Bitcoin Forum

Being a member of Bitcointalk for more than 6 years, I am quite a bit bothered by what happening in the bounty section for the past few months. This is what I have noticed:

1. A lot of scam projects are creating bounty campaigns and ANN threads. Once the bounty campaign is finished, they vanish all of a sudden without paying the bounty hunters and leaving the investors in limbo.

2. The quality of the bounty managers have gone down. Junior level members are acting as bounty managers and they often don't update the spreadsheets and sometimes indulge in cheating by enrolling proxy accounts to the campaign.

3. Large number of newbs are signing up for bounty campaigns, often enrolling using purchased Facebook / Twitter accounts (esp. in Social media bounty). The quality of posts being done by the bounty campaign participants have gone down quite a lot during the last few months.

4. Even those bounties which pay end up listing at 80% or 90% discount to their original prices and in the end the honest bounty campaign participants end up with very small rewards. On the other hand, those signing up with 10-12 multiple accounts end up with sizeable rewards. And it is the latter category, which indulges in token dumping.

5. There is no incentive to hold on to the tokens, as a majority of the ICO promoters dump their tokens in the market and vanish. If you check, the vast majority of the listed ICOs are in a dormant or defunct state now.

I have a few suggestions to resolve some of the issues, before the issues go out of hand.

1. There should be a requirement that if anyone want to post an ANN in Bitcointalk, he must deposit 0.1% of the total amount (of the softcap) in an escrow account. For example, if a project is planning to raise $50,000,000 from the investors, then before creating the ANN thread the promoters must deposit $50,000 in either BTC or ETH to an escrow account held by the Bitcointalk staff. If the soft-cap is smaller, like $500,000 then the escrow amount should be 0.1% of that, i.e $500. If the promoters vanish, then this amount should be forfeited. Also, if the promoters go back on their promises once the tokens are listed, then this escrow amount should be frozen and may be (partially) released only if they achieve the objectives which they had promised earlier.

2. There should be a list of approved bounty managers and those outside this list should not be allowed to act in this role. There are a lot of trusted bounty managers here, like Yahoo62278 and Lutpin. I don't think that newbs should be given priority over them.

3. In order to participate in a bounty campaign, it should be mandatory for all the users to post their ETH address in the "Location" field in the profile. I have noticed a large number of spammers using someone else's BTT account and their own ETH address to enroll in to social media bounties. This step will put and end to the practise and will weed out the spammers.

4. All the bounty campaign participants must be carefully screened before the payout. In order to prevent token dumping, a few steps can be taken. Since the bounty reward is 1% to 3% of the total amount, the promoters themselves can purchase this portion from the exchanges. Or they can make the bounty payments in BTC/ETH. There should also be a condition that the promoters should hold on to 90% of their tokens for at least 12 months. (Because I have noticed that it is the promoters who do dumping in the vast majority of the cases, and they blame it on the bounty hunters).

5. KYC must be mandatory for ICO promoters and bounty campaign managers (unless they are on level 2 DT). If this is done, then the scammers won't be able to set up multiple fake ICOs.

I am posting this because now the real impact is becoming obvious. Experienced users are staying away from bounty campaigns and even very promising ICOs are getting listed at heavily-discounted rates. This can't go on forever.

Good ICOs need to be protected from the negativity in the market created by the fake ICOs.
Honest bounty hunters needs to be protected from the cheaters
Properly run bounty campaigns and airdrops should be appreciated and differentiated from the poorly managed ones.

very good idea and in my opinion it makes sense but what I ask here is that it can all work or be approved by the moderator? and I don't think anyone will be able to pay $ 50,000 in making an ANN or bounty thread to escrow because that is too large

These are real problems that are damaging this forum and the ICOs...but they are not only present here, 90% of the ICOs are scams...
In general I agree with your points and with your purposed solutions, just think that on point 1 of the solutions, 50.000 would be difficult to advance for someone that is raising money... and this would be based on the trust from the promoters on the Bitcointalk staff...
all the rest seems fair and easily implemented and in my oppinion the inclusion of these rules/steps on the bounty/ann sections would help a lot to preserve the image and reputation of this forum and help the crypto world to preserve this ICO/bounty system that helps both ICOs as well as bounty hunters
cheers

I think that now is not the best time for cryptocurrency. Now this forum has turned into a forum for earnings.

