Should signature campaigns paying to website balance really be accepted?

[logfiles]

Based on similar signature campaigns that I participated in the past, this was more than OK without any issue except for one casino that forced me to wager x1 before withdrawing my earning. I was lucky not to lose the money nonetheless.

We can't just simply ban or abolish something like this, but based on such experience, next time such a campaign pops up, members should avoid it until they accept to escrow the funds first

[Hatchy]

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.

Suddenly everyone becomes an expert at not making mistakes.. I assume every new casino that has been managed by other managers comes with an enscrow.. you guys are always very good at pointing fingers simply because someone is new to something on forum, doesn't make him new out there.. also, thanks for the feedback you left on my profile, at least it would be good for every users to first do a good research on any brand I will be managing in the future and check if they are scam or not.

Reading through the many comments on this issue literally shows how the forum is on the inside... Cold any one could have fallen a victim of such brand.. it's not written some where that they will turn out to be like this. I helped them managed a couple of reviews and so far, all payments were made to all participants both on site and with the funds they had sent for the review.

I acknowledge my mistakes and sincerely apologise to the community.. no one is above mistakes as it's a lesson that anyone will learn from at a starting stage. For everyone in pain of their money, I really apologize for the time waste. I really do hope the team returns to the forum and addresses their mistakes, but I'm not sure considering they have nothing to lose if the decided not to..

[yahoo62278]

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.

Suddenly everyone becomes an expert at not making mistakes.. I assume every new casino that has been managed by other managers comes with an enscrow.. you guys are always very good at pointing fingers simply because someone is new to something on forum, doesn't make him new out there.. also, thanks for the feedback you left on my profile, at least it would be good for every users to first do a good research on any brand I will be managing in the future and check if they are scam or not.

Reading through the many comments on this issue literally shows how the forum is on the inside... Cold any one could have fallen a victim of such brand.. it's not written some where that they will turn out to be like this. I helped them managed a couple of reviews and so far, all payments were made to all participants both on site and with the funds they had sent for the review.

I acknowledge my mistakes and sincerely apologise to the community.. no one is above mistakes as it's a lesson that anyone will learn from at a starting stage. For everyone in pain of their money, I really apologize for the time waste. I really do hope the team returns to the forum and addresses their mistakes, but I'm not sure considering they have nothing to lose if the decided not to..

You're going to make mistakes but this 1 was a big mistake IMO. You are the escrow/holder of the funds. A new casino has 0 rep and has earned 0 trust. You at a minimum should have made the team give you 1 weeks budget or walked away. Some might say you made yourself liable to pay the users from your own pocket.

. you guys are always very good at pointing fingers simply because someone is new to something on forum, doesn't make him new out there.. also, thanks for the feedback you left on my profile

I've went back n forth twice with a neutral tag. Put it on and removed it I mean. Your attitude makes me want to reconsider again. Maybe if you don't know what you're doing, don't do it without asking questions on how to do it. Plenty of us willing to give free advice.

Stopping additional promotion was 1 thing you did do correctly. I'm trying to not be an asshole as you are new, but learn from this and try being humble.

[Hatchy]

I've went back n forth twice with a neutral tag. Put it on and removed it I mean. Your attitude makes me want to reconsider again. Maybe if you don't know what you're doing, don't do it without asking questions on how to do it. Plenty of us willing to give free advice.

Stopping additional promotion was 1 thing you did do correctly. I'm trying to not be an asshole as you are new, but learn from this and try being humble.

Thanks for the heads up.. like I already said my apologies to the community..and all members that were affected. Lesson learnt.

[Tungbulu]

The truth is that you can’t really say for sure which casino is legit and which isn’t, so you can’t generalize it. I’ve previously worked with a campaign (Spinly) that paid directly into the casino account and there wasn’t any complaints about withdrawal. I think the manager took the right step by pausing the campaign first till all these issues are resolved because even he is naive in this case, I know this is bad but it’s still better than having to work for several weeks without getting paid, at least it’s just one week (not like it’s cool).

