[Idea] How about 10% reservation for (long) hodlers of BTC in sig campaigns

[TheGreatPython]

These days, merits in last 120 days is the basic eligibility criteria for signature campaigns. I agree with that because such people did contribution toward this community but how about appreciating the people who contribute to bitcoin itself.

I remember CM yahoo once said like "slots in campaign is not a right but a privilege". If you agree on this, then I guess long term holders deserve slots in campaigns.

I agree that people will cheat like a long term holders and manager may find hard time to track these and while accepting new participants, managers can easily check about merit history but confirming about long term holder is not an one minute work. This is the reason, I think about reservations in slots as minimum as 10%.

This idea help on reducing selling pressure on bitcoin market if weekly payout from campaigns reaches exchanges on regular basis and in significant percentage.

Also, this may help on reducing spam in this forum because people who treat campaigns as income source may move on.

I am not expecting this idea will get warm welcome from this community but if this topic is able to seed any new idea then I guess that would be more than enough!

Looking for your thoughts on this....


Some clarifications:
I am not assuming that all holders are good posters.
Holding is not about 1 or 2 BTC holding but about what we did with previous campaign rewards and what we are going to do with current rewards.

[The Cryptovator]

This forum isn't controlling the Bitcoin price or earning money. To prove holding, users must sign a message from the address, otherwise, it won't be possible to verify who won the address. Signature campaign isn't a forum function, it won't be part of the rules then. Managers would implement their own way, but for me it's not reasonable. Companies need quality poster, not long time Bitcoin holders.

Bitcoin holders doesn't mean a quality poster.

[TheGreatPython]

Bitcoin holders doesn't mean a quality poster.

Yeah right, but meriting is also not happening just for a reason of quality post (but for a contribution).

[Bitcoin Smith]

This is the reason, I think about reservations in slots as minimum as 10%.

This idea help on reducing selling pressure on bitcoin market if weekly payout from campaigns reaches exchanges on regular basis and in significant percentage.

Also, this may help on reducing spam in this forum because people who treat campaigns as income source may move on.

This idea doesn't make sense at all even by your logic,

Let's say 100K dollars in Bitcoin as payment for every active campaigns combined and 10% of it would be 10K and now the daily trading volume of Bitcoin is in billions, do you think this 10K a week will really make any dent in the price?

Holders is not equal to low spam cause those are two different things.

And forum doesn't dictate rules of signature campaigns, it's the managers job at the best interest of the brand they are advertising.

[TheGreatPython]

Managers would implement their own way

And forum doesn't dictate rules of signature campaigns, it's the managers job at the best interest of the brand they are advertising.

When theymos directs/appreciates managers for such reservation, then I guess managers will opt in.

[skarais]

Have you ever read the signature campaign guide?
If you don't or perhaps have forgotten, let's look at it again: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign)

I think the above hand campaign guidelines are enough to give managers insight into how to run their campaigns well.
One of the important points is in the quote below:

Do not just automatically accept any user that signs up to your campaign. Check their posts first. If they're all short sentences or unsubstantial or in very poor English then they're likely not going to change their habits. If every campaign only accepts and pays for users who have made fairly constructive posts then this will instantly clean up the forum as any poor posters will have to improve if they want to earn anything from a campaign.

[Alone055]

Signature campaigns are promotional campaigns that have nothing to do with the market and Bitcoin's price in the first place. They are run in this forum, to promote certain services and platforms and the management of those services and platforms pay money for that. Managers choose people based on their posting habits and how often their posts get merits because those who are paying money to get their services promoted want quality.

A person making useless posts all around the forum while holding 2 bitcoins in their wallet wouldn't benefit the service that they are promoting in their signature because people will barely read their posts and most of their posts will likely get reported by members and deleted by the mods. This is why, people who make quality posts are accepted in signature campaigns because they make logical and constructive posts, and such posts tend to have a higher readability percentage.

So I don't see any reason why a long-term Bitcoin holder deserves a place in a signature campaign only based on their holdings when what's important for signature campaigns is a user's performance in the forum and not in the market.

[Chikito]

Also, this may help on reducing spam in this forum because people who treat campaigns as income source may move on.

I just found out that many people were making a living here. if their income has been saved since the beginning they will not greedily be looking for another.

