Topic: Support flag against ANYONE Project, refusal to paid some participants. (Read 763 times)

I try to warn others about this campaign, you may read my reply here:


You can read more of my reply on the next page and some funny guys try to defend the scum Nekoma2018 but there are others in favor to hold it on an escrow as well, what I just want is a safe bounty for everyone but seems other been lax because of what they did the past campaign, past campaign should not be an indicator of it because it's a different thing and that past campaign is just for show I guess. I'll support that flagon him, that guy is messed up he should be the reliable of all this since he should secure that in the first place.

Based on the statement from @Nekoma2018 on the groupchat, i have come to a conclusion that, he was an accomplice of the deliberate attempt by the team not to pay the participants. First he approved removal of signature after the team have delayed payment of participants so they could disqualify as much participants as possible and denial them payment after successfully promoting project for two weeks. The team have refused to pay the participants and he has admitted to support the decision from the team.

Support my flag on his account: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=592

Well, As I've seen to their telegram channel the final decision of the Developer of ANYONE they won't give any payment to those unpaid participants who take off their signature even this was permitted by the BM of ANYONE. The Developer was not a good person I guess in terms of
dishonesty and making alibi just not to give any payment.

I have always suspected alt accounts cheating the bounty, not just the signature but other campaign especially telegram and article as they all had similar posting behavior but after rasing awareness i got attacked on numerous occasions on the groupchat. The more I look into the campaign the more I realize why they didn't register the level of success they were expecting but that doesn't justify them refusing to paid signature participants that put in work into promoting their campaign.

I happen to be one of the signature campaign participants that was not paid due to the misunderstanding between the bounty campaign manager and the Developer (Owner) or rather, the incompetent on the part of the Manager who failed to inform the Developer (Owner) on the terms and conditions he ( the Manager) used before he arrived at the conclusion on those that are qualified to get paid for the two week campaign.
And if the issue of none payment to the remaining 23 participant is not resolved I strongly support that the campaign manager should equally be FLAG for his incompetent role.

@OP move it to scam accusation, I am sorry for you not being payed but what can you possible expect from new unknown project having unknown manager running their campaign and not securing funds?

---

Has anyone noticed three very old forum accounts wearing 1smart.fund's signature on first page complaining that another investment platform scammed them?

I thought this one is a good campaign as they have limited signature participants which gives them a decent share, one of my friends having a sr account got paid in this campaign, well, he is one of the lucky 13 mentioned in the OP, anyway, I believe them team are scamming the others.

Supported.

Nice one but you forgot to add - Never Join a Campaign Run By A Newbie Manager

I am one of those people who participated in the signature campaign of this project and i also did not ger my reward because of the BM. I am also the holder of the coins of this project and I took part because I considered this project fair. I receive dividends daily from this project, but now I have begun to doubt their honesty. after creating this thread, they announced that they would reconsider their decision and now we are waiting for Monday, August 5th. after their re-decision, we will continue to think about how to deal with this project.

I had to scarify my telegram account, risking getting banned from sending messages to non contact or groupchats as I did make use of google translator to translate my words into Korea to info all the investors in the Korean group chat about this issue (scam accusation) to demand the developer in charge of payment to resolve the issue. Tried passing the message across to the Korea groupchat but got banned immediately. Notice after my exercise the developer became active in the english groupchat responding to messages before the Bounty manager updated us with the information qouted above.

I also joined the campaign after verifying the previous promoters were paid although that campaign was an altcoin bounty, participants were paid using ANYONE token. Understood the risk involved in the campaign but since it was just a 2weeks campaign i joined anyway.

Well, with this campaign, I also asked BM more than once if I could remove the signature. And because they had a successful bounty before, so I trusted and participated without ESCROW.
But after all it ended like that  . Today Anyone Dev has announced that they will make a decision on the next Monday, I hope good news will come to everyone.

Pedro thanks for this. I was a victim of this outright scam. I'm suspecting two things here, is either the bounty manager was paid and got greedy to distribute, hence deviced a rather obnoxious means to deny us from our payment OR the team refused to pay. He clearly stated severally that we can remove our signatures, which is normal after the stakes were awarded. Then suddenly they came up with a cooked story, saying we were not supposed to remove the signature. I think this calls for Type 3 flag, not even type two. Anyone Project took advantage of forum members and then denied them of their payment for signature campaign, this is so sad and terrible.

Managers are not liable to pay the campaign out of their pocket. Some have or at least I have paid a campaign from my pocket in the past, but it is not required. Managers should get the payment for a campaign up front or have it escrowed, unless it's a reputable company. This guarantees the participants are paid. If a person cannot get the company to agree to escrow or get the payment up front, then the Manager should pass on the job.

On a side note, all participants are at fault here just as much as the company and Manager. Those who wore the advertisement did so knowing the payment was not escrowed or held by the manager. If you're crazy enough to join a campaign where payment is not secured, then you cannot go crying when not paid.

The users who look to join signature campaigns do not pay attention to anything or care about anything it seems. All they care about is getting a spot and making money. NONE of you should even apply to a campaign unless funds are secured. NONE of you should advertise for new companies without guarantees. None of you should support Managers that are unable to get a company to at a minimum, ESCROW payments.

New companies should get 0 support unless they are willing to guarantee payments. Don't apply to their campaign and wear their advertisement without these guarantees. Yea, it's hard to get a spot in campaigns with so many applying, but if your post quality was excellent you wouldn't have these worries.

