Topic: Re: Updated Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns - page 141. (Read 17849 times)

Hillariously unhelpful!   sho_road_warrior actually expressed the mathematics well, if any one person is involved in more than one of the three roles, that's your definition for COI.

What I thought was funny about this thread is how shockingly seriousl mitche?? is about the conflict of interest on this topic but how dismissive he was about sed's accusation regarding staff posting ads in the OP.

That is what I have always wondered as well. But have never got a clear answer.

Yes that was not my point. Stunna did not use escrow either. Maybe I got it wrong, but I understood that you wanted to have you listed as escrow for a campaign you manage.

No use in finding another escrow for the bit-x campaign anymore (perhaps could've been useful at the beginning if no one trusted me). Since this is (was) not the case, I think it is fine as is.

I would personally say as long as the person paying out the funds is not the same as the person who is receiving the advertising (the entity that is incurring the debt as a result of holding the signature campaign) then it should be considered as escrowed. The reason for this is that if a company were to have their services advertised, have an escrow both handle payments and escrow funds then if the escrow were to run away then the company receiving the advertising would still owe participants their payment. As long as participants do not edit their enrollment post then the owner of the service being advertised should have enough information to pay participants.

IMO the bit-x campaign is 100% not escrowed because funds are sent to bit-x addresses who then process payments therefore bit-x are effectively handling payments to participants. Marco holding funds on their behalf is nothing more then a device to install confidence that should not be there.

On the other hand the ocupy campaign is escrowed because if the owners of ocupy were to run away then they would still be 'protected' by marco (if you trust him enough, but that is another discussion) if the owners of ocupy were to run away, and if marco were to run away with his escrowed funds then the owners of ocupy would still owe the participants of the campaign.

That trustworthy escrower could be asked to run the campaign and become a trustworthy manager and we could start the conversation all over again.
Dividing the campaign between the manager and the escrower is important only when the manager is a new guy that is yet to gain trust in the community.

Yes, every single person could be a scammer, but usualy at least the escrowing person is known to be trustworthy (at least for now).The point of this setup with three people is that the operator of the service and the manager of the campaign can run and participants still get paid.  If the manager does the escrow, well there is no escrow as the point of escrow is that its another person. I am sure you can find someone that is acceptable for you if you want that "Escrow: yes" in the table for your campaign.

Thanks, Mitchełł! You were helpful!


+1. Thanks for the simple explanation, shorena. Now it is crystal clear.

   -MZ

There is a possible conflict everywhere no matter the role.

There are 3 distinct roles the person that profits from the advertising (owner of service), the person that manages the campaign (sig operator) and the person that holds funds should one of the other two disappear (escrow).

If a single person does more than one role, there is a possible conflict of interest.

I mean that it would count as escrow as long as you don't touch the funds he has given you.

Confused.


   -MZ

Hmmm, that would be a bit borderline, but that would count as escrow, yes. As long as you don't pay the participants yourself and the owner does the final post check (else you could say that someone posted more/less, which creates conflicting interests).

Okay! So if I am escrowing the funds and I am managing it but all the final decision is made by the owner. Then, it would be considered as escrowed.(?)

   -MZ

Of course I could. That's why you need a trusted someone to do escrow for you or use something like multisig.

I would, indeed, considered it as no escrow, because you control everything, which is not the point of having someone doing escrow.

But you could still choose to run off if they don't payout.

Yes but I have a doubt. If the owner of the website gave me full control over the campaign as I am controlling and escrowing it, will it still be considered as no escrow?

   -MZ

Correct. That's how signature escrow normally works and it makes sure that there are no conflicting interests. That's what I am doing for BitDice.me. I have 3BTC in escrow in case they run off, don't pay on time or until the signature campaign closes.

Let me get this right. Escrow is when let's say I run the campaign and you hold funds. At the end of the month I pay users out (and in the case I don't you do)? Correct?

"Someone that runs a campaign, even if it's for someone else, can't be the one doing the escrow. You have conflicting interests from my point of view. In the end, you are the one who decides everything. If you run, who will pay your participants? -insert owner of OcupyCoin- could, but there is no way to be sure."

So if you run, people could get paid by OcupyCoin, but there is no way to be sure. If there is someone doing escrow the risk is more spread.