Topic: Campaign managers acting as Escrow (Read 964 times)

And since someone has bump this thread, it seems that this work around has been smooth for you and the campaign itself. And there are campaigns in the future who might do the same setup, or have someone hold the escrows.

So I guess everything is going to be ok with this two, it's up to the project themselves what setup they want.

Or if the campaign managers are going to offer this kind of setup for the project.

Escrow should always hold all funds in a personal wallet, never centralized exchange! Just remember FTX, centralized exchange can always go down. Even low risk should be avoided.
Problem is: if it's an Altcoin for escrow, if it's a shit project, where any token will lose any value, even escrow and personal wallet can't help! 

Last few days I was not online.

I, Poker Player and many other members were regular in SWG o SwC poker back in the start of pandemic. I can not remember when did I add him (I think few days ago I did a revise, too lazy to check) but if I added him then it's a must that he was accurate in his feedback giving. People changes especially when they start tasting some kind of authoritarianship. I hope this is not the case for Poker Player.

If we consider the risk associated with using a centralized exchange in performing escrow for our transactions and eventually they got hacked or went bankrupt obviously we have nothing to do about it because we cannot fight them back to recovering the lost funds, but in case of the campaign managers and their hiring companies this has to be an agreement they would have cone into symphony with before engaging on the deal of contract, with the recent happening i think others will learn and review or recheck their contract terms with the kind of managers they employed, but i think experience also matters here, it's not all about hiring a manager but those that can delivere upto task and has been here on the forum in charge of more than four signature campaigns over years and nothing got mixed up.

I would address this in his thread where he mentioned me but it kind of on-topic for this thread seeing as how you are a campaign manager and I assume you've also been escrow at the same time before.

I see Poker Player changed this most recent red to a neutral but I disagree with his initial red on you if only for the reason that it wasn't supported by a reference link. Your reputation is obviously important to you on this forum and since you've been here for years longer than him, he owes the courtesy of at least supporting his negative trust with a reference link.

I'm generally wary of new-ish users (2020 reg date is new-ish IMO) who are quick to use their DT powers for reasons not entirely justified.

It's about reducing risks. Even if you use a hot wallet instead of your hardware wallet, you can still get hit by a bus. But if you don't get hit by a bus and lose your hot wallet, it helps if you can afford the loss.

For serious amounts, you can use multisig with multiple people. Forum funds now use a 3-of-5 multisig address.

It's off-topic here.

You think I am creating drama? Seriously.
How many times you see me going to people's trust page and leaving feedback, adding people in my trust list who I do not go along. If you really can not follow then please do not leave a generic response.

It sounds like an excuse.  But I don't think that saying that it can happen to everyone is applicable here. Accidents on the road occur as well, sometimes due to the fault of both the pedestrian and the driver. But the biggest fault lies with the driver when he has a weapon in his hands that can lead to the death of people because the driver himself does not know the rules of driving.
I think you can understand it.

Even he change his old feedback, it doesn't make any difference since he's currently not a DT member. Actually there's a one user who need to revise his feedback since he's a DT member.

If you ask to me does his feedback he leave on your profile is correct or not, I will say it's not correct.

But the thing is, he was leave an appropriate feedback which I think his recent feedback isn't really make any difference since if one person leave 2 negative feedbacks, it will count for 1.


Also considering if @Poker Player already change his feedback to neutral, it doesn't mean your account already clean since there's 2 users that still leave negative feedbacks. Based on my observations @Poker Player isn't a person who hard to change his feedback from negative to neutral.

Instead of making more drama, I think it's better for you to not easily get heated and focus to built your reputation. You've already manage multiple campaigns which mean, sooner or later you could be trusted like before.

I think you are right, sorry about my explanation but I surely understood what escrow is. My bad, I mixed up the Escrow service(which I believe he has) of Julerz and his campaign management services.


Whatever his explanation is, it might be true or just a made up, bottom line he is responsible for the funds.

Still, my stance on his topic is that it's okay for a campaign manager to hold the funds of the campaign. Besides, we can never be sure, Escrow service from reliable members could also end to scam. You know, we are just humans, sometimes we make mistakes whether deliberately or not, still a mistake.

He always asks LoyceV when he doubts the proper use of the feedback system.
So, I would like to mention @LoyceV if he wouldn't mind sharing his point of view.

