Topic: [Doubt the possibility of a scam] BestChange Bounty and Signature Campaign. (Read 1990 times)

yes, your suggestions are considered, temporarily closed, until there are further developments on this issue.

This thread is going in a direction which is  not interesting imo.
Everyone said what they think, now people are just "I agree" and some people may have other intentions (maybe just get a slot?)

Or just saying things which are totally off topic like "will I get tag?". Ofc no one will get tag for participation

. I suggest you close this topic Yoshie.

I'm doing the task and I'm not afraid of not being paid. I'm more worried to be tagged because of some other person actions and decisions 

But I can not speak for every participant. That is why I've asked the question about possibility of being tagged by members, who already tagged Best_Change

Nope, because AFAIK, they haven't scammed anyone or there is no legitimate scam accusation so far. A participant could only get a tag if they joined and promoted a campaign of a project is already reported to be scam.

Go ahead do what you feel like. Just have it in mind that there is a risk of not being paid if things go South... right now people are just having doubts maybe until after week 1.

You should just do what you think is right, use your own due intelligence about it. If you think that that BestChange would pay you than why not participate ? It's your own risk.

I don't think you would be tagged for taking part in there campaign and promoting it, even if someone does it would be deemed as wrong use of trust system overall.

---

Exactly, there are tons of projects running campaigns on bitcointalk without any escorw, just tagging one in red would not go universal around. Although using a neutral trust would do the same effect.

You should do the task! Reasonable DT will not tag any participants until it is proven scam if Best change turns out to be a scam, then you should stop participating, But for now, do the task!

If that case happens, some DT started to red tag participants, many good DT will fight for those participants that are going to be red-tag. This whole thread is just an accusation and no confirmation, just do your thing.

We should wait for the first round to be ended if they are legit or scam. But for now, there's no need to worry about getting red-tag.

Question to those, who tagged red user Best_Change

Do BestChange bounty campaign participants risk to be tagged red? If they don't make payment to participants, then they are tagged for reason and it turns out that participants were promoting scam.

I've made an application post to participate in social media bounty campaign before BestChange was tagged. What should I do now? Do the tasks or not? What will happen if I made weekly report ?

Because right now everything is turning into 1) do the tasks = risk of being accused of promoting scam = red tag 2) don't do the tasks = not receiving payment / possibility to be kicked from campaign.

The whole situation turns to be a "lose-lose" situation for participants...

Completely agree with 1miau, If this is the criteria with which tags are being given out then why don't we head over to the altcoin bounty section too and tag each and every campaign that is being run and is not using any trusted escrow, because they are  "untrustworthy and we are trying to protect forum members", right?

Why don't we just tag new projects that have just been Announced in this forum, because, they have  "Zero Reputation" in here and therefore are "Suspicious and are likely to scam members"?

@Yoshie, I like the work you do  to expose scammers, cheating alts etc, in fact i also occasionally get a scam project which i do try to report but this approach is not right at all.

It's like a scenario of "Guilty until proven innocent" rather than "Innocent until proven guilty"
Yes, you may say the tags are temporary until they make payment and then they will be removed, but what you forget is that in that very first week, some damage has already be done.

If they are genuine, you will have somehow already killed their morale of running business here.

Put yourself in their shoes, you come in here to advertise your business to get some new customers then immediately, tags rain on you from all corners asking people not to trust you even when you have done nothing wrong yet.

I do not mean you do not pay your current campaign participants. I am fed up with fake sites, scams and complaints from participants, past and present sites are up to you, your right to defend yourself, I'm speaking facts.

I am not spreading false information, I am speaking based on available evidence, do you not see it on the first page and in the referece.

You are very new to this forum by implementing the highest budget campaign without using escrow, I don't believe, you want to pay the first week for all participants, that's good, we'll see, hopefully it's true.

On your site, you use this address: 1BestcHaNGExXQ5ZHoY1iTtNEoey8BF1kk
And I will monitor your current transactions from your current site members.



In your BTC address you save tens of dollars of people's money.

https://www.blockchain.com/id/btc/address/1BestcHaNGExXQ5ZHoY1iTtNEoey8BF1kk

https://btcsniffer.com/index.php?address=1BestcHaNGExXQ5ZHoY1iTtNEoey8BF1kk&cb=2&latest



So like I mentioned, trust is not permanent, it can be erased, if you prove to be honest with your site and also towards the campaign.

