Should signature campaigns paying to website balance really be accepted?

[mikel_012]

I was in Betmoco signature campaign and the payment was paid to the casino account: 🚀Betmoco | Crypto casino&Sports book| signature campaign| up to $80/w🚀

Rewards are sent every Sunday directly to your BETMOCO casino account and is fully withdrawable in BTC

The participants received money in the Betmoco account yesterday for the Week 1 in our casino account. In the announcement topic of the casino there are many scam accusations after weeks of delay payment and now the casino is OFFLINE with the website not working: https://betmoco.com

If this can happen many scam websites can create a signature campagin paying fake money to the website and scam after 1 week with free advertisement for the scam and all the balance they receive from the advertisement.

Scam accusation: BETMOCO.com scam case including multiple forum members and >$30.000 owed funds

I think this should not be allowed and every campaign manager needs to have the money in hand before the signature starts to prevent this scamming. What do you think?

[adultcrypto]

I think you should relax and don't be too fast in concluding that the platform is a scam. I just checked the website and they are truly offline but that may not be concluded that they have ran away. Remember that they ran a lot of promotions of recent which lead to massive influx of people to their platform, maybe they were overwhelming by that which was why withdrawals were taking longer time to process. Also they reported some bonus abuses by people, an issue they were resolving on a case-by-case basis. Cumulatively,  these can lead to them taking the website offline to get this resolved faster before coming online. I think we should give them more time or rather wait for an update from their representative in this forum who is always active to answer to issues.

Edit: I just checked their ANN Thread, it is really a mess that is happening there. I hope they don't end up as a scam.

[yahoo62278]

It's perfectly fine for a casino to pay on their website as long as they allow users to wd immediately or if they're paying a little extra and making users wager the pay 1x, the issue could be the manager here.

The manager can allow the casino to pay on the website, but he has to make the team use escrow or trust the manager to hold q weeks pay for the users. If the manager has 1 weeks pay held, the team can't disappear without paying, tha manager can stop the campaign if they're not making the promised payment, and pay the users from the funds held.

I have no idea if this was/is the case as I haven't looked to see if any money was escrowed or what. Just speculation of how it should be.

[Hendrikus51]

I think you should relax and don't be too fast in concluding that the platform is a scam. I just checked the website and they are truly offline but that may not be concluded that they have ran away. Remember that they ran a lot of promotions of recent which lead to massive influx of people to their platform, maybe they were overwhelming by that which was why withdrawals were taking longer time to process. Also they reported some bonus abuses by people, an issue they were resolving on a case-by-case basis. Cumulatively,  these can lead to them taking the website offline to get this resolved faster before coming online. I think we should give them more time or rather wait for an update from their representative in this forum who is always active to answer to issues.

Stop being so naive

[dkbit98]

I think this should not be allowed and every campaign manager needs to have the money in hand before the signature starts to prevent this scamming. What do you think?

If you accepted the terms of campaign than you can't really complain later because you received rewards in your casino account.
I would not even join any campaign with that terms, but other people may think differently about that.

As for casino being offline now, you should speak with campaign manager about that, but that is usually not a good sign.

[EarnOnVictor]

This is so unfortunate and a lesson to campaign managers. No one is above mistake, but I believe they should ensure that only well-established  companies, with a log standing record should be afforded that privilege.

Ordinarily, there shouldn't be anything wrong with it, and I'd done two campaigns where they paid directly into my casino accounts. There was no problem. But to be sure, when the establishment is either new or not so firm in the industry, the CM is better have the money in their possession, or at worst, in escrow.

[Merit.s]

It's a pity that betmoco behaved this way and pulled an exist scam in the forum, if they have truly packed up because we have seen few cases like this that didn't go well. However, that doesn't mean that if a casino decides to pay directly into the signature participants casino accounts is a bad idea and should be disallowed.

