Topic: Where do we draw a line? Signature campaigns or shilling campaigns (Read 1453 times)

I suppose my idealistic view of advertising is different then. I don't think advertising should influence speech, period. That just feels what is most right to me...

That aside, it seems like bad business to go about things the way that Wasabi and icopress have. I'd say a business would be better off respecting honest consumer/publisher opinions and instead being constructive by asking "We see you recommended Sparrow rather than Wasabi, so that we can improve to change that opinion in the future, tell us what made you recommend Sparrow over Wasabi?" instead of punishing honesty. I think that is a much better way to interact and build a relationship with a user (or publisher) and gain value from them, rather than breaking that relationship and taking somewhat of an aggressive approach.

That's much smarter than damaging the relationship with the end user/publisher imo, which I'm sure both icopress and Wasabi have done with pawel7777. It sure would with me.

I still think the view of influencing speech is ok opens the door to damaging publisher integrity. If campaigns make readers unsure that what they are reading is honest and uninfluenced, that will surely lead to problems down the line...like not being able to trust any discussions about services being discussed by a user with a signature containing a service in the same sector as what is being discussed. Does this way of doing things benefit advertisers? Yes, like you said, better value for money for them. Does this benefit the forum, users and its readers? I can't say so, I don't think anyone can...and who do we prefer to have as a first priority here? Advertisers and their value for money, or users, readers and post integrity/quality?

Yes they can, and probably should.

I see your point, but I feel like things are a little mixed up here, there is a huge difference between telling someone "what to say-- what not to say", Icopress would be in the wrong if he said

"Users who don't recommend x wallet would be removed"

or

"You have to post in the ann thread every day to get paid"

These things are against the forum rules, and this is where the forum rules end as far as signature campaigns are concerned.

Things like

"You shouldn't be recommending y wallet when x wallet is paying you to advertise it"

is pretty reasonable, and is not against the forum rules, you may call it whatever you want, but it's not against the forum rules, and it's within the boundaries of real business, if I was paying Icopress to manage my campaign and I see him pick users who recommend other competitor services I would be mad at him, I want the best results for the money I spend, what the users feel shouldn't be my problem, it's only business.

If I see someone wearing x wallet, and goes to recommend y, z wallets without mentioning x, I would think that x wallet team and their ad campaign are dumb as fuck and probably their whole product is, not because they didn't "force" that user to recommend their business, but because they picked someone who is so incompetent to advertise for them.

The real question however is, if Sparrow wallet had a running campaign with a much lower pay rate, would said user join that campaign instead? pretty hard to tell, personally I wouldn't like to be in a campaign where I am told what to say or not say, but out of respect to the people paying me -- I would not recommend competitors without recommending them, despite the fact that I have also stressed on the difference between advertising and endorsement, it's only ethical that you don't advertise for a competitor.

If the service you advertise sucks to the extent that you can't even recommend it -- you are in the wrong place, and you are just desperate for money.

Nothing here addresses campaign managers/advertisers manipulating speech.


Would that not cause people to compromise their honesty?
Did the OP really go out of their way to recommend Sparrow, or did they just participate in normal conversation?

If I have a signature for Bitcoin Core and someone asks "what is everyone's favourite wallet?"
Does that mean I have to say Bitcoin Core even though my honest preference is Electrum?
If I say Electrum can Bitcoin Core kick me from the campaign rightfully?
If I say Bitcoin Core instead of Electrum just to keep my signature, isn't there a big problem with that?

These are a lot of questions. I suppose the main one is: Does signing up to a signature campaign now mean that we have to be mindful (or have to compromise) our honest opinions?

There are not many members who pay attention to what they promote.
The last time I applied for a gambling campaign, it turned out that that casino did not allow users from my country to register. I withdrew my application because there was no possibility to even test the platform. I cannot represent them (even if only through a signature) if I cannot have personal experience with them.
I'm not saying this because I'm a moral stone, I just can't represent something I know nothing about, I don't even have a chance to find out.


SirJohnVonSlotty is a very intelligent person with very good reasoning. Much earlier, before you participated in his campaign, he gave an excellent summary of why to choose one participant instead of another. I wouldn't have much to add here.
(I believe that translating will not be a problem for you)

If the casuistry is far too extensive to the degree not every angle and permutation can be covered (and it would be), one would expect common sense to at least apply where common sense is due.

