Experience as a tester on a fixber site

My friend, on my recommendation, tried to work with the Fixber service shortly after it began commercial operation and told what came out of it (for my part, I can vouch for the adequacy of its work as a tester, as I helped compile bug descriptions). Summary is: the service is interesting and necessary, but in its current form is hardly viable. The story and conclusions - under the cut.

Checked in and go ...
The first project I connected to was the internet site for the sale and delivery of SIM cards in Moscow. The project was opened a couple of days before, several dozens of errors had already been discovered there. I found some new bugs and added them. It soon became clear that the customer “scored” on testing the project, bought the first 20 bugs and left with them. The rest of the bugs did not interest him, he did not appear there anymore — well, the first pancake turned out to be a lump. We must pay tribute to the administration — it included a bug fix, and two of my bugs were forcibly redeemed, among others.
It did not stop me, I decided to continue. I connected to almost all the projects opened at that time and went to look for bugs across all services (The main customers of fixber are Internet services and websites, there are very few applications). I was lucky to notice in time one project that had just begun, and I started adding errors one of the first, which resulted in a good result — the customer began to redeem them and my account began to replenish. I was very pleased and I hit the active search for errors.
We managed to work for another two days, during which customers, “freeloaders,” met more than once. Some of them simply guessed from the brief descriptions of the problem, and did not pay for the work. There were also cases of failures after the purchase of a bug, after which the problem on the site was corrected by the customer. In general, an adequate customer is the exception rather than the rule, but you can adapt to everything, and eventually you begin to distinguish between them.
As the thunder from the sky fell innovation on June 24th. It lies in the fact that all projects are hidden from the tester by default. Only those in which the customer has approved testers for their project from the list provided by the administration are displayed. On the sly, I was removed from several projects, the bugs discovered in them disappeared without a trace (although according to the rules of service, bugs must either be redeemed or reasonably rejected by the customer). Rating (which grows with the growth of the number of redeemed bugs) for 5 days of work, I have not had time to seriously increase myself. Obviously, not least of all, based on the rating, the administration provides lists of testers to the customer, and customers select the performers on the same principle (after all, this is a completely tangible indicator, expressed by a specific number). The situation is created in the style of "you must log in to register": you can raise the rating only by raising it. There is an opinion that only a narrow circle of testers will remain in the project, who have already gained a good rating.
The financial side of the issue. Unfortunately, the fate of the earned 350 rubles is incomprehensible: WebMoney can only be withdrawn from 500 rubles, and something else is unlikely to be earned: over the past week I have only opened one project, and after I noted two bugs in it , I was quietly removed from it without explanation.

This is how sad the current list of projects looks to me:
Opened only one project on a specific subject of security and all.

UPD : constructive.
I propose to replace the formula for calculating the rating testers.
Instead of calculating it based on the ratio of filed / purchased bugs (which does not allow starters to get a rating on the site), give the customer the opportunity to evaluate the purchased bug with asterisks, from 1 to 5. From this, generate a tester rating, and for information also indicate the number of bugs sold .