The Stake campaign is filled with frauds & questionable accounts

[examplens]

Counting the number of posts does not equal to "managing" something, therefore this junk campaign does not have any managers. Nevertheless, indulge me. Who are these users? Can you you post their profiles?

This is from the official campaign thread, although I think I saw some other names included. It is very possible that the list is not updated.

Get to know our Management team:
- Jesse: over 8 years experienced gambler (casino & sportsbook) and with a great knowledge about crypto. He is the responsible for messaging new approved members. He also check everyone posts to prevent issues with people who use to edit empty posts to abuse from the campaign (an issue we have faced 2x in the past). Working with me for like 4 years.
- Adrian: over 8 years experienced gambler (casino & sportsbook) and with a great knowledge about crypto. He is one of the guys to read & rate everyone posts and also works in the payments sheet. Working with me for like 6 years.
- CapHook: joined casino, sportsbook & crypto world early 2021. He is also one of the guys to read & rate everyone posts and also works in the payments sheet. Working with me for over 2 years now. (he is also the one to handle things when I am not around)
- Tiiks: joined casino, sportsbook & crypto world late in 2023. He is one more of the team to read & rate everyone posts. He also works in the payments sheet.
- Bere: joined casino, sportsbook & crypto world in the end of 2022 (when she started to work with me). She is responsible for reading & rating every single post from the campaign members. She also works in the payments sheet as a final reviewer (to prevent mispayments).
- Me: joined casino, sportsbook & crypto world early 2014. I am the responsible for handling custom deals & sending the payments. Beside that I am the one to reply to all the questions & try to solve any issue our campaign members may have as long as these will not overpass the campaign rules.

Updates list:
Feb/26/2024: fixing the bonus rules & removing Ogami from the management team members list

[LoyceV]

Thank you, OP, and everyone who helped with this investigations.

Are you part of Stake's campaign "management"? Wouldn't it make more sense to hire OP for this instead of relying on the community to do the campaign manager's job?

The users with bad reputations have been removed from the campaign.

So it's about their reputation and not their spam?

We only demand our members to make a minimum of 25 posts to be eligible for payout, like with all other campaigns on the forum.

That's not true, not all campaigns demand a minimum number of posts.

Stake campaign remains one of the best-run sig campaign on the forum

Lol. You're kidding, right? This campaign has had terrible management from the start, and it didn't improve when management changed. It's only slightly about Yobit's spam campaign, although one could argue it's even worse because it's running much longer.

We value community opinions, and our team takes them very seriously; the remaining profiles are presently being investigated

Campaign participants should be "investigated" on a regular basis, not just when someone complains about their spam.

We will continue to clean up our campaign and serve the community

This campaign has never served the wider community, only the few people earning from spamming.

[JollyGood]

There could be reasons why people/companies may want privacy (for example the use of mixers) but for a forum campaign to effectively want to hide how much they are paying participants, that probably makes Stake unique in that sense.

Having that system of obfuscation allows for nefarious conduct to thrive as everything seems to be taking place in private. Participants names, their pay rate, their wallet addresses, method of payment and other details remain private. In the event something goes wrong or one raises a complaint, there is not a lot to go on for others to investigate.

As I stated earlier, that particular model of campaign management might have some benefits for a company and participants depending on what they are trying to achieve but it really seems strange Stake are the only ones adopting it.

Another important point is that there is no spreadsheet link in the main campaign topic nor in any post later. We, as a community, can't verify anything about how things work in this campaign (number of participants, payout structure, number of posts...). Manager has the right to hide the spreadsheet for whatever reasons, but campaign participants themselves can't follow their activity within the campaign unless manager gave them limited access. This does raise many questions about the promotion model stake wants to persist.

[igebotz]

~snip~

Okay Switzerland - it was meant to be "bad reputation & Spam" my bad I forgot to add " Spam" word   and yes we investigate our participants every now and then, we're not perfect and sometimes missed out on the "obvious" - the community has been helpful in that aspect. We appreciate.

*Will edit the original post*

Our payments for a minimum 25 posts/week- this is fair enough.

Legendary rank: $62,50
Hero: $50

[Awaklara]

Our payments for a minimum 25 posts/week- this is fair enough.