[Russlenat]

When I hear the word holders, I usually think of rich people. But these signature campaigners, most of them aren’t wealthy. Many actually come from poorer countries and have taken the opportunity to join a signature campaign to earn. If I were a long-term holder, I wouldn't bother joining a campaign for small amounts, but I’d still be active on the forum (if I wanted), without needing to get paid for my posts.

[Despairo]

No.

I don't like this kind shit seniority culture where old users are chosen just because they're "older" instead of their quality.

Holding Bitcoin not give any contribution to Bitcoin because Bitcoin itself is a currency, means it should be spend to buy something or pay bills.

if this topic is able to seed any new idea then I guess that would be more than enough!

My idea is users who're not in campaign should stop whining and don't try to create rules to make them get personal advantages.

[LoyceV]

This idea help on reducing selling pressure on bitcoin market if weekly payout from campaigns reaches exchanges on regular basis and in significant percentage.

This forum wasn't created to manipulate the Bitcoin price. It's mission is "to be as free as possible", which is why signature campaigns are left to the users.
Companies advertising care about exposure, they don't care about your personal finances. So it wouldn't make sense to them either. And it doesn't make sense to holders: demanding details on your financial situation is a huge privacy violation.

[TheGreatPython]

This forum wasn't created to manipulate the Bitcoin price.

Yeah, also for taking care of what is good for bitcoin.

it doesn't make sense to holders: demanding details on your financial situation is a huge privacy violation.

A holder does not need to be the one who bought and holding bitcoin from their life time saving. We may identify a holder from their unedited posts with addys for enrolling campaigns (at least in my opinion). If you still feel like violation on privacy, I am sorry bitcoin works this way and moreover your addys are only linked to your forum-username and not to real-life identities.

instead of their quality.

I never talked about quality here. Obviously a quality poster deserves a slot when there are 2 holders compete for one slot.

Holding Bitcoin not give any contribution to Bitcoin

I guess you must re-visit why people love bitcoin's deflationary property.

When I hear the word holders, I usually think of rich people.

Misconception. You can be a holder when you start saving your campaign rewards and this topic is all about that.

A person making useless posts all around the forum while holding 2 bitcoins in their wallet

How many is not a criteria but what you did with your last week or previous campaign may define a holder here. A spammer but a holder is obviously out of this topic.

I think the above hand campaign guidelines are enough to give managers insight into how to run their campaigns well.

That guidelines were from before the merit system incorporated.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

These days, merits in last 120 days is the basic eligibility criteria for signature campaigns.

It is campaign paid in bitcoin but with signature campaigns in bounties and paid in altcoins, managers usually don't require merits in last 120 days. Project teams possibly don't mind about post quality too because their tokens were minted from smart contracts, and they don't lose anything for bounty distribution.

I remember CM yahoo once said like "slots in campaign is not a right but a privilege". If you agree on this, then I guess long term holders deserve slots in campaigns.

A holder is a holder and a poster is a poster. Not all Bitcoin holders want to join signature campaigns, and very few Bitcoin holders are Bitcointalk forum members. If a person is a Bitcoin holder, it does not cause to that person is a member here, and more important is a good poster.

If you are a company, hire a Bitcoin holder into your signature campaign, pay him, but he is a shit poster, are you ready to spend your bitcoin this way?

[LoyceV]

This forum wasn't created to manipulate the Bitcoin price.

Yeah, also for taking care of what is good for bitcoin.

Bitcoin doesn't care about the price

We may identify a holder from their unedited posts with addys for enrolling campaigns (at least in my opinion).

It sounds like you want bonus points for having an old account, even though you don't earn much Merit compared to your Activity (which indicates your posts aren't that good). Add the accusation that you may not be the original account owner an it doesn't look good.

Since you're posting this in Meta, it looks like you want the forum to force this. Signature campaigns are a free market: whoever is paying for it, gets to choose who they hire. Theymos isn't going to tell them to hire TheGreatPython just because you joined a lot of giveaways in 2013.

[hugeblack]

I thought your idea was about forum reserves and using them for signature campaigns or how the forum will continue to grow if signature campaigns stop but at the moment there are not many of these campaigns and maybe other than the gambling section the forum has lost its influence as a place to promote new projects.