$50K was just an example. The amount should be 0.1% of the soft-cap. If the softcap is $500,000, then the escrow amount should be 0.1% of that amount and that comes to $500.

I was surprise about the evolution of the bounty campaigns too, particularly the reporting of the social media tweets and reposts which are posted in the thread. We can't discuss anything on the thread anymore because of those reports. I have seen several projects that didn't pay the bounty participants, too bad those who joined are promoting it for them only to find out they are scam.

It is quite irritating to see all the social media bounty reporting in the thread, when they can easily create a spreadsheet-based system for the same. Imagine if 10,000 participants are participating in the social media bounty (FB, Twitter.etc). There will be 10K posts in 7 days.

I have been a member of the forum for 9 months now and I totally get from where you are coming from since I engage in some of the bounties and consider myself an intermediate level regarding experience for bounty hunting. I would like to give my 2 cents here and possibly some suggestions as well.

1. Scam projects are indeed a problem here. However, an experienced bounty hunter should know how to check for red flags and avoid them, but that also takes time, which is crucial here. Those truly affected are newcomers (newbies) that don't have experience yet and get involved in scam projects quickly.

2. Exactly, I have noticed that as well. It irritates me when I see that spreadsheet hasn't been updated for weeks, but I guess at the end, everything is accounted for. At least in my case so far. In the case of cheating bounty managers, I have only spotted one so far with multiple accounts, but the campaign turned out to be scam at the end, so I don't know what he got out from that.

3. There are a lot of hunters with "maxed out" twitter and Facebook accounts, that I think are bought, because they are newbies and it takes one a lot of time to reach 10.000 followers on twitter. These two things don't go together. Exactly what would be a solution to this is hard to speculate. Another problem is also a number of participants which is rising rapidly in social media bounties, which has for result meager rewards at the end. Bounty could be limited to lets say 500 participants for twitter on "first come, first serve" basis like it is on platform called BountyHive.

4. I guess it is really hard to speculate on who actually drives the prices down since this involves many factors, but those with multiple accounts definitely help to crash the token.

5. I would love to hold on some of the tokens with possible future, but it is really hard as you say, because in the end, we are losing (especially in this bear market). This goes together with the previous point in which a solution to farming with multiple accounts should be found.


1. That's a great idea since this would eliminate scam projects completely and also lower totally unrealistic and incredibly high hard caps to the point where this 0.1% wouldn't be a problem to pay. Soft cap of 1 million and hard cap of 5 million dollars with 5000$ fee to pay for posting the thread. That is relatively not a lot of money to pay for "advertising" the project. A team of 10 should be able to afford that.

2. I guess there should be a rank requirement to run a campaign and an established list of bounty managers. But there is a problem, because a bounty manager can't run for example 100 projects simultaneously. I think we would quickly run out of managers and since of the new merit system, ranking up for the rank required to become one would be hard to achieve.

3. Hm, good suggestion. Managers could cross reference ETH address on the profile with the one on the spreadsheet and easily remove spammers from the campaign. Bounty hunters would then be limited to use one ETH at a time of course.

4. Bounty payments in ETH/BTC would be welcome, but really hard to realize since nobody would really want to do that. There is a reason they use the token system so they do not have to pay in "cash" in the form of established cryptos. There is one solution where rewards are paid in both ETH/BTC and tokens, but with a ratio of 1:5 perhaps. I've participated in a campaign like that before and it was great. But the ICO was already conducted and token was trading, so it was not hard for the project to do so.

5. Yes, KYC. One of the most discussed things around here. In my opinion, there is no perfect solution to that. On one hand, implementing KYC removes scammers completely and gives bigger rewards to honest hunters only. But on the other hand, gathering personal information is a big issue. Especially if the project is shady and could sell that info anytime on the black market (happened before). It is also not what cryptocurrency stands for, it should be anonymous, at least to some extent. Doing KYC for 100$ reward doesn't sound like a good idea for me, especially because hunters are not investors, so you don't need to check on the AML laws here. I can think about two solutions. First is to find a system, which is robust enough to remove scammers without gathering too much personal info. The second is mandatory KYC for ALL campaigns with ONE most trusted provider. You do it once and apply it to a new campaign. Much like how the system on bounty0x platform works.


