Altcoins Talks - Cryptocurrency Forum
Crypto Discussion Forum => Forum related => Topic started by: examplens on August 16, 2024, 10:12:07 AM
-
I just updated the post with all currently active (https://www.altcoinstalks.com/index.php?topic=314333.msg1607086#msg1607086) signature campaigns on the Altt forum. Honestly, everything looks better, 7 paid and two volunteers. 8)
However, the new campaigns brought some unusual rules, somewhat unclear. at least for me.
Cryptomus have quite unusual rules. Not only are posts in the gambling section not counted, but they lead to disqualification for payment.
- Posting in gambling-related boards and threads will disqualify payment for the week.
I would really like to hear a meaningful explanation for such an aggressive rule, isn't it enough to just not count posts in gambling? Some users write there regardless of the signature payment, why such a restriction?
-
I would really like to hear a meaningful explanation for such an aggressive rule, isn't it enough to just not count posts in gambling? Some users write there regardless of the signature payment, why such a restriction?
I think this rule was originally for the forum campaign on BTT and since most of the signature campaigns there are gambling campaigns you will find that 50% to 80% of the posts of many accounts in that board.
It is the same reason for excluding sections such as politics, wall, and altcoin.
As for here I see no reason to add that rule, the forum is still small and many boards need activation.
-
I was not aware of such a strict rule in the campaign, and I think it can be counterproductive both for the users and for the campaign itself, since the final objective is for the greatest number of people to know about the product. I don't think a rule like that makes sense, especially when the forum is growing, but I suppose the manager will have his reasons, I hope he can give his opinion in this thread.
Thanks for a thread and some interesting questions for the forum.
+1.
-
I think Cryptomus representative or AB de Royse777 would be the best to answer this. I skimmed through the site ToS but I still do not know the reason why people posting under gambling discussion should not be paid. I also think this is harsh.
I guess the site might be like Coinbase that do not accept payment from gambling site.
-
Yes, I did check their business policy and I can't connect gambling and their platform.
Perhaps they just wanted to build their brand in the good way and does not want to expose it in gambling boards or anything related to gambling.
But as we all know, there are also gamblers who traded as well. This community is still growing and they would need every exposure they can get here, including gambling boards.
-
Maybe a bit off-topic, but maybe it will help to find the truth - why coinbase refuse to accept transactions from gambling sites? Because they see money laundering in that? Because the origins of gambling site funds are shady? I have transferred funds from gambling to crypto.com and Binance directly for example and everything went well.
Nevertheless, the rule is really strict. That really limits free speech rights. Now counting towards weekly quota would be more reasonable.
-
Maybe a bit off-topic, but maybe it will help to find the truth - why coinbase refuse to accept transactions from gambling sites? Because they see money laundering in that? Because the origins of gambling site funds are shady? I have transferred funds from gambling to crypto.com and Binance directly for example and everything went well.
Most money laundered are in banks. Exchanges can try with their KYC but money laundered are there also. If you want to know the truth about this, read more about people that laundered money and that were later known. You will see how they are connected to banks or properties that they used the bank fiat to buy. If the money is in bank, it can be used on exchanges and the exchange will do nothing.
-
Nevertheless, the rule is really strict. That really limits free speech rights. Now counting towards weekly quota would be more reasonable.
Due to the different gambling regulations, some countries have strict policies with online gambling, other countries require KYC, and others see the need for gambling to be under the supervision of the treasury authorities and not Olanen because it is one of the main sources of money laundering.
-
It's up to the advertiser; maybe they just don't want to be associated with gambling. Restrictions on gambling posts aren't new, but usually, gambling-related posts are just not counted. Being disqualified for payment is new to me, though -- I've just read about it here for the first time.
They have the right to demand that, so just don't apply if you don't like it.
-
But isn't it contracting though? They say that they want exposure, and so spread awareness here.
How can they do that if they excluded a board that has a lot of members posting there as we have a lot of gamblers here.
And we all know that the first use case of Bitcoin or crypto in general is gambling per se.