For example, if a world famous personality earned money to sit in a press conference because they have been hired to promote tourism to the Seychelles and wears a "I love the Seychelles. You should visit soon" t-shirt, you would expect them to use their common sense when they are giving answers.

Yeah but Pepsi can't make you stop drinking CocaCola and saying that you like it ^{(I don't like both btw)}
I personally would never advertise something I don't like, but if you look at advertisement outside bitcointalk it's mostly BS propaganda and people would say anything for the right price  
For example, does anyone in the right mind really thinks that Cristiano Ronaldo is actually using Binance exchange?
He is one of the biggest paid influencers in the world but I think he never used it in his life, except maybe to dump some tokens binance gave him for free.



There is a word for such people, they are hypocrites.
And how about some members who are constantly talking how this services are illegal and in the same time they are wearing gambling signature that is also illegal in their region.  
That doesn't prevent them at all to participate in of the biggest spam campaigns in forum.

I only promote things I like, but I get that most people don't care. And you can't even blame them: any advertising company doesn't care, and is totally fine taking offers from competitors.

This is how I like it: the campaign chooses candidates based on how they're already posting, and all that's expected from them is to continue that way.

From my perspective, it's not a "boss" relationship, but more like being self-employed. That means both parties can end the relationship at any moment.

See: Signature Campaign Guidelines (read this before starting or joining a campaign).

Yes, of course "If you post about Kitchenaid mixers again, I'll stop paying you" is a perfectly fine deal. Take it or leave it.

I agree with everything in your post...I think that the first statement is generally a little bit blurred though. Are there any specific rules for operators? Can they threaten campaign positions for content that is not actually dangerous to anyone, just like the OP? It seems like it's a (potentially dangerous) moot point.

Honesty is the best policy. The moment that honesty is being compromised as a result of the signature campaign, is the moment that the forum can be considered corrupted in some way.

One might say "well, then people like the OP should not participate in a signature campaign" - though that would be penalizing an honest member who is not harming anyone...and that would mean that everyone within the signature campaign would have to refrain from being honest or compromise their honesty if they have an opinion outside of the operator or campaign managers interests.

Forums are for honest discussions. We should not be entertaining icopress's behaviour if we want to preserve integrity here in this forum. Allowing "clauses" or campaign terms that influence honesty or the originality of what people think/say is a one way ticket to damaging forum integrity further than it already is from paying people for their posts.

Maybe Leo was onto something after all if this is rooting from Wasabi wallet founders complaining to ICO Press about pawel posting a recommendation about Sparrow instead of Wasabi...says something about their values if it is rooting from them, that's for sure.

Really? I think it's simpler than that, it's understood when you join a campaign. If we get into specifying everything as it is done in the contracts we will not cover all the possible casuistry even if the OP occupies two pages. Contracts are full of specifications and even then they sometimes end up in court, which is not going to happen here.

Yes of course, if you do not believe in the product then you will not be able to offer it to others.

Campaign managers need to set a rule if they want to force the members to use the product, on the other hand if it is not on the rules then they can request the members to try the product because the product marketing starts from the campaign participants. I don't think any campaign manager can force me to do a certain job but with a request he or she can easily use me do so many volunteering tasks.

A few years ago I was a participants of a reputable high paying sportsbook. At that time they paid us 0.015 BTC if I can remember correctly. Several times I was asked to defend them in the scam accusations because I was not willingly joining the discussions. But just because I was not joining the discussion does not mean they can ask me to join there. When they noticed I don't response and following their instructions, finally they decided to remove me. I did not mind at all because I will stay without a campaign instead of someone offering me a signature spot and set me a set of rules that you can not do this and you can do that.

Shilling is not okay, ignoring service is okay. As long as you don't feel to recommend a service you are free not to recommend it. If you are a reputable member and everyone knows that you are not biased by anything but suddenly you started to change your mind because your campaign manager is not going to like it and started doing the things to make your campaign manager happy, then [1.] you sold yourself including your reputation to the money [2.] you started to cheat the community that trust you.

