Topic: [Doubt the possibility of a scam] BestChange Bounty and Signature Campaign. - page 2. (Read 1903 times)

I have suggestion for ya all. Why not keep calm and let this thread rest in peace for a week. Let's come back on Wednesday next week and start this brainstorming session once again. Until then, there is no point discussing same point again and again.

Bestchange's profile already have 2 negative trusts which is enough to alert anyone joining the campaign for now. Other than that no one cares whether anyone posting in this thread support/oppose giving red trust as warning or consider Bestchange trustworthy or not. 

Why all the love for this site? They have 0 rep and the payment offer is far above the norm for non established campaigns, as I have said numerous times my tag is not set in stone and of payments are made then I will remove mine.

This isn’t toxic behaviour this is us protecting the community, if I am wrong then no harm done as tag will be removed, if I am right then more tags and flags will come down. Really struggling to see the issue here

johhnyUA, what you say is not in doubt.

---

Now they have started working under the pretext of a PM.
One by one the campaign rules began to change.

Initial rule:


http://archive.is/wip/L1YBE

I still see the development where this campaign brings its participants.

Of course they want to manage their campaign by themselves without escrow service. But what doest that means in normal language?
That means that they want to have opportunity to fool all their workers without any consequences. I see such kind of action a lot of time in 2017. Too many times, specially, from russian teams. They loved to change rules in the end of the campaign, or change reward and bounty pool or change anything they fucking want!

With full control of funds it's easy to do that. At any moment in fact. With some funds holding by forum escrow it will be hard to do. You deposit for example month budget to escrow wallet, and from now at least for this month you can't fool or change rules, because there still a chance that your funds will be lost to you.

So yep, many cunning guys don't like to use escrow. They maybe don't even want to fool you today. But without escrow, a guarantee
 that you will get your money for finished work, there still a chance that they will fool you tomorrow.

Just trying to air out my opinion here:

I think it's too unfair to leave them the red tags. Yes they have refused to use a trusted escrow around but it's probably because they just want it that way. They have been in business for a good period of time and coming out now to advertise themselves for at-least a week and fail to pay folks would totally be a stupid move for them.

If they have refused to use escrow then avoid joining their campaign rather than tag them for now until they have actually scammed someone. Those who have joined the campaign probably know the risk already.

Let's not leave an unfriendly and toxic environment for new chaps who are trying to advertise their services here where we have to dictate how they should use their money or else they get negative feedback.

And you can not tell them wrong.

And it's not necessarily need to be right always. They PMed me and said they want to manage their campaign by themselves and I see nothing wrong there.

I did too but I ignored as I got the essence that he wanted to say. I am sure he missed a negative word there to add with the sentence, we all do this kind of mistakes :-P

I can see you are very newbie then  

From the Trust Summary Page:


He is just saying that trading with this person is high-risk of losing money. He is correct, because they refuse to escrow, and that doesn't make any sense.

If they are willing to pay, why can't they pay upfront to a trusted escrow as they have no reputation? Actually, they have a BAD reputation.
Something "right" is clearly wrong here. If they want to advertise here, that is not the proper way.

If they are refusing to use escrow, there are 2 options:
1 - they are scammers and will never pay
2 - they are newbies, and newbies don't know what they are doing, so you may still not receive your money.


Because I don't trust their in-house staff, I don't trust their house, I don't trust their staff, and I don't care about them. I don't want to trust them, I don't want to care about them, and I don't give a shit about them. I just want my money trusting the fewer people as possible. I know I need to trust someone, so I prefer to trust a trusted escrow than to trust an unknown exchange. This is how things works here.

Am I the only one reading this wrong?

On the other hand, I don't understand the scam accusation mentioned in the first post, they are an index of exchanges comparing the rates, the same way asicminervalue is an index of mining gear sellers. This way Google is the biggest scam of all (which is quite a bit true  but I hope you get my point)


This is proof? , Common yoshie.....

But this aside, they refuse to use an escrow, anyone can tag them if they see fit, and anyone can open a flag accusation, that's the purpose of the first flag.


Did they say that though PM? I can't find anything in their post history.
If they did, then $#^% them!

Escrow isn't not required for manage campaign if there is well established user or brand. I know there is no such as forum rules, and that's why DT system were implemented to protect forum user. Protect means save before happen something, I know everyone is mature whoever joined on their campaign. But sometimes people can't take right decision generally that's why we are talking about escrow. You might say they are well established, yea most likely, but out of forum. I didn't noticed them on forum before seen their forum ads, so for me they are not well established on the forum. I don't care if a company have multi million capital if they they are not well established on forum. You are talking about escrow fee, who are paying approx 1BTC then small fees doesn't matter for them. I believe if you want advertise your platform anywhere else they will ask payment first. The only signature campaign work due payment.

For all, red tag is just temporary warning and I am agree with it, I just express my opinion. If they release first week payment hope DT members will removed their feedback's as well. If not, then likely anyone able to counter. Since this tag isn't preventing participants to participate on their signature so nothing wrong with it. No one tagging participants for escrow reason. But for sure everyone khow very well about risk now due to red tag.

If someone is thinking TMAN forcing to Royse then most likely they are wrong. If Royse free to leave feedback or counter feedback's so why TMAN isn't free to exclude him? It's his trust list he can do whatever he like. And anyone could call other DT to distrust someone if anyone from DT do something stupid. So all DT together could exclude or include, if other DT think that Royse didn't something stupid then they will not exclude him, that's how work current trust system. If Royse is legit obviously other DT will not exclude him. Royse just excluded from TMAN trust list, no one tag him or force something for that. So nothing wrong with it. So many users distrusted me, but I can't blame them. Its means they do not trust my judgment, that's all. It doesn't mean they are forcing me somehow.

