Topic: Any Rules for Bounty Manager? (Read 731 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.

That's what it looks like. If there is a pool of tokens set aside for a specific portion of a bounty and only 3 users participate, I would expect the bounty manager to cancel the bounty after week 1.

Normally tokens end up being mostly worthless but the company should compensate these 3 users they say were legit something.

Yeah, his username rings a bell from a while back, but since I don't really follow what's going on in the bounty world I can't remember why that bell's ringing.  

I'm trying to understand exactly what went on here, since OP's post is extremely hard to process.  Those bounty hunters did six weeks of "work" before Murat stopped the bounty without paying anyone?  Is that the gist of this complaint?

Exactly right.  OP is apparently not a new member of the forum (I have a feeling he's not the original owner based on his post history), so you'd think he'd be aware of which bounty managers are crap and which are reputable--especially since that's about all OP does on bitcointalk.

On a related note, this feedback from OP's trust page is kinda funny:



Ultimately I have no sympathy for bounty hunters getting scammed, because all they do is basically spam for money.  I'm a DT member, but there's no way in hell I'm making an issue like this one of my battles to fight.

The thing is this, all of these isn't really moderated by the forum, and even if we are to agree that that it is an an offense worthy of negative feedbacks, it still wouldn't bring back the time and efforts the bounty hunters have already wasted whilst promoting the project for the number of weeks it went on.

Having said that, while the BM reserves the right to do X and Y in a campaign, i don't think ending a campaign without pay after 6 long weeks is quite a nice thing to do, yes i know people should look away from bounties, i also know they should not join bounty campaigns if they do not like the manager, etc, but it still doesn't make it right when BM don't act nice to their bounty participants after long weeks together. If the issues raised now by the BM came up in the first or second week of the campaign resulting in its closure then, i doubt the participants will have too much of a problem with that, but what increases their agony is the 6 long weeks they worked with and for this project, and on the basis of that, i consider their complaints somewhat valid.

Users were more than 8 and 4 of them already recieved stake for 5 week and then at the end admin delete all users from list. It's very Unfair seen ever I see.

My research is very good. I have been participating in the 1xbit signature campaign for a year and I have been paying solidly on time and fairly during all this time. My experience with 1xbit signature campaign manager is purely positive.

I have a simple solution for this. If you dont like the bounty manager, dont join in their campaigns. Nobody is forcing you to join a campaign, you are doing it on your free will.

Besides, bounties are never guaranteed payments, so that is a clause that you have to accept when you are participating.

I dont think DT is going to polic bounty managers for this. The decision of the manager is final, whether you like it or not.

Again, dont join a bounty if you cant cope with the outcome, which is often bad in bounties.

First of all, I apologize for my bad English, but I also have something to say about this subject.


I was also in this campaign. I do not agree with the excuse to cancel. There were more than 3 people attending. I was kicked out of the group when I asked why the campaign wasn't stopped. This is the first time I have experienced such things in a bounty I participated in and it was an experience for me.

Murat should come and clarify this, because i think this needs more clarification from the manager precisely not by pointing out what he said. This a proposed that's campaign launched. and if that should be a cancellation is from the initial when the campaign started. And it's not supposed to be after the campaign has run for some weeks intervals.

I know vividly that scam campaign's also come to way of managers and if they are not smart enough to detect the ability of the contract, they will end up giving their self debts. So it's unbalanced from my perception, if theirs is changes or you observe the level of competency from your participants your it make openly and remove them and is proper, but a process whereby you notice their default and you kept silent and allow campaign to run to an end before you deleting their file's, it's not legit theory. That's while i said that should not be the major factor, so let the manger portray it own view.

Honestly, it beggars the question of why scam accounts and activities aren't banned here but plagiarism is, at the slightest discovery. A few bounty managers are effortlessly disparaging this forum by their activities. They sign on to bounties and mostly only care for their paycheck. Hunters are often left in the lurch and this isn't good. Rewards aren't paid as when due. Most times rewards aren't paid out at all and that ends it. The BMs, knowing that DT and highly ranked members who could call them out don't participate in bounties have utilized this to go rogue. I remember calling a BM out a few years ago and all they could do was retaliatory, instead of amicably resolving the issue. I know there are users here who would argue that if anyone didn't like the way they're treated they shouldn't participate in bounties. Sadly, arguing that way won't be an approach to resolving this lingering scamming activity. In 2017/18, a few signature campaigns managers who wanted to go that route were severely dealt with and that straightened the whole thing up. That's why we see the type of sanity we have in BTC paying campaigns today. I think that should also be the call of action for rogue BMs. Enough of this maltreatment of bounty hunters.

As I said, He provides a valid reason that the quality of the signature campaign output is not good. The bounty manager has the right to stop or halt a campaign that's not effective because his job is to give a positive result to the client that pays for a quality promotion service. I don't say that he should not pay all participants but rather pay only the participants that he finds only doing the task properly.

To clarify the situation, I'm basing my statement on what's the given proof above. Murat reason is there are only 3 legit participants on his campaign, Do you think this will happened on BTC signature? Bounty managers like Hhampuz will never accept low-quality poster and if ever this will happen, I'm sure the bounty manager will kick immediately the participants or stop the campaign because they are not giving a good result to their client.