It seems the incident happened in Wasabi campaign. I am sure many of the participants don't feel comfortable to wear their signature because of what we experienced after LEO posted his farewell thread. But because the manager managed to offer good payment in the campaign, those users are tempted to stay in the campaign and compromising their unwillingness. If Wasabi was paying regular payment like $70 to $80 or even $100, I am sure we will see a lot of members were leaving the campaign. It's not only the LEO saga, Wasabi team are lying, they advertise themselves heavily involved in privacy but in reality they support censorship, practice questionable privacy, even they don't mind to ddoxx their competitors. There are many reasons to avoid Wasabi and any product related to the brand. But all of it unfortunately won over $150 per week.

There is a big chance that for the member who did not add Wasabi in the list had a lot of thoughts but because it's his own list he wanted to be biased free. Too bad that the campaign manager felt it's not okay and he wants to interfere in the freedom of what his campaign participants can post and what they can't.

I don't say it's not okay for icopress because I always see a rules which tell, as a campaign manager they can add-remove anyone anytime. But it's bad practice that manager use this rule and force members to act according to their own (managers) interest. Signature campaigns were used to be a privilege than a regular job. Signature campaigns used to be boss-less but it now has a boss and you can not ignore his order or you are out. This is insulting.

I've been wanting to open this discussion for some time, but I have a slightly different view on all of this.

If someone joins the campaign, isn't it to be expected that he will first be interested in the service he is going to promote? at least to know what they are promoting
A company that pays for promotion through such campaigns, of course, want the best results from there, thanking the participants is certainly not the final goal they want to achieve. Holders of paid signatures seem to me to rarely think about whether their participation is worth the campaign owner.

I certainly support managers when forcing campaign participants should try the product they are promoting, or at least get to know it better.
Maybe I should have started this as a separate topic to get a bigger reach, but I will mention it here at least as the 37th post in the thread.

I remember that one participant of the Sinbad campaign, after several months of participating in it, accidentally found out about their ANN thread. And that's because there was a voting contest for the avatar

There were cases where individuals criticized mixer services, treated them as harmful, and at the same time carried mixer advertisements in their signature.

I will give an example of the BestChange campaign. One of the longer-lasting ones, with a solid payment rate, stable campaign, and it cannot be said that the participants produce spam. I have been in this campaign for a long time, so I am quite familiar with everything.
So, there a 25 participants, and the campaign is currently at 213 weeks. Out of 25 participants, only 6 of them wrote at least one post in the BestChange ANN thread. (I checked this on ninjastic.space, I believe it gives accurate results)
To me, this is more a lack of interest in the service they promote than avoiding shilling.

Here is some more reality from this campaign.
At one point, a Best_Change official asked for the community's opinion on a certain implementation of features on their service. In order not to go unnoticed, I shared it in the campaign thread. Clearly, there is much more activity when we talk about the BC service.


Out of 25 participants, only two left their feedback. And I am quite convinced that most of them have seen this call because they are quite active in the signature thread.
I already mentioned that this campaign is not a spam producer and most of the participants know how to write useful posts.

So contrary to the topic of this discussion, if we don't allow shilling (I'm definitely against this), is ignoring service from the campaign OK? Where is the line?

to be clear. This is not my attack on the participants of the BC signature campaign, this is just an example due to its seriousness and duration. I tend to believe that other reputable managers would be much more rigorous here, because of the reasons mentioned above


Sending a PM with a warning like in this case has more chances to be seen as shilling pressure. I wouldn't do that, we've seen what kind of drama a public release of a PM can cause. Icopress did it in the best way, I already stated that in the thread.

If any campaign manager asks/instructs campaign participants to make negative posts about competitors (either other campaign managers or products being advertised), it is unacceptable. Thankfully that is not the accusation here.

If I understood correctly what icopress stated/implied, I would like to give an example: I am wearing a Wasabi signature. If I came across a thread that the OP was asking for a list of products/services that could do a particular job (such as coinjoin) and I decided to post a list of some names that might interest the OP, if Wasabi encompassed what the OP wanted it would be (in my opinion) both highly unethical and dubious on my part to not even mention Wasabi in that list by virtue of wearing their signature. If others state it is not unethical or dubious to not list the name of the brand that rents their signature then that is a decision for them and we are all entitled to our views/opinions.