-
Before the representative were banned in Bitcointalk we never got an explanation from them about this rule yet they enforced it and excluded some of their campaign participants from their campaign without payment.
(https://talkimg.com/images/2024/07/08/oVxBZ.png)
image source (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5501254.msg64305699#msg64305699)
I guess the site might be like Coinbase that do not accept payment from gambling site.
Not in this forum but several other exchanges have hosted signature campaign and none of them had this rule - it’s okay to not count posts in gambling board but excluding the board totally doesn’t feels odd.
-
The only logical reason that I could think of is that they do not want to be associated with anything related to gambling. They do not want gamblers as part of their user base. Perhaps it's the owners' religion or personal beliefs/morals?
-
However, the new campaigns brought some unusual rules, somewhat unclear. at least for me.
Cryptomus have quite unusual rules. Not only are posts in the gambling section not counted, but they lead to disqualification for payment.
- Posting in gambling-related boards and threads will disqualify payment for the week.
I would really like to hear a meaningful explanation for such an aggressive rule, isn't it enough to just not count posts in gambling? Some users write there regardless of the signature payment, why such a restriction?
This is indeed very unusual.
In btt gambling is just a sea of spam, so I can understand such rule.
Here, however, the situation is different. Probably some local legislation of where the wallet is based forbid gambling? This could be an explanation
-
I was not aware of such a strict rule in the campaign, and I think it can be counterproductive both for the users and for the campaign itself, since the final objective is for the greatest number of people to know about the product. I don't think a rule like that makes sense, especially when the forum is growing, but I suppose the manager will have his reasons, I hope he can give his opinion in this thread.
Someone already mentioned that they started the campaign themselves on the Btt forum.
It was quite clumsy and amateurish, then they wrote this rule about not writing in certain parts of the forum. After the ban on Btt, they realized that they should let someone more professional manage their campaigns.
However, it is very strange that the manager did not manage to explain to them the senselessness of such a rule.
-
They have the right to demand that, so just don't apply if you don't like it.
I think it's not like that, of course, there will still be members who are going to apply no matter what. But they will have to restrict themselves not to post on boards that they are more familiar.
I don't know if this is going to be the trend here or in the other community. And other members are obviously seeing this as not healthy, in my opinion.
-
As i understand, it's really just like the team's decision, and it's really odd for the part of participants. For this to happen, participants should not make posts related to games, scam accusation threads related to casino and gambling because even those threads posted on other boards have a chance to be moved to gambling boards, thus making them waste their whole seven days on the campaign.
-
Before the representative were banned in Bitcointalk we never got an explanation from them about this rule yet they enforced it and excluded some of their campaign participants from their campaign without payment.
They also have this rule that signature campaign payments are sent to a wallet address within the service, I don't know if they control those wallets or not but they can restrict you from withdrawing due to non-compliance with the service rules.
You must provide a bech32 address from your Cryptomus wallet.
-
I assume Royse777 made the rule because of the request of Cryptomus team/developer. It is the first time that Royse777 forbids the participants to post in gambling discussion or gambling thread. Usually, Royse777 never forbids the participants to post in gambling board. If there is a such aggressive rule, the most logical reason must be caused by the request of project team. However, I don't think it is a weird rule. Each project has its own target in promoting their project in the forum.
Anyway, I don't see Royse's comments/answers here. He is the person who has the responsibility to answer this question. If you want to know it clearly, just contact him directly.
-
We haven't yet got any official reply from Royse but of course it's a quite tough rule for the participants because the participants who are part of that campaign need to be careful when making posts as any post in gambling threads is going to ruin their whole week's work.
I believe such rule should be modified and instead of not paying the participants for their posts in other boards, the rule should deduct some amount from their weekly earnings and they may get a warning that if they keep posting in gambling boards then they may get replaced by other members of the forum.
Although, that's also going to be aggressive but if an advertiser wants to forbid some boards then a manager has to make such rules, and I'm very sure the rule was added only because of the advertiser's demand.
-
Rules maybe odd than usual but at the end of the day, what's best for the product is getting promoted will be put into consideration so if the company things associating themselves with gambling may be bad for their reputation then they're allowed to do such things and anyone who doesn't want to take part in can chose not to participate in the campaign.
