From their words about escrow I think they do not know about escrow and do not know that how the escrow for a signature campaign work. They have to contact an expert signature campaign manager.

They have probably spent zero (or extremely little amount of) effort in evaluating the candidates. This is the next campaign that is indirectly facilitating spam on this forum.

---

What do people think about adding a SMAS column as well, i.e. whether the campaign uses the blacklist? The BTCT account price estimator already uses it as well. I'm certain that there are some *cons* to this idea and that spammers farmers will hate the thought of it, but I figured I'd just throw it out there.

for registration bitvest whether there are slots still exist, for the full member?

Do we really need to cram more information into the table? This is supposed to be an overview, which is why the detailed section was removed. SMAS or not is IMHO something for a detailed section, possible participants probably dont care about SMAS strong enough for it to be an initial indicator anyway, so it would be enough to know about it once they review the campaign thread. We already have a warning indicator, the red asterisk. The campaign manager is also only one click away should anyone care strongly about them.

This will help the spammers a lot, they can pick easily the best non-SMAS campaigns to join without being worried about the rejection of their candidacy
Definitely NO. (even that i don't agree 100% about the way some1/ manager throw away the names there and neglect to answer - to be more precise his name doesn't start with L)

You are right, spammers will avoid to join those SMAS campaigns and go to sign up for non-smas campaigns, it is benefiting them actually(they save time to join strict campaign due to signs of smas). At least we should waste their time on signing up good campaigns with smas

Because it adds another dimension to the table which makes it more complex. I also argued that the information is only useful to a small subset of posters. We are catering at posters here after all. Why does it matter whether or not the campaign uses SMAS or not?

Maybe just use the color coding for a different purpose. Just a suggestion, we can list all the campaigns alphabetically and then use the color coding to indicate the campaign's status (Full, PNYC, Active, FLUX) rather than categorizing them. It would look nice IMO.

I must've missed it. Thanks!

I think so too. They're looking for 200 participants so I guess this has a good initial funding (compared to some other ICOs) and wants a really good amount of audience. Thanks, btw.

I can't put "Y" to the escrow status right now, though, since it's not yet posted.