Topic: The fate of the leftover fund - page 2. (Read 860 times)

That fund was a collateral for if whirlwind suddenly disappeared (they did), and if they ever come back, this is all they are entitled to.


See:


The person holding the funds in escrow has discretion to make a decision regarding the funds as he sees fit in the event that the service and contact disappears. Most likely case I think is that the outstanding balance goes to a charity maybe. It helps to avoid legal issues around the reception of funds for these services that have been unspent or improperly spent.

Better still, escrow is a service that has more to do with safeguarding a fund for a fee and don't necessarily have much to do with the business of the company. À term like this would be to the detriment of the company and personally, that ain't such a fair practice.
Since one can't predict what strikes might be fall a company in tbe future, I'll rather edit your suggestion in quote to something that takes the nature of a periodic deduction;

* In the event that a campaign or project is paused with left over funds, there would be periodic debit on available funds in _% within _% of holding until the promotion is resumed.

After all, your deal is to hold and not mind there business.

Either ways, participants in there promotions don't get to decide. You worked with them gor a week, your paid for the week, that's your take!

dkbit98 is right, should have been distributed during last payment directly among CM campaign members right away.
It is not really difficult what to do. It is Bitcoin left from CM campaign.
Send it to campaign members, manager keeps managing fee, done.
Issue solved.
Sometimes, it is not very complicated.

I don't know about WW money, have not read enough to make a statement here.
Just really concerning how after WW promised HHampuz to come back and solve problems but it did not happen.

It makes sense, just imagine if the owner of the fund has not shown up for years, should the owner of the escrow have to keep silent about managing the money, even though it is very likely that in the future someone will appear trying to take the money, I think the manager of the escrow should make a rule that the fund those that are not taken for 1 year will be deducted, then accumulated if the owner of the funds has not taken them for many years.

I would not like that my post to look like some pressure placed on purpose on DarkStar_'s shoulders, but I believe that, at least, he should come up with a resolution for the funds he is keeping.

The situation is even more intriguing, as the funds remaining after CM was seized were moved on August 18th to another address, which holds 50 BTC. The entire amount moved was 1.30807482 BTC. CM's address used for payments was 1ChipWGhJtEWCeSq3cra4HmKhvYqe8Tvty.

At same time, this address also hold some fork coins, such as 1.99 bcash for instance (I did not check for other fork coins, but I believe they are also available). In any case, the amount is low.

At least as long as the 1.3 BTC were kept inside the same address I thought that DarkStar_ has some plans with them and, perhaps, he would take a decision at a later time and come up with a few words about his decision. But seeing the funds were moved and there is still just silence from his side -- this brings a lot of questions...

I will repeat myself -- I don't want this to sound as an extra pressure for DS_. Perhaps he also does not know what to do with the money. And, at same time, I believe that is a very trustworthy forum user. But a few words from him would be nice.

---

Regarding the other funds, kept by MJ / HHampuz, I believe they are still kept in case other victims will show up. But again, it would be helpful if they would also think about a plan for what to do with those funds in case no other victims will show up for a certain amount of time from now on.

I totally forgot that something similar happened with CM, only difference is that WW website is still working (sort of).
We can have many theories and speculations what happened with both of them, but we know for a fact they are both gone from forum.
Coins in CM were meant for future campaign payments, so it would probably be fair to see them equally distributed to ex-participants (if they want it).
Situation is a bit different with WW because funds are used as safety backup, but I don't see any reason to keep this funds frozen forever.

Why should managers and escrows be any different?
They also got paid for their work as they agreed, so I don't understand why would they deserve bonus money...
I never saw any manager posting in public how much they earn, but they sure posted how much money they lost when scam project hired them and than gone missing  
I think it's better to have partial terms clearly posted in public to avoid future calamities, because I am sure we are going to see more meltdowns and busted projects in future, one way or another.
For example, in case something happens with XXX service, this ___ will happen with leftover funds, that way all parties will have more clarity.
Small change, but it makes a huge difference.