So there are not many projects and therefore choosing who to join these campaigns will be harder even for members with high merits (there are many who have +4000 merits without paid posts)

[un_rank]

When theymos directs/appreciates managers for such reservation, then I guess managers will opt in.

What does "directs/appreciates" mean? This is not a forum topic, so should not be in Meta, the forum does not moderate signature campaigns.

Pitch your idea directly to managers and let them decide what to do with it, or move this thread to reputation or service discussion.

- Jay -

[TheGreatPython]

Bitcoin doesn't care about the price

Yeah, if bitcoin has been trading around its 2009/2010 price levels, we may not be here.

Signature campaigns are a free market: whoever is paying for it, gets to choose who they hire.

Between who pays and who joins, there is an intermediatory aka managers and this topic is all about why not managers encourage the holding of campaign rewards.

Theymos isn't going to tell them to hire TheGreatPython just because you joined a lot of giveaways in 2013.

Again it is not about what you joined or that happened in 2013 but it is all about what the participants did with those rewards.

Add the accusation that you may not be the original account owner an it doesn't look good.

He brought a proof from my 2021's post against my recent local board posting. But I signed from 2016's post but he claims he was still right.

[Lucius]

~snip~
This idea help on reducing selling pressure on bitcoin market if weekly payout from campaigns reaches exchanges on regular basis and in significant percentage.

I'll just write something in relation to this part - because I don't know what you think, how much does this whole forum in terms of sig/bounty campaigns generate values ​​on a weekly/monthly basis? If we take into account that there are 20 sig campaigns on the forum that pay in BTC (for example) and that in each there are 30 members who receive an average of $100 per week (although it is less than that), then we arrive at an amount of $60k per week (20x30 = 600x100).

Roughly 1 BTC per week or 4 BTC per month for a market where several tens of billions of dollars are traded daily means that it would be meaningless, as if, for example, you want to say that one drop of water in a summer shower has some significance in relation to all the water produced by that shower.

Selling pressure does not come from us small users anyway, but from those who sell thousands or tens of thousands of BTC.

[Perfectbaby]

These days, merits in last 120 days is the basic eligibility criteria for signature campaigns. I agree with that because such people did contribution toward this community but how about appreciating the people who contribute to bitcoin itself.

I remember CM yahoo once said like "slots in campaign is not a right but a privilege". If you agree on this, then I guess long term holders deserve slots in campaigns.

I agree that people will cheat like a long term holders and manager may find hard time to track these and while accepting new participants, managers can easily check about merit history but confirming about long term holder is not an one minute work. This is the reason, I think about reservations in slots as minimum as 10%.

This idea help on reducing selling pressure on bitcoin market if weekly payout from campaigns reaches exchanges on regular basis and in significant percentage.

Also, this may help on reducing spam in this forum because people who treat campaigns as income source may move on.

I am not expecting this idea will get warm welcome from this community but if this topic is able to seed any new idea then I guess that would be more than enough!

Looking for your thoughts on this....


Some clarifications:
I am not assuming that all holders are good posters.
Holding is not about 1 or 2 BTC holding but about what we did with previous campaign rewards and what we are going to do with current rewards.

How could you even think about this idea of holding before joining a campaign like I don't understand how you are thinking about holding, does it means everyone must hold or someone has to decide how you used your paid fund?

I think the merits system is good enough to filter good and quality poster, in fact to me sometimes merits doesn't factors out how good someone could be in posting. Like I know, there are people who are good in various areas of the forum and when posting they actually contributes more to that which they knows and we may likely have good posters in some sections where merits are hardly spend such as the gambling board, politics and society and other few board that doesn't spread merits.

If people are posting that area and doesn't receive merits does it mean they aren't quality poster. I love the way most managers evaluate their applicants and participants because if judging and summarizing by merits alone they would miss quality posters l, so holding shouldn't be a criteria to accept participants or we can say that the manager can likely hold funds back to pay participants by monthly if this could be the case here, then it will be considered although some people may not buy the idea of monthly payment because the price might change either decreased or increased where the manager has to spend much in paying their participants.

[LoyceV]

this topic is all about why not managers encourage the holding of campaign rewards.
~
it is all about what the participants did with those rewards.

If I want someone else to decide how and when I can spend my money, I'd use a bank instead of Bitcoin. It's kinda scary how you'd even suggest that as if it's a normal thing to do.