The problem isn't about whether they pay directly into your personal wallet or your casino account, the problem is if the casino is a scam or not because a scam casino will always plot out how to do away with customers funds. Casinos that are also paying directly into your self custody wallet can equally pull an exist scam without paying signature participants which is why at least one  week funds should be on escrow incase such happens. The problem is that a campaign manager cannot know a new casino that is after building their reputation in the gambling industry.

[Bitcoin Smith]

If the manager has 1 weeks pay held, the team can't disappear without paying, tha manager can stop the campaign if they're not making the promised payment, and pay the users from the funds held.

Here is the answer about tackling this situation, the manager should hold at least one week pay so the manager can pay if the team didn't or if something came up. But the manager is a new one, so he might still be learning the process and how not get into any trouble.

This thread should be moved to the service discussion I guess.

[_act_]

If the manager has 1 weeks pay held, the team can't disappear without paying, tha manager can stop the campaign if they're not making the promised payment, and pay the users from the funds held.

Here is the answer about tackling this situation, the manager should hold at least one week pay so the manager can pay if the team didn't or if something came up. But the manager is a new one, so he might still be learning the process and how not get into any trouble.

So if we have more campaign managers like this, it will really be good? We can just always give the forum an excuse that the campaign manager is new on this forum.

I think a 3 year account on this forum would have seen a lot of things which supposed to be used for learning. It is very simple that if you have a campaign to manage, you need to have a backup fund for it which will make anyone not to complain on this forum of not being paid.

If the backup fund can not be given directly to the campaign manager, escrow can be used. Scammer will find it difficult to pay such money, although some can still try to pay it but the chance will reduce.

[bitmover]

The participants received money in the Betmoco account yesterday for the Week 1 in our casino account

-snip-


I think this should not be allowed and every campaign manager needs to have the money in hand before the signature starts to prevent this scamming. What do you think?

Participating in a paid signature campagin is a privilege,  not a right.

The company is paying you to post, I see no problem in paying in their platform.  This is common practice for more than a decade here (although not the best payment option)

. In the announcement topic of the casino there are many scam accusations after weeks of delay payment and now the casino is OFFLINE with the website not working: https://betmoco.com

If you think the service is a scam you shouldn't promote it, no matter what payment option they offer.

Your reputation is worth more than any campagin.
 
Sad to see one more exit scam im the forum. The goal wasn't to  get a free 1 week promotional   but they  scammed someone else..

[examplens]

I think this should not be allowed and every campaign manager needs to have the money in hand before the signature starts to prevent this scamming. What do you think?

Whether or not you will participate in such a campaign is ultimately your choice. So if you see a rule you don't like, feel free to ignore the campaign. It's better to be without it for a week than to later seek justice because you haven't been paid.

Also, an additional reason to pay more attention to who the manager is before joining the campaign because someone's high reputation is not built just like that.

[SuperBitMan]

I followed Betmoco from the starting, and I also deposited some money and withdrew successfully. again I was part of the signature campaign, and as of yesterday they paid to our Betmoco account, and when they pay I decided to withdraw and it was successful, the money was no more in my Betmoco account. but till now I have not seen the money in my wallet because the transaction has not been confirmed till date by them, and the customer care said it will take 24 hours before it will be confirm and from when I withdraw till now it has passed 24 hours and I have not seen the money in my wallet.
Those who did the second Betmoco review were all paid through their Betmoco account and they withdrew successfully.
I won’t blame the campaign manager I believe after a successful second review that Betmoco paid through there site, and  withdraw was successful by those who participated, he became confident that the payment will be smooth in the signature campaign as the second review payment and withdrawal was. it’s unfortunate that betmoco decided to do this to people but I’m still watching and waiting if they will approve my withdrawal.

[bitmover]

Whether or not you will participate in such a campaign is ultimately your choice. So if you see a rule you don't like, feel free to ignore the campaign. It's better to be without it for a week than to later seek justice because you haven't been paid.

Ofc I like to be paid in my own wallet.

