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

[TheGreatPython]

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.

Not about how; only when.

Your coin - your decision; only if you look for more privilege then this comes to picture. I am not finding anything scary.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

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

Bitcoin is different than thousands of cryptocurrencies because it is decentralized, no censorship, no price control. There is manipulation on the market but doing artificial price control like this proposal never existed.

Your proposal will be favorite by altcoin teams who want to create honey pots like staking pools, and attract token investors to lock tokens in these pools. It's one of their policies to reduce selling pressure on the market but token price continues to fall with time. The example means this proposal can not work well practically.

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

So in future, we will have a new use case for Bitcoin, reducing spam on bitcoin forum or any cryptocurrency forum that apply this proposal, that is strange. I disagree with the proposal because spam on any forum is not related to Bitcoin and it is not responsible for spam reduction or spam control/ moderation.

[LoyceV]

if you look for more privilege then this comes to picture.

Why wait for someone else, I'd say: "Do it!". Create a campaign to give privilege to Bitcoin holders.

[EarnOnVictor]

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.

Honestly, I can't find the correlation you are trying to establish here, the campaign (which is not a right) and HODLing are not the same, or do you think the HODLing will now make it your right? I don't understand.

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 is the easiest thing to do, Bitcoin transactions are visible to anybody. The manager will only ask for the HODLing address, and that solves it all. But my plight is that investments should never be forced on anyone for any reason.

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 think I understand where this idea is coming from but it will not work. The money we earn here is too little compared to what Bitcoin needs ($Bs), especially if we commit only 10% to it. It will be almost nothing.

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

It will not! Your forum activities and your posting creativity and dedication are different from your investment. Anyone may fake it to achieve the same goal.

[AVE5]

Over and over the primary aim of this platform in relationship with bitcoin is basically to educate enthusiasts according to their various interests in utilizing their bitcoins in both earnings and services of payments including Speculations of bitcoin. So then, here as a decentralized bitcointalk as an institution isn't a jurisdiction to regulate bitcoin or deciding on its values.
The fact that campaigns remains active here should also remain a privilege which literally the managers setup quality of and ranks of members to be qualified on the go and not recognizing the the concepts of old timers or even long time holders.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

Bitcoin doesn't care about the price

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

So what about the transaction which took place on May 22nd 2020 between Laszlo Hanyecz and Papa John's, buying 2 pizzas with 10,000 Bitcoins. So are you trying to tell me that that transaction wasn't a trade? Because the truth of the fact is that there were lots of people who traded Bitcoin back then, which though weren't popular, but it's record can still be found both on this forum and off the forum.
So I literally don't buy into O.P's idea of making "Amount Hold in Bitcoin" as criteria for joining a signature campaign, just as many people have earlier said.

Because imagine if everybody have held their Bitcoin for ages, do you think Bitcoin would have been this valuable? Where do you think miners would have generated profits from, if no one was trading or executing Bitcoin transaction on the Blockchain.



There are 3 primary Basic criteria to joining a Signature campaign

1. The user needs to be of a certain required rank (i.e Full, Senior, Hero or Legendary)
2. The user needs to be a good quality poster with basic knowledge about Bitcoin and crypto in general
3. The user needs to be active

Whereas, the rest are extra, such as,
4. Having a good knowledge about gambling and e.t.c

[The Cryptovator]

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).

You should know the difference between a quality post and a good post. Those posts contribute something to the forum, these are supposed to be quality posts. Good posts mean they aren't spam at least and have some value. That's the reason why good posts receive less merit than quality posts. Merit is a reward for the contribution, of course, that's why managers encouraged quality posters to apply, merit is the one element to identify quality posters, but not Bitcoin holding. 

[nutildah]

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.

This doesn't make sense. Nobody "deserves" a spot for the very reason you just mentioned: its a right, not a privilege. You should think of it from a campaign client's point of view: intriguing, good, informative posts sometimes lend to somebody's decision to click on a signature. "Bitcoin holdings" do not. They can't be identified in every post, nor should they. Its the post itself that matters.

[LoyceV]

You should know the difference between a quality post and a good post. Those posts contribute something to the forum, these are supposed to be quality posts. Good posts mean they aren't spam at least and have some value.