Atleast he mentioned is clear cut in the rules itself to avoid any confusion later.
-
I believe that everyone has the right to determine the rules of their campaign, even if those rules do not make sense to everyone. One sig campaign that was present on BTT for a long time had a rule that you cannot be a member if you have a political opinion on certain things, and actually asked for neutrality and non-participation in political discussions.
Even that makes sense to me, but personally I would never participate in a campaign where I literally have to be careful in which board I write, or if I have to be careful if I write that someone or something is bad/evil just because it is not politically correct for someone.
-
However, the new campaigns brought some unusual rules, somewhat unclear. at least for me.
Cryptomus have quite unusual rules. Not only are posts in the gambling section not counted, but they lead to disqualification for payment.
This new rule is stupid, to restrictive, pro-censorship, and anti-forum in my opinion.
I would understand if some company don't want to count any posts that are written in gambling section, but they can't eliminate all other posts written in other boards.
I don't know who exactly came up with this rule, but he should be heavily criticized for this.
-
Its weird the they will disqualify participants of the campaign upon posting gambling discussion. They could just don't count the posts at least they will not keep hiring.
Why they are doing this is probably because the payment methkd disallow payments coming from casinos. So they do not walt to be linked to a casino.
-
Why they are doing this is probably because the payment methkd disallow payments coming from casinos. So they do not walt to be linked to a casino.
Royse mentioned in the other forum that the principle of cryptomus doesn't support gambling or casino. I really said to myself that I'll investigate the project in relation to casinos but I never had the time.
However, it is only nice he deny payment and maybe find another means of discouraging posts in gambling. In the other hand, anywho who read and understood the campaign rules and still applied should be able to keep to whatever rules were given him.
-
Why they are doing this is probably because the payment methkd disallow payments coming from casinos. So they do not walt to be linked to a casino.
Posting gambling related posts doesn't have to with that, it does not any connection for paying from casinos. It also doesn't mean the user is keep gambling, while posting there.
The one who posted above that it's all about the team and project's principles is true. But what would they think about the old posts of users who posted on gambling boards because their signatures will still show on those gambling related threads, so they were will be still somewhat connected on gambling from those posts ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
Someone already mentioned that they started the campaign themselves on the Btt forum.
It was quite clumsy and amateurish, then they wrote this rule about not writing in certain parts of the forum. After the ban on Btt, they realized that they should let someone more professional manage their campaigns.
However, it is very strange that the manager did not manage to explain to them the senselessness of such a rule.
Based on the information you mention, maybe this rule is "enforced" by the team that hired the manager, since I don't think the manager himself writes that rule without discussing it with the team. But it still seems like a mistake to me. Let no one think that I am talking about the professionalism of the manager or even that of the team, but a rule like this makes no sense, especially in this forum.
I don't know how they did it in BTT, but I have always thought that an experienced manager is the best for these cases, it saves a lot of work and offers better results from my point of view.
-
I don't know how they did it in BTT, but I have always thought that an experienced manager is the best for these cases, it saves a lot of work and offers better results from my point of view.
Let's assume coinbase is running a signature campaign and they block any account with no questions because they don't want their platform associated with gambling or it's due to the restrictions on gambling platforms in US but either way company decide based on what's best for them.
And I agree that manager could have used a rule like posts in gambling discussion will not be counted towards paid post's instead of completely ruling out then but as I said company must have insisted or unless Royce would have gone with his usual rules.
-
Reading about the rule sounds weird, knowing how gambling posts have been part of people's post count in the forum. All the same, that's how the campaign project and the campaign manager want the campaign to be run. It's left for the accepted members of the campaign to avoid posting on the gambling board. If they can't stay off from gambling posts, they shouldn't be part of the campaign promoters. It's a choice, join or not.
-
.....
However, the new campaigns brought some unusual rules, somewhat unclear. at least for me.
Cryptomus have quite unusual rules. Not only are posts in the gambling section not counted, but they lead to disqualification for payment.