In short, signature campaign participants mentioning the brand/name in their signature when compiling a list of multiple names of companies offering similar services is not shilling.

Put simply, from what I can see all that icopress stated was that if members are in any of his campaigns and they decide to make a post listing brands that provide identical or almost identical products/services to the ones they are being paid for, there is common courtesy to mention that brand alongside others. I see absolutely no problem with the stance icopress has taken.

Having said that, if in order to stop threads such as this popping up again a clause should be added to the campaign thread then that is something for campaign managers to consider.

This is absurd. You should respect the very people who put you in business. The advertisers should respect the content creators. Without posters on this forum, there is no business for you and nor is there any growth opportunity for advertisers as a result of advertising here.

You are obviously an advertising amateur as well! If I recommend Sparrow wallet while I have Wasabi in my signature, then one could draw that Wasabi is as good as Sparrow if it is in my signature as well. There is nothing in a recommendation of Sparrow that leaves any possible interpretation that says not to use Wasabi!

The only time that I would throw you a bone and reason with you is if a poster directly slandered/unreasonably criticized Wasabi while they wore the Wasabi signature. At this point, sure, kick them out of the campaign if you want as it harms you and the advertiser. Otherwise, there is no reason to unfairly treat posters.

As a campaign manager, maybe you need some reminders?
- You can not force people to recommend advertised products
- You can not censor legitimate discussion about other products.
- You certainly not attempt to control what people say on the forum if it is not harming the advertiser nor the forum!


I strongly agree with this.

There is nothing bad mentioning other wallet or like recommending another exchange for a user, most times I do mention the brands that i am promoting in my space but that will be if such person doesn't have the exact quality he or she is looking for then they can search from the brand i am promoting. So far, even when i do mentioned another brand it's not a thing to get penalized but our major priority should be on the particular brands we are promoting at least that was why our space are being rented out to them.

And again that doesn't mean we can't mention other brand but before that we should look if the brand we are promoting has the feature or do run such services if no then we are free to mention any other brands that has exact features a users is looking at. To me technically Icopress is correct our main target should be when the products is being needed we can recommend people to that, except it doesn't relates to the brand we are promoting then we are free to list other brands that provides and renders such services just CryptopreneurBrainboss in his post.


We are being hired and get paid to make sure that their brands are openly promoted maybe we can also recommend them to people when the need arise, hiring our space and yet keep promoting other brands doesn't show utmost respect to project and also the amount they are paid for, because it's very bad spending huge amount for promotion and when time is reach to recommend people for the brand you then list another brand, it's so annoying.

Icopress I just accept what yahoo62278 said of getting them pm if they fails is best for you to know what to do.

I don't think Theymos would do such a thing, a shilling campaign has been in existence ever since, and not only here in Bitcointalk you can find it even in restrictive forums, joining a campaign is a privilege, you are there because you are qualified based on the rules and requirements laid out by the campaign managers and the campaign was launched between the agreement of the campaign managers and project admins to brand the site and generate leads.
So it breaks that agreement if you are a participant of let's say casino and someone asks for a list of the best casinos and you leave out the casino you're  promoting in your signature.
It just breaks the agreement of branding and lead generation that the campaign managers and project admins agreed to, honestly, it's not easy for campaign managers to request the project to hire him he must lay out a plan that the project admin will agree that he is qualified to brand a project.

Personally I agree with icopress position, though, maybe removing participants from campaign is a bit too harsh. Maybe I would just send them warning to PM with warning.
When you join campaign, you're not asked to be their paid shill, but some common sense should be used too. You're getting paid by one company and you're literally suggesting to use their direct competitors. It just doesn't looks good. I know that most of users don't care what they're advertising and don't use service that they promote, but maybe feel some loyalty for company which is paying money to you.
I can give not the best, but very obvious example. Let's say Leo Messi have have contract with Pepsi and Adidas. You won't see him drink Coca Cola and wearing Nike anywhere, otherwise he would get huge fine or even can get contract terminated.
Personally, I wouldn't advertise service that I don't use, I just wouldn't feel right if I would do it. Though, now I advertise Betcoin, but I actively participate in promotions made by their direct competitors - other bookmakers. But I someone would ask me which bookmaker to use, offcourse that I would mention service that I promote.

It doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. Just something to be aware of. People in those campaigns have their opinions bought and paid for. They are literally the definition of shills. It makes me thankful for the campaign manager I have, that doesn’t police opinions this way. I frequently tell people to gamble for fun and not money, yet have never been told to push an attitude of bet big to win big…

This is true, but practically, you would have few participants that cares about what brand they promote, some are majorly in the campaign just for the dollars and that's why we see this situation play out here.


@Icopress, I understand your feelings on this though, but for a diplomatic approach, you have 100 percent right to PM, count /remove the participant from the campaign if the posting style not interest you. But let's be honest for a participant to be promoting a particular brand and a question is thrown to give a response relating to what the participant is promoting, and where he/she now has the opportunity to include on the list the brand he/she is advertising and the participant failed to do so, then what is the essence of hiring and paying the member in first place?

Operators can run their campaigns however they want as long as they're within the rules of the forum, but I think things like this should be stated upfront as part of the terms of the campaign if it's an issue but I don't think users should be expected to refrain from promoting competitors without warning. I can see from the operators perspective why they wouldn't want this just like if you were advertising for Pepsi they wouldn't want you advertising for Coca Cola or promoting any other drinks but this would all be laid out in their contract and I think it should be the same here and made part of their rules if it's something they don't want. Rather than recommending the product they're advertising they should probably just refrain from posting on the subject if they can't remain impartial under the terms of their campaign, which is what I would do in this situation.

I don't think icopress ever asked for any shilling, both publicly or in private, but members should not change opinions and posts based on signature they wear.

I would understand your point if this member would publicly talk against using Wasabi wallet and wear wasabi wallet signature in the same time, but I don't think he did that ^{(I would like to see his post)}.
Sparrow wallet should not be directly compared to Wasabi, I always compared it more with Electrum wallet, and it's coinjoin feature is only optional and done with different third party wallet implementation.

Yeah, but they also said what they don't like about Bisq, and we should all be able to say that

Before anybody joins any signature campaign, you surely must have read the rules of that campaign, and accepting to join that campaign means you agree to keep the rules.

We all know what a signature campaign is. It's an advertisement for a brand. What do you think someone else will think about your brand when they see you recommend another brand when the brand you're advertising offers that same service?

There were times I was not in any signature campaign and some signature campaigns were open, I didn't apply to them even though I was ready to join a campaign because for some reason I don't like the services they offer. Now what kind of advertisement would I be doing if I had joined that campaign and spoken against the service or product they render? Or recommended something else?

I get it that there are no signed contracts and lawyers and whatever is needed before signing an ad campaign, but you agreed to certain rules and you have to follow them. It's like advertising a Samsung phone but recommending a Huawei phone to someone, what's worse is you're doing that openly.


Using terms like "compelled or restricted posting" is a little far don't you think?
The way I see it, it's simple "If you're advertising a brand, don't make that brand look bad". That includes all your activities on the forum. Don't be a shit poster, or a spammer, be active, etc.

And even if a brand decides to restrict your posting, as long as you've signed up with them, you should keep their rules. I saw a campaign that told its participants not to take part in some political issues because they were neutral. That is a restriction and if you're okay with that, by all means, it's your account.

Every user that read the rules saw this "I reserve the right to change the rules and disqualify any post and any participant for any reason" before joining the campaign.

Um....can I ask where you got that very specific statistic from?  I've no clue what the percentage is of member who have nothing to do with whatever they're promoting, but I'm guessing it's probably high and perhaps even near 70% but I'm curious as to where you pulled that number from.

I was doing a lot of post reviews in the gambling section before I made the decision to exclude that section from any future reviews, but honestly most of the posts I looked at were made by members who at least seemed to know about gambling, and quite a few of them seemed passionate about sports betting in particular.  Granted, I did not look at any other posts aside from those from the members who'd requested reviews, so my perception is probably very skewed.  One of the reasons I don't even consider joining a gambling-based sig campaign is because I don't gamble and any posts I would make in that section would be pure crap.

On the other hand, I have posted a few times when the topic of gambling addiction has come up because that interests me and I know a little bit about how harsh the consequences are and how brutally difficult it is to stop gambling.  Anyway.

