Tappabit admin,
If you are looking for the best one, I will recommend "hilariousandco " as a campaign manager and escrow too for holding funds. His position itself enough as Trust.
I highly disagree with hilarousandco being both campaign manager and the person doing escrow. Not because I don't trust him (I do, a lot), but because those two things shouldn't be handled by the same person as it's an conflict of interest. A perfect campaign,
in my opinion, should have either 3 or 4 persons that have no relation to each other:
1. The campaign manager, they handle signups, check people's history, promotes the signature campaign, etc. This can either be the company or someone they hired.
2. A person that holds the funds for the campaign and pays everyone. This person shouldn't have any connection with the campaign manager or the company itself. This ensures that no post padding or friend benefits happen within a campaign.
3. The person responsible for counting posts (if you don't use a bot). Again, no connections with anyone else to prevent people to receive special treatment. The campaign manager will have to double check these numbers. This could be done by the campaign manager (hence 3 people), but someone else will need to check the final count. This can't be done by the person responsible for payment, because a conflict of interest exists.
4. The person doing escrow. This person holds a set amount of coins in case the campaign, campaign manager or the person paying disappears until the end of the signature campaign. They will be the judge in any conflicts that might happen and they can't be involved with the campaign in any way.
This is very picky and annoying, I know, but if you want a good campaign this is how
I would do it. I'm sure a lot of people won't agree with me, but so be it.
I don't think that the "counter" and "manager" should/need to be two different people. If the company trusts the manager enough to make the judgment calls associated with running the campaign then there is no reason why they should not be trusted enough to count posts. Plus when posts are counted post quality is pretty much automatically reviewed so the campaign manager would kick people from the campaign who are not living up to expectations. Plus doing this would give somewhat of a false sense of security as people can have alt accounts, sometimes many alt accounts.
Another issue with this is the fact that it increases the cost of the campaign. It also will reduce accountability as when the campaign starts to be associated with spam throughout the forum, both the manager and the counter will try to push blame on the other and in many cases, neither would be responsible for the spam if they are two people.
I also don't think the escrow and the person who pays need to be two people, although they can be if the company is paying people directly. This is not how escrow works. If two people are doing a currency exchange deal then the person selling Bitcoin will send the Bitcoin to the escrow, the person buying Bitcoin will send fiat to the seller then once the seller confirms receipt of the fiat, he will send the Bitcoin to the buyer, all in that order. If the escrow ends up running away with the money the seller is not responsible for sending additional Bitcoin to the buyer. The same general principle would work with signature campaigns. The participants are trusting the escrow to pay them.
The agreement with signature campaigns is that the advertisers agree to make a certain number of posts in exchange for a certain payment amount and the escrow will guarantee payment. The escrow can guarantee payment because he is holding funds from the company so if the company does end up running away he can pay out from those funds. If it is the escrow or the company that pays the participants is a logistical question and escrows will generally charge less if they are not having to pay out to a lot of people.
I would suggest hiring hilariousandco as I would argue that he has the strongest ethics out of everyone who will likely apply, although there are a few people who have handled campaigns in the past that still have strong ethics.
If it is decided that the escrow will be different then the escrow then I would be willing to hold escrow for the campaign for a small fee.