Since some members were paid, we cannot give him negative trust or support flag, but campaign management was unprofessional*. Let us wait for his answer, and then we must convince them to appoint a campaign manager and review the payments themselves.
Even he did pay half of all participants, it's still fall to scam if he didn't want to pay the participants when they're eligible. The manager use double standard, if the campaign didn't count gambling posts, then why the other participants gets paid.
But yeah, let's wait how he will answer this case, I'm open to revise my feedback though.
Do you even understand when and why you leave someone a flag?
I do, the campaign manager still owes participants money, it's not scam?
Oh well, the signature participants did take a big risk in this campaigns and there are a lot of red flags in the beginning. This is 2024 already, if we are in the 2017 or even the latter part, we might appreciate this kind of signatures.
Because they have no choice, there are no good campaigns opened, if they're waiting the project team to hire reputable campaign manager, escrow the money and hire signature designer, they would lost their spots since there's always someone willing to take and risk it.
So, if they get scammed, then it's what it's, at least they have a chance to get paid than posting without get paid.