IF YOU PREVIOUSLY USE ESCROW, WHEN IMPLEMENTING THE CAMPAIGN, IT'S NOT THE PROBLEM, indeed escrow is not in the forum rules, but can take the example of a professional manager.
This all happened because you are not trusted to promote the bestchange.com site, because many people accuse and complain.

So, if you feel honest do your best and if not honest the opposite will happen.

Note:
I will erase my trust after you prove that you are not cheating and honest with your site and current campaign.

YOSHIE, let's keep the debate of if they will pay or not for a moment but let's talk about your understanding of the business model they have. I am not sure where you from, how experienced you are in online world or if you ever really had this knowledge of stand alone e-commerce and marketplace type of business model.

The way you are progressing with your arguments here, it seems to me that you really do not know what you are talking about but trying to prove that you got everything to rise an accusations. You are actually embarrassing yourself here.

Have you heard of
1. Amazon, eBay, AliBaba, Ali express? (Of course you do unless you are newly civilized from aboriginal tribes or from amazon jungle)
Please explain their business model.

2. Have you heard of next, Binance or River Island?
Please explain who take the credits of a sell in these platforms.

Do you even know why I categories these brands? Someone with a basic understanding will already got the idea of what I am trying to point here. Question is, can you?



Quoted without img tag of some of the mages for reference to show the stupidity came from you after I know your understanding of the questions I have asked above.
Full archive: https://archive.is/ldV9i#selection-4084.1-4093.79

Hello everyone!

We are surprised and very saddened to see people actively giving us negative feedback and reducing our trust level, although we haven’t deceived anyone.

Regarding accusations that we do not participate in this topic’s discussion. It is not correct. We have already stated our opinion in this topic.

Earlier we wrote that we are not going to deceive anyone and hope that the negative feedback woul be removed after payouts. What else can we add? We don’t see any point in useless discussions. Useless because nobody seems to listen to even strong reasoning in our favor that some users provided. We have a business to run and unfortunately we do not have time to sit in this topic 24/7 and try convincing users who do not want to change their opinion. We see that our words will not dissuade those who think we are fraudsters. That is why we want to change your opinion by our actions, but it will take some time. Please wait for a week and you will get answers when we will make payouts.

We do hope though that the negative feedback will be removed after you see that we do pay and are not going to scam anyone.

Yes, we did not use escrow. But this is our right. We do not have to do it. There are no rules on this forum stating that we have to use escrow.

Regarding replying to PMs of our supporters in this topic. We mainly reply to PMs about our signature and bounty campaigns. Also, we reply to PMs about changing BTC-addresses, because some users sent us Bech32-addresss. Unfortunately we cannot make payments to Bech-32 addresses. We asked to send us a legacy-address or a P2SH-address. Do you think we would do that if we wouldn’t want to pay? What difference does it make, to which address NOT to pay, to Bech32-addresses or legacy-addresses?

Some users wrote to us in PMs that they had supported us in this topic to which of course we replied and thanked them. And that’s that.

To mention this topic’s discussion, we would like to thank Royse777, yahoo62278, webtricks, efialtis, 1miau, Bitcoin_Arena and LTU_btc for what we think is a reasonable and well-balanced position.

Dear YOSHIE,

Regarding the “evidence”/”proof” you are providing.

The reviews on your screenshot are not about our business, but about an exchanger that used to be listed on our website.

We thoroughly check all the exchangers before listing them on our website but it cannot give 100% guarantee that things will not go wrong in the future. We help the users of our monitor solve any problems with exchangers if these happen and switch off exchangers if major issues arise. Our main mission is to make money exchanging as safe as possible.

Also, regarding this particular exchanger. As everyone can see, it is no longer active on our monitor, the last reviews are dated 2017.
But most importantly, if you open the threads of the reviews, you can see that all the issues were resolved or the users made the mistake themselves! Everyone can see for themselves:

https://www.bestchange.com/e-currencytrade-exchanger.html

There is no need to spread misinformation.