You clearly have zero experience dealing with these matters, and as such your opinion on them is essentially worthless. Sig. spam I presume.  

---

This is not only proper use of the current, more lenient trust system, it is also proper use of the previous trust system. Therefore, stop wasting everyone's time.

I have a similar opinion, dangerous.
Everyone has their opinions, basically like @TMAN said (prevention is better than cure).
I did not sentence them not to pay campaign participants, on the contrary the pay was very high.

escrow, the right solution for this problem, given the allegations and complaints against their business (BestChange), more and more.

for payment Campaign participants are paid from their company, so what if their company experiences accusation after accusation, safe or not.

Additional proof:


Additional evidence;







For that we will see later, the development of his campaign.

The way you expressed this I am totally fine with - the way some people are being "attacked" I am not. And as mentioned before, I am one of these who really dont feel the need to tag in this case. Plus to me not using an escrow does not necessarily need a red tag. My post really was more directed to the "attacking" of royse and that really pissed me off, sort of...

Edit: Of course anyone can use flags, tag accounts etc - I couldnt care less and yeah, thats the system and I actually like it...

Meh,
I'm ambivalent about this particular drama.  Not using escrow is a "red flag," so I would expect some users to red-tag the account; that doesn't surprise me at all.  It's a decentralized trust system for a reason.  Some people are more concerned about some things than others, and that's why it's designed to work the way it does.

This particular business doesn't scare me the same way other non-escrow sig campaigns have in the past, so I personally don't feel the need tag the account.  But at the same time I don't see any reason to get worked up about others tagging the account.  It's just a tag, which should be taken for what it's worth no matter who left it, green, red, DT, or otherwise.  The other thing to keep in mind is that tags aren't permanent, they can be removed or replaced.  If the campaign doesn't pay you can rest assured I'll be there to red-tag them.  On the other hand, I doubt the current red-tags will remain once they pay the participants.

Fine - thats your opinion - no need to get personal though when someone disagrees, dont you think? Why should they pay someone when they have in-house staff to be in charge of it? Just one possible explanation why they would not use an "external" manager and/or escrow. Oh and if it was my business - and if I was big - I would also be laughing about people asking to send money to some random external "escrow"... Not willing to use escrow is by no means untrustworthy.

Regarding "let them have opportunity not to pay": Thats about the only part I am kind of "splitted" because I am personally always pissed when thinking about the thousands of scam shitcoin projects posting their bounties here and all those victims promoting them - on the other side, most of them are spammers anyway but ok.... I really just cant compare this case with those though.

They refused to use escrow so they are untrustworthy. There is no two ways about it, why should we trust them and let them have the opportunity to not pay? What on earth gives them immediate credibility here?

Nothing at all wrong with us requesting they use escrow, more importantly why are they not willing to use escrow?

Are you guys actually being serious? While I am really a person to support ANY possible scam attempt, that scam accusation is a complete joke and actually a desaster - sorry but thats my 2 cents even though I am still a very newbie in this forum.

BestChange are not the typical exchange, they are more of a directory listing dozens of exchanges where people can exchange their e-currencies. There is not a single proven scam - well, how would there be one? Again: They are NOT providing any service other than listing exchange services! All they can do - and they of course also should do - is being careful of who they are listing!

Starting to accuse them and discussing a "possible" scam is a complete joke just because they are not using an escrow - I will be the first to support anything if they dont meet what they promise but guys, come on, nothing happened at all and whats worse: we are starting to flame each other for no reason. I really feel sorry for Royse being "attacked" this way...

I know I will now hear how I have no clue, I am a newbie bla bla bla - I dont mind, maybe just reflect what some of you guys are wasting nerves and energy on and then - most importantly - attacking people just because they dont agree with you. How can we start tagging each other when so far NOTHING has happened at all? All that trust and tag talk - yeah, do that as soon as you have a point - then again - do it whenever you want - but dont flame people who disagree with you!

Disclaimer: If we talked about a proven scam, some ponzi shit or sth like that - YES, I am with you 100%! Those guys have been around for years and ruining their reputation for a week´s signature campaign wouldnt make any sense. If they do so, yeah, stupid enough and we can then do all there is in our hands to protect people from using them! Last but not least: Such attitude leads to businesses staying away from building partnerships on here - if it was me, I would have cancelled the whole campaign btw...

I doubt that BestChange signature campaign might be scam, though I can't vouch for them 100%. They are in business for long yers already and they have good reputation. I doubt that they would risk to damage their reputation in order to get some potential users from Bitcointalk.
About scam accusations - I haven't checked is it legit or not, but probably you can find accusation even against exchanges like Binance. Maybe it's not worth to judge service based only on it.
And there is no rule which would require every signature campaign to use escrow. There was a lot of campaigns which didn't used escrow and there was any issue about. I don't that risk of scam is big when campaign is runned by established trusted company.
Their rates are high, but it's not to good to be true. Number of accepted users isn't small, but there was much bigger campaigns and there was no issue in payouts.
But after all, warning tag isn't wrong thing and can stay until first round payments will be made

Please, please, Royse777, just please stop. Thanks.

Many do not seem to.

There is no counter any longer. Don’t you understand how the trust system has changed?

It seems you have not yet understood my angle of leaving that feedback counter.

Note: counter.

If I was to say something like this: "The exchange is blab blab with all positive things" then you could say that I left them a nice green trust. I was rarely giving them any feedback if there were no neg from you which is still harsh in my opinion.




Which side you take? Left or Right?

Glad it was spoken out. Thanks bud.