Topic: Most of bounty manager's are too careless about scam ICO. - page 2. (Read 458 times)

Then how do we tackle this problem? We have newly created accounts opening campaign threads which even if they were to be negative trusted or banned they would just make a new account and start all over again.

At least if they bought an account they would then have to buy another one if they get negged. I think very few people would be willing to do this and once someone has invested in something they normally take a little bit more pride in it and it might encourage them to moderate their campaigns more.

yeah right i am newbie in bounty and i have bounty 10scam they not pay me 

In reality they don't give a fuck as long as they get paid.  I would say over 99 percent of people on this forum can be bought off with money.

I wouldn't say most managers, but there's a lot of campaign managers who will help promote anything with little to no checks just as long as you pay them (especially if they've got little to no rep here). I would say this behaviour just comes down to both greed and inexperience which are both recipes for disaster.


Most are almost certainly paid a fixed amount every month or for an agreed specific term. I wouldn't trust any of these ICOs to pay me though and many wouldn't if the money wasn't in escrow (especially if their ICO went bad or not as expected). I certainly wouldn't work for them unless they paid me upfront or in fact escrowed the money because far too many would just disappear after they collected in their funds.


Anyone can buy a Full Member account or above, or just hire someone to do it for them and this is what usually happens.

Its the reasons above why threads created in the altcoin announcements and bounties should be restricted to full members and above. There should probably be a restriction on those who can open campaigns on the services board too.

I agree, and I don't think a DT negative would even be a motivating factor, as some of these bounty managers are low-ranked members who could easily create another account and start the whole thing over again.  You'll recall that what aTriz did got him a bunch of red trust, which basically forced him to abandon that account.  That had an effect--that was a fairly well-established account that's now ruined.  If a Jr. Member pulls the same shit and gets a neg, do you think that person cares?  Likely not.

There ought to be a lot of things changed about the way managers run these bounties, and it'd be nice if there was a rank requirement for doing so.  Managers put their reputations on the line right along with the project developers, and like it or not they're basically vouching for the project.  They ought to have some sort of reputation to begin with to be able to run one of these bounties.

These managers are being lazy. Not checking the credibility of the project. The only thing in their mind was to make a profit out of the project in addition to their inexperience which put risk for everyone joining the campaign.

Having been in charge of a few campaigns, and having talked with the "managers" that are involved in the cases cited here, I have to say, this is wrong, at least for those incidents I am aware of.
Managers usually get paid once they complete their work (which is either at the end of a round when a payment is made, or at the complete end of the campaign). Neither of the managers in these cases saw any money.
ughh123 themselves admitted that they have been scammed (not paid for their managing) in not only the TQ campaign, but also at least two campaigns before that.

The way I see it is that a lot of super inexperienced people are looking to find their way into management positions, without really knowing what it means, what they should be doing, and what the risks are.
By making theses steps, they do not only take an uncalculated risk themselves, they also put others at risk (the people joining the bounty, trusting the manager).
And I'm not saying that new people shouldn't start managing campaigns, we all have been inexperienced at some point. But they should take more time to educate themselves and research, before they take onto positions.

---

Although one example of a situation like the one described in your post comes to mind, the aTriz incident.
I would however hope this is an exception and not all managers are acting like this.

Going by this anyone proven to be doing this should be negged to oblivion. They are purposely not telling the community and potential investors that it's a scam for their own personal gain. If you see anyone doing this then send this information to some default trust members and see what they think.

There's a huge hole on the system of managing bounties..

I ask some BMs how they receive the payment from the devs team, so they're being paid per month managing the bounty. (Definitely if someone wants to hire them, they (boounty managers) will suggest a monthly payment to handle a bounty 'cause y'all know that it's really hard to manage a bounty with huge participants, and definitely they also want to secure the payment  .)

Then if many people found out that the project is a scam, bounty managers has an escape route to that cases.

1. releasing a statement that the project is a scam and he/she will look for sympathy to the other bounty hunters.
               (confusing the other participants that he/she is also a victim of the scam project even it's not.)

2. Being an innocent child after the incident and stating that he/she didn't receive the payment (even he/she receives monthly payment).

That's why bounty managers should face the accusation 'cause he accepted and presented the project here in forum. Well, it's kind'a unfair for those participants and investors who truly supports the project.

That is inevitable. Everyone here would want to make a profit and include a bounty manager. But I am sure there are managers who do analyze the project that they will manage. Usually the manager is qualified and they also actively participate in an ICO. So they do management on ICO and at the same time invest. I prefer that because every participant who follows the bounty will get a sense of comfort and the risk of not being paid is very small.

Of course they are paid. But i think the reason behind this is it's because  they're being greedy to some extent.

Btw, i think impressio's a scam too.

May i ask how you got the identity of those? How you verified their identity and how you think that they're a bunch of fakes? Is it just pure intuition?

It’s back to the accounts that participate in those campaigns. If they do a reasonable search before joining in any campaign, will reduce the risk significantly.
The primary purpose of campaign managers is profit "They do not run campaigns for charity" if they paid why tire themselves by checking ICOs.
If participants refuse to join campaigns, then campaign managers are better chosen and then reduce scam.

The only reason I can think is that some managers are paid daily/weekly with real btc/eth and if this is true there is no point for them to report a scam even if they find it since they will get money anyway.

NOTE: This is a personal supposition, I don't know how they are paid.

Recently I have found two ICO with fake team.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ongoing-scam-ico-list-eosgas-scam-be-aware-update-040818-4467496

Bounty manager's are too careless about scam ICO. Even they didn't minimum research. We know we can't prevent scam but it's possible to save forum members to promote scam ICO. So time and money both will save.

I think those are bounty manager they have some experience about ICO. What is the reasons for not well research? They are using fake team from Google. It's very easy to find. Simply search on Google and get help from some website.

Bounty manager's geeting payment by eth or btc. They don't have loss. But what about participant who had joined their bounty if scam ICO? They spend time on bounty.

Some manager's might be well and research. But most of manager careless.

I will request to all bounty manager's please try to research minimum to save forum members.