Yes, that's fair. But are you aware that there are participants who reach the minimum target of 25 posts/week in just one day? Some might make 15-20 posts a day. 
Just a suggestion, why not limit it to 10 posts per day that will be counted? Assuming participants have the opportunity to make 70 posts/week, they can still reach the maximum number. 

I checked the Ninjastic dashboard several times for Most Active Users, and some names of your campaign participants can be seen there.

[mindrust]

Why can’t you just put the minimum post requirement at 25 posts and stop paying for any posts made after like every other campaign? The moment you that 90% of the complaints will disappear. (The rest will be about the selection process of the participants but that won’t cause much trouble)

Some campaigns require 20 or even 15 weekly posts so 25 posts / Week is still huge and some people already consider it in a spammy range but many campaigns demand this number so it doesn’t raise any eyebrows.

Unless you cap the paid posts at 25, igebotz or whoever it is that runs this campaign currently, this debate will never resolve.

[NotATether]

Unless you cap the paid posts at 25, igebotz or whoever it is that runs this campaign currently, this debate will never resolve.

I would take it a step further - make it a 30 post minimum requirement. That will really squeeze out the casual spammers. 

[nutildah]

If you have any questions or concerns about our participants, my DM is always available.

It is better to be transparent about everything than rely on the words of others behind closed doors.

Removed users.

Bitcoin
GigaBit
Marvell1
Solosanz ( minimum posts requirement related)

The 3 top users have stopped posting entirely, so that's 300+ less trash posts being added to the forum every week, which is a good start. Thank you.

[AakZaki]

Recently I noticed the Stake campaign, for which participants who have been around 93 weeks old have just been released, on a spreadsheet record dated June 29, 2026. When I looked at the spreadsheet I found the habit of posting from the participants who were released.

I mean that participant is MarjorieZimmermanGinger, in her spreadsheet, and her total post habit has the least average posts.

Here's what I calculated based on 93 weeks, had an average total of about 33.83 posts per week and it became the fewest posts, so MarjorieZimmermanGinger was kicked out of that campaign.

Code:

24.25.27.28.27.26.26.26.26.26
26.27.26.20.29.28.29.30.26.26
26.26.26.26.25.26.24.27.27.28
28.27.27.27.30.30.30.30.31.30
30.30.30.30.31.30.30.24.25.26
25.26.17.27.38.36.36.37.36.38
36.36.37.32.35.35.33.30.40.41
40.51.50.51.51.58.50.51.41.51
45.53.51.50.50.51.51.45.45.43
42.40.40

If a participant is expelled for making the least posts, it means that this Stake campaign always encourages its participants to make a lot of posts, even though the posts are not worth reading. Lol 

[jg_btc]

it means that this Stake campaign always encourages its participants to make a lot of posts

:

Why stake campaign is the main target for nutildah for years:
stake camp pays as much as 100 posts per week.

[igebotz]

Bumping an 8 months old thread only to talk about someone who got removed from a campaign based on accumulative quality ratings??

I have never seen you make a post about a manager's decision in other sig campaigns - we see people getting dropped/removed everyweek so how is this one a public News?

[wiss19]

@igebotz,
If you are really bother about stake campaign, why not convince stake management for revamping the entire campaign through hiring a reputed manager?

[Awaklara]

If a participant is expelled for making the least posts, it means that this Stake campaign always encourages its participants to make a lot of posts, even though the posts are not worth reading. Lol 

I don't know about that either. That participant could have been removed for other reasons. Looking at the rules of the campaign, each participant has to write at least 25 postings per week. The information you shared about how many posts that participant made indicates that the account did not follow the rules several times. 

But we don’t know the actual reason why that participant was removed. I once reported a few accounts that might have cheated in the Stake campaign. The manager responded by removing those participants. That was just a possibility, but they might have checked the details of their Stake account logins which confirmed that those accounts were cheating.

[AakZaki]

Bumping an 8 months old thread only to talk about someone who got removed from a campaign based on accumulative quality ratings??

I have never seen you make a post about a manager's decision in other sig campaigns - we see people getting dropped/removed everyweek so how is this one a public News?

At first I noticed the user I mentioned above because I checked his entire account, you will see a separate thread shortly, I am still compiling it. And since I remember he used to use Stake, I was forced to look at Stake's spreadsheet, and it turned out that he had been ejected.

I was actually curious about the cause of his expulsion, then I tried to pay attention to the number of posts. I found the average post to be a little bit, and I think that's the reason.