Well, some arguments are a little bit far-fetched here...
Why should anyone being tagged when the campaign doesn't pay? Is it new rule? We have seen so many altcoin scams that turned out to be outright scams after ICO was closed, rekt slowly or simply didn't pay, forced users to submit KYC after the bounty was finished and some more shady stuff where the participants suffered and did work without reward. Should we give every participant in their bounty red trust now? - of course not.

Regarding BestChange:

Using Escrow would be the best solution but I can also understand the team. As a big company I would also do it like that. We can't force someone to do xy, they are paying, they are making the rules. We can ask them to do escrow but without valid reasons I wouldn't tag them. Imagine that you have no malicious intention, are new to a forum willing to cooperate and launch a signature campaign there and you are immediately marked as untrustworthy. While I think protecting users is essential, a "preventive" negative feedback isn't useful in that case neither to be fair when there's no proof nor to attract other legit projects doing business here. It's different when Newbies and businesses without any history launch a campaign without escrow, it's clearly looking fishy and we have a proof. No proof = no tag.  

If we give out red tags like here for BestChange we have to give out red tags:

- To all shitcoin bounties because
   a) they almost never use escrow and are running several months somtimes where users can get scammed for so much more time they invested. BestChange pays after one week and everyone can see if it's scam or not
   b) we don't know what will happen to the shitcoin project after coins are paid
- To all new signature campaigns paying the rewards to gambling sites etc. (there's also no escrow)
- To all cases where we have no valid proof and there's a chance of being scammed (new exchange, new mixer etc.)

tl;dr
I would like if they use escrow but I can't force it. Using no escrow does not necessarily mean someone is untrustworthy until there's a valid reason. So I can't give them red trust.

And please: be nice to each other! Accusing someone because their point of view is different is not nice.

Just my 2 sats  

Going by gut feeling after looking at things briefly, I think I am inclined to agree with you



Your statement does not exactly give confidence. Allow me to elaborate. First of all you did not reply to this post before you locked your thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.53596958

@OP

Please could you clarify who the owners of your BestChange website actually are?

The terms and condition listed on your website are virtually useless and worthless because they contain nothing can identify and/or locate the owners business in the event any user wants to take them to Court.

Thank you


Second, from what I can see you have not made any post stating why you are not using an escrow. Yes it seems you have unsurprisingly sent PMs to those that support your signature campaign but there is no announcement from your side where we all can read it and conclude from it what we interpret.

Third, you have no history here whatsoever therefore your alleged good reputation is not enough to suppress suspicion towards you therefore the wise move would have been to browse the forum, open a thread asking for potential campaign managers or escrows to come forward and invite users from the forum to give their opinions about suitability, integrity and honesty of those that offered their services to you but since you avoided all that it stands to reason there are those that have their doubts.

Fourth, you have allowed users in this thread to argue/debate over the best course of action yet you have only momentarily popped in here to post about your business with addressing the escrow question. Had you once entered the debate to try to settle things down and to address those presenting both sides of the argument then you probably would have gained some respect in the eyes of more community members but because you sat on the sidelines eating your metaphorical popcorn watching the show here with you only selectively sending PMs to those that (for reasons I fail to understand even after reading the thread) support you, I can safely deduce on that basis alone you are not trustworthy.

I have left appropriate feedback for you and in direct opposition to your request, I will probably not remove it even if there are no allegations of scamming against you with regards to payouts of any signature campaign and at most I might have to modify my feedback emphasising how you watched the thread silently as users debated you and your tactics, how and why you sent PMs to those that supported you and how you decided not to engage on a wider front with those that had bigger concerns about you just because it suited your agenda - therefore you are not trustworthy in my opinion.


Well that sounds just about right. Add on to your reasons I would go further and say that their tactics in promoting their business and their technique of not participating in the thread while users engage in (sometimes heated) debate about them, it shows a cowardly petty conduct on their part - therefore they should not be trusted.



It seems the way the bounty thread racked up pages upon pages gave confidence to the bestchange team to stick to their non-escrow decision. The potential scam might turn in to a real scam, maybe it will maybe it will not. Maybe there will be payments made for the first week or first few weeks then there will be nothing, anything is possible.

