Quote from: logfiles on January 14, 2020, 12:58:41 PM

I saw the signature campaign and i was amazed at the number of people who applied and are willing to join the campaign even without doing a little background checks and ensuring the funds are in escrow.

From a personal perspective, the campaign looks so shady and too good to believe especially the social media bounty bit. I have a feeling things may not end well.

Going by gut feeling after looking at things briefly, I think I am inclined to agree with you

Quote from: Best_Change on January 14, 2020, 02:07:04 PM

Hi YOSHIE,

We are a legitimate business running since 2007 and would certainly not risk our reputation by tricking forum users into our campaign and not paying them.

Also, as for the two situations you are citing, as a business which is an intermediary between clients and exchangers, we always strive to resolve any issues the clients may have (although this is a rare case since we check all the exchangers before adding them to our website). In the first situation, we asked the user to contact us and so no feedback from him in the thread. The second situation was resolved.

We hope that you will kindly remove your Negative trust once you see the first payouts.

Your statement does not exactly give confidence. Allow me to elaborate. First of all you did not reply to this post before you locked your thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5217201.msg53596958#msg53596958

@OP

Please could you clarify who the owners of your BestChange website actually are?

The terms and condition listed on your website are virtually useless and worthless because they contain nothing can identify and/or locate the owners business in the event any user wants to take them to Court.

Thank you

Second, from what I can see you have not made any post stating why you are not using an escrow. Yes it seems you have unsurprisingly sent PMs to those that support your signature campaign but there is no announcement from your side where we all can read it and conclude from it what we interpret.

Third, you have no history here whatsoever therefore your alleged good reputation is not enough to suppress suspicion towards you therefore the wise move would have been to browse the forum, open a thread asking for potential campaign managers or escrows to come forward and invite users from the forum to give their opinions about suitability, integrity and honesty of those that offered their services to you but since you avoided all that it stands to reason there are those that have their doubts.

Fourth, you have allowed users in this thread to argue/debate over the best course of action yet you have only momentarily popped in here to post about your business with addressing the escrow question. Had you once entered the debate to try to settle things down and to address those presenting both sides of the argument then you probably would have gained some respect in the eyes of more community members but because you sat on the sidelines eating your metaphorical popcorn watching the show here with you only selectively sending PMs to those that (for reasons I fail to understand even after reading the thread) support you, I can safely deduce on that basis alone you are not trustworthy.

I have left appropriate feedback for you and in direct opposition to your request, I will probably not remove it even if there are no allegations of scamming against you with regards to payouts of any signature campaign and at most I might have to modify my feedback emphasising how you watched the thread silently as users debated you and your tactics, how and why you sent PMs to those that supported you and how you decided not to engage on a wider front with those that had bigger concerns about you just because it suited your agenda - therefore you are not trustworthy in my opinion.

Quote from: bitmover on January 15, 2020, 11:38:40 AM

Quote from: efialtis on January 15, 2020, 02:02:33 AM

Why should they pay someone when they have in-house staff to be in charge of it?

Because I don't trust their in-house staff, I don't trust their house, I don't trust their staff, and I don't care about them. I don't want to trust them, I don't want to care about them, and I don't give a shit about them. I just want my money trusting the fewer people as possible. I know I need to trust someone, so I prefer to trust a trusted escrow than to trust an unknown exchange. This is how things works here.

Well that sounds just about right. Add on to your reasons I would go further and say that their tactics in promoting their business and their technique of not participating in the thread while users engage in (sometimes heated) debate about them, it shows a cowardly petty conduct on their part - therefore they should not be trusted.

Quote from: 2double0 on January 15, 2020, 08:31:38 PM

Quote from: TMAN on January 15, 2020, 01:59:38 AM

They refused to use escrow so they are untrustworthy. There is no two ways about it, why should we trust them and let them have the opportunity to not pay? What on earth gives them immediate credibility here?

Nothing at all wrong with us requesting they use escrow, more importantly why are they not willing to use escrow?

15 * $90 = $1350
15 * $70 = $1050
15 * $45 = $675
15 * $30 = $450

Sums it up to $3525, around BTC0.42 at its current price and this is for the signature campaign alone. So, a big potential scam is underway to get a lot of 'free advertising' here with no reputed name adjoined. I guess the reason behind is the greed of each user who enrolled themselves in the project without any trustworthy user being behind this project. Let the time come, if they pay, it's for their own good and if not, well that's surely like hammering a rod on your head for the users enrolled with them. The reason here looks the pay rates which are probably higher than some campaigns here and the lack of new signature campaigns has given rise to these newcoming people being trusted without complete research about them and their project. For some of you asking to wait for a week, what will happen if this project comes out to be a scam with the owner not paying anything after a week? Are enrolled users ready to take red tags and flags for advertising it?

It seems the way the bounty thread racked up pages upon pages gave confidence to the bestchange team to stick to their non-escrow decision. The potential scam might turn in to a real scam, maybe it will maybe it will not. Maybe there will be payments made for the first week or first few weeks then there will be nothing, anything is possible.

What cannot be ignored is that at the root of all this mess is the fact that had they used an escrow then none of this would have happened. When looking at the situation from their perspective they see plenty of desperate users wanting to display the signature at the thought earning good rates, that air of desperation on part of users has given some extra control in the hands of bestchange and it seems they will not change their mind towards using an escrow so we will all wait and watch as things unfold.

Maybe as a result of this forum some users will start using bestchange, then maybe some will send off their crypto for a crypto-swap only for a Bituary type of scam exchange to steal their funds or another exchange stealing funds under the guise of KYC - what then? This bestchange seems to have made no real announcement about what they intend to do to intervene in such events, their rules/terms page is not exactly one of the better ones: https://www.bestchange.com/wiki/terms.html