Topic: Any Rules for Bounty Manager? (Read 736 times)

Important point, it is also about trust of a bounty manager.
How many projects has he done or how many funds had he held.

You are right.
It is a gamble but we have many opportunities to increase our profit chances. Like you say, only join trusted manager's bounty and have a look at terms and also project legitimacy.

The issues with what you propose are if all managers were required to put funds/tokens in escrow then more than half of the managers currently wouldn't have jobs. They are getting the jobs they get now because teams are looking for the cheapest guy out there and gives them a chance to run off without paying if the sale doesn't go the way they want it to. Your basic bounty managers would not be open to this being a MUST rule.

If teams had to escrow tokens plus eth for sending the tokens there would be less "projects" that happen as well. IMO most of the projects launched would be more legit as at a minimum at least tokens would always be paid out. Teams will not be open to this all being a MUST rule as it would lessen the chances to run a scam project.

Joining a bounty is a gamble. 50/50 chance to be paid or not be paid. No manager I don't think has a perfect record(I could be wrong). If you have doubts about a manager or team, just don't join that bounty.

Bounty manager can also define to put all campaigns funds into a trusted Bitcointalk escrow service, where all funds will be kept safe from untrusted people or even hack.
He can prove it publicly by involving an escrow service and participants can see ii in Bitcoin's Blockchain publicly.
Bounty mananger can't cheat, funds will be safu.

This is trite to say. Allowing a parcipant to work to the end before pointing out an issue to deny the partipant benefit is not properto do. It should be the managers responsibility to find out earlier and stop the person from continuing and not to allow it go to the end before doing that because that means the person will promote the project without having something back in return.

Sadly that doesn't apply in the altcoin rewards section, I'll bet most of them won't bother to research before joining. it doesn't matter what the project is the most important thing is to register and wait for luck at the end of the campaign.
Also I think every participant knows very well every risk they accept before joining the bounty, but now as if voicing to mark the bounty campaign manager for feeling unpaid, cheated by the bounty manager, etc. if there is no evidence or strong allegation to mark the bounty manager then it will not work effectively it maybe can even be considered as an abuse of trust.

There are quite a lot of reputable managers in the forum, maybe the only solution is to basically join only campaigns run by them.

[/quote] Yes. Agreed. this may be the final solution. but disappointed from lot of scam projects and also BM not updating to hunters.
thanks Sir

Campaigns, be it bounty or signature are not moderated by the forum, the admin is never going to lay down rules on what should be and what shouldn't be as regards campaigns and indeed quite a lot of things on the forum as well, any user of any rank is free to run campaigns (i am not saying it is good), but it is what it is, campaign participants have it as their own duty to check all about a campaign before deciding to join, once they make the decision to join, they somewhat take responsibility for whatever outcome in the end.

Having said that, in the end all what the forum can do through default trust is to give negative feedbacks to cheaters, either bounty managers that are proven scammers, or participants that cheat, that is as far as it can go, sadly it would in the end not change the outcome of the campaign or make up for lost time and effort. As for spelling/noting down rules for companies, on who to hire or who not to, it is not going to happen. There are quite a lot of reputable managers in the forum, maybe the only solution is to basically join only campaigns run by them.

Respected Bitcointalk Community,

While giving esteemed admire to all Legendary, Hero, Senior members of the community, I am proud to give some suggestion on the Topic “How to Run a Bounty Campaign”:

In recent some months, I have seen a lot of campaigns on Bitcointalk, run by inexperienced managers, newbies and project managers itself. These campaigns have represented a worse face of Bitcointalk where mostly campaigns got scammed or either projects ran away with their all social media closed. I have some suggestions on these issues because it is our responsibility:

1. Bounty Campaign may be run by only Senior member and above. Project owner should not be given permission to run a campaign himself. If project owner or bounty manager below the rank of Senior member run a campaign, the thread must be deleted.
2. Bounty managers should have adequate research on the project which is being promoted prior launching and offering to the hunters for participation.
3. Tokens if escrowed, must be transferred to hunters within two weeks after the bounty end date. And if distribution by project team, tokens to be distributed within four weeks of campaign end. In case the TGE of project is not conducted within four weeks after bounty end, then date of distribution should be two days after TGE.
4. Bounty manager may disclose latest information about ongoing campaigns once every week in their telegram group. Example can be seen from Brainboss management.
5. If any project fails, no reply or get scammed, bounty managers should immediately post scam on the thread of that project.
6. Some bounty manager either don’t know the bounty duration of the running projects. The following information should be displayed on every bounty thread:

a. Project Name
b. Duration
c. Rewards
d. Date of Reward distribution
e. Presale, IDO, ICO, TGE, Listing date with exchange etc

These all suggestion are only to strong the bitcointalk community and bring more trust in this forum. Every person has his own views.