Several campaigns have used and is still using this payment method without the participants having withdrawal issues, so it’s really not much of a big deal.

[Pmalek]

I have participated in both kinds of campaigns: those that send signature payments to casino accounts and others that pay the earnings to addresses in private wallets. I prefer the latter, as I am sure most people do. But I have not avoided receiving my signature payments in a casino account either.

It's your job to evaluate and reach a conclusion if such terms are acceptable to you. If you applied and was accepted, it means that you are ok with it. Therefore, you shouldn't complain afterwards.

If the casino requested that you wager your earnings before being allowed to withdraw, that would be unacceptable to me. I choose whether or not I want to be your player, you can't make me. Unless it was a requirement and a part of the rules I accepted by participating in the campaign.   

[ABCbits]

Based on similar signature campaigns that I participated in the past, this was more than OK without any issue except for one casino that forced me to wager x1 before withdrawing my earning. I was lucky not to lose the money nonetheless.

I also recall there are few others that have high withdraw fee, compared to http://mempool.space/ suggestion. It can be seen as different way to lose some campaign earning.

We can't just simply ban or abolish something like this, but based on such experience, next time such a campaign pops up, members should avoid it until they accept to escrow the funds first

Or at least research to know possible the risks.

[Pmalek]

I also recall there are few others that have high withdraw fee, compared to http://mempool.space/ suggestion. It can be seen as different as different way to lose some campaign earning.

This is another point that should be discussed with the campaign manager before applying and each user can check with the casino to find out how much they charge their users in withdrawal fees. It's usually highlighted on the withdrawal tab or FAQ section. If you are fine with the extra risk, you can always accumulate several weeks worth of campaign payments in your account and request a withdrawal once a month instead of every week.

[Alpha Marine]

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.

To what ends? What would be the gain of the casino if they use the forum to advertise their site and then scam people by not paying them? What kind of reputation does that do for them?
The worst that will happen to the campaign participant is that they will lose one week paymnet, but the casino will have a ruined reputation on the forum. Except that the casino simply hopes for big deposits they can do an exist-scam with, they gain nothing by doing what you say.

[robelneo]

Several campaigns have used and is still using this payment method without the participants having withdrawal issues, so it’s really not much of a big deal.

Stake has been using this method for many years, and  the participants can withdraw their rewards even if they are not verified, but not  for a new site like Betmoco;
https://www.whois.com/whois/betmoco.com
Domain: betmoco.com
Registered On: 2026-01-09

I'd like to think they planned this exit scam because of the term they use for the campaign participants: participants should be able to freely withdraw their credited payment without terms or conditions.
Now, managers will know what to do if a new casino wants to launch a campaign with terms similar to Betmoco.

[tabas]

I am one of the participants and was hopeful when I requested for the withdrawal because it's manual, at first withdrawal request it got cancelled immediately. But upon doing so, it has been confirmed as with its status and then, here goes their disappearance. I'm not expecting them to pay any longer with how they acted yesterday but if they come back and try to clean their reputation, I'd be thankful.

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?

It's okay to have those direct payments in casino accounts, it's been happening ever since. And your suggestion is okay about the escrow, usually managers really do that. But each campaign manager has their own ways of securing the funds even for the first week of their campaign's run.

[FirmWars]

This is not the first time that casinos are paying signature participants directly to the casino account and even some casino signature that are still ongoing are making payments to the casino account and there's no issue with withdrawal. The problem is not about paying to the website balance, probably that's the payment options that is more comfortable with them and they also want to use the opportunity to see that some members here on the forum have registered on their website and they feel that it will lure some person's to use their payment for gambling, I do not see it as a bad option but to not allow signature participants withdraw their payment is red flag.

If any new casino wants launched a signature and wants to pay participants to the website balance, they should also keep some funds with the campaign manager so that if they failed to pay the participants, the manager can have reserved funds to still pay from. There should be an agreement like this to avoid future issues. I receive and withdraw my payment from the casino I'm promoting and there's not difficulty for me to withdraw from their website.

