[verybadge]

We are actively working on a multisig scheme where advertisers won't need to trust us with the money and we will only act as a pure middleman, signing transactions when the campaign is completed. The scheme is relatively well know at the present stage of Bitcoin development, but it still takes some time to implement right. We ourselves are not interested in holding other people's funds, it's dangerous.

[drcode]

Well, I guess I'm not too worried about the question "can badgerhunt run away to Cuba with everyone's money", which is of course always a concern and is the problem multisig solves... I just see that the incentives of a "badger" are not aligned with the incentives of an advertiser- The incentives of a badger are to PRETEND to advertise a product, in a way that requires the least effort. Unless you can find a way to penalize "badgers" who cheat (through a sophisticated independent verification and enforcement mechanism) I'm thinking the compliance among "badgers" would be low.

On the other hand, if you DO have a way of providing such penalties in a cost-effective way, this concept would have more potential... and the only solutions I can think of still need more technology infrastructure to be developed.

[verybadge]

That is a good question. But think about it, why would compliance be low? It's not like you have to wear a giant rubber dick on your head to advertise something. You only wear a t-shirt or put a bumper sticker on your car. Possibly, of a brand that you might actually like. Where exactly is the incentive to cheat? Sure, some people might cheat and there are ways in which you can minimize this number of people which we've been discussing. But for the majority, there's really no incentive whatsoever to not wear that t-shirt and not fulfill their obligations.