---

Well, this could be off-topic here. But, All those things turned into a personal fight right now.
Like seriously, guys? This is a virtual forum, and we don't know each other personally. Why so personal?

Why do you question him. He has all his right to whatever he wants to do, doesn't he? // excuse my sarcasm

How would you explain it?



I should be asking everyone who have him in their trust or even in distrust list.

Because this user contributed to your thread, you believe this makes them trustworthy with trades?

The reason for changing the feedback would be because its not appropriate use of the trust system.

I'm keeping an open mind about this given julerz12 has contributed to the Known Alts thread.

I see no reason to change this trust feedback anytime soon:


Being the CM and holding onto the bag at the same time it would seem is a very risky venture.  Hopefully this gets sorted out quickly.

Even with such measures, a lot of things could still go wrong that would jeopardize the escrow. For starters, what if they got into an accident, got robed, or worse, died? These may seem far fetched but it can happen.
And if such condition is applied here, as yahoo already mentioned, probably only one or two users in this forum would qualify. If all funds from various bounty campaigns, signature campaigns are poured into them, they could easily be targeted not just online but in real-life as well. Quite scary when you think about it.

Yep, but still, nothing beats this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-developer-lukedashjrs-wallet-was-hacked-5432665

First this is not a question of if the manager should be held accountable for this incident or not but a question of responsibility, ad a campaign manager that such funds are entrusted your care the responsibility of protecting that funds and using them for what is meant for and achieving it 100% satisfaction of the client is very important for any reputable manager.

But this is not the case here, and in this situation even though the manager accepts the responsibility there is little that he can do judging from his many statements because he does not have a possible means of paying back.

I was also disappointed when I read this news yesterday, and this is o e of the early big hack/scam story for the new year 2023.

after the FTX collapse, Binance and CMC launched reserves as an additional parameter for liquidity exchanges. Maybe we could have a similar condition here, the escrow must have a certain amount of reserves as a guarantee.


I also remember some earlier cases, like master-P then very respected as an escrow service on the forum, or even the case with Lauda, but I'm not sure how it ended. Disputed were some fork coins that she claimed while holding a serious amount in bitcoin as an escrow. I still only remember the accusation but not the epilogue.

This is a good sign of maturity on your part, and it is good to see that you understand that it is important to be transparent and accountable for your actions. And, I appreciate you being open to the skepticism and understanding the reasons behind it, given the information that has been shared. People on the forums don't know you and your story, so It is natural for them to have doubts, especially when it comes to issues related to money. I hope you can follow through on your plan and make things right, and good luck with your journey.

Before this loss, julerz12 was known as one of the most trusted managers, unfortunately the loss of $5,000 changed the trust in julerz12 a bit. He said his funds had been stolen, whatever the reason he had to pay all the lost funds for his negligence to restore trust in him.
He is the first party who should be responsible for returning the funds, before the Campaign started he had held the funds for several weeks. This is the risk of a Manager, he never realized this incident would happen to him. For that reason he uses a hot wallet to store campaign funds, that amount of funds should be stored in a safe place (hardware wallet).

This incident will be a lesson for anyone who keeps large funds in a hot wallet, julerz12 will always remember this incident as long as he is alive because this is a lesson that will never be forgotten for him.

Thanks, I appreciate your skepticism and I totally understand why. You don't know me, heck, many of the users of this forum don't. So, I wouldn't be surprised by people doubting me or my "story".
As I have previously stated on the other thread, I accept all consequences and judgment everyone is going to throw at me for what happened, whether it be positive or negative. Tags, flags, and whatnot.
For what it's worth, I've handled and distributed a similar amount of crypto before, some in BTC while mostly in stablecoins and various tokens. You can see the list here, [link].
With that being said, I will continue to strive and work hard to prove that I have nothing but good intentions and work my ass off to pay those debts I now owe the project teams. It will take a while but I promise to make it consistent.

Yo!Mix was immediately paused as soon as I found out that the wallet was drained. It did not even get a chance to run for at least 1 day. The problem is that their representative no longer responds to my messages. I think they're really pissed and rightfully so. I still constantly send them messages tho as I'm waiting for them to send their official BTC address so I can return the $320 in BTC that was paid upfront for my 4-week management fee.

Coinomize will send the rewards themselves for which I am eternally grateful. I'm quite thankful that they still chose to constantly communicate despite what happened.