I will save this thread and check for updates, it's really an interesting one and we can discuss a little more.

What a great suggestions you have, I'm 100% in support of all the suggestions most especially suggestion number 5, I think that will help reduce the level of scam ico because all I studied about themthem is that both the organizers, promoters which are more of the bounty managers are in hand to hand way of scamming us. Wondering do some bounties for months and found out no reward is issued and happens to be scam.  Thanks for this.

Well, I was not saying that KYC should be made mandatory for the bounty hunters. On the other hand, I was saying that it should be mandatory for the ICO promoters. In that case, if they run away with the coins, then they could be prosecuted.

I checked many old bounty threads(usually a bounty from 2006 to 2017). Although there were some scams, not much.
Look at the current bounty threads, almost half of them are scams or about equal to scams.
Think about it, why is this? How to stop scam bounties?
For most of your advice, I very much agree，but I have some different views.

Hosting means responsibility and obligation, and it is difficult for custodians to guarantee that they are reliable.
And I don't think BTT will allow their staffs to engage in such business activities, this is one thing that goes against the rules of the forum.

The trustworthy bounty manager is of course good. The question is who will evaluate which bounty manager is trustworthy? What criteria are used to evaluate?

The weight of tokens held by bounty hunters is actually very low. Their dumping can't really affect the price at all. The more reason is that ICO promoters dump their tokens.

Who will check their KYC? Scamer check yourself?

Your suggestions are very good, but in practice I think it is very difficult. In my opinion, the government's supervision of ICO and implementation of the ICO licensing system may be the best way.

Well if an ico project is worried about dumping of tokens by bounty hunters then there is an easy solution to that, the team should not pay bounty hunters with its tokens rather an equivalent value of eth or btc can be sent, this will make bounty hunters happy and also the risk of dumping will vanish.

I think that it is well known. Everyone knows about the problem, but the problem cant be solved because everything is about money. Bounty managers receive a lot of money to manage and promote scam ICO and they do not care about people.

I'm a little bit confused about that. What do you mean about ico promoters in this case? The manager or the ico creator.
I thought that KYC should be made mandatory for ICO creator and bounty manager. But there was another problem how can we identify if that was a real identity or not? AFAIK there was a lot of scammers are stealing the identity from the internet.

This is probably not going to happen because the laws of each country have different regulations. For some countries, such as China and South Korea, they have legal banned ICO, but many ICO promoters in their country can pass some other ways to avoid domestic laws, such as registering a company abroad. But most of their ICO investors are from their own country, so once their domestic investors are cheated, it is difficult to sue ICO promoters.
If sued in the name of the government, it is contrary to the law, because it is usually only the infringer who initiates the lawsuit. Therefore, in most cases, such litigation is very difficult. Unless there is a common international standard to implement, the judicial system of each country will have different understandings.
And in my opinion, KYC's information is not necessarily true. Once they are ready to implement a scam, they must have prepared everything, so KYC can't really stop scammers.

Your post is very good but I'm afraid ICO promoters and bounty managers has their own decisions. How they deal situation already prepare but they also have target to reach and limit to stop or change their rules. In this one we can't do nothing they have control to do what the best for their work. Just finish the task and get pay, that's all I want.

Good suggestions.

I'll go through with those.

1. I think that was already suggested and was even considered by admin but I can't remember on what's the current status for that.

2. There are some newbies that are just hired by the ICO team somewhere that will be paid cheaper and isn't really recommended to follow any of their campaigns but in the past there's a newbie I've seen that run a campaign and everyone paid off. Actually there are many overviews for those recommended managers like this: Overview of Bounty Managers (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5032713.0)

3. This is the job of the manager and he can just add it to his bounty rule.

4. Its the best if they are just going to pay with btc or eth to avoid dumping with those tokens. But they are wise, paying their participants having no budget but just a portion of their token.

5. Can't say about this but I think many will disagree on that.

Great inputs by OP

Inserting my thoughts:

1. A lot of scam projects are creating bounty campaigns and ANN threads. Once the bounty campaign is finished, they vanish all of a sudden without paying the bounty hunters and leaving the investors in limbo.
- This is what's driving real bounty hunters and investors from joining campaigns.