Kind of rambled on a bit there but in any case, I will support the flag.

I would agree with this as well. If Managers are going to act incompetent, there should be penalties.

I hope you'll get some sort of resolution and I understand your unwillingness to flag him but if it doesn't get resolved in a reasonable amount of time I would suggest to create a flag on Nekoma2018. Whether it's malice or extreme incompetence I think it deserves a warning.

I am one of the participants of this bounty campaign of ANYONE who didn't receive payment, I complaint immediately to their channel at their Telegram, and said that those participants don't have any mistakes, and I personally pm the BM and the Dev but the owner became mute and remain silent. And I said it is all faults of the BM due to if He just didn't approved the removal of the signature for sure those participants won't take off their signature and avatar. It is actually very unfair, this is supposed to be the BM responsibility but who took the consequences, We the bounty participants who helped their project to be promote. How come that the BM don't know that?

I can't see anything wrong with the side pf the unpaid participants.
This is due to lack of communication from the DEV and its Campaign manager.
This must be tackle more, and flag the project or the campaign and its manager if not resolve.

Supporting the hunters..
Next time any BTC campaign should be escrow or leave it alone.

Someone, please lecture me!
The team did pay the participants who did not remove the signature code and their avatar.
All the other campaigns were paid as long as they are good and followed the rules.

About the signature campaign...
all the left unpaid are those who are not wearing the sig anymore which the BM gave the go signal.
If the team will never pay the participants, does the manager has the obligation to do so? as he is the one who's the main reason why there are some participants unpaid!

Yes he's the one. Based on his statement he hasn't been paid by the team (can't verify this). Reason I didn't include him was, we (unpaid participants) saw the desire in him wanting the team to pay the unpaid participants, he kept us updated and even sent screenshots of their conversations to the group. From my observations could be the developers intentionally kept him in the dark in regards to not approving removal of signature. Although the whole scheme might just be preplanned I don't have a clue.

Yes, I have screenshots to support that.

Is Nekoma2018 the one who said signatures can be removed? This would be a good reason for a Type 2 or even Type 3 flag.

I supported the flag.

Looks like the BM did not escrow the money and since the team had the funds and right to distribute, they choose to pay a handful of participants and reject the remaining. It's the mistake of the BM also as the BM is not so reputed and did not put pressure on the team to pay the participants. The person who manages the team should have the authority to make sure that participants are paid. This is a red mark on the BM too irrespective of the team being a scam.

I supported this one, they should be liable to pay to their participants if they promise to do so.
There might be a little misunderstanding here but everything should get cleared through sensible talk.
They should think the wasted efforts of their participants just because of a little misunderstanding.

If this is the case the it's an issue in between the dev team and BM. There were nothing wrong from the participants. I hope they resolve the issue. Supported the flag OP. Thanks for bringing it in here.

Supported this one yet I'm also one of the participants that haven't received the payment.Its totally unfair for those who removed signatures yet its already being permitted by campaign manager itself and now the pay day comes,the team skipped out those who haven't wear their sigs.

BM do definitely had the mistake on here since the removal of signature isn't still approved by the team or they should clarify it first while the campaign is ongoing or saying it on OP in the first place.

AnyoneLtd has broken a written contract and your flag is correct. Supported although the weight isn't much since I'm not a DT.

Off topic
You are a senior member of the forum, why don't you ask team to escrow the fund or if they have problem with escrow fund, why a senior member like you have promoted the project?

Flag supported my friend. They’re keen to get lots of people to promote for them but not so keen to pay everybody.

 

AnyoneLTD hired Nekoma2018 to carryout a paid bitcoin promotional campaign for a duration of 2weeks (link: ANYONE LIMITED 2 Btc giveaway bounty campaign) after a successful campaign, the campaign manager approved the removal of signature ads for participants of the signature campaign by then he has already awarded each user their appropriate total stakes for wearing the signature ads successful for 1 or  2 weeks.

Coming to the week of payment, the developer of the project took over the spreadsheet from the campaign manager and started disqualifying participants as he feels. Before now the terms and conditions of the campaign didn't demand participants to wear the signature until payment has been received. Signature campaign requirements Achieve: http://archive.is/Nm8fF

But from a total of 40 (Signature campaign) participants, just 13 participants wear paid by the developer just because they were still wearing the signature ads after the campaign was over. Spreadsheet Archived, Link: http://archive.is/BOyIK Users paid are marked blue.
Remember the campaign manager gave a go ahead to participates to remove our signatures on numerous occasions since the allocation of stakes were over and duration of campaign was also over. I even confirmed via PM
.

Every participants of this campaign including the manager can testify to my statement above. At first we presume this to be a simple misunderstanding between the campaign manager and developers of project but as time went on, it became clearer, the project has intentionally refused to pay most signature participants because the feel the campaign generally wasn't successful. Although the signature campaign was identified as the most successful (by the manager) from other campaign, still we became victim while other campaign participants were paid. I was also affected irrespective of my stakes been marked green (quality participant) but this isn't about me, this scam accusation is made on behalf of all the signature participants that are been denial of their payment after dedicating their time to promoting this project on the forum.

I consider this act by the project to be shady and scam related therefore I have created a type 2 flag against their account on the forum to warn other members from falling victim as the project might decide to trick users into promoting them without getting paid in future.

Support my flag: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=547

I'm new to this so if I'm not doing it right, feel free to correct me.