What cannot be ignored is that at the root of all this mess is the fact that had they used an escrow then none of this would have happened. When looking at the situation from their perspective they see plenty of desperate users wanting to display the signature at the thought earning good rates, that air of desperation on part of users has given some extra control in the hands of bestchange and it seems they will not change their mind towards using an escrow so we will all wait and watch as things unfold.

Maybe as a result of this forum some users will start using bestchange, then maybe some will send off their crypto for a crypto-swap only for a Bituary type of scam exchange to steal their funds or another exchange stealing funds under the guise of KYC - what then? This bestchange seems to have made no real announcement about what they intend to do to intervene in such events, their rules/terms page is not exactly one of the better ones: https://www.bestchange.com/wiki/terms.html

c:

I assumed something like that.


The logical problem, is that bestchange is not company with some product or service where owners put their "skin in the game" (term invented by Nassim Taleb). It's just an aggregator of exchange services, like the last two pages in provincial weekly journal. They don't carry any risk, so they in fact, don't have any "reputation" in meaning that is not proper to use term reputation about such services. You will never said something like "Oh, it a well reputable two last pages, they printed different ads for so long!"

Also, YOSHIE had showed proofs that bestchange can add scammy exchanger to their list (proof that they don't check what they're adding)


Shit, this is so glorious, that i have given even one merit to you for this text. This  is weird, funny, pathetic, cringe. And all at the same time!

So, you want to say that most of reviews about them are just mainly from their affiliate program users? I doubt about it. They are in business for 13 years and if it would be shady service, internet would be fool of negative reviews about it and faucet wouldn't change anything in general. If you open other forums, review websites, you'll see mainly positive comments from people who actually using this service. But probably you chose to see what do you want to see...

Reputation? Are you talking about a reputation they gained by paying pennies to their users by logging on their website and visiting faucets? I haven't seen a user commenting on their monitoring services but most of them were just 'too happy' that they got paid a few satoshis every 60 minutes to use their faucet on their website. Do you call it a 'reputation built'?

Does it really matters? Do they need high ranked account with positive trust to start campaign without escrow? I would understand if it would be new, not well known company. But c'mon, Bestchange is old established company with good reputation, I don't see any reasons why they would need to hire escrow when they can make payments themselves. And it's obviously not about escrow service fee which they would have to pay. Do you really think that they are going to damage their reputation to get some  free advertising? It just doesn't make sense. What if huge company like Binance would start their campaign without escow, would you complain about it too.
I understand that you want to protect people from possible scams, and I obviously support it when there is real risk. But sometimes some of you go too far like in this case.

15 * $90 = $1350
15 * $70 = $1050
15 * $45 = $675
15 * $30 = $450

Sums it up to $3525, around BTC0.42 at its current price and this is for the signature campaign alone. So, a big potential scam is underway to get a lot of 'free advertising' here with no reputed name adjoined. I guess the reason behind is the greed of each user who enrolled themselves in the project without any trustworthy user being behind this project. Let the time come, if they pay, it's for their own good and if not, well that's surely like hammering a rod on your head for the users enrolled with them. The reason here looks the pay rates which are probably higher than some campaigns here and the lack of new signature campaigns has given rise to these newcoming people being trusted without complete research about them and their project. For some of you asking to wait for a week, what will happen if this project comes out to be a scam with the owner not paying anything after a week? Are enrolled users ready to take red tags and flags for advertising it?

Maybe OP not accepted in Bestchange signature campaign where become most higher payment from other signature weekly by bitcoin, why not give one week before making discussion about scam or not with bestchange site, the OP look beginner in online world because he don't know about Bestchange, I have participated in this website last three years ago where giving reward for new participants.

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.

No it shows he has no idea what he is doing or saying.

I’m right he is wrong, read the whole thread

But you don't see it as an pattern on his previous sent trust feedbacks, as it clearly shows he sends feedbacks pretty carefully, above was just an indication of him not agreeing with red tagging them for what could be done with a neutral.

Royse gave a nice green trust to a possibly scammy campaign - so yes I will abuse royse and petition other DT members to exclude him

he shouldn't be anywhere near DT if he doesn't understand what his positive and negative tags do

I agree with tagging them for using escorw until the first payment is made for safety reasons and to warn applicants.

