It's good to note that the funds are not escrowed by the manager or third party forum escrow (Or i'm wrong). Although it's claimed that the campaign will run for several months. The thing is with this setup, managers are tend to stop campaigns when the team stop communicating with a week debt for their participants because of the funds are not being held by them (or weekly topup) thus it make them look bad or compensating their participants out of their own pocket. Except if they will stop the campaign in advance if the escrow wallet doesn't have enough balance.
(...)
Yeah, that campaign is not escrowed, so there's always the risk that the client (advertised business) could just stop communicating, not top-up the payment address on time, or just end the campaign way sooner than originally indicated.
The best the manager can do in such a case is just to keep participants properly informed on the situation.
But in an ideal scenario, a manager would hold enough funds in escrow to cover payments for at least 1 payment period and a client would provide funds at the start of each period.
(...)
While i can't see any note/disclaimer on the signature thread regarding this if the manager will compensate if the campaign stopped or not. Participants should be aware of this that they might not received any payments if this happens. Thus, managers should work always to get the funds escrowed for their participants.
That's the part of information a lot of managers seem to be neglecting and are potentially (unnecessarily) exposing themselves to a negative trust rating. After all, they act as a representative of the advertised services, so if something goes wrong, participants could have grounds to demand payments from them, unless that's properly disclosed in campaigns' terms and conditions. All it takes is to put 1 or 2 sentences explaining if they are provided with required funds in advance or at the end of each period, and, if the latter, each person participates at their own risk.