2. The quality of the bounty managers have gone down. Junior level members are acting as bounty managers and they often don't update the spreadsheets and sometimes indulge in cheating by enrolling proxy accounts to the campaign.
- Yes, I noticed this one too. This is not to discourage aspiring new bounty managers but if you plan to be one, atleast gain some few merits.

3. Large number of newbs are signing up for bounty campaigns, often enrolling using purchased Facebook / Twitter accounts (esp. in Social media bounty). The quality of posts being done by the bounty campaign participants have gone down quite a lot during the last few months.
- The popularity of bounty campaign have gone up so this is expected. When I started in this forum, I was also one of those others call as "shitposter" or "spammer". These newbies could become better in time.

4. Even those bounties which pay end up listing at 80% or 90% discount to their original prices and in the end the honest bounty campaign participants end up with very small rewards. On the other hand, those signing up with 10-12 multiple accounts end up with sizeable rewards. And it is the latter category, which indulges in token dumping.
- I could not agree more

5. There is no incentive to hold on to the tokens, as a majority of the ICO promoters dump their tokens in the market and vanish. If you check, the vast majority of the listed ICOs are in a dormant or defunct state now.
- Boom! Finally, someone else said it!

I have a few suggestions to resolve some of the issues, before the issues go out of hand.

1. There should be a requirement that if anyone want to post an ANN in Bitcointalk, he must deposit 0.1% of the total amount (of the softcap) in an escrow account. For example, if a project is planning to raise $50,000,000 from the investors, then before creating the ANN thread the promoters must deposit $50,000 in either BTC or ETH to an escrow account held by the Bitcointalk staff. If the soft-cap is smaller, like $500,000 then the escrow amount should be 0.1% of that, i.e $500. If the promoters vanish, then this amount should be forfeited. Also, if the promoters go back on their promises once the tokens are listed, then this escrow amount should be frozen and may be (partially) released only if they achieve the objectives which they had promised earlier.
- I really like this concept. I have read before about this ICO 2.0 where funds are put on an escrow and can only be released upon community votes. If the community is satisfied with the development and wishes the project to proceed, they can vote to release additional fund for further development.

2. There should be a list of approved bounty managers and those outside this list should not be allowed to act in this role. There are a lot of trusted bounty managers here, like Yahoo62278 and Lutpin. I don't think that newbs should be given priority over them.
- The idea is good but what if they assign someone from their own team to manage the campaign instead of hiring a new one? Another question, who would make this pool of bounty managers?

3. In order to participate in a bounty campaign, it should be mandatory for all the users to post their ETH address in the "Location" field in the profile. I have noticed a large number of spammers using someone else's BTT account and their own ETH address to enroll in to social media bounties. This step will put and end to the practise and will weed out the spammers.
- Not sure about this. I believe a simple proof of authentication can do the trick

4. All the bounty campaign participants must be carefully screened before the payout. In order to prevent token dumping, a few steps can be taken. Since the bounty reward is 1% to 3% of the total amount, the promoters themselves can purchase this portion from the exchanges. Or they can make the bounty payments in BTC/ETH. There should also be a condition that the promoters should hold on to 90% of their tokens for at least 12 months. (Because I have noticed that it is the promoters who do dumping in the vast majority of the cases, and they blame it on the bounty hunters).
- I think no promoter would ever accept a deal of 12 mos. token lock up. Payment is BTC, ETH, or Fiat is what these ICO promoters prefer.

5. KYC must be mandatory for ICO promoters and bounty campaign managers (unless they are on level 2 DT). If this is done, then the scammers won't be able to set up multiple fake ICOs.
- I thinks this is being implemented already.


IF I MAY ADD:
6. All bounty participants should be atleast Jr. Member or Copper Member regardless of the type of campaign they wish to join. This should atleast minimize the number of spams and shitposts.

You understand that it is several thousand dollars, you think there will be people ready to sacrifice the money for the sake of someone else's project? This madness. Bounty managers only care about profits, they will not sacrifice their money for someone else's ICO.

I totally agree on this one, if this can be implemented here on the forum this will lessen the scam and fake ICOs. We need to set rules to gain trust and bring back the legit ICOs only for the community on this forum.

