Topic: Inflation and its possible impact on signature campaign payments. (Read 246 times)

Was thinking that yes inflation will allow for lower paying but 'easier' campaigns.

$20 for 15 posts kind of thing. People who might be feeling a bit of financial pressure where $1000 a year will help out, and they are posting about that much here anyway so why not.

If things are 'good' for you making sure you meet that post count and everything else may not be worth the effort. But keep the effort low enough and you can keep the payment lower and people who just want / need an extra few dollars a week who are good posters and normally would not want to be bothered with a sig campaign might join.

-Dave

I don't think there is an urgent call to increase rates even considering the high inflation everywhere. Although there were already perhaps a couple of campaigns that increased rates months ago, I don't think the primary consideration was inflation. There were perhaps a number of considerations like attracting better posters, or making sure they're not moving to other better-paying campaigns especially if there are many openings, or the campaign turns out well for the business, and so on.

So far, openings are flooded with applications. So this might somehow be taken as a proof that the usual payments are good enough despite the inflation. Also, even if $60 or $70 or $100 per week is low in some countries, the forum has a lot of users coming from other countries where these amounts are already decent. This is probably one of the reasons why campaigns don't really feel they need to increase rates. Many are comfortable with them. Also, the tasks are menial. 

I agree the gambling section which has a very active signature campaign here in Bitcointalk has the stiffest competition they have to market or advertise their casino on other platforms and small casinos can only afford a small budget to keep up with the competition, so having a job or a business outside of this forum is very important, its good to be in a campaign where you can earn Bitcoin so you can accumulate for future profit, but I don't make recommendations to make a living out of it.

I remember the payments of signature campaign in 2018 and followed years were mostly fixed amount in bitcoins but since the 2017 the price hike of bitcoin is too good than what we imagined so it made most campaign to go for the fair rates instead of paying too big. And you can witness the price decreased when BTC price increases in past and people all over complaining about changing payment so it also can be a reason to go with fixed rates per post.

Inflation is pretty much in almost every country up since the start of the war of Russia against Ukraine as the prices of basic foods at least for us living in Europe,everywhere in Europe we have seen insane level of inflation,some countries reporting even more than 30% but those are poor countries,for the most developed countries is at maximum at 9.2% as inflation which is a high rate nevertheless.

Signature campaign payments do not impact us directly as they are to us second income,well to most of us in Europe we all have a job of some sort and we plan our purchases and spending based on that,of course the signature campaign help us reduce some load and in this way I would say that they impact for the better helping reduce some of our stress.

Since we are talking about ChipMixer, the spreadsheet for this campaign is public, and everyone can check it out.

When the campaign started, the payrate was 0.0007 BTC per post. In week 4, this was slightly increased to 0.00075 BTC per post, meaning a maximum weekly payout of 0.0375/week. They kept the same rates until week 192 when the payouts were changed to $6/post. So, ChipMixer hasn't really done many changes until the payouts got tied to a fixed USD amount instead of a BTC one.

I never said that, and I'm not talking about inflation in the USA, there's inflation pretty much everywhere.

I think the xUSD in terms of BTC came in the view when bitcoin price started rising and this helps fix the amount of bitcoin bought to pay the campaign participants in terms of USD than BTC, it is of course more feasible for the company running the campaign. Imagine having a fixed rate of 0.01 BTC at a time when bitcoin is 10k USD and then bitcoin jumps to 60k USD and you still have to pay your participants 0.01 BTC while the work they are doing is comparable to 100$/week.

The relation that we are seeing with inflation is a coincidence in my opinion.

how did you come to the conclusion that inflation in the USA is the most important parameter for determining the amount of signature rewards? the owner of the campaign can also be from another country with higher inflation, does that mean that they have to give bigger prizes?

I would say that the other two parameters are much more important in determining signature rates. Market trends, which are currently in a very negative state, and activity on the forum itself also has a slight decline. I remember the period when a presentation on the forum was mandatory for every project, now this is no longer the case.