But, I don't agree with TMAN's poetry on Royse777 and his reasons to get him off DT as the above could also be donated by a neutral and his ideology seem right at a point.

incorrect, they can be tagged for refusing escrow. prevention is better than cure.

flags are concrete - tags are fluid and act as a warning

learn about the trust system before you stick your dick into it and enjoy being excluded from DT in the future

The neutral you left is good enough to warn the visitors now.

On my last post to you, I had this point that you tagged them without doing any investigations of those scam accusations which was clear in your post before me and also tagged them just because they did not use escrow. As always, I can tag them only if they do not pay me after a week and with that I can create a flag 3 too.

There are some problems that arise here when and before this topic I made.

1. At the core of the topic, the company (BestChange) has a bad reputation for fraud in client money, in a few dollars against its clients a few years ago.

2. Now they start by promoting their website with bounty and sig campaigns, in high pay to campaign participants and bounties, without using existing escrow, I don't trust them.

3. Red and neutral trust is prioritized for campaign managers for security and payment warnings if not using an escrow service, that they have been involved in a number of fraud cases, possibly like @ yahoo62278 say.

4. If the campaigners are willing to consider escrow, maybe some members here can accept it, and disappear from accusations of fraud they have committed.

5. Here it does not discuss the issue of DT or trust, which is essentially for the comfort and security of bitcointalk members and the Forum against fraud.

6. I support @TMAN what he did was right, in weighing, remembering, and caring about what happened in this forum, and he has said two options for removing red trusts or vice versa.

7. I will see the development of the next campaign, what will happen, will I completely erase the neutral beliefs or vice versa in red and flag against alleged fraud.

my poetry always flows you fucktard

I could raise flag 1, you could raise flag 3 for joining the pajeet campaign with no escrow.

I am right you are wrong, everyone is agreeing with me and you are not helping your cause you dick

Please do not start your poetry.

You mean if I start a business then you will not do business with me :-P
Пoйми, чтo я имeю в видy

For honest, even i personally sometimes don't like what TMAN says, now he is clearly right. If something will go fine, trust will be removed, but newbies should be warned. Specially, because bestchange is company founded by russians (i mean by people from post USSR). You can trust only to their deeds, not their words.

Asking to use escrow is normal demand. It's normal way in any business.

if they scam then its a flag.

if  you dont care about DT and you are showing you have 0 comprehension about how it should work then clear your trust list or ask to be excluded.

it aint hard you fucking spaznozzle forker

I too do not hand out greens very easily. I have few guys who took large amount of loans and if I was into sending out greens very easily then those guys deserves the greens. I only leave a green when I am 100% confident about it.

Wrong unless you get some of the sarcastic part of my last post. Quoting bitmover and telling he has a point was just a diversion. Enough with the clues.

I can tell you that you have no idea where to send red tag. There are scopes of leaving red tag and leaving neutral tag. But leave it and let's not argue with who is wrong and who is right here. We both realized one thing here so far is that you and me are good in disagreement in this matter.

By now you should have some decent idea that I really less care to be in the DT. So it does not matter for me. I still have doubt that your tag was appropriate there. You can only tag them if they do not pay their participants.

If they agree with you then of-course they should exclude me.

This is proof that you shouldn't be on DT as you have no idea what the positive trust you give shows to newbies.

you will stay on my exclude list till you show you understand the consequences of your actions, I also will call for other DT1 members to exclude you.

I believe you should do whatever you want and you believe is right and do not care if you are going to stay in dt or not.
DT rules changes and your status come and go, but your reputation stays.

I think you should be more careful when leaving a green trust than when leaving a red one.
I wouldn't mark and account green until I received lots of payments from that account or having a long interaction

Just found out they have accepted me in their signature campaign. I applied there yesterday knowing that they do not have any escrow. There are campaigns we have seen without escrow and in the first glance it make sense that they will just scam but in this one, I did not feel any red alarm and this is why I applied (this is my personal experience by the way. Other does not have to have the same feeling). I can be damn wrong and after a week they may not pay me which is very possible but in this case they get red tag from me and also from other DTs or users without any question. But right now giving them red seems too harsh.