However  ,  some of the best paid campagins i ever joined were paid in their website.
Particularly yolodice and Blackjack. And they were good services

After a few months I got used to the payment method and it was good that I kept the money in the lending system of the platforms and I only made  withdrawals after a month or two.

But those services already had a reputation here, they were in the forum for many ma years years already when I joined their campagins

[Hazink]

I think this should not be allowed and every campaign manager needs to have the money in hand before the signature starts to prevent this scamming. What do you think?

There have been a few casinos that have used this pattern to run their signature. Maybe some might still be active and some have already finished, and they have been offering their service and paying their members through their casino without problem this one just happened to have an issue which did not start with the campaign payment but badly withheld withdrawal which started as slow to now no respond and casino website going down.

The best way is just to go with getting paid directly into our direct wallet, but if it's still the case of the casino being the one to handle the payment, if they decide not to pay, there won't still be any much different, unless there is escrow as suggested by one of the managers above.

[mindrust]

I don't mind it as long as they don't force me to play on their platform. Otherwise it kills the purpose of joining a signature camp. I also don't like to pay for the withdrawal fees. The campaign I am currently in is also paying to the casino balance but the withdrawals are instant so I don't have any complaints. Still though, I mostly prefer to get paid to my own btc address but let's be honest, we don't always find a free slot in a signature campaign that does that... so sometimes people go with whatever sig camp available to them at that time because staying idle costs munney. As Gazlowe says: Time is munney, friend.

[eternalgloom]

Campaign manager still saying it's too soon to say that they're going to pull an exit scam

A well known scam pattern we see again and again. Just because a site pays for a review campaign or signature campaign once does not make it legit longterm.

Scam checker highlighting this Betmoco is very young with zero traffic or history. Such flag are exactly the kind that can disappear in an instant when many people swallow the bait of giving free money then deposit and fucked up.

Your suggestion is absolutely cool, the campaign money should have been locked in advance. Only if operator are forced to show real backup or transparent fund to pay, then it could protect player and cut down on these scam.

[mikel_012]

It's perfectly fine for a casino to pay on their website as long as they allow users to wd immediately or if they're paying a little extra and making users wager the pay 1x, the issue could be the manager here.

The manager can allow the casino to pay on the website, but he has to make the team use escrow or trust the manager to hold q weeks pay for the users. If the manager has 1 weeks pay held, the team can't disappear without paying, tha manager can stop the campaign if they're not making the promised payment, and pay the users from the funds held.

I have no idea if this was/is the case as I haven't looked to see if any money was escrowed or what. Just speculation of how it should be.

If they have escrow I think it is fine

I'm worried that more scam websites will come with fake campaigns and never pay anyone because they only give fake bitcoins in the website and go offline after getting deposits

Campaign manager still saying it's too soon to say that they're going to pull an exit scam

A well known scam pattern we see again and again. Just because a site pays for a review campaign or signature campaign once does not make it legit longterm.

Scam checker highlighting this Betmoco is very young with zero traffic or history. Such flag are exactly the kind that can disappear in an instant when many people swallow the bait of giving free money then deposit and fucked up.

Your suggestion is absolutely cool, the campaign money should have been locked in advance. Only if operator are forced to show real backup or transparent fund to pay, then it could protect player and cut down on these scam.

I was defending betmoco and giving the benefit of doubt but it's very weird that they are delaying payments for weeks and now they are offline

Maybe I should give more days and I hope they come back.

[yahoo62278]

Seems like a promo to get players in the door, since the casino is new I wouldn't go crazy depositing a ton but if you get a lossback % with a 1x rollover it's an amazing deal. Gotta wonder if too good to be true honestly. Without knowing the casino or promo I am curious what the lossback % is?

100% which makes it nonsensical to me.

🎁 Get 100% lossback on any sports bet up to $1,000 on your first deposit only.

