Quote from: yahoo62278 on January 09, 2023, 11:05:54 PM

using this logic, maybe 2 users are qualified to be campaign managers cause I don't think many of the old or new managers are holding thousands these days.

Has any of them ever provided any proof of fund? I did not see any in an open discussion. I remember Hhampuz paid out of his own pocket, you also did although I can not remember how much was the USD amount at the times. Royce77 also did, not long ago (I think he was the latest campaign manager who was in trouble until julerz12) and as far as I can remember it was something $3,200 or $6,200.

You must remember bitcointalk charity? The mismanagement of fund. Did the escrow ever made it correct? I doubt he had enough to cover it up.

As long as any of them provide any proof of fund, it does not matter if the person is sole escrow provider or a campaign manager who is keeping custody of the marketing budget, it's difficult to tell that they are capable of recovering the lose from their own pocket, it does not matter how reputable, or old you are in the forum. If the accident with julerz12 was not happening then wouldn't we think that he have enough money to resolve if anything happen with the escrow coins? We would.

When someone is opening an escrow service, or managing a campaign with holding marketing budget, depending on their past history we are trusting them. This is a fact.

But these service providers should have the moral obligation that they have the financial solvency to refund or resolve with their clients when anything bad happens with them or their reputation will effect. You are securing someone else money but at the end you are actually giving a false definition of security. That's not supposed to be the meaning escrow.