Quote from: pawel7777 on February 12, 2024, 11:34:42 PM

I just came across this post by Icopress (one of the most active campaign managers currently):

Quote from: icopress on February 12, 2024, 11:31:39 AM

(...)
I don’t mind at all if you recommend this or that wallet as long as you list the list of available options. But if you recommend open source wallets without mentioning the one whose advertisement you are wearing, then you have no place on my team, since I see this as a disparaging attitude towards my work and the advertised project.

I will respond to similar incidents in the future.

I understand with Icopress, even if it is not a rule, it should be ethical to recommend what you promote when the need arises. But then, there are some exceptions such as; a situation where the signature participant doesn't actually know that wazabbi is an open source wallet. It is very possible and if that is the case, I wouldn't blame the signature campaign participate.

For we to treat this matter honestly, we need to address another rule which is fast becoming a trend among some managers. The rule of making it compulsory for signature campaign participants to use the service they are promoting. I saw it in the mixer campaigns. If the signature campaign participants of wazabbi are compulsorily made to use the service, everyone of them will know that it is an open source wallet.

After testing the service, if you can't recommend it, it means you shouldn't promote it at all. So, it is just a two way something. Even me as a manager, I will not be comfortable seeing you wearing a signature of one service and recommend the nearest competitors of that service. It might be like an ambassador of Nike advertising addidas.