My understanding is the case that happened as experienced by: @julerz12, a very large settlement between @YoMix & @[banned mixer], because, they both own the funds and are entrusted with escrow/campaigns to julerz12, that's the main point of the problem, we know what's to lose here is the two of them.

Regarding the payout for campaign participants in this week, i think julerz12 should be responsible for it, even though the fund has been hacked/lost etc, Next, julerz12 can pause the campaign and finalize workaround and continuation with @YoMix & @[banned mixer].

Tags, flags or the like are allowed and legal, but it's better if we hear directly from @YoMix & @[banned mixer], because what's happening right now is based on the carelessness of the escrow users themselves and loss of funds, yes, that's understood, but at this point, the escrow and the owner of the funds have no negative responses except: @YoMix, who knows there is a meeting point in this case, if there is indeed no meeting point, maybe something will happen to julerz12, this is just my opinion, what is certain is that I am not taking sides anywhere, neutral and complete the carelessness that causes loss, not intentional, there are exceptions.....

Trusting him because of his past time in the forum but with the accident, nobody can verify it.

Only time can tell and if he repay the lost fund to two projects, he can reclaim his reputation. If he runs away, we will know it soon. Time will tell and currently it is too early to say it is an accident or an intentional scam. I believe we will know the truth soon as if he scammed them, he will not return any cent to two projects and he will not care about negative feedback, trust, flags and pressure from forum members at all.

We can not verify anything because if his computer was actually compromised, perhaps the hacker is using his account and can sign any message from his staked address too.

---

In the past, kenzawak hacked (again). After two or three times of hack, the user abandoned the forum. Was his account really hacked or something else?

Oh my, I remember that debacle very well.  Even though it had nothing to do with me, I remember posting a few times in the big thread that was started up about it.  I hadn't been a member of the forum for all that long, so I was naive to all of the scamming taking place and still thought green trust meant you could really trust any member who had it.

I'm not buying the story julerz12 is trying to sell.  He has a lot of positive feedback, but having a large sum of money entrusted to you can be too tempting to some people--just like MasterP, just like those charity scammers, and probably more than a dozen additional examples that can probably be dug up from the bottom of the toilet whence these fuckers come from.  I'm reading a lot of posts in support of julerz12, and everyone is entitled to believe what they want of course, but it seems even YoMix thinks he scammed them.  I happen to agree with that.

Based on other bounty manager experience like @Hhampuz he has back up or recovering money when something bad happen with his current active signature service campaign. Actually several time I saw he pay with his own money due several campaign service not filled fund after end weeks.

Can't expected about @julerz12 wallet was hacked and he loss fund, but for preparing bad thing later need have back up money and campaign can running well without any trouble yet. I hope you can learned more here and be better for next time opportunity become as Bounty Manager campaign, but @julerz12 have build with his reputation early.

Being a campaign manager + escrow service is not easy, so I will never try to be both because I know the risk is far greater than just being a participant in a bounty campaign.


The economic conditions of the Philippines are not much different from Indonesia, so $5000 is a huge amount there and here (my country), julerz12 said he would take full responsibility and even intend to sell his 2 motorbikes to repay the lost escrow funds. he is a good person, I hope this incident that happened to him does not make him down and discouraged.

Of course, he couldn't just apologize and make an announcement for the loss of funds and continue to maintain good reputation and management. When he received any amount of funds, it meant that he had the responsibility to secure the funds without any problem. Any thing that happens to the funds such as hacking or loss of access to the wallet must always be the responsibility of the owner of the wallet, and in this case it is the manager who also calls himself the escrow.

After all not all managers have an emergency budget to keep their management running smoothly should an issue like this occur, so it's one that managers have to consider how much money they can afford to lose if a hack or such occurs. I mean, it's for security and smooth management.

In situations like this, it's important for individuals to understand that being a campaign manager or an escrow carries a lot of responsibility, and they should be fully committed to being transparent and accountable for their actions. This includes taking every precaution to ensure the safety and security of the funds, as well as being proactive in identifying and addressing any issues that may arise. Whether they're just managing a campaign or safeguarding funds, they must be fully accountable for their actions, particularly when it comes to handling other people's money. It's important for them to have a plan in place for how to handle any potential problems or issues that may arise, such as how to return funds to their rightful owners in the event of a hack or other breach of security. It's not enough to just have good intentions, actions and practical measures need to be taken to ensure the safety of the funds, and to show that the responsibilities as a campaign manager or an escrow are being taken seriously.

