There should probably be a distinction between campaign managers and also escrows. Not all campaign managers are escrows nor should all of them be defacto trusted to be one. Maybe the value should be removed all together especially as people might just start using it to base who is most trustworthy or not.
This is a Bitcoin forum, not a fiat forum. If someone is being mislead by prices being given in Bitcoin, or feels mislead by it, should not call himself a bitcoin enthusiast and either educate himself so that he no longer feels mislead, or look for another hobby.
This is very silly reasoning. This is a bitcoin forum but bitcoins have a fiat value attached to them and that is incredibly relevant due to the nature of bitcoin. Fiat isn't a naughty word nobody should ever utter here. If somebody has claimed to have been trusted with 100 bitcoins at once 6 years ago or 100 bitcoins over their lifetime then those are both two very different things and values today. It would be incredibly misleading if the only figure they had to go on was a bitcoin one and to claim someone isn't a 'bitcoin enthusiast' because of that is both ridiculous and completely irrelevant. Bitcoin isn't the only crypto that is transacted in here either. Most campaigns pay in alts or crapcoin tokens so there needs to be some unanimity
Saying that paying 100 Bitcoin at any point in time isn't an accurate representation is like saying that stealing 100 in 2016 is not a smaller crime than stealing the same amount in 2017.
Again, completely irrelevant, but stealing 1 million dollars isn't the same as stealing a dollar, is it? Whoops, used fiat again.
If you hold a certain number of bitcoins, you hold a certain number of bitcoins.
Yeah, and when you held them is incredibly important because there's a fiat value attached to those coins which is very relevant. If the value of them was ten cents total at the time then that should be stipulated, and that's why the worth of them at the time is a much more important and accurate representation of the value you can be trusted with.
"You can trust me with 100 bitcoins" - 2010
"You can trust me with 100 bitcoins" - 2018
You're saying those are the same and no distinction should be made? I guess I should abandon all logic and find a new hobby, eh?