- Posting in gambling-related boards and threads will disqualify payment for the week.
I would really like to hear a meaningful explanation for such an aggressive rule, isn't it enough to just not count posts in gambling? Some users write there regardless of the signature payment, why such a restriction?
May I give my opinion about my personality who lives in the surrounding environment?
It seems that the founder of Cryptomus is a Muslim, so he created a platform and marketed it must be Halal or not contrary to Islamic law.
As far as I know, in Islam, gambling is strictly prohibited so that Cryptomus for its campaign prohibits posting on the gambling board section. This is just my personal opinion and please ignore my post if I violate the forum rules because I bring religion into the cryptocurrency discussion.
-
Based on the information you mention, maybe this rule is "enforced" by the team that hired the manager, since I don't think the manager himself writes that rule without discussing it with the team. But it still seems like a mistake to me. Let no one think that I am talking about the professionalism of the manager or even that of the team, but a rule like this makes no sense, especially in this forum.
It must be the decision of the campaign owner. They initially tried to run a campaign on Btt by themselves (it didn't end well) and this was one of the rules. I'm more surprised that the manager didn't manage to talk them out of it.
May I give my opinion about my personality who lives in the surrounding environment?
It seems that the founder of Cryptomus is a Muslim, so he created a platform and marketed it must be Halal or not contrary to Islamic law.
As far as I know, in Islam, gambling is strictly prohibited so that Cryptomus for its campaign prohibits posting on the gambling board section. This is just my personal opinion and please ignore my post if I violate the forum rules because I bring religion into the cryptocurrency discussion.
To be honest, this sounds the closest to a logical explanation. Although at least the little I know about the Muslim faith, similar restrictions are missing here.
I still think that disqualification from the campaign is a bad choice, it is enough just not to count such posts. In the end, if their product is aimed at all people from all over the world, why discriminate against people who gamble or any group?
-
.....
May I give my opinion about my personality who lives in the surrounding environment?
It seems that the founder of Cryptomus is a Muslim, so he created a platform and marketed it must be Halal or not contrary to Islamic law.
As far as I know, in Islam, gambling is strictly prohibited so that Cryptomus for its campaign prohibits posting on the gambling board section. This is just my personal opinion and please ignore my post if I violate the forum rules because I bring religion into the cryptocurrency discussion.
To be honest, this sounds the closest to a logical explanation. Although at least the little I know about the Muslim faith, similar restrictions are missing here.
I still think that disqualification from the campaign is a bad choice, it is enough just not to count such posts. In the end, if their product is aimed at all people from all over the world, why discriminate against people who gamble or any group?
If my guess is correct that Cryptomus is founded by a Muslim, it seems that this will be less effective in terms of marketing because in business it is not good if there is something that hinders such as Gender, Ras, Religion, certain groups, etc. (sorry I made this statement in cryptocurrency but sometimes there are real businesses that limit certain groups).
But if I look at this quote:
What is Cryptomus?_______ Cryptomus is a crypto payment gateway and crypto wallet...
Cryptomus is a wallet platform, and I will guess again if the marketing of Cryptomus Wallet (maybe) according to its founder will not be effective if it is marketed in the "Gambling Subforum" section because the basic concept of Gambling is Games and Fun. While the function of Cryptomus is a wallet which basically has the function of storing coins, sending, receiving, staking and farming coins.
-
I would really like to hear a meaningful explanation for such an aggressive rule, isn't it enough to just not count posts in gambling? Some users write there regardless of the signature payment, why such a restriction?
Every project have their personal strategy for the promotion may be there is a reason for that strict rules. In my personal opinion this is hardline but I would also want to say that when the gambling project disqualifies the payment of participants when they couldn't require the post in gambling quota then why these kind of rules not should be implemented?
Even then I want to say this quite strict rule.
-
I would really like to hear a meaningful explanation for such an aggressive rule, isn't it enough to just not count posts in gambling? Some users write there regardless of the signature payment, why such a restriction?