There are no question that in this forum it is easy to scam users and as a community we those have good experience, we try to protect them. And you are right that 9 out of 10 times who refuse to escrow turns out scammer. Best_Change can resolve it just by asking for an escrow but I have no idea why they are not doing it however not doing this does not mean that we as a community will force them to do it. This topic by eddie13 is a good read: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/mosprognoz-needs-to-learn-5207250

There are no question that I am new compared to you but this is also true that I also learnt a lot on my way in this forum to protect me and the community. Some of the things but not limited to everything of course is here.

I know when two DT users especially DT user like you who are with the community longer before than me and has a big follow base gets the edge in most of the cases and in this case hearing you actually will benefit me and all those opportunist (the forum is full with opportunist, most of them actually do not care about the community but just pretend to be a part of it) would do this. Shall I do this too?

I think I should but a part of me still says that this is wrong, this is very harsh and this tag of yours should get a counter. A part of me says that I should stand by my decision but if I do then that means that I will be losing my DT status? Does one really need a DT status too speak for what they feel right?

You have a point and I removed my counter.

All tags should be fluid, if it turns into a scam then a flag and more red will rain down on them, if not then the tags can be removed. its not like the DT system of a few years ago where DT1 wouldnt budge.

I agree with TMAN here.
The new Trust system does not work like this anymore Royse777, you cannot counter a red tag with a green one. They will be marked as +1 and -1.

The green mark you gave them is un earned and certainly not deserved.

a -1 red tag is more deserving than your green one. Their attitude is suspicious and anyone dealing with them may lose money.

Edit: What is terrible about the +1 in their account, is that newbies can think the account should be trusted, while they clearly can't trust them. They may prove themselves to be trusted (if they pay), but they are promising high payment without any escrow.

When I saw their campaign thread and large amount of applications, also there was some questions about escrow then I had asked them to hire someone from trusted & reputed managers to manage their campaign. But seems they have ignored my message. I didn't recommend for any specific manager (even not for me), because I believe any trusted manager will not handle such as campaign without escrow fund. But as yahoo62278 said, there is huge amount of reward, its quite reasonable to ask them hire escrow or manager for their campaign since account is very new.

Red tag is appropriate in my opinion to warn participants that their reward is on risk. Its removable, if they paid as promised then rad tag would be reconsider.


Fine, if you don't see any valid reason to tag then you could avoid to tag him. But what is the valid reason to counter with positive feedback?

Just say, they are legit and they paid regularly then TMAN would remove negative feedback, but if incase they scam participants then what will happen?

Your new and don't have much trading history here, so ill forgive your nativity in the 1st instance, I on the other hand have traded hundreds of BTC here over the years and can tell you anyone who refuses to use escrow is 9 times out of 10 a scammer.

you have powers now you are on the DT lists please think about what a positive from you does.

anyway up to you how you behave, although I can assure you other DT members will exclude you if you behave in such a way moving forwards 

The red tag is being used as it should IMO. TMAN and YOSHIE are just giving a warning to the community. Both tags would be removed if the company follows through with payments.

It is the companies choice as to whether they want to hire a manager, or an escrow. They can manage it themselves if they wish, but will have to deal with the red tag until they prove they are going to pay out. I don't see an issue with the way this is being handled. The amount is fairly large when you add in the bounty portion+ the signature campaign. Likely looking at around 1btc or close in the 1st week.

Bottom line, they could have hired an escrow for .5%-3% per week or a manager and saved all these tags. They choose not to, which is their prerogative. With all of you guys signing up for the pretty decent rates, how would you want the community to proceed if they decided to take all the free advertising and say fuck you to paying? Which btw is still an option for them. People are complaining now that they don't deserve a tag and giving countertags. How foolish will you look if they run off?

The tags are not permanent by no means long as they make the payments they're offering. Let time go by and see what happens.

It's your trust list and you keep it how you want. I will tag them only if they do not pay the participants. The forum users are adult enough and going through the feedback page they can decide what is good for them.

Talking about the green? As long as yours get removed I will remove mine too as mine is serving as the counter of yours. I am really not into leaving feedback and stuffs much by the way.

I really do not see the point to tag someone just because they did not use escrow. My mind is open to listen by the way. Feel free bud.

then you are on my distrust list now as you are going to give them an un earned green mark you fool

If they do not pay the bounty and signature campaign participants then they will get red tag. Plain and simple. Can we force them to use escrow? No, we can not.

