-snip-
These are the people that causes problems for projects. They claim to be wearing signature promoting a campaign when they have no idea what they are wearing. I believe before wearing a signature, one must have the idea of what they are promoting if it is in line with their perspective or ideology so as not to get entangled in the process of promoting a project
I think signature campaigns should move in the direction of what Icopress has been doing which is commendable, if you are a participant of the campaign you need to give a review of the product being advertised so that one doesn't speak from a point of no experience or trying to feed others what you can't eat yourself and avoids selling contradicting messages.
-snip-
I don't seem to agree with you on this. This is pure advertisement that is understood in the cooperate world. There is always a disclaimer that goes with every product and services and that exonerate the promoters of such products and services as their job is limited to creating the awareness/publicity with the burden of authentication and verification on the targeted users and the regulators.
As much as you have a valid point when it comes to cooperate marketing and the alike, unfortunately the only reason these disclaimers are put out there for all to see is to protect themselves from any legal battles that can come from consumers after use.. which is different when compared to our crypto products and services as self awareness of crypto products is advised via DYOR, besides they say ignorance is no excuse.
Therefore, signature campaigns are no exception because they are also advertisement.
In the real world disclaimers are used to protect a company directly using its products to convey the message,but with our model of signatures, each user acts an an independent agency contracted to be engaged in the marketing side of a business...tbh there is a difference between the two.