However, I strongly disagree on this one. Everyone should be given the chance to become bounty manager even though he/she has no experience on it.

OP's suggestion is very good. Unfortunately, most of the bounty managers don't care. The only thing they care about is their own interests.
Bounty hunters need to be more united to boycott/Accusation those scam projects, and DT members should be more active, and members of the fake ICO/bounty should immediately been negative trusted.

But there are some projects choose to host the bounty thread by themselves， We can't force them to choose a bounty manager.
For this situation, I think I need a rule： “If you don't choose a bounty manager, then you can't post bounty thread.”  Although this is unlikely to be achieved.

I totally agree with this, although KYC can't completely eliminate the scam project, but at least limit the fake ico teams.

For the quality of most bounty managers, especially those newbie mangers, it’s always unreliable, because they may leave at any time and won’t say anything to you, when you found that the spreadsheet hasn’t been updated for a long time, everything It’s too late.
It’s a very frustrating thing to waste a few months to follow a bounty and finally get nothing. In order to avoid this kind of thing, it is time to formulate corresponding rules for the bounty thread, I fully agree with the OP's suggestion.
I think hosting a deposit is a very good way, because it will increase the cost of scam. Once it is confirmed to be scam, the deposit will not be refunded and the bounty participants will be compensated.When the cost of scam increases, the bounty thread will not flood, and every bounty manager must carefully choose the ICO and need to consider the interests of the bounty participants. This will greatly reduce the appearance of scams.

This is a good suggestion in order to eliminate those scam projects that were created from empty ideas and asking for money without genuine intention.
But 0.1% of their softcap is kinda big amount for starter project who have genuine intention. So I guess it's better that it will be lowered or before the Ann Thread will be published, there will be mods to verify the project first before making it live.

Though it really need some effort but it will surely make this forum clean from scam projects.

They are really some crazy problems I must say but at the same time, there is just a limit to what the moderators will be able to do in this case.

First, we need to understand this is a community and it is a decentralized community with everyone having the license to easily post whatever they like and as much as I feel what the OP have said, there are some things that we have to understand is not going to be plausible and would possibly just drive out investors traffic from this platform. Some good points were raised, such as KYC, screening of bounty participants, but the rest I really do not see how it can work.

For instance, if i have a project, i can decide to recruit anyone I like who can do the job without having to look for the likes Yahoo, Lutpin and co before getting that done.

What we should not forget is that we all have a part to play when it comes to doing proper digging on the project we want to advertise for and really that is the best way to go about this whole issue of being involved in a scam project or not.

Oh yes, sorry, I misunderstood since I thought you meant ICO promoters were hunters. It was late yesterday here, haha. I agree with mandatory KYC for ICO promoters, because that would definitely eliminate a lot of fake projects here. And with mandatory fund deposit for opening a thread it could bring them close to zero. But it would be hard to implement both requirements. If you could choose only one, which one would you prefer? Obligatory fund deposit or KYC?

As far as prosecution goes... this is still a tough one, because crypto is still so unregulated. Many scammers have been identified, but got away with it, because of loose laws. I've red about an exit scam project, where the CEO was prosecuted, but the charges were dropped, mainly because of missing laws. Probably he also had a good lawyer. Can't remember where I've red that though. Oh and, thanks for the merit! :)

It’s not necessary for the manager to do it. The team that is going to conduct ICO should do it. And the amount of 0.1% is pretty fair. Thank you to the author for such a proposal. But we must do away with the fraudsters.It is a cancerous tumor that primarily repels anyone investor to invest his money. While there is no activity in the subject, but I think the BTT moderators should somehow respond to this proposal.

That is a very good idea to filter out some of the users that are just aiming to scam good users especially to the newbies. It is a good way and hopefully it can be implemented soon to this forum to ensure that there can be no more cases of scam ico or even bounty. Thanks to that concept sir @bryant.coleman

I completely agree to this part. Especially when it can be implemented that the forum have official legit bounty manager. On that way we can filter out a scam manager from a good one. Thank you for bringing this concept.

I guess you didn't read the thread properly. I am not saying that the bounty manager should make the deposit and escrow it. I was saying that the ICO promoters should do that. If they are planning to raise $50 million