@YOSHIE, there are two dimension of your topic.
1. You are questioning them not to use escrow
2. Few scam accusations against them. <=== I have not verified them so I really do not have any idea about the status and details of those accusations.

You left them a negative feedback saying:
Note: likely
And also note: Did not use available escrow.

So it turns out that you tagged a user based on your observation (likely fraud) only, did not bother to do an investigation and also you tagged them because they did not use any escrow?

Do we really tag users because they do not use escrow and without any investigation on the scam accusations they have against them?

TMAN left this:
I disagree the Tag and I am going to counter yours. And I will tag them if they do not pay their participants as they promised.

It would be good if they accept some kind of escrow or a way to show members they are serious, honest and that people will be paid.
That being said, I don't think red trust is correct here, so I will tag it with neutral feedback for now.

I don't care if you run your business good or bad.
I see the fact that some of your clients have complained about your business in the 2017 century.

Reputation.
1. BestChange is accused of being a fraud by several of his clients.
2. Not using escrow in the current campaign, vulnerable to participant fraud.
3. Accepting campaign participants without mentioning the participant's name in the last post.

So, if you are fine here, following the current rules, use escrow for a few weeks to make your campaign safer and better for you now.
The funds you pay for participants are very large so secure your campaign funds.
After finishing all that, it's back to normal and you're safe.

I had a little bit confusion about their payment amount they want to pay as it is more than other project. That's why i didn't join singature campaign. Thanks for creating and beawaring us.

If we do the math with the current all accepted participants of their signature campaign it is amounting $3585 or 0.4144 BTC (via preev.com rate) this week plus the other payment for their social media bounties too.

As stated on your trust summary by TMAN as well, I think they'll do it as soon as it goes smooth well on your end or if not, expect dozens of it on your trust page. I'm just being realistic here.

Try resolving the past scam accusation of your exchange and also get an escrow of the funds for your marketing in the forum. If its resolved, you may get the neutral trust of the reputable people here in the forum. You can't just solve these issues by citing your business is running for the longest time since 2007.

Try picking an escrow here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/recommended-bitcointalk-escrow-services-2439910 and perhaps a reputable bounty manager as well.

Hi YOSHIE,

We are a legitimate business running since 2007 and would certainly not risk our reputation by tricking forum users into our campaign and not paying them.

Also, as for the two situations you are citing, as a business which is an intermediary between clients and exchangers, we always strive to resolve any issues the clients may have (although this is a rare case since we check all the exchangers before adding them to our website). In the first situation, we asked the user to contact us and so no feedback from him in the thread. The second situation was resolved.

We hope that you will kindly remove your Negative trust once you see the first payouts.

Because this campaign is new, it doesn't matter, the problem is, the BestChange company advertised in the campaign is involved in a number of frauds experienced by participants.

The campaign is paid by an automated company, (BestChange) basically cheats participants.
And one more suspicion is that they don't use escrow available on the bitcointalk forum.

If he uses the available escrow in the next few weeks, maybe the suspicion will subside and the trust can be removed.

I had already tagged them, they have sent me a PM about this

I requested them to use a site escrow - lets see what they come back with

No doubt, campaign is looking fishy but on the same note, you should also notice that it isn't some new company or newbie creating campaign. Bestchange is into existence from last many years so the case here is little bit different. We can't assume campaign is 100% scam.

So for that reason, it's inappropriate to tag them for the possible scam. It may weaken the result of campaign as members may not use their site by seeing red trust on the account. So for now, it's better if neutral trust is given. If they won't pay after a week, you are good to give red trust.

Also the two cases you mentioned above don't directly bring Bestchange into question. It's a listing website and such discrepancies are common. If there are 10-15 faulty trades then there are 10-15K good trades which aren't discussed anywhere.

I saw the signature campaign and i was amazed at the number of people who applied and are willing to join the campaign even without doing a little background checks and ensuring the funds are in escrow.

From a personal perspective, the campaign looks so shady and too good to believe especially the social media bounty bit. I have a feeling things may not end well.

This thread should be on the Scam Accusations or Reputation. What do you think ?

So far the fact is that campaign funds are not owned by escrow and the number of participants received is unknown. The signature campaign will begin tomorrow or January 15, 2020.