E-coin Fixed signature campaign(Only Hero and Staff/Legendary)||Full

siameze

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mexxer-2 on January 02, 2016, 12:49:07 PM

Calculations done, as stated in the doc sheet. If you find a problem with your payment amount, please PM me.
Even if E-coin refuses to give an additional payment(highly unlikely) , the refund provided by master-p is nearly enough to pay the amounts.

Noted, and thank you for your honesty and diligence, which seems to be in short supply today in these forums.

I do hope all that were affected by the master-P brouhaha eventually get fully compensated. I am still unsure what to think about the "hack" story but am following the developments in the associated threads.

mexxer-2

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1005

4 Mana 7/7

Calculations done, as stated in the doc sheet. If you find a problem with your payment amount, please PM me.
Even if E-coin refuses to give an additional payment(highly unlikely) , the refund provided by master-p is nearly enough to pay the amounts.

notaek

legendary

Activity: 1268

Merit: 1009

Honestly, I don't remember when I changed my signature. So, I'll leave it on mesmer for his final calculation.

minifrij

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1268

In Memory of Zepher

I removed my signature on the 31st December, though I don't particularly mind what date is put into the formula. I'd be just happy to get paid at this point. Tongue

siameze

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

I think I was in for exactly one week until the announcement. I announced the removal of my signature in this thread, I can go back and find the post in a bit.

mexxer-2

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1005

4 Mana 7/7

Quote from: botany on January 01, 2016, 07:18:45 AM

Hmm.... Call me a perfectionist, but it is really not that complicated.
If somebody has been here for 50% of the time (say 15 days) and made 50% of the posts required (around 32), I would say it is fair that he receives 50% payment.
Your formula would give him only 25%.

At the same time, I don't think my formula is unfair to ecoin as well.

I see what you're trying to say, but my point is , E-coin is paying for exposure(quality in this context). If a user doesn't make(made) enough posts, I believe he deserves a lower payment and as you said, payment for posts close to 65 posts(which is the min post requirement for getting the payment, if the campaign had continued without loss of funds) are better for users, than someone making 20-30 posts by now. I also am against users that make last minute/day/week posts, as they will more or less spam to boost their post count and most of the users had only 10 or so days to complete the campaign.

botany

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1064

Quote from: mexxer-2 on January 01, 2016, 07:10:39 AM

Quote from: botany on January 01, 2016, 06:58:38 AM

While it won't impact me, the second addition to the formula (*posts made in "Service ANN/Service disc"/5) might be deemed unfair. After all, people might have multiple days to make those posts.

Valid point, I will propose a 1 Service ANN/Disc post added for every week left, I believe its fair.

Quote from: botany on January 01, 2016, 06:58:38 AM

I am perfectly okay with any payment, but from an analytical point of view, I would like to improve the formula. Grin

-snip-
If somebody has made close to 65 posts, both your formula and mine will give the same result.
That would serve e-coins purpose.

Appreciate your opinion but as you said, its the same result both ways, hence it would be simpler with my formula.

Hmm.... Call me a perfectionist, but it is really not that complicated.
If somebody has been here for 50% of the time (say 15 days) and made 50% of the posts required (around 32), I would say it is fair that he receives 50% payment.
Your formula would give him only 25%.

At the same time, I don't think my formula is unfair to ecoin as well.

mexxer-2

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1005

4 Mana 7/7

Quote from: botany on January 01, 2016, 06:58:38 AM

While it won't impact me, the second addition to the formula (*posts made in "Service ANN/Service disc"/5) might be deemed unfair. After all, people might have multiple days to make those posts.

Valid point, I will propose a 1 Service ANN/Disc post added for every week left, I believe its fair.

Quote from: botany on January 01, 2016, 06:58:38 AM

I am perfectly okay with any payment, but from an analytical point of view, I would like to improve the formula. Grin

-snip-
If somebody has made close to 65 posts, both your formula and mine will give the same result.
That would serve e-coins purpose.

Appreciate your opinion but as you said, its the same result both ways, hence it would be simpler with my formula.

botany

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1064

Quote from: mexxer-2 on January 01, 2016, 05:46:42 AM

E-coin seem in favor of a proportionate payment , i.e why post count and the counting for days , the signature remained in place is being done. I notice some people still seem to have the signature, all the participants are being PMed, (maybe a bit unfair to the people who had the signature until 2-3 days after the announcement was made, and only then they removed the signatures) their "Days Signature remained in place" will be counted until today. For all others, it will be counted until the day the announcement was made( Dec 28 )
The proportionate payment will be counted as follows: Posts made*Rate(Per post)*Days signature remained in place/30

There might be a few mistakes in my "formula" for calculating the payments, hence it may change in the future or if E-coin are in favor of another "method" of calculating that seems fair to them.

