They agreed to
a 7 day delay. They couldn't withdraw from escrow to pull an exit scam.
If they decided to leave those 40k, wouldn't that mean that people deposited more than that + what sig campaign members didn't withdraw?
That would be my guess. But we can't know for sure how much was deposited by themselves, and how much came from customers.
I am trying to figure out what we could have learned from this.
Shall a signature wearer not use the service he was advertising (namely: transfer any amount out of it asap because of NYKNYC)?
Shall a signature wearer use the service and be fully accountable, in a harsh way, for any losses?
It starts by not advertising a service you don't trust. And if you do trust it, you can just use it. Why would you recommend others to use something you wouldn't trust with your own money?
Maybe a new "standard" of a reputable escrow should be initiated for any sig campaign? This has obvious implications for anyone willing to start a new one for the associated cost. And also maybe for the escrow.
That's up to each campaign, and between the campaign and it's participants. As long as people are willing to join, there's no reason for them to change anything.