I think the problem is that there is a huge difference between bounty campaigns and BTC signature campaigns, the former is more often than not run by newbies or users who are far from being reputable (and really have nothing to lose), so even if they do not act in the right manner, handing them negative feedbacks would not change anything, they would still handle many other campaigns even with the negative feedbacks in their profile. But the latter is much more organized, with reputable users running almost 99% of it, and companies are always eager to give the job to the best possible manager.

Having said that, actually the BM in question here (the one OP is calling out) is one of the altcoin bounty managers with a somewhat good reputation, if you take a look at his trust profile you will understand why i say so, and he has also been managing campaigns for quite a while now on the forum, the more reason why i do not know why this particular campaign under his watch ended this way. Prolly OP should PM him about this thread so we hear his own side to it all.

The manager shouldn't be tagged if the manager isn't at fault. It's really east for all managers to make an announcement regarding a teams decisions. If the team doesn't pay the tokens for example, that's not really the managers fault if he announced ahead of time he is not holding the tokens. If the manager was given the tokens by the team and he ran off with them, then yes 100% tag that manager, screw his blacklist.

As a manager, you must know a lot about what often happens to bounty hunters. They complain of not being paid by a particular manager regardless of whether it is the fault of the team or the manager, but they will still join the same manager when there is a worth it bounty. That's bullshit, and most of them are afraid to tag the manager when found guilty because that would put him on the manager's blacklist.

Look what happened in the past, maybe it's still happening now. Not many bounty participants like to tag managers or representatives of a particular project when they are proven guilty because they only wish that only DT could do it.

You cannot put the reputation of the forum in jeopardy for bounty hunters mistakes. The DT users can tag the bounty manager but even if he is tagged he will still get work. The burden falls on the bounty hunters IMO. If noone is joining his bounties, then he will stop getting work.

DT members aren't much interested in bounty and that explains why there's so much rot there with managers acting arbitrarily. While I acknowledge that everyone here is an adult who makes and takes decisions as they deem fit on their own, and should be responsible for whatever outcome their decisions throw on them; I sincerely think the same measure of strictness adopted that have brought sanity we experience in BTC paying campaigns should be applied on the bounty section. If DT members continue to overlook the bounty section and allow bounty managers have their way, it will gradually spoil the reputation of this forum with time.

If you feel Murat did something wrong( I agree that he could/should have did things different) and you made this thread, did you pm him and notify him of this thread?

If you think he deserves to be tagged, why haven't you yourself also tagged him?

First of all, thank you to everyone who tried to support.
I am one of the participants.
In total, my reward for 4 weeks was visible.
The file was deleted in the 6th week of the campaign.
I didn't quite understand what this move meant.
I applied to the manager by e-mail and he did not return for information.
Now what is the amount I will get here?
This move was not elegant at all.
We have no sanctions.
We see that only those who have the power abuse the power.
On my own behalf, I do not give my rights and my labor to these men and the manager.
Sorry for my bad english.
Thanks again.

Exactly this is the point. Murat delete whole Signature Users from spreadsheet and did not care who got stake for 5 weak.

Whether it was Murat or the client some sort of announcement needs made and if there were legit participants during the weeks, then some sort of compansation is needed. He has been managing long enough, he should know what to do by now.

although the bounty manager can make rules to change the terms of the campaign that is held. indeed it looks unfair for at least 3 participants who are valid until the 6th week of the campaign.
unless the manager stops or deletes the campaign in the early weeks. at least, even if it doesn't get the full allocation of the original rules. those who are valid should at least be compensated for their work.
maybe it wasn't Murat who decided to remove his signature campaign. there is a high possibility, that it was a request from his client.

I consider myself lucky to not be involved in any of the projects of this campaign manager. We have understood the importance of examining the manager as well as the project in order to be successful. The way how he handles the process is obviously not fair. As he stated in telegram chat, the number of deserved ones is not 0. Ar least there is 2 people did what they want from them.  The fact that he did not manage the process in a transparent way, deleted the records and did not give any reasonable explanation reveals that he is not doing his duty in the campaign properly. Those who will join his campaigns from now on should think twice.

Yeah, that is what i make out of it from what OP had to say, and from what other users who seemingly participated in the bounty had to say as well in this thread, the campaign went on seemingly without any issues for six weeks, before this somewhat 'usual' end.
If you take a good look at the BM's trust page, it really doesn't look bad at all and he can be said to be one of the reputable managers who handle mostly altcoin bounties (though i think there have been a couple of issues raised previously), but it is still unlike the usual newbies with zero merit and negative feedbacks that run some altcoin bounties. This manager in question looks all good, at least going by his trust page.
Neither do i, but just for that small percentage that do a honest 'work' at least, it is still necessary to ask why the campaign wasn't stopped after the first week or so (like i said in my earlier post), but after 6 long weeks.