I assume they didn't know how really hard to handle a bounty campaign with a lot of participants I think these bounty participants (Not all) are just thinking about themselves I think it's too much that they are planning to tag them for not using an escrow that's really ridiculous.
You can see it from both perspectives. One is the bounty hunter who wants a confirmed payment of a shitcoin that is according to them going to be the next bitcoin. On the other hand we have managers who are willing to promote the bounty at a cost and doing the job well, but are unable to confirm any escrow because the team does not want to.
Ultimately the hunters become angry on the manager, which is normal. But truely speaking being so self-entitled is wrong here. They never think of moving to bitcoin payment campaigns which are much better.
Bitcoin payment campaign or bounty is always been better because you do know that you would able to recieve that is something which had a value and not some shit token, but the question is - would they really
pay in the end of the duration of the campaign? and also they wont waste up their accumulated btc just to pay out into their marketing if they can pay some shitty token.
I did actually get the point on what op is being stated on here but im just on the neutral side on where bounty hunters do have the right to express out their feelings but its a bit unethical if they do directly
give out some negative trust without verifying everything. For self-team project manager who do handle out the campaign then it might be worth but for known managers of this
forum then its better not to conclude directly.
Bounty hunters do have some mistakes for sometime but this isnt really that much of an issue actually.