Escrow in the sense is third party who is a party that secures funds in transaction between parties A & B. So this third party is tasked with securing funds that have been agreed between parties A & B and usually users who act as third parties can actually trusted. I know some managers can also be an escrow for other transacting parties, but if the manager receives and keeps the campaign budget in his wallet then I don't think he is acting as an escrow. It's a kind of campaign budget entrusted to the manager in advance.

It is obviously his responsibility to secure all those budgets, and if he makes a mistake that makes all those budgets disappear then he has to cover all those losses. I don't blame julerz12 entirely for what happened, but it was a disgrace in the way it secured the campaign budget. He has to pay for it, of course because it will only affect his reputation as a manager in the short and long term.

Since the last day, I am watching all this hack-related stuff and conversations between different managers and other senior members. As I liked what Hhampuz said that now Julerz needs to be strong at this moment as Julerz12 is trustworthy what he needs is time. If he stands out of this and somehow managed to fix this then I think there will be a boost in his reputation. Hope it won't affect any further signature projects. It's a hard time for Julerz12 and I think the community should support him if he proves his innocence for now matter is quite stuck in between.

Has any of them ever provided any proof of fund? I did not see any in an open discussion. I remember Hhampuz paid out of his own pocket, you also did although I can not remember how much was the USD amount at the times. Royce77 also did, not long ago (I think he was the latest campaign manager who was in trouble until julerz12) and as far as I can remember it was something $3,200 or $6,200.

You must remember bitcointalk charity? The mismanagement of fund. Did the escrow ever made it correct? I doubt he had enough to cover it up.

As long as any of them provide any proof of fund, it does not matter if the person is sole escrow provider or a campaign manager who is keeping custody of the marketing budget, it's difficult to tell that they are capable of recovering the lose from their own pocket, it does not matter how reputable, or old you are in the forum. If the accident with julerz12 was not happening then wouldn't we think that he have enough money to resolve if anything happen with the escrow coins? We would.

When someone is opening an escrow service, or managing a campaign with holding marketing budget, depending on their past history we are trusting them. This is a fact.

But these service providers should have the moral obligation that they have the financial solvency to refund or resolve with their clients when anything bad happens with them or their reputation will effect. You are securing someone else money but at the end you are actually giving a false definition of security. That's not supposed to be the meaning escrow.

It will not be the first time, but it is not very common.


---


Yes, he is responsible for these funds. If he loses them he has to bear the consequences, even if it is in this case as it seems due to negligence and not because he stole them himself. At the moment he has one negative tag and two neutral ones reflecting the situation, when not even 24 hours have passed. I think both tags are acceptable. Neutral which will change to negative if he does not pay what he owes or conversely, negative which will change to neutral if he pays.

Actually, it's not a problem if the campaign manager will act as Escrow if that is the agreement between the company and the campaign manager. That only says that he trusted the campaign manager, on the case of yomix, it cannot be denied that Julerz is a reputable campaign manager and I believe it already happened before that he hold funds for the campaign and there was no problem with it as the campaign runs smoothly.

It's just said that this thing happens, whether it's his fault or due to his negligence, the amount lost is still his responsibility. No need to point fingers whatsoever, just accept the responsibility and pay for the amount that was stolen. In the end, it will boil out to the reputation of the manager, if he will go dark and forget his responsibility, then he will get red tag and will never be a campaign manager again or an escrow if that's part of his services. Imagine, it's the future opportunity that will be lost which will be bigger compared to the amount that was stolen.

If i may understand something very important here about an escrow
From above said, escrow is a third party that holds a funds between two parties in other to initiates and carry out a smooth and fair deal.
Now campaign manager has no right to use himself as an escrow provider rather using another person, if he used another to stand as an escrow provider i wouldn't have think all the funds could have been stolen from him. One important thing about bringing an escrow from the project owners is that, if anything happens or fund was stolen even any hacked, it may not get the campaign manager affected rather it's between project owner and escrow provider. So definitely if any hack occurs escrow provider would be liable for the back payment, so in case of julerz12 he would be the one to pay since he also stood as an escrow.
Now to prove innocent he has accepted to pay back, so no tag should be given to him all less he violate of not paying as promised before he could get tagged. 

