I really know very little about what the campaign managers are doing, and frankly I don't care that much. In my opinion tho, the party who chose Master-P as escrow to pay out the campaign funds is liable for their loss, and stiffing the signature holders is wrong. Just as if Master-P was actually hacked, he would still be responsible for any coins lost under his care, the same is true for whoever is responsible for putting Master-P in charge of signature payout funds. Just because a 3rd party robbed you does not mean you are not still under contract with 2nd parties. I realize this is frustrating being victimized twice, but this was your personal responsibility to prevent these scenarios (assuming you chose Master-P as escrow).