-snip-
To be straightforward, just like the company wants the best participants in the campaign, it is the right of the Signature participants to keep finding the best campaign for themselves too.
As in some signature campaigns that update the rules to find the best members with high-quality contributions. To be straightforward, just like the company wants the best participants in the campaign, it is the right of the Signature participants to keep finding the best campaign for themselves too.
And it won't look at who is more loyal, but at how qualified the member is while in the campaign.
If there is no good development or just paying off the posting target without any quality improvement, there is nothing to care about.
And this also depends on how the developer wants the best participants and replaces them with other and more competent ones.
See how @Royse777's signature campaign gave special payouts to members with over 3.5k merits and higher minimum posts.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5419242.0
and in the signature campaign @yahoo62278 uses a rule for selected participants to get 1 merit/week,if you can't get it you can still get half the payment.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5415844.msg61057317
Those examples of different campaigns of getting the perfect members for the campaign are perfectly fine. Since the companies are promoting their products, they will always want to hire the best of the best. We never mind that, do we?
My only point of view is that if a Signature Campaign Member changes the campaigns often, he should not be looked in a bad way as not being loyal or something. He also got a better opportunity and he moved.