Definitely, covering all possible scenarios is a very difficult task but at least covering 95% is already a benefit. Even if it takes some time to figure out how to do it because we'll always have a learning curve.


What eddie13 said there, sounds good but doesn't work in reality for most cases. And nobody gets "bullied". 
Yes, services should be able to decide which way to go - but some ways will end in a big mess.
We have seen that for signature campaigns managed in-house, like YoBit or right now 1xbit and the result is not desirable.
Bitcointalk recommends to select a trusted campaign manager to avoid spamming the forum due to Shitposts or similar issues. No one complains that selecting a campaign manager is something bad or services are getting "bullied" to select a proven campaign manager.
Selecting a know campaign manager is beneficial for the service, the forum and all participants.

Same applies to arrange an escrow fund.

Of course, providing some BTC into a trusted escrow for signature campaigns should be voluntarily - and will very likely attract more participants compared to a competitor, where no such escrow fund is offered.

Lol of course I know, but as I said I haven't checked my address for some time and never really bothered to check whether I got paid for those few days or not (tbh I totally forgot about it and I got bunch of other sig payments there). Only the other day when someone mentioned that leftover funds moved, I saw that there were no transactions after March 15th that looked like signature payments, therefore I assumed that we weren't paid in the end.

At least, from what I've noted in my document, yes.
Of course, maybe it's different for other participants? I've not checked everything back then.
Half a year has already passend and maybe I don't remember any additional circumstances.

And yes, from what I've noticed, last round of rewards came from a different wallet than usually (not 1Chip address). 

I'm not convinced that's skill, more a coincidence. I've also seen a bad example of how escrow funds can be managed.

I'm a sucker for strict rules, but it's difficult to take all possible scenarios into account before they happen. This is one of the reasons I don't actively offer escrow services (although I've done it a few times when asked). Yahoo62278's suggestion is a good disclaimer to add if it happens again.

Remember the forum's mission:
If someone wants to risk not getting paid for having a certain signature for a week, who are we to stop them?

Agreed. But it will lead to topics like this one, where people question things they're not a part of. The next step would be handing out negative feedback demanding answers, and think that would have happened already if the 2 accounts involved would have had a lesser reputation.

I can't believe I have to say this, but: You know the only way to see if you've been paid Bitcoin is by checking your own address, right? Not someone else's address?

Ah, so we were paid in the end for those last few days of the campaign, good to know.

Up until now I assumed we weren't (and I even said that in another thread :p) because I don't really check my sig campaign wallet on the regular basis and few days ago when I checked the usual address from where sig campaign was paid, there were no transactions (except that latest one when funds were moved).

I'm reading the replies here and I get the feeling that I'm missing something fundamental--and it's really only Chipmixer that I'm referring to.

Those two ideas above: Wouldn't anything Chipmixer gave DarkStar_ that hasn't been paid out consider kind of tainted by any of those agencies I mentioned in my previous post?  In other words, if DarkStar_ donated leftover campaign funds (and that's what I think I'm confused about) to bitcointalk, would that not potentially pose a legal problem down the line?

Exactly because I'm sure if after holding for several years and someone suddenly shows up, then the holder is expected to make a refund and in cases where they can't,  they might be dragged out, hence I support the motion that a disclaimer be made that any unused funds over a period of time be forfeited as this keeps but the manager and it's escrow at a safer side.

As long as Service provider and escrow provider is okay with agreeing mutually in private or in any form - I think it's just fine. It does not need to be public at all.

Difference was the manager Hhampuz was not trusted by $40k DAI so they went with an independent third party escrow which was minerjones in this case.

DS was holding his own campaign funds.
I hold my own campaign funds, when failed covered the loss from my own pocket.
Hhampuz holds his own campaign funds, when failed he also covered funds from his own pocket if I am not mistaken.

All are a form of escrow, you can define it by any other proper wording if you want but, all of it are escrow.

Again whatever deal was in between the escrow provider (third party or campaign manger himself) and the project management - no one supposed to have any concern as long as they got paid for participating in a campaign or the goal of the escrow was fulfilled.