I find it crazy. Why do they have to wait for the campaign to be over before cancelling the campaign?  

OP said it run for 6 weeks and after 6 weeks which the campaign is over, they end with  the  cancellation while the participants are already expecting pay.
Maybe they should have decided to cancel when they saw there were only 3 participants in the 1st or 2nd week at least. If they are not good posters, they could have been removed in the first week of participating the campaign.

Maybe I did misunderstand this or did they wait for the 6 weeks to be over?

A campaign manager either bounty or signature has the right to deny any participants payment with a qualified reason. I'm very sure that no management officer who doesn't know what is obtainable via the collaboration between it participants and payment. If the manager clear all the post via the spreadsheet maybe their is announcement ahead before deletion of post of people working under he/her. So therefore if it's what happened really and their is no announcement before deletion of post's,  the manager have a public clearance of doubt to its participants because it's unethical.

Are you talking about this campaign: [Bounty][DARTH] 383,000.00% APY! DARTH Protocol [BEP20] $100k $DARTH 🔥🔥, if that's what you're talking about, it does look a little weird to me, looks like the campaign is running for 6 weeks and it's over, from the data: SPREADSHEETS, especially the empty sig section with no participants.

Indeed, every manager has their own rules for accepting participants, that's the manager's privilege, I admit it, but there are questions here that must be asked.

1. You know the total number of participants, before the manager deletes them.
2. Did the signature participant work during the 6 week Bounty campaign running.
3. Does the manager record the Total Stakes/week, before it is deleted.
4. Of the total participants who registered how many members were accepted, were you accepted.

Well, from the four questions above, if points number two and three participants/managers do it, it must be asked, the reason why the manager deletes all participants...! Obviously the manager has the answer for that.

the manager needs to clarify all this, so that there is no confusion between the manager and the participants.

Green trust is important but not the only measure of whether a manager is running a good campaign.


here are a lot of threads about scammers from 1xbit, you don't seem inexperienced but you still wear their signature. They steal money from their users and pay you to promote them here. You didn't do any research on that or what?

If a participant sees that the bounty manager has a +12 green trust, what more research do they need?
If even after creating such a thread with the information that the manager did not pay participants for the work done, and not even one of the DT members will give him a red tag, how do you think inexperienced users should do research?

I'm sure that's perfect idea, but most bounty participant probably don't mind staying under the management of certain well-known campaign even if they have things that end in disappointment. Usually they will complain when there is a change in the rules or anything that makes the bounty stop even though at first they don't mind anything based on their personal decisions. I know they understand the risks, but they are not brave enough to ignore them because usually most of them just rely on luck.

I'm not sure that it's all the fault of the manager and his management ^{[they can be weird or very nice],} but some bounty participants also deserve to be blamed for the decisions they agreed to in the first place, especially joining without doing any analysis.

If the manager accepts the participants, it means he is letting them know that they can start writing campaign posts.
The manager can stop the campaign and pay out as much (usually in proportion) as participants have done.
If the manager closes the campaign without paying for the time participants have been working in campaign, it is cheating.

OP, what kind of BM power you are talking about here?
Any bounty manager was only hired by the owner of the project and campaign, while every hunter is not obliged to participate in a campaign managed by specified BM. Just ignore them.
I also don't see what is not legitimate here, if the campaign is closed due to the low response of quality participants. I would say that it is closely related to the quality of campaign management with the quality of participants (ignoring it may yield results).

I think he should have a chance to explain this situation.
Of course, the manager can change the rules as he wants, but do you imagine that in the BTC paid campaign the manager would not pay for the whole week because he just don't want? He would have immediately been given a few red tags. It should be the same in this case.

The bounty manager has the rules on the bounty terms that his decision is final and you agree on that when you decided to participate in his campaign. But I agree that he should compensate the user that he acknowledges as a legit user even with the minimum payment because they already spend time and effort to complete the task. @Murat is already involved in many drama on inappropriate bounty management but the user keeps joining his campaign hoping they will get income by doing bounty task.

You can't do anything about this as he has reason and is protected by his own selfish terms. Just follow @lovesmayfamilis advice to save your time.

There have already been misunderstandings from other accounts about his strange behavior.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.58385147

I can also say that for me, this is a very strange manager who does not pay attention to the participation of cheaters in his company. Moreover, the negative feedback from DT members does not mean anything to him. He accepts everyone in the company.

The only thing that can be advised, in order to avoid disappointment from him in the future, is to ignore all the bounties that he leads.

Hello All DT Members!
Some Bounty Manager doing very unfair with Hunters.
 I have created this thread. If any hunters have issue with BM which Do whatever is wrong using  BM power then you can Report Here. There are top Class DT member here in this Forum which will look report and if they find any unfair situation they will ask BM to solve the issue.

Recently Top Class BM which are old member of this forum doing very Unfair. In his recent Bounty "Darth" which he run for 6 weak. At the End he delete all Signature participants from Spreadsheet and Say




First time I experienced that one BM delete while page of any Compaign. Other BM just reject users but everybody can see the details in spreadsheet.
I humbly request all DT member to check this issue and ask Murat to solve this.