To me, as a Merit source, "good" is more than enough to send Merit. The Merit system was meant to reduce spam, and if a user isn't spamming, he shouldn't be limited by the Merit system.

[TheGreatPython]

This doesn't make sense. Nobody "deserves" a spot for the very reason you just mentioned: its a right, not a privilege. You should think of it from a campaign client's point of view: intriguing, good, informative posts sometimes lend to somebody's decision to click on a signature. "Bitcoin holdings" do not. They can't be identified in every post, nor should they. Its the post itself that matters.

But, there were cases where enrolment in campaigns done by "invitation". When managers are considering other "establishments" for enrolling, why not "hodling"; which is the whole point of this topic.

[Apocollapse]

But, there were cases where enrolment in campaigns done by "invitation". When managers are considering other "establishments" for enrolling, why not "hodling"; which is the whole point of this topic.

I don't understand why you keep forcing your own opinion when other users already pointed out if your points aren't make sense at all.

Holding/spending is a personal choice and it doesn't have any relation with the quality of your account in this forum.
Selling all coins received by signature campaigns at once will not give any impact to Bitcoin price.

As I don't see any campaign managers replied in this thread (they might likely not interested), you're better start your own signature campaign and add/remove any rules you want.

[LoyceV]

When managers are considering other "establishments" for enrolling, why not "hodling"; which is the whole point of this topic.

Good luck convincing a company that someone's bank account is a reason to hire them.

[nutildah]

But, there were cases where enrolment in campaigns done by "invitation". When managers are considering other "establishments" for enrolling, why not "hodling"; which is the whole point of this topic.

I don't think you read my reply because I explained why not. There's a couple of great reasons not to do it this way:

1) It doesn't necessarily add anything to the value of a post.
2) Its an inconvenient, obtrusive, and plain weird thing to prove with every post.

[TheGreatPython]

I don't understand why you keep forcing your own opinion when other users already pointed out if your points aren't make sense at all.

Forcing? I am sorry if I sound that way... I have been trying to explain my points, nothing else.

[lovesmayfamilis]

This is one of the most insane suggestions I've ever read . OP, don't you think that looking into other people's wallets is hideous? Moreover, what about privacy and keeping secrets about the availability of funds, or even the amount of funds that users have?
If you think manipulation on the forum is possible, then I would like to remind you that anything that contradicts freedom of choice causes a backlash in people.
I will say one thing: if you or someone else is not able to prove yourself and attract the attention of the manager so that the "privilege" can be granted to you, then this is only your shortcomings, and other people should not participate in this.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

This is not going to work because it's only a few members here that have not spend a dime from their signature payment and even if campaign managers decides to select signature participants based on the number best holder, it's quite possible that anyone here can just start to hold some specific amounts of Bitcoin in their wallet, just to be selected for campaign. This your idea is not going to work.

[Fiatless]

But, there were cases where enrolment in campaigns done by "invitation". When managers are considering other "establishments" for enrolling, why not "hodling"; which is the whole point of this topic.

Most casino signature campaigns focus more on members with knowledge about gambling. How do you expect a campaign manager to reserve slots for holders who don't have any gambling experience or knowledge? Holding for a long time doesn't also mean that the user has enough knowledge about Bitcoin or the forum. Campaign managers have other criteria for selecting participants and not just merits. And I think they should be allowed to do their job based on the service they are promoting and their discretion. I don't also think it will be difficult for holders with Bitcoin knowledge to be selected by managers in campaigns.

[SatoPrincess]

This has to be on the Mount Rushmore of dumbest things I’ve ever read on Bitcointalk. First, I’m not very keen on signature campaign spreadsheets being public because people like OP are interested in how much others are hodling in their wallets. Secondly, it’s not in anyway in the benefit of the company running the signature campaign to hire members based off their bitcoin holdings. Maybe when you become a campaign manager and have your own campaign, you can effect these changes.

[NotATether]

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.

Yeah. This entirely. It's why I use Bitcoin almost all of the time and my bank account very rarely.

This has to be on the Mount Rushmore of dumbest things I’ve ever read on Bitcointalk.

Does not make it to Mount Rushmore at all. That place is filled with the avatars (or lack thereof) of the forum trolls of old times. Some of which you can even see by going back 30-50 pages on Meta.