When you take part in some campaign you agree with its rules or not participate. So it's incorrect saying that way of receiving payments was against the will of participants. If it was just made only now, then it could be discussible, but it was for weeks, everyone who didn't want to risk could exit campaign for that time.
You just decided to write something smart right? Before reading carefully what other people wrote

This campaign didnt start with paying IOU notes from start, this was later changed and I dont know by whos initiative and what was the reason for doing this.
If this is true, then I think that 12% made them promote the service almost for free, as I think that most of the participants did not withdraw their currencies, but on the contrary, some may be greedy to deposit more.
I dont know if there is any way to prove this theory, but it is possible.
This is all done by stealing money from other people.
The fact that no one (afaik) left campaign after notes introduction says a lot.

Some members left campaign recently, maybe they had a feeling something is not right.