Topic: Where do we draw a line? Signature campaigns or shilling campaigns - page 5. (Read 1457 times)

This has nothing to do with what I said, since I do not require anyone to run around the forum and advertise a service or product.

We're talking about something else... that when you list a list of competitors, mentioning a project that rents your signature is a matter of business ethics.

I don't agree with icopress's above statement at all.  It might be bad etiquette to bad mouth whatever you're advertising in your signature space (and it would certainly cause a bit of confusion/head-scratching to anyone who might not know much about sig campaigns), but requiring members to mention the product/service in their sig space if they're engaged in a discussion about a set of products/services in which it belongs is just not good--unless that sort of posting is explicitly prohibited in the campaign's rules, and even then I think it's crossing a line.

No.  Any issue like this should be a matter between the campaign manager and the participants.  There's no way Theymos would institute a rule of any kind dealing with how members should post when they're advertising stuff.

In any case, people probably shouldn't be renting advertising space to a wallet that they wouldn't even mention in a list of wallets they'd recommend to others.  I understand icopress's point, but if he was truly "extremely outraged" I think that's an overwrought reaction.

You should have put this in bold as well.


The essence of this conversation comes down to the fact that you need to respect the advertising opportunities that are available to you. And also the fact that in my eyes it looked like Wasabi was paying for Sparrow advertising. There's nothing wrong with saying "I use" (any brand you like), but when you say "I recommend" and list several similar wallets, then I believe that mentioning a project that spends resources on the campaign is an issue of ethics.

On reading through the post made by icopress, I then recalled a similar advice I read from a thread by CryptopreneurBrainboss some time ago

Although it's not totally explains the topic in question but it's give a little idea of what I'm about to say.

A signature campaign is essentially an optional promotion where participants are paid in return. By joining these campaigns, you agree to follow their rules. Many people promote products or services they don't personally use, purely for the payment. For example, someone who isn't interested in Casino X but wears its signature is likely only doing it for the money and wouldn't genuinely recommend it. The same applies to wallet services. Perhaps the user isn't comfortable with using the wallet in question or simply prefers other options.

I agree with @icopress point, as he raised a valid concern. However, do campaign participants really need to consider this? If, for instance, all casinos, wallets, and exchanges imposed a rule stating that users couldn't recommend alternatives while participating in a campaign, it would cause confusion and potential conflict on forum. While we should only promote campaigns we agree with, recommending other options shouldn't be restricted. It should be stated somewhere on the campaign thread (not a strict rule but) users may recommend their said campaign if need be and not imposed on them.

I just came across this post by Icopress (one of the most active campaign managers currently):


Bits emboldened by me.

As much as I understand his logic and I even respect him for stating that publicly rather than kicking out "misbehaving" participants without stating the reason - I think we have a precedent here where the campaign manager is openly policing (to a small degree but still) the content of the posts by telling participants what they can't post, or what they must include (i.e. you can't say you like product X without mentioning product Y).

This alone might not sound like a big deal, but the unwritten rule was that signature campaigns are nothing more than renting out advertisement space, and there was no expectation of participants to endorse advertised services.

I feel that if we leave things like this unchecked, that's a short way to the introduction of shilling campaigns, where participants will be openly required to make a minimum number of positive posts about advertised service, or maybe even negative posts about its competitors.

So again, I don't imply any ill will in Icopress' post, in fact, I think he acted in participants' best interest, but I see this as a small step in a potentially very bad direction.

So the question is, should the forum introduce any rules on compelled/restricted posting, or do we let anything go, including shilling campaigns?