From what was stated publicly, it wasn't escrow for any refund, just Signature campaign weekly rewards. Completely different from Whirlwind.
And when it's an escrow fund, it's even more controversial that the funds are getting sent now. Funds getting sent means ChipMixer came back? Address got hacked? Something else we dont know yet?
For an Escrow fund it is essential to be handled properly, especially after things are unclear.

A good example how an escrow fund can be managed professionally in a messy situation is whirlwind's Escrow fund managed by minerjones (and Hhampuz).

If we don't fix any uncertainties, much more controversies will happen again.
And I'm saying that as a supporter of escrow funds. Maybe every project doing a Signature campaign can provide an escrow fund and in case of an exit scam, losses could be covered. Most likely, such a procedure would reduce risks of exit scams, too.


+1
That's a good suggestion how such a deal could look like. Service and Escrow provider agree to a set of publicly available rules, where (best case) every possible scenario is covered.
It's a great idea to incentivize honest services.

It still was escrow fund by definition.
The deal was between Campaign manager and the project owner, none of the campaigners get anything (or at least demand anything). Have you been paid for the week/weeks you wore the signature. The answer is yes. Case close for campaigners.

If managing a marketing business was so easy, not required risking loss, only profit then I would not have to pay many times several thousands if not five figures already out of my own pocket in several campaigns. I don't think that time many members were too keen to accept a no payment (sometimes a few but it's not even 1% of the total).

What I am saying is: loss, left, profit, whatever it is - it's the deal between two party.
One > The campaign manager
Two > The project owner.

You, me and rest of us should have no concern. We are third party.

Making a written contract like not claiming the money after x days/weeks/years will result xyz can be a good idea though. I have done it with few of my clients but it was more formal like -
If the project end up with bad reputation and communication disconnected for x months then you (project owner) do not owe anything from the escrow fund. It will be use to cover loss of the campaigners and management business.

The answer from them are always yes.

You nailed it.

Once again it's important to avoid mining up both cases.

While for Whirlwind, the incident happened a few weeks ago and there are likely more customers to be refunded. That's why I'm in favor to keep the escrow fund where it is currently. It's serving a purpose.

It's different for ChipMixer. ChipMixer isn't an escrow fund, it's for ChipMixer's Signature campaign. Considering these funds have been sent now, without any explanation and broader community consent is exactly what I believe is how these funds shouldn't be handled. We don't know why and where the 1.3 BTC were sent to.

The issue: there are not any rules yet how such funds should be treated for the ChipMixer case. The community needs to define these rules or we will have this coming up again. Maybe not every year but maybe every 2 years.
At least for the Whirlwind Escrow fund, the funds are serving a purpose currently.

The fund was moved around a last active day of DarkStar_ in Bitcointalk. If his account was not compromised, that wallet was not compromised, that device was not compromised, the sender is DarkStar_ but we can not know it.

If no victims left, the leftover fund can be return to an address used to send bitcoin to that escrow address. Then manager completes his job.

With Whirlwind campaign, it is different because that Escrow is for potential victim of their campaigns, advertisement in forum.

I said that in another topic already: the fact that someone disappeared or scammed doesn't make his money our. This is not our money and we have no moral rights to make a decision of how to manage that money.

When we talked about the compensation for damage which was made by escrow guy, this is what this money was left for, so it's the main purpose for it. If there will be revealed that there are other victims, they can claim damages as well, if they will provide sufficient data to escrow guy. But that's all.

So I agree with LoyceV, I'm not going to take part in any voting on how to deal with other people's money. And please don't place me anyhow on a list of those who can anyhow get any penny benefit from this money.

There are some possible ways:

1. Do nothing and high likely will lost.
2. It's become an extra bonus for the escrow.
3. Share it to every users who're involved.
4. Donation e.g. this forum, the one who needs etc.

I'm expecting the funds will end either number 1 or 4, number 2 looks to be fine as long as there's a contract or rule from the user who act as an escrow, and the number 3 looks quite unethical.

Do we need to make everyone happy? an user who was get red tagged by you is obviously not happy.