There's a difference between a signature campaign and a shilling campaign but once a user registers for a project campaign he has no right whatsoever to say something bad against the project he's advertising or choose another provider above the same brand he is advertising if a user does that what's the purpose of the advertisement he signed up for?

Some users of this forum may say signature campaign just rents out your advertisement space in exchange for payment it's far more than that and we need to put ourselves into the shoes of brands that come to this forum for marketing.

I think now you understand what I meant when I shared my opinion.

I agree with this completely. And that's not what we're talking about here. It's funny, but not long ago I removed one participant from another campaign, and when he wrote to me that he could adjust his publishing style, this is the response he was sent.

In the campaigns I manage, more than 90% of participants have an idea of ​​the project whose signature they bear.

There is absolutely no connection between this and what is being discussed here.

You are free to say whatever you want, but when someone asked about which site you can find the best exchange rates on, and you start listing sites such as ExchangeSumo, Profinvestment and others... without mentioning BestChange, it seems at least strange. And of course in that case I don't think your participation in the campaign is of value.

From what i can see, i also agrees with icopress, if you're working for a company and you're being paid by them, then you have no right of saying bad about them, irrespective of the privilege that you have in making the promotion for them, they cant force you to say good things about them, what to post or where to post because the signature and avatar one is wearing already did that, but kicking against your employers product or service is not a good attempt and that alone shows you're promoting and also demoting the same organization you're working for even though you may not know.

Icopress in this is not mandating him to make a post concerning the brand or dictating where to post or not, he is only suggesting that its better to stay off any discussion that could tarnish the image of the service the participant is promoting than joining in the campaign against it, i think this is the aspect that the campaign rules are most effective that they are subjected to change, i don't think there's anything bad also in a campaign manager remembering his participant not to forget in giving their contribution on the AAN thread, this has nothing to do with that becoming a participant payment eligibility if he comment or not, but just a reminder and a choice.

This is exactly how it is supposed to be, but the irony is the reality. There are many people who do not understand what an open or a closed source code is. They also do not understand the basics of bitcoin, yet their accounts are grown and in active campaigns posting some generic texts that are somwhat related to an ongoing conversation in order to get paid weekly. More than 70% of the people that promotes different projects here do not test the projects and neither do they even visit the website. If you go to the gambling section which I believe you frequent because of the casino you promote, you will see many users on casino signatures but know nothing about gambling and probably do not even gamble.

You do not even have to be in the Wasabi campaign to know that it is open source, if you are in this Bitcoin forum, you ought to be aware of that information and more so when you are then a member of the said campaign. As a campaign participant, the bare minimum should be understanding the basics of what you are promoting.

I personally think it's a bit extreme. If the manager feels the members he hired are not “productive”, he could just remove them or make a reshuffle without raising dust.

If not mentioning/recommending the service one is having in their signature space is an issue and can get one booted out of the campaign, then how about constructive criticism of the service? Let's say the service I am advertising is having some issues, an open scam accusation etc. and I try to say something about it. Isn't that an automatic disqualification as well in that context??
Aren't we going to see cases where members fear to make comments about the service they are advertising because the fear has been instilled in them?

The next thing we shall see is all members recommending the service they are advertising in every related thread they come across for fear of being thrown out. Worse still, avoiding posting in competitors threads because boss might not be happy.  

When someone has joined a signature campaign then that member should understand that he/she is getting paid for applying a brands signature, avatar, and sometimes personal text on his/her profile. The brands want to get more attention via the posts of such users who are accepted in the campaigns which the brands are funding, and that's why they somehow hope to get more exposure via the posts as well.

If you believe that the signature you're applying on your profile fits into a list that you're mentioning then nothing is wrong in that. I won't say that you should mention that service in each post but when in some posts it can be mentioned then one should try to mention it. But, if you're making posts and not suggesting other services in the list then that's also okay because readers can easily spot the signature on your profile and understand that which service you're trying to promote.

Icopress and all other reputed managers of the forum are doing a great job by managing the campaigns and it isn't a simple job by any means. If they want the participants to mention a service that they are advertising then I think a participants should have no obligation in that. But as far as I know, they haven't forced anyone to shill a service in each post to get paid, they simply say that whenever you're mentioning a list of similar brands then also consider mentioning the one that you're applying on your signature space. That would help that brand to get some attention nothing else.