I agree with you those who want to post in gambling boards will not be able to join this campaign. The best solution to this can be not counting gambling posts and counting others. But for the sake of the campaign if a member is asked to not post in the gambling section and if a member agrees with it then they should apply in that campaign otherwise there is no rule that Royse is breaking by implementing this rule.
Managers make such aggressive rules for the success of the project so if participants agree with the rules they should apply otherwise there are members who don't actually post in gambling section so they can join such a campaign.
-
I agree with you those who want to post in gambling boards will not be able to join this campaign. The best solution to this can be not counting gambling posts and counting others. But for the sake of the campaign if a member is asked to not post in the gambling section and if a member agrees with it then they should apply in that campaign otherwise there is no rule that Royse is breaking by implementing this rule.
Managers make such aggressive rules for the success of the project so if participants agree with the rules they should apply otherwise there are members who don't actually post in gambling section so they can join such a campaign.
Its depend on manager campaign rule, we can't assume by our self when appointing which one board have valuable count as post or not. I don't think problem with all campaign manager allowed make post all sub board including in gambling depend their post not dominance in one board only. Separated post on several board and have maximum post allowed in gambling seems its worth regulation.
But keep depend on project rule if some project not gambling platform maybe not allowed make post on gambling, but if project as gambling platform how possibility not make post on gambling board?
-
I believe that everyone has the right to determine the rules of their campaign, even if those rules do not make sense to everyone. One sig campaign that was present on BTT for a long time had a rule that you cannot be a member if you have a political opinion on certain things, and actually asked for neutrality and non-participation in political discussions.
Even that makes sense to me, but personally I would never participate in a campaign where I literally have to be careful in which board I write, or if I have to be careful if I write that someone or something is bad/evil just because it is not politically correct for someone.
Yeah, that one was a first, I wonder how Theymos would have felt if he knew about it, him with his freedom of speech and his fright for anyone to voice their opinion despite not agreeing with theirs. I did understand that from the website point of view, especially with all the arrests and defenestration happening in Russia, you don't want a critique of the madman running the country posting stuff with your sig below like he is some employee or else.
Anyhow, it's their campaign, their rules so that's it, it's not the end of the world if you get kicked out of a campaign.
-
The company only doesn't want to be associated with casino activities, managers only want campaign participants from the best posters (regardless of their past activities). I think such a policy is the best middle way that the manager should take so that the business deal can be started.
The point is, as long as the strict rules are conveyed transparently before the campaign starts, then it is okay. You apply, you agree to the rules.
-
The rule is unnecessary, like a lot of people have already said, they should simply not count posts made in the gambling section. However, i believe the company has sonething against gambling, for those of us in BTT, we remember what happened when they launched a campaign for the first time. Now they decided to make things clearer, but i still consider the rule to be harsh.
-
If that is the rule, managers should not look for participants who have posted anything on gambling boards.. because, previous posts before joining the campaign can still be read by anyone here, and what applies is the current active signature. Or another option is to enforce the deletion of previous posts related to gambling for prospective participants so that the campaign platform is completely free from any association with gambling.
Finally, it comes back to prospective participants, if they agree with the rule, take it. If they don't agree, leave it.
-
Guys, it's cryptomus, it does not have anything to do with the campaign manager.
If you don't like it then don't apply. It's not like this forum even has a functioning gambling board anyway. I mean to say, if the board on Bitcointalk looks like your average Altcoinstalks board, imagine what this one looks like.
Payment processors generally do not like to deal with gambling operations anyway.
-
Guys, it's cryptomus, it does not have anything to do with the campaign manager.
If you don't like it then don't apply. It's not like this forum even has a functioning gambling board anyway. I mean to say, if the board on Bitcointalk looks like your average Altcoinstalks board, imagine what this one looks like.
Payment processors generally do not like to deal with gambling operations anyway.
I completely agree with you, but it is quite twisted that they will ban users from the campaign who write something in the gambling section. Therefore, it is not enough just to count the posts.
Otherwise, on their website, I did not find any clear information that their service cannot be used in gambling programs. If they are so strictly against gambling, it would be expected that something like that is highlighted in their TOS