He said he was paid for many fewer posts than he had made in the timeframe where Lutpin wasn't paying out.  Again, I'm not vouching for any accuracy--and I told the guy there was nothing I could or would do, because that was between him and Lutpin, and I'm also well aware how many times I've heard people complain about their posts not being paid for when they obviously shouldn't have been, either because they were of such poor quality or were in the wrong section or whatever.

I've always had the highest respect for Lutpin, and I'm not crazy about tagging him but what he's doing isn't trustworthy.  Even if campaigners are working "on demand" they should still be paid for "work" they did perform, for one, and for another they shouldn't have to wait so long without any idea as to whether they're getting scammed.

Even if you get fired IRL from an on-demand job, you still get paid for what you did--at least in my country.  Furthermore, if you can't keep your side of the bargain in crypto, you're screwed and you deserve a negative mark on your reputation.  Your word means even more because of the wild west nature of crypto where nobody goes to court or involves law enforcement over issues like a campaign manager running away with the money (or whatever).