The essence of this conversation comes down to the fact that you need to respect the advertising opportunities that are available to you. And also the fact that in my eyes it looked like Wasabi was paying for Sparrow advertising. There's nothing wrong with saying "I use" (any brand you like), but when you say "I recommend" and list several similar wallets, then I believe that mentioning a project that spends resources on the campaign is an issue of ethics.
Imposing advertised projects on participants of bounty campaigns under the guise of ethics is not good. This looks like an attack on “
freedom of speech”. Each participant on the forum has the right to write what he considers necessary (within the framework of the rules and that same ethics) and with the help of such forcing conditions (that disregard personal ethics) of the signature campaign
“purchasing” the user’s word seems unacceptable to me. If you like the project, praise it in your posts. If you don’t like it, but posted it in the signature only because of the high rates in the signature campaign, then there is no need to force participiants to praise this project. Posts on the forum should be as honest (based on the boundaries of personal morality) and objective as possible.
So the question is, should the forum introduce any rules on compelled/restricted posting, or do we let anything go, including shilling campaigns?
My opinion on this matter is categorical: don't allow managers to
impose abuse the terms of signature ampaigns by
obliging recommending them to mention the project whose name the participants wear on their signature. This should be optional and at the discretion of the campaigner.
This should be punished (temporarily). Better yet, add it to the set of unspoken forum rules and, if find something like this on the part of bounty managers, give them a warning. For the first time.
If the
BTC-community fails to influence, it will lead to a flood of
paid lies ethically recommended information on this forum.