It might cause a lowering the quality of the posts for a lot of the lower ranked posters in a lot of campaigns.
At $40 a week, if you are feeling the pinch of inflation you may not put in as much effort.

As for raising the rates, there really is no reason to until someone else comes along who is competing to get the better / higher ranked posters.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.61283423

-Dave

 

The Bitcoin price actually is the one that has a direct effect on the payment rates in signature campaigns (or even number of active signature campaigns in a certain period). Lately most payments are pegged to the dollar rate, but still you tend to notice that when it's a bull run everything tends to look good, from the number of active BTC paying campaigns to payment rates as different services and casinos thrive during that period.

I remember the 2018-2019 period during the bear market, there wasn't any serious inflation like it is right now but there were barely any active long term campaigns. Most would be there for a couple of weeks and then get closed. Payment rates we mostly around $45-40 for Legendary/Hero members, while full members would have to settle for $20-$10.

If BTC price drops to $10,000 or below, be very sure that thing will change drastically whether there's inflation or not.

The amount being paid to signature participants is dependent on the fund of the company, the negotiation of the managers and the status on which the company wants to exist. Chipmixer has been the highest paying campaign, followed by Best_Change and both is among the long lasting campaigns. There was when one mixing company ran a campaign of about $200 per week. It attracted many quality posters. I don't know if it was what the company wanted to pay or the negotiating power of Icopress.


If you don't want to include Stake, you may need to include FortuneJack and BK8. They pay $100 per week and currently active campaign in the forum.

I kinda doubt there would be an increase. In the first place, the companies/services/businesses advertising on Bitcointalk are likely hit by inflation as well; and it's not their fault that the economy is in this situation anyway.

Anyhoo, it shows how important it is to have other sources of income outside of signature campaigns.

Yeah its way more common to keep the same rate (or even lower it) bit increases happen from time to time. Two that I know of are BestChange (it used to be fixed $90 for 25 posts) and another one is Roobet that used to pay $60 per week for Hero/Legendary but there are probably few more that did that.


Imho, signature campaign rates are more about supply and demand than anything else; when there's a lot of campaigns, businesses have to offer higher rates to attract members, and vice versa. Situation at the moment is much better compared to when I joined my first sig campaign (iirc early 2020) as there were so few that standard rate was ~$50 for the top rank (even Bitvest that was paying peanuts had some quality posters during that time) while only 2 or 3 where paying more than that.

Just paying attention to the Hhampuz campaigns a few months ago, he lowered the posts quota with the same weekly payment rate. That is, instead of increasing rates, managers can also reduce "workloads". This is also a form of concern for managers to deal with inflation.

Regardless, since there is no responsibility for the welfare of the participants' lives before the law, I think making this decision is only optional. Just hope these companies care more.

I have been wondering whether inflation has ever affected payments for signature campaigns, but as far as I can see, not recently.

It has been almost two years since CM changed its payments from a fixed payment in bitcoin to a payment of $6 per post (paid in bitcoin equivalent). The inflation rate in the US was 4.7% and this year has not yet closed but will easily be between 7 and 8%. This is official data that is usually adjusted downwards, so we can assume that those who were in the CM campaign when the rates were changed to their equivalent in dollars, can buy 15% less on average with what they receive from the campaign.

I wanted to ask those of you who have been on the forum longer and/or have been active longer than me, if you remember that campaign payments are eventually raised over time? Or is it more common for running campaigns to keep their rates and for new campaigns to be able to set higher rates in order to attract quality posters?

I also think that perhaps payments are not being raised soon because, although there is inflation, the general economic situation is not very buoyant.

I want to make it clear that I'm not saying this because of my campaign, which is number two in terms of the best paying campaigns, along with Best Change (I don't count Stake because to get 100 USD a week you either have to spam or take the signature campaign as a full time job), and it started in June.

It was just something that occurred to me, also thinking about how after inflation many companies end up raising their salaries, although in some cases the increases do not compensate for inflation.