While those who make a lot of posts, it seems to be fine and not issued by Stake, in fact some of those who make a lot of posts are affected by SigBan.

So, I actually want to show everyone that those who post a lot for Stake will be fine, but potentially exposed to SigBan, because according to an average data the most from Stake Campaigns.

Looking at the rules of the campaign, each participant has to write at least 25 postings per week. The information you shared about how many posts that participant made indicates that the account did not follow the rules several times. 

So that's the importance of a Professional Manager, We often see in other Managers, When the post is less than specified it should not be paid, unless the rule is paid per post.

In fact, the Stake Manager is inconsistent with his own Mandatory Rules.

♦️ Must make at least 25 quality posts per week

And instead still pay for it, so the participant may not think it is breaking the rules.

[igebotz]

@igebotz,
If you are really bother about stake campaign, why not convince stake management for revamping the entire campaign through hiring a reputed manager?

Define a "reputable manger" ?

Edit

I was actually curious about the cause of his expulsion, then I tried to pay attention to the number of posts. I found the average post to be a little bit, and I think that's the reason.

Okay. But that wasn't it.

[Awaklara]

In fact, the Stake Manager is inconsistent with his own Mandatory Rules.

It seems we don't need to get into the nitty-gritty of how campaign managers handle each campaign. Participants will definitely adapt to the way the manager runs the campaign they join.

If you observe some managers in the forum, you'll also find those who still pay their participants based on the number of posts made, even if they don't meet the weekly target. And I think that doesn't show inconsistency on the manager's part regarding the rules they set.

We need to understand that campaign managers have their own provisions for running campaigns, including accepting and removing participants.

[nutildah]

There are 2 big takeaways I hope Stake acknowledges:

1) Post quality matters now.
2) Paying for 60-70 posts per week is far too many.

Most campaign members don't seem to take advantage of this, but some do in order to crank out minimum effort blather like there's no tomorrow. Nobody wants to read it, and Stake's encouragement of it demonstrates a lack of regard for the forum.

Put in the words of one of the campaign members:

Myself have always known I post way too much than I should, and the reason is obvious but I still blame myself because, I know what's right but most times, I just can't help it 😂

So they're making the rest of us suffer by having to entertain posts written for this reason. We're supposed to pretend this is normal behavior, and we should just put up with it. Well, that's not a very polite thing to do. Its not at all normal; we've just forgotten what real conversation looks like.

Nor is it very honorable to reward this type of behavior. They're sending the message that being annoying can literally be a career. Personally I don't think that's right. Feel free to disagree.

[mindrust]

What if... what if...

what if you sig banned every signature campaign participant that joined a campaign that required their participants to post more than 20 posts every week?

Let's kick spam out of bitcointalk.

Do this and the forum will be spam-free in an instant.

You've got tha powa

[yahoo62278]

What if... what if...

what if you sig banned every signature campaign participant that joined a campaign that required their participants to post more than 20 posts every week?

Let's kick spam out of bitcointalk.

Do this and the forum will be spam-free in an instant.

You've got tha powa

You have to view bitcointalk as basically a TV show and the show has lots of commercials. When you're watching TV do you always like the ads that show up? Companies pay for ad space, same thing they do here. They want to get the most for their money, and casinos really want to be seen the most because that's the main advertising here. Competition is fierce and stake has the biggest marketing budget.

If you have an issue with spam, who do you really have an issue with? Is your issue with the poster spamming, the company that hired them, or the manager managing the campaign? Banning participants for joining a campaign that requires over 20 posts is crazy. The issue is the rules being set by the managers isn't it? Not taking shots at any managers as we all pretty much follow the same sub set of rules with little tweaks here n there.

I think getting ALL the managers together and making a change for a max number of posts in every campaign would be a solution worth having a discussion about. Like capping the post counts at 15 maybe, but then you may not have companies agreeing to this. If all the managers join together and decide on a max number of posts allowed then companies have to be on board or go elsewhere and that's just not gonna happen.

[AB de Royse777]

what if you sig banned every signature campaign participant that joined a campaign that required their participants to post more than 20 posts every week?

LOL. Considering the idea will you say 15 posts per week and a high per post rate is a good idea and guarantee that no participants will be banned? I am going to experiment it with Zeto signature campaign.