I understand with Icopress, even if it is not a rule, it should be ethical to recommend what you promote when the need arises. But then, there are some exceptions such as; a situation where the signature participant doesn't actually know that wazabbi is an open source wallet. It is very possible and if that is the case, I wouldn't blame the signature campaign participate.

For we to treat this matter honestly, we need to address another rule which is fast becoming a trend among some managers. The rule of making it compulsory for signature campaign participants to use the service they are promoting. I saw it in the mixer campaigns. If the signature campaign participants of wazabbi are compulsorily made to use the service, everyone of them will know that it is an open source wallet.

After testing the service, if you can't recommend it, it means you shouldn't promote it at all. So, it is just a two way something. Even me as a manager, I will not be comfortable seeing you wearing a signature of one service and recommend the nearest competitors of that service. It might be like an ambassador of Nike advertising addidas.

If you talk about ethics, if you are promoting a service through your signature, it deserves to be mentioned when you recommend a similar service. I understood the point icopress mentioned. It's something we could consider as the gray side of the member. But, you shouldn't be outraged because they did it. You could have PM the user just like Yahoo said.

This is not something that happens every day. So, sending a PM to one of your participants won't be a bad idea. I understand that it's like I work for Samsung but I suggest users buy Apple products. That is all about ethics.

I thought of that after I made my last post here--since it isn't likely that multiple participants are going to do what the member icopress called out, a PM would have sufficed instead of making a post that sends a strong (and obviously somewhat controversial) message to every person who's in one of icopress's campaigns.

And yahoo62278, you've got it right that campaigns are all about the money and I don't think I've ever seen a manager try to micromanage people's posts like this.  I'd also agree with whoever said there are a certain percentage of campaigners who don't even know what kind of service/product they're renting out their sig space to.  Most members just try to get into the highest-paying campaign they can and don't care what's being advertised and don't even care to even know exactly what it is. 

I disagree with that to an extent.  Renting out your signature space is simply a financial transaction, and unless there's a rule in the campaign that you can't express your own opinion about competitors, members should be able to do so.  Bashing whatever it is you're advertising is another story, but praising a competitor?  Eh.

Props to @OP for bringing the discussion.

Very agree with Poker Player and yahoo62278, it's either the manager need to fire the participants or let know the participants through PMs.

I guess so, but it's easy to notice it, when it comes to wallet and privacy topics, pay attention on their posts.

They're not a same brand though.

Most of the campaign participants are well-known members and experts in knowledge about bitcoin and wallets. Since the statement was made public, are we going to doubt their answer? maybe their answers are not as objective as before

Of course this is a difficult condition for managers and participants, hopefully participants can be wise and maintain objective answers to questions about wallets, because they are role models in this forum

[Guide] Factors to consider before joining paid signature campaigns.

Thank you for pointing that out and in future include the link or quote in a way people interested in reading more can get access to the thread or any other threads on the forum. Some people might have missed the thread when it was created but as it gets mentions they should be able to get access to the thread so they can contribute too.

As for the topic at hand, I side with Icopress on his decision, I'm a manager too so I understand his point. Why should anyone advertise something they can't recommended to others, I understand signature aren't typically an endorsement of the projects that we're wearing but it's an advertisement and for you to continue getting the privilege of advertising that project or product, you should contribute to the growth of the product being advertised. You're not advertising a scam so what's holding you back from presenting that product as the option in the market. Your employer is spending money weekly it's just unfairly to be adverting a competitor, ask yourself if you were in their position how will you feel.

If you have a favourite platforms that's a competitor to your current campaign, you can basically give a shout to the both of them and let the user decide on which one to use but it just doesn't make sense you're giving a 100% validation to a competitor. You can't be a brand ambassador for Nike and publicly say Adidas is the best but you can give your recommendation on both and leave it for the user to choose. Whether we like it or not, we're brand ambassadors for the brands we're promoting on the forum. No campaign manager should force you to shill a project but as adults that we all should be on the forum, you should know the right thing to do and lastly don't join a campaign you don't agree with.