That's why forum user should think twice if they really want to become a campaign manager since fucked up moments like this sometimes happen.

Campaign management is not always about getting moneys from the work you've done with certain companies, it has big obligation so make sure you have capabilities to pay on your own pocket when moments like this happen.

In case of Julerz I doubt he can pay that since as he said that amount hacked is to big in their country already.

Exactly!
Reputation and trust is not enough to start offering escrow services and what happened to julerz is just an example why it's not. If you are going to escrow a deal then you need to have enough money in reserve to cover the escrowed amount and repay the affected party in case things go wrong.
A camapain manager doesn't necessary need to escrow the campaign funds. He can hire someone else for that job.

using this logic, maybe 2 users are qualified to be campaign managers cause I don't think many of the old or new managers are holding thousands these days.

It does not matter if you are a signature campaign manager or a sole escrow provider. If you are holding someone else money, it's your responsibility. You can not make an excuse. If you lose the money then loan from bank and repay but you have to repay. If you do not have the back up money to repay then you should not hold someone else money before anything else.

This comment is not about a particular incident but just a generic personal opinion.

There will always be a debate about whether signature campaign managers should hold the funds or whether an escrow should be used to facilitate the process in order to mitigate any potential scams. Having an escrow does not necessarily mean a scam cannot take place but it adds a further of protection. It can backfire if the escrow decides to steal but there is always a risk no matter which way these matters of business are conducted.

Has there really been others of this nature because, I clearly am unaware but, its bad for sure.
The purpose of escrow is always in the interest of campaign participants and then the manager but in this, it seems the manager got it wrong and for all we know, his words are all we've got and prove of finds being a moved for which, you can't exactly tell what's going on.
If its good enough for the company being served, then it might be okay although, it doesn't make the manager any less responsible for what was kept in his safe keeping.

I won't discard his excuse to have come by some mistakes this round. Its not his first time managing a campaign, bounty and signature so, this time won't be the time that we right off all the goods his done on the forum. 2017 is such a long time to have existed and throw it all away with $5k. Let's be open as we hope for more details on the unfolding case.

You have full responsibility, so you must do your best for the "SAFETY" of the escrow fund. A fatal error when you use a hot wallet as an escrow fund store and your carelessness does not install additional antivirus. I feel it will be related to malware infiltrating and stealing your hot wallet access password.

Hot Wallet will never be safe if you don't think about additional protection, you really have to learn from the mistakes that are happening now to be more concerned with security.

The users of this forum are smart people, so you won't get red paint as long as you can be responsible and solve these problems to restore your reputation. Take a breath first and calm your mind, then start solving these problems one by one.

From all that I've read about the ongoing case, Julerz hasn't denied responsibility for what happened. If anything, he has several times admitted that he fucked up by being too relaxed on his wallet security while at the same time he has offered to sell off his bike to raise cash for the repayment of the debts he has incurred on this. I hope he doesn't get tagged by some until this situation is resolved. His account and the bounty he manages here are his only sources of income, according to his confession. Getting his account tagged will destroy it and keep him out of business. That will be double jeopardy.

Oh yeah even Sam Bankman-Fried made similar statement during his interview with the investigators, that at the time in the operation of the FTX exchange, he got carried away and he lost touch with the ways funds were being moved in the exchange which lead to lost of billions of dollars investors money.

But that doesn't stop him from being held responsible for what happen, and in your own case too.

It's good you are accepting responsibility for your negligence in handling the campaign funds entrusted in you custody based on trust but at this point, the trust has been betrayed by what happened.

But what ever ways, you try to reach an agreement with the company team on repayment plans,  because that is the honourable thing toe do right now in this situation.

julerz12 stated that he is going to repay all lost money with time, so he recognized his responsibility in this case. And as you can see he's got only neutral trust reviews for this case and there is definitely no reasons for red tags as for now. I hope he can solve all his problems.

Yes. Whether it's a third party escrow or the bounty manager himself, the liability falls to whoever holds the funds.

With that being said, I totally agree and understand if much of the users in this forum would paint my account red. I was too full of myself thinking the funds are safe sitting on a hotwallet. I should have known better than to trade the security of the funds for the convenience of using a hotwallet.

