This is really out of my realm of expertise.  I've never managed a bounty, and I've only participated in one in my early days on the forum.  The one I did participate in was to review ICOs, and IIRC most of my reviews were to the affect of "this is a scam."  It left a bad taste in mouth and I've haven't participated in one since.

I've also been out of touch with the signature campaign market for last few years since I'm happy with the one I'm in.  I assume that most signature campaign managers are escrowing their participants' pay, so I'm not sure how any changes to the communities approach would affect sig campaigns.  It's been a while since I've seen anyone complaining about them not paying, but they certainly haven't been immune from those types of troubles in the past.


This really should fall the participants to decide.  Most experienced members would know to stay away from a shady campaign or bounty, managed by new or shady account.  It's usually the newbies who fall into these traps, but hey, educations is expensive.


I'm not opposed to tagging managers of campaigns and bounties that don't pay.  When Royce777 had that issue a few years back, I tagged him with red (but reduced it neutral when I learned more.)  Managers are by definition put into a position of trust when requesting participants apply.  But, and this is a big but, will it really help?  The experienced managers are already very careful when selecting which campaigns they promote, and the ones are less careful probably don't care about their account.

In essence, I think this is already the policy of the community, without being explicitly spelled out.  Each situation is judged on it's own, which is how it should be.


Tagging bounty hunters is not going to help anything.  Most are worthless accounts, and not even the mangers care about tags because most of the work is spamming social media accounts off-forum.  For those who are actual newbies looking for some easy sats, tagging them would seem like punishing them for being naive.


As I see it, each situation is already judged on it's own accord, and the community reaction is usually appropriate.  I don't see theymos enacting any official (or unofficial) rules to restrict campaign and bounty management, and I that's not something I would condone anyway.  


No.  I am vehemently opposed to doxxing anyone.  This is crypto, and by definition it's intended to preserve privacy.  Things can and do go wrong for well intended projects, and the fear of being doxxed could lead to someone suffering far more than just financial losses.  People can lose their freedom.  Not to mention, finding the real identities of the people behind intentional scams is unlikely, and it's more likely that we would be doxxing some innocent person who's a victim of identity theft.