Allow me to surprise you:

You don't even have anything to say against Icopress even though you are cautious enough in your construction. I must also say that I love what he did, people are ugly in thoughts, and they need to be guided at times. You don't have to wait to be told what is wrong or right all the time as an adult and also as a sensitive person, so it is not all things that must be written by the campaign managers under a campaign before people know what is right and what is not right to do.

You don't just collect a company's money and nonchalantly praise another company that is a competitor. Who does that? That's not fair.

But people like to collect a company's money and do not even care about their success, that is what I see here, and it is bad. Once you are campaigning for a company, whether you like it or not, you are part of their team. So, why then act like you are not? I think the campaign managers feel the burden better than people who are just keen to collect the money and not the progress of the company. So I know how he feels.

This isn't new. And it's not a Meta "problem", it fits better in Reputation or Service Discussion.

I've seen a campaign manager complain about posts in spam megathreads. My take: just don't pay those posts, but you shouldn't tell someone where he can or can't post.
I've seen demands not to discuss the Russia/Ukraine-situation, because the service wants to remain neutral. Bitcointalk allows this, as part of it's mission to be as free as possible. Just like Bitcointalk allows users to choose which campaigns to ignore. I wouldn't want to be in a campaign where the campaign manager tells me what I can or can't post. I'm totally fine not getting paid for posts that don't qualify, but I am not going to adjust my posting based on the signature I wear.

TL;DR: I don't see a problem here. It's a free market. If you don't like it, leave the campaign. If the campaign manager doesn't like it, don't pay for the posts or remove the user from the campaign. It's not a big deal.

Can you link to the post in question?
I think Hatchy has a point: this sounds like someone who has no idea what he's advertising. I saw another one recently:

As a person that has been on the forum for nearly 10 years now and also managed my fair share of campaigns, I feel like all managers should already know that a large % of people in campaigns don't care about the product they are advertising for. They care about getting their account in a campaign and getting paid, that's it mostly. If a campaign asks for 30 posts a week, they do 30 posts and not 1 more usually.

Managers are not allowed to tell users to make posts in this thread or that thread, they all know this. They do not even care to try and help out the company they are advertising for in most cases, they just want paid at the end of the campaign week. They will even leave a campaign for an extra dollar a week if they can.

@icopress I can see your reasoning, but I probably wouldn't have mentioned it. Send the user a message and save yourself the drama. I don't get upset when users mention hire royse or you to manager a campaign and not mention me. Feels like the same thing to me.

That is simply untrue and what you call an unwritten rule is something you made up. It's much simpler than that:


The signature campaigns operate under a free market regime. I don't know what supposed problem there is here, and I'm telling you that I was expelled from that same campaign for leaving a red tag to a Wasabi worker. You could also have applied that same argument and with more reason in my case. But the thing is as simple as that you are free to go to another campaign whenever you want and the manager can fire you if he sees that you do something that does not favor the company that has hired him to advertise.


This is a bit O/T but Lightlord is at it again.

It's quite reasonable, you are "hired" as a campaign participant as "indirectly/directly promoter" of that service/product, but you instead suggest the product of its competitors when you can also mention that product/service you are wearing as suggestions.
It's more like an SEO optimized article blog of top 10 xxx, mentioning other and your products but the difference is you have a link(signature campaign) to your product in "part" of your post.

In this forum, it's like an unwritten rule that "promoters" should do in a forum that avoid advertisements in their posts...

There is already forum rule about that, let me quote it with bold part.

Shilling campaign is different for a single post/reply that engage discussion, answers a question and suggest a signature campaign-related product, its reasonable for a "campaign participant". Unless the poster blatantly spamming that product in off-topic way of posting.

Well, you are the manager and your statement speaks for itself as far as what you expect from the participants you manage, no?  A lot of those members are deathly afraid of losing a spot in a campaign or pissing off a campaign manager, so they'll avoid doing what you were so outraged about even if you didn't explicitly tell them to.  Doubt me?  Remember lightlord's campaigns and his failure to pay the participants?  Very few of them even said a word about it, and there were even some who'd defend him in spite of them being in the process of being fucked over.  Just saying that as a campaign manager, even a statement that doesn't include any new requirements might very well do so simply because of the power they wield. 

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?