A paid signature is a form of trust in you. The user will click on the signature or prefer to use the service because he trusts you or sees that you provide high-quality posts, so what you ads will be a good thing.
These are the same reasons why advertising companies pay millions to Messi and Ronaldo, so you must try as much as possible to avoid advertising for scam/HYIP, or at least stop advertising for these services whenever you are certain that they are scammers.
I agree with this. Would you say the minimum requirement is that the service should be legitimate? Or more than just that?
My opinion:
The advertisement should be considered as a paid advertisement, not a personal endorsement from the wearer.
However, users should be responsible for ensuring that the signature they are wearing is not a scam.
If not personal endorsement, why encourage others to use it? Advertising is encouraging others to use it.
If it's safe to use, is that not good enough?
I think everyone wearing signatures aren't encouraging gambling and mixers generally. There is nothing generally wrong with both of them if they are currently legit, so it's fine to be paid to advertise them, as people can do what they want when it comes to using them...
Gambling is not good for health and mixers have a high rate of
eventually becoming a scam, both of these are factual. Does that mean we, as a community, are encouraging the usage of them?
I don't think so, personally, but I'd like to hopefully hear more about this topic too.
If a bitcointalk user is wearing a paid signature for a service, should readers view them as either personal endorsements from that bitcointalk user?
Yes, of course. The moment you enter the signature of a business, you become part of it. You don't have the power to make decisions, but you are certainly some kind of representative.
Interesting, so how responsible are you, for example, if they eventually scam? I think considering people are representatives adds liability that I am sure, no one wants.
If a bitcointalk user is wearing a paid signature for a service, should readers view them as either personal endorsements from that bitcointalk user?
Don't the managers select the participants by selecting the best offered? Probably because the owners want the best users to represent them.
They pick by who has contributed the most value to the forum, and the sections that the users post in. This theoretically brings the most traffic. There are probably more factors, but those two I would guess are the main factors.
I don't think users would be impressed if they found out that they are representing the business, especially if that business turns into a scam. What happens then?
If a bitcointalk user is wearing a paid signature for a service, should readers view them as either personal endorsements from that bitcointalk user?
What I think is a more interesting question, is how many users actually do any research about campaign owners before applying for a sig. campaign. It's a bit disappointing when I see a user in a well-paid campaign, who doesn't even know about ANN or has never visited the website of the service they promote.
icopress started encouraging campaign participants to test the service they are promoting
Therefore, please note that I will periodically ask you for favors, and please treat my words with understanding and seriousness, (for example, to begin with, I would like each of you to test MixTum and share your experience).
Campaign managers are good marketers. I'm sure icopress is doing that more so that the business gets more reviews, than for users to "do research" about what they're promoting. People should be doing that anyway, and you only need to read the thread and website to understand a service, you don't also have to share your experience in order to have researched it.
I would assume that users at least read the thread, website and understand the service, before they wear the signature.
I think it's not really that different between advertisement and personal endorsements?
In the end you're promoting a project and you would receive negative feedback when you wear a signature from completely scam project.
Someone who participated in signature campaign need to understand both advantages and disadvantages. It's not make sense when you're wear centralized exchange which have mandatory KYC rule, but you're saying if centralized exchange is bad.
You're free to say anything that you want, but it's not really good for the brands you're promoting.
There is a difference.
The signature I am wearing is legitimate to-date. However, I do not personally endorse people to gamble, as it is factually unhealthy. Though one you wants to use them, go ahead, conduct due diligence and gamble responsibly.
Is it wrong for me to be wearing the coins.game signature with this view?
Not to make this about me but it's the quickest example I could give you.
During my presence on the forum, I participated in two subscription campaigns. The first one was a long time ago and short-lived, but of course, I made my conclusions about the legality, and I also trusted the manager who carried it out. Today’s signature is fully understood and approved by me since I used the Best Change aggregator before I learned about Bitcoin and the forum, so I can say that for me, participation in this company is a great honor, and approval goes without saying.
I would be proud to personally endorse them too, I'm sure anyone would as they're a fair and useful service with a good business model and a reputation that is pretty much impeccable. Not all signature campaigns are this easy to personally endorse though, you are one of the lucky ones
Personally, i think it's a grey area... I think it's clear to everybody that wearing a signature for whatever product or service is an advertisement and not a (very) personal endorsement. As with any advertisement, a user should use his/her due diligence.
This being said, the person wearing the signature is responsible for putting the advertisement "out there", so if he/she is pushing an advertisement for a scam service, he remains responsible for distributing said ad (eventough it's still the enduser that should recognize an advertisement as being an advertisement, and check stuff out before he/she gets scammed).
Thank you for sharing, I appreciate this opinion.
Personally, i try to only join signature campaigns for products i use myself (maybe with the exception of services that are already trusted in the community by the time i join the campaign)... This was the case for chipmixer, and it's the case for my current signature. It's possible they turn scam after i've tested/used them, and in this case it's my responsability to remove the signature as soon as i'm aware of the problems with the service in my signature space.
If there were no campaigns that you use for yourself for more than 1 year but there were legitimate ones with no complaints that would accept you, what would you do?
I just modified and reset the poll to take into account the assumption that we are talking about legitimate campaigns. Of course, no one should be wearing campaigns advertising known scams.
Poll