Edit: Maximum paid posts are 65 and another addition to the formula is above's product*posts made in "Service ANN/Service disc"/5. Maximum amount of posts counted for posts in Service ANN/Disc is 5 and to be fair, if anyone has less than 2 posts in such sections the value will be , by default 2.

Thanks for working to sort this out.
While it won't impact me, the second addition to the formula (*posts made in "Service ANN/Service disc"/5) might be deemed unfair. After all, people might have multiple days to make those posts.
You may offer them an opportunity to make those missing posts. I can't think of another way to fix this. Embarrassed

I am perfectly okay with any payment, but from an analytical point of view, I would like to improve the formula. Grin

Pay per post = Fixed Rate / 65

Payment = Minimum (Pay per post * Valid posts, Fixed Rate * Days signature remained in place / 30)
If somebody has made close to 65 posts, both your formula and mine will give the same result.
That would serve e-coins purpose.

mexxer-2

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1005

4 Mana 7/7

E-coin seem in favor of a proportionate payment , i.e why post count and the counting for days , the signature remained in place is being done. I notice some people still seem to have the signature, all the participants are being PMed, (maybe a bit unfair to the people who had the signature until 2-3 days after the announcement was made, and only then they removed the signatures) their "Days Signature remained in place" will be counted until today. For all others, it will be counted until the day the announcement was made( Dec 28 )
The proportionate payment will be counted as follows: Posts made*Rate(Per post)*Days signature remained in place/30

There might be a few mistakes in my "formula" for calculating the payments, hence it may change in the future or if E-coin are in favor of another "method" of calculating that seems fair to them.

Edit: Maximum paid posts are 65 and another addition to the formula is above's product*posts made in "Service ANN/Service disc"/5. Maximum amount of posts counted for posts in Service ANN/Disc is 5 and to be fair, if anyone has less than 2 posts in such sections the value will be , by default 2.

Swordsoffreedom

legendary

Activity: 2884

Merit: 1115

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Lutpin on December 30, 2015, 10:06:34 PM

Quote from: Swordsoffreedom on December 30, 2015, 09:52:03 PM

Well that sucks when the escrow itself is the scam alas another fiasco.
I can't say it couldn't be helped since the forum is suspicious of new campaigns and vouches for escrow that in itself can be a risk, reputation wise it is a bit of a hard hit so even a token gesture would be nice but I guess e-coin is short on the coins.
Oh well tks anyways.

Guess they are,
that's why they are abled throw $190 into their promo raffle,
but aint got the coins to pay out participants.

Well as your personal sig says
There is nothing permanent except change.
(Sorry that just seemed perfect as a reply Tongue

no chump change lol)

Lutpin

copper member

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1874

Goodbye, Z.

Quote from: Swordsoffreedom on December 30, 2015, 09:52:03 PM

Well that sucks when the escrow itself is the scam alas another fiasco.
I can't say it couldn't be helped since the forum is suspicious of new campaigns and vouches for escrow that in itself can be a risk, reputation wise it is a bit of a hard hit so even a token gesture would be nice but I guess e-coin is short on the coins.
Oh well tks anyways.

Guess they are,
that's why they are abled throw $190 into their promo raffle,
but aint got the coins to pay out participants.

Swordsoffreedom

legendary

Activity: 2884

Merit: 1115

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: mexxer-2 on December 28, 2015, 08:37:05 AM

I apologize for the bad news , but the escrow for the campaign , i.e master-p seems to have "exit-scammed"^[1]. As he was the only person who had access to the campaign funds, I'm sorry to say that the campaign will be discontinuing with no payments for the last month.

Apologies for any inconveniences again
In case the new owner of the "master-p" account returns and refunds(highly unlikely), everyone will be paid out.

Follow-up [1]: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/master-p-scammer-i-lost-complete-faith-in-this-forum-now-1306301

Well that sucks when the escrow itself is the scam alas another fiasco.
I can't say it couldn't be helped since the forum is suspicious of new campaigns and vouches for escrow that in itself can be a risk, reputation wise it is a bit of a hard hit so even a token gesture would be nice but I guess e-coin is short on the coins.
Oh well tks anyways.

siameze

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

I understand things like this happen and no it isn't Mexxer's fault. I joined later in the campaign and only got a week in before this fiasco occured so I don't expect to see any return for my time. Likewise E-coin should not expect that I should consider using their services going forward. Undecided

Lutpin

copper member

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1874

Goodbye, Z.

Quote from: ?? on ??

I will get an official stance from E-Coin in the next few days. We had hired a campaign manager, sent bitcoin to the escrow of his choosing. We had completely full filled E-Coin's obligation from my point of view. As it stands right now there are 2 victims. The signature posters have not been fully compensated under the agreement, and E-Coin paid 100% for a service it did not receive. This is not an official stance from E-Coin, but my personal observation at reviewing the situation.