[joker_josue]

It is not minimizing the situation. But it was only a week.
I think it would have been worse, if the campaign had run for several weeks, leading some to leave the funds there and withdraw everything together at the end of a few weeks.

It is true that it is a loss. And it makes everyone involved uncomfortable.
Users who campaigned felt they missed out on other opportunities
The manager felt cheated and may see his reputation minimized.

Anyway, we all make mistakes.
This case (another one unfortunately), shows how we all have to be very attentive. Good luck to all those injured.

[r_victory]

I rarely apply for campaigns like that; I prefer to receive payments directly into my wallet. If the platform offers payment to the site's account, it's only worthwhile for me if I can withdraw the money without any additional costs or other requirements. However, I find it safer when the manager works with an escrow account and the payment goes into the wallet of our choice.

[NotATether]

There is nothing wrong with paying your balance to a website as long as you can withdraw it without problems. It's when you can't when it starts to become a big problem.

This doesn't have to be explained; Of course there are people who don't like that kind of arrangement. I know I don't really prefer it. But I guess there are some people who want to have a balance on that site.

[Lida93]

I would not even join any campaign with that terms, but other people may think differently about that.

Yea I do think differently about that the issue being that am currently working with a signature campaign which the casino are paying the participants into the casino accounts of each participants and it's being running smoothly. So it's definitely about the casino in question and not about the design through which they're making payment to the participants of the signature campaign. It's unfortunate this has to happen.

[Forsyth Jones]

The problem isn't the way the contracting service pays campaign users, but in the various responsibility factors that the manager and participants must consider: the brand's trustworthiness and any guarantee the brand is willing to provide to the manager. If the brand is new with no reputation, it's sensible for the manager to request security deposits of at least 1 or 2 weeks. I've seen managers who paid out of their own pockets if something went wrong, but only the most experienced managers with significant capital can handle this, as they've been in the market for a long time and reserve funds in case something goes wrong.

I'm not a campaign manager, so I might be wrong, but for me, it doesn't matter how the brand pays the manager and participants, what matters is whether or not they use escrow with the manager. Even if the brand doesn't make the weekly payments (as was the case), the manager uses the security deposit to pay the participants.

I feel very sorry for the users who were harmed and also for the manager. I hope he gets over this, he must be a nice guy. I don't know him, but I don't wish ill on anyone.

[Darker45]

It's your job to evaluate and reach a conclusion if such terms are acceptable to you. If you applied and was accepted, it means that you are ok with it. Therefore, you shouldn't complain afterwards.  

They're probably ok with the terms. What wasn't ok was that they weren't paid. But, well, the implied risks must be deemed part and parcel of the terms. 

But then again, even if they aren't completely agreeable with the terms--the lack of safety net in this case, for example, or the charging of withdrawal fee, wagering requirements, and whatnot in other cases--the fact that signature slots are limited and somehow coveted, many would easily jump right into it nonetheless. It's because

...staying idle costs munney. As Gazlowe says: Time is munney, friend.

[hugeblack]

I remember that Whirlwind.money was paying campaign subscribers via the whirlwind.money Public Note address^[1], and unfortunately it did not end well^[2].
Therefore, if you join such campaigns, it is best to withdraw your payment as soon as possible.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5446576.msg61989649#msg61989649
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5446575.msg61989613#msg61989613

[Pmalek]

They're probably ok with the terms. What wasn't ok was that they weren't paid. But, well, the implied risks must be deemed part and parcel of the terms. 

I was talking in general and not about a specific campaign like Betmoco. I am not familiar with the case, but based on the posts of some users in this thread, I can conclude that the casino disappeared and didn't pay their signature campaign participants.

In general, if someone tells you they will pay you a certain way and you agree to it, then it makes no sense complaining about the way you are receiving that money. If you didn't like the conditions, you should have proposed something different or rejected it altogether if the other party didn't agree.