Talking about market, it's a total different thing to trusting a company ability in showing capacity and competency in what they do, so for popularity they should be going for a signature campaign, but for everyone in this forum to have a clear idea of their ability before hand they should go for a review campaign, because it's true a review campaign we can attest to their services through the feedback of those that participated in the review, but in my own opinion, I think that they should go for a review campaign first before thinking of a signature campaign.
Talking about the review campaign, how do you propose this is done? Since it’s all about wallet recovery for users who have an old wallet to which they have lost access, who would agree to offer it for use in test running the review before a public, honest publication about their own experience. This is not just like an exchange or platform where anyone can just make use of the service and conduct their review based on the experience they got from the website. I get your point and understand how reviews can help determine how a service works, but in this type of service, I just wonder how it can be done.
Their are so many ways of killing a rat buddy, if I were to suggest how a review campaign should be done since it's not a sight or an exchange that you just login and tell of your experience while navigating your way around it, what should be done is that, the review participants should set up a wallet and deposit the least, $2 worth of Bitcoin or Eth, and submit only the wallet address or the email address used to set up the wallet to keychainx, and look how they can gain access to that wallet without the secret phrase, if they can do it or not, it will be clear for all to see by the feedback of the community members, that's my own suggestion, I don't know if anyone has any other means in mind.