Quote from: Quickseller on December 28, 2015, 08:14:07 PM

I am surprised that the owner of the websites/companies that the sig campaigns were advertising for have not made any kind of announcement saying they will cover payouts as they are responsible for their participants getting paid at the end of the day.

E-Coins obligations are fullfilled at the point each and every participant got his payment (asuming he is eligble to it according to the rules).
Their work is done, they delivered the product to you (advertising).(I don't know what product you did not recieve, maybe the coins you placed in escrow that overreach the pending payout)
Sending BTC to the escrow was only the first step of paying for said work. It was supposed to add pay-security to the participants.
Now that the coins are not going to the participants from said escrow, it would be E-Coins obligation to pay them directly.
They delivered their part of the treaty, it's only fair from you to ensure you deliver yours.

Let us check other campaigns caught in this incident:

Quote from: Coinbet24.com on December 30, 2015, 05:12:05 AM

To all there are a part of the Coinbet24 signature Campaign.
I see that there is a problem with the escrow for this signature campaign (Master-P).
-snip
We will pay every one of you, I will just discuss with yahoo62278 how we do it - because we dont want to pay to an escrow again and risk that the right people never have there payment!

Quote from: vervolioman on December 29, 2015, 06:16:53 PM

QS thank you for your kind gesture I really do appreciate it! But I can't do that and have pmed you

Everyone your payments have been agreed by BVC and he has sent them to me to make payments to you. That will be done in a very short while and I will edit this with the txid etc.
-snip

siameze

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mexxer-2 on December 29, 2015, 02:07:25 PM

Quote from: botany on December 29, 2015, 08:53:11 AM

Nothing from them yet? Sad

They should at least let us know whether we can change our signatures...

Euro_Stacka is quite slow in responding. As for the signatures, you can switch to another one once .Me along with him will decide whether to give a part payment or a full amount, i.e you later come back and finish the terms(days remaining) and then take the full payment, you will be informed, or in the worst case , no payment(highly doubt it might happen)

I just removed mine yesterday since I thought they were suspending the campaign. I'm more than happy to put it back if they are going to continue to advertise via hero and legendary members.

mexxer-2

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1005

4 Mana 7/7

Quote from: botany on December 29, 2015, 08:53:11 AM

Nothing from them yet? Sad

They should at least let us know whether we can change our signatures...

Euro_Stacka is quite slow in responding. As for the signatures, you can switch to another one once .Me along with him will decide whether to give a part payment or a full amount, i.e you later come back and finish the terms(days remaining) and then take the full payment, you will be informed, or in the worst case , no payment(highly doubt it might happen)

botany

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1064

Quote from: mexxer-2 on December 28, 2015, 10:27:38 AM

Quote from: botany on December 28, 2015, 10:24:41 AM

Any chance that e-coin would give some payment to the current participants? Sad

I know that we did take our chances with the escrow.

I have contacted him regarding this , I wouldn't have my hopes high though, considering the campaign was already unsustainable for them.
Apologies again, for any inconveniences . I for one lost my faith in bitcointalk escrows, only person I'm sticking with as an escrow(if possible) is shorena

Nothing from them yet? Sad

They should at least let us know whether we can change our signatures...

notaek

legendary

Activity: 1268

Merit: 1009

Quote from: Lutpin on December 28, 2015, 11:10:38 AM

They should value any outstanding payments/work that has been done for them. The participants are in no way to blame for this, they didn't select the escrow, they did their part of the contract, delivered their work, this shouldn't be done with on their expenses.

I think you should contact EURO_STACKA. As far as I know, he's the one who appointed mesmer to initiate this campaign.

I already left hope in this and so I immediately started a campaign where funds are paid upfront.

Tl;dr: I'll think twice joining the campaigns where they don't have a backup to their escrowed funds!

Joel_Jantsen

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1317

Get your game girl

Being an uninvited guest here I would like to put forth my opinions in response to the situation :

I think Campaign Manager is as much responsible of the funds as the campaign owners. Isn't it upto the campaign manager to decide the escrow?If yes,then he should somehow make up to it since he is the first person of contact for the participants from their recruitment to kicking them out.If No,he should again make an attempt to convince the campaign owner that its none of the participants fault but we made a wrong choice hence we must pay the participants for their time.In the end,I know its a long blame game and finally only participants will suffer.I'm not accusing mexxer of anything but just generally relating to the situation, as it might occur in the near future as well.I have idea here (which will probably sort out responsible/serious managers from not-so-serious-one's).Campaign manager should be held responsible from now on for any such kind of situations and this should be made a rule ,if a manager is given a campaign ,he is responsible for any kind of payment loss and that even includes owner running away without paying.Trust me not everybody will like to be a campaign manager then.

Topic: E-coin Fixed signature campaign(Only Hero and Staff/Legendary)||Full (Read 5300 times)