It is obvious, escrow must be liable for any loss of funds. First, it is his service and he is paid for it.  Second, unless parties agrees that escrow shouldn't held responsible for any losses of the fund, escrow bear 100% responsibility if things like hacks happened. Just like what happened in julerz12 case. Being a bounty manager and at the same time escrow should held him liable for any losses.  Although I don't think that he hacked the fund himself, he must bear the responsibility of paying back the escrowed money which I think he is promising to do, taking responsibility of the incident.

I don't stand at one side between julerz12 or OP claimed acting about Bounty Manager, but I have been working with this BM at several time on Moonbet Signature Campaign. Almost several time working there not any problem yet about distribution and his campaigns used escrowed.

Before this cases happening, never has delay payment when joining with campaign or signature managed by julerz12, right now lets waiting what happen and which one true about campaign manager acting as escrow or this cases true based on manager loss his escrow money more than $5,000.

Provision of escrow service means the one takes responsibility for escrowed money. Main idea of a third party in a deal is in that. If a third party doesn't guarantee the coordinated payment than why is it needed?

So all that is definitely about trust: leaving a feedback basing on how the one treats escrowed money is a correct usage of forum's trust system. IMO.

The way I see it is: he took responsibility of holding money that's not his own and now that money is gone.
The responsibility... still remains and, I guess it won't be easy, but he will have to handle that.

It's not uncommon somebody has to pay from his own pocket for this kind of mistakes.
And, unfortunately, it's also not uncommon that even after paying from his own pocket, his good name on the forum remains (somewhat) tainted.

No matter how good or bad are @julerz12 intentions, tough days are ahead.  


Edit: I see that he also realized all this

They should 100% be responsible for their action especially if holding other people money is involved.
This is not some game that manager is playing, and he always needs to be ready to pay money back from his own pocket, like Hhampuz done several times in past.
People should take situations like this more seriously, and simple ''sorry'' with blaming alleged mysterious hackers just wont do it.
If someone gives you money to keep and you lose it for any reason, than you need to return this money to original owner, it's that simple.

I've seen an escrow involved in someone losing $50,000, and everyone still trusts him.

What's the point of signing a message from the deposit address itself, instead of an old staked address? Anyone can sign that exact same message with a brand new address, all it does is prove that whoever signed it, has access to that address. It doesn't even prove that julerz12 ownes it.

I think the answer to this question will be the same when we ask if any Escrow is responsible for the entrusted money?
In my opinion if someone undertakes to secure a transaction, he at the same time assumes all obligations. If it wasn't like that, what secure it would be?

When I 1st started managing I had used an escr9w by the name of masterP. He did a great job for a month or so and I thought he had a decent reputation.

Needless to say he ended up scamming a few users. I'm not sure the total amount he stole but there was 7-8 btc stolen from me IIRC.

I had taken my proof to the companies and most of them ate the loss. I felt terrible and paid out nearly 2btc from my pocket at the time even though many were saying it was not my responsibility. 

That caused me to start holding funds for campaigns myself.

Now getting to your question, should managers be held responsible? Depends on the situation IMO. This person has managed a few btc paying campaigns I believe but mainly manages bounties.

In most cases the manager is going to be responsible,  but if said manager can show proof they were hacked(and I mean absolute fucking proof) then there may be some leniency but they'd still have to repay the company somehow.

If an actual escrow was used, then yes. This is not an escrow, this is a manager golding the funds. Escrow is defined as a 3rd party. What happens is going to be based off of how the community feels about julerz and the situation and whether they believe his/her story.

IMO and JUST IMO
The manager is responsible for the payments for the work done for the participants. So if someone was owed $50 they get the $50. This should come out of the campaign managers pocket.
If the company paying for it wants to pay the people to keep a good image out there that is up to them.

The rest of the funds is a semi private thing between the company and the manager. If they want to go after them legally or just take the loss or whatever is not really any of our business.
If they WANT they can post about it and discuss it here in public, but there is no reason to. Once the participants get paid, it's no longer our concern.

-Dave

Many of the times, signature campaigns , contests and any other service are usually asked to escrow funds to guarantee payment after a service is completed by its participants to avoid companies from not honoring their dues, but what happens in an instance of funds being escrowed and the escrow urgent losses the money It's not the first time seeing a campaign manager losing funds on the forum..the latest being Yomix.io | Bitcoin Mixer | Signature Campaign in less than 4hrs funds gone($4.2k)...




Should an escrow be liable for any loss of such funds and get tagged till such a repayment is done?