty manager. It is his personal right to choose what type of activity to engage in and what projects to promote on the forum. But if my voice could influence anything, then I would vote against his (as well as any other forum member involved in bounty campaign management) candidacy for the role of merit-source while he is an active bounty manager.

As far as that proposed requirement above, a lot of members have some sort of "business-related activities" and if Theymos were to assume that there would automatically be a conflict of interest, that there would be merit abuse because of those business activities, the list of merit sources would likely consist of drooling morons below Full Member rank who couldn't tell what a good post looks like.  In other words, it's not a good suggestion.  No offense.

Not all good proposals will have a positive impact on the community, and not all bad proposals will be harmful. I’m not saying to ban any business activity (other types of activities should be discussed in a separate topic) for merit-sources, but only the role of a bounty manager. I consider the activities of a bounty manager with merit-sources unacceptable.

I don't claim to be the only correct and true opinion/suggestion, but only an honest one. I expressed what I thought about this. Some will agree with me, some will not. This is normal. The purpose of a forum is to speak out and discuss, and then on the basis of this the best solution for the community will be formed.


There is a simple and effective way to check the trustworthiness of intentions any candidate for merit-sources. If the user is ready to give up the role of bounty manager completely (at least for the period of assignment assumes the role of merit-source), then he is worthy of this role. This will demonstrate the “purity” of intentions for the period of service in the role of merit-source, for this is in a sense a volunteer activity.

A campaign manager and a merit source are an inherent conflict of interest.

[Hhampuz]

Last time I checked merit records are public - so what exactly is the issue here? If a merit source were to "abuse" their power it won't take long until the community calls them out for it. Besides that, what's the worst a campaign manager could do by being a merit source? Rank up business accounts for their clients? lol.

I'm also quite confident that any manager here on average read and see more posts than any other user.

[Rikafip]

If icopress is made a merit source, you can be very sure that merit distribution will be biased and influenced by icopress' business interests. There is no way that it will not be influenced by their business interests, and it would be naive to think that icopress will take an unbiased approach to merit distribution.

Have you already noticed that he is distributing merit based on his business interests, or are you just assuming that if he gets merit source status, he will begin to exhibit that kind of behavior? If it's the former, could you provide some evidence?

By the way, he wouldn't be the first bounty manager with merit source status anyway.

[CLS63]

Icopress has been a member who has been making valuable contributions to the forum for a long time. Along with his being a campaign manager he is making a big contribution to gambling board as well. For this reason I'm supporting Icopress' application.

[paid2]

A campaign manager and a merit source are an inherent conflict of interest.

Not more than any campaign participant if we follow this logic... Any source could merit bomb a manager in exchange of a good campaign position/payrate.

If someone is trustable and own all required qualities to be source,  manager or not is not important IMO. A positive thing with a manager is that we know he won't risk his reputation/business here for some merits donations

[decodx]

A campaign manager and a merit source are an inherent conflict of interest.

I disagree. In fact, the campaign manager works under considerable scrutiny, making them less likely to abuse merit source status. Besides, campaign managers can decide freely who they want to accept in the campaigns, with or without merit requirements.

[arabspaceship123]

If ppl didn't say names I wouldn't know they're talking bad about icopress because he's really a good guy who's helped users. He gave me a chance to join UniJoin's sig campaign. I haven't been in sig campaigns after Jan 1st mixers ban because UniJoin moved out but I didn't see 1 complain against icopress or Unijoin in their services topics.

They're posts are lamentable because they don't like icopress so they'll accuse him of lies just because he's asked for merit source.

He's a good guy so I don't believe ppl saying icopress shouldn't be merit source. I don't believe them when they're saying his own interests with advertisers his mean more to him. He's more helpful in bitcointalk forum than small group of users lying about him in this topic.

[avp2306]

A campaign manager and a merit source are an inherent conflict of interest.

If being a merit source plus being a manager will be a conflict of interest then how much more for being a DT 2/1 and manager? Maybe there will be a conflict of interest if the person is a doing crazy business here.

I think its fine as long as the person acquire that will do his job with no biases or bad intention.

[SamReomo]

I believe, he is already doing this, he follows a lot of users, especially those, who are members of the signature campaigns he manages. But of course with the opportunities if a merit course he would be able to do more, appreciate more quality users and motivate them to to their best here in the forum. I think he has a decent understanding of who deserves merits. And this is exactly the quality that the merit source needs.

Yes, he's a quite good and active guy who gives enough time to this forum and read some good posts of the members that are part of signature campaigns that he manages, not only those members but all the members who make good posts are noticed by him. I think he highly deserves to be a merit source and I believe that once he becomes a merit source, he'll fulfill his responsibilities in the best way possible. i fully support his application and I believe Theymos should also consider his application.

If icopress is made a merit source, you can be very sure that merit distribution will be biased and influenced by icopress' business interests. There is no way that it will not be influenced by their business interests, and it would be naive to think that icopress will take an unbiased approach to merit distribution.

What a way to change your statement from favor of an application to against that application. I don't know what lead you to think that Icopress is no longer fit for a merit source position because to me it seems more like a personal issue rather than a genuine one. As far as I know, Icopress mostly give merits to the good posts only and he's not someone who would favor the ones who are in his best interest.

As a campaign manager he has the right to favor advertisers and deal with them professionally but that doesn't mean that after becoming a merit source he may send merits to the advertisers only so he can please them for his own best interests. That's a totally false statement against a reputed member like Icopress. I highly disagree with you in that regard and I believe that majority of the members will also disagree with you.

[Poker Player]

I must say that I do like that the best you can do in attempt to invalidate my opinion is a set of quotes from August of 2023.

You were a hypocrite who is not to give moral lessons in August 2023, and you are still a hypocrite now, because nothing has happened since then to think that you have stopped being a hypocrite, on the contrary.

I am of the same opinion that there should be a clear distinction between the business role (bounty manager) and the merit-source (volunteer activity) to avoid conflicts of interest.

A campaign manager and a merit source are an inherent conflict of interest.

This is interesting and I agree in principle if we add the word potentially: A campaign manager and a merit source are potentially a conflict of interest. Maybe if I were theymos I would think about not giving merit source status to any campaign manager for this very reason. Now, if this is not the case, as Hhampuz says the merit records sent are public and if there was a misuse some people would immediately complain about it in the Reputation section.

In fact, to me the strongest proof that icopress will not misuse merits if given merit source status is that he earns merits at 5 times his activity and does not misuse them now.

[OgNasty]

Last time I checked merit records are public - so what exactly is the issue here? If a merit source were to "abuse" their power it won't take long until the community calls them out for it. Besides that, what's the worst a campaign manager could do by being a merit source? Rank up business accounts for their clients? lol.

I'm also quite confident that any manager here on average read and see more posts than any other user.

It isn't really exclusive to campaign managers but if you've been watching what's going on here over the last few years you'd see that some people took their merit source status and used it to get their subordinates or people who agree with their politics into the default trust network.  They then use their influence to have those who don't agree with their opinions excluded.  This has led to the default trust network becoming nearly useless for real world activity and actually trusting people on this forum with money as I believe it was meant for.