They're currently running a review campaign, offering $20 for 10 users. Spending $200 to get good money isn't a bad idea & I don't mean to offend, but I have a feeling this site will be on a scam accusation board someday with this crazy promotion (didn't mean to accuse). If the site is brave enough, it would be good for them to do escrow with one of the reputable users on the forum, it will increase the confidence of players who come from the forum.

I just took a look and looks like they hired a fairly new manager to run their promotion. Only reason I say that is usually when a new manager is hired, they offered the cheapest price. Not always a bad thing, just an observation.

1. hiring new manager
2. offering a deal that seems too good to be true
3. offering crazy money for lossback but going super cheap on promo for review

I would likely avoid this casino until their reputation is a little better.

I voiced my concerns on this casino Jan 21st. Maybe you guys should pay attention sometimes and avoid the scam. No offense to Hatchy but when a new casino pops and hires a new manager, the community should always be wary of the new casino. Then toss in cheap promos($200 review campaign), no escrowing sig campaign payment, Paying on the site, no insurance for users at all, and finally delays in paying users, it's almost always a scam.

Look at the warning signs. Hatchy should have done better by the community and wondered why they chose him. He was an easy mark willing to take risks IMO.

[Coyster]

I'm worried that more scam websites will come with fake campaigns and never pay anyone because they only give fake bitcoins in the website and go offline after getting deposits

I think this is a non-issue and even if a casino has this as their scam tactic, the campaign participants would prolly only lose a week's payment, which isn't a great loss. It would only be a week's payment because if the campaign credits the participants and immediately goes offline, then the manager would pause the campaign.

The real victims would be people who deposited a good sum of money into the casino, but cannot withdraw part of their deposit plus winnings. That's why it is crucial to do your own research before playing in any casino.

[SuperBitMan]

Seems like a promo to get players in the door, since the casino is new I wouldn't go crazy depositing a ton but if you get a lossback % with a 1x rollover it's an amazing deal. Gotta wonder if too good to be true honestly. Without knowing the casino or promo I am curious what the lossback % is?

100% which makes it nonsensical to me.

🎁 Get 100% lossback on any sports bet up to $1,000 on your first deposit only.

They're currently running a review campaign, offering $20 for 10 users. Spending $200 to get good money isn't a bad idea & I don't mean to offend, but I have a feeling this site will be on a scam accusation board someday with this crazy promotion (didn't mean to accuse). If the site is brave enough, it would be good for them to do escrow with one of the reputable users on the forum, it will increase the confidence of players who come from the forum.

I just took a look and looks like they hired a fairly new manager to run their promotion. Only reason I say that is usually when a new manager is hired, they offered the cheapest price. Not always a bad thing, just an observation.

1. hiring new manager
2. offering a deal that seems too good to be true
3. offering crazy money for lossback but going super cheap on promo for review

I would likely avoid this casino until their reputation is a little better.

I voiced my concerns on this casino Jan 21st. Maybe you guys should pay attention sometimes and avoid the scam. No offense to Hatchy but when a new casino pops and hires a new manager, the community should always be wary of the new casino. Then toss in cheap promos($200 review campaign), no escrowing sig campaign payment, Paying on the site, no insurance for users at all, and finally delays in paying users, it's almost always a scam.

Look at the warning signs. Hatchy should have done better by the community and wondered why they chose him. He was an easy mark willing to take risks IMO.

Well I believe what ever you are starting newly you will never get bigger experience like those that have started it a long time ago, you have been in campaign management for a long time now and I believe if you were the one in Hatchy shoes you won’t have allowed them use you, however it could have happened to you when you newly started campaign management, so let give the guy a break, I was part of those that was selected in the signature campaign I lost my money but I can’t totally but the blame on Hatchy because his new in management service however he should do better next time and learn from you guys the old guys in the system, i see a lot of signature campaign in this forum that pays participants on there site and everything is going smoothly, the only mistake Hatchy made was not asking for security funds, and his reasoning for not asking may be the successful payment and withdrawal of those that participated on the second review, nevertheless if he contacted people like you for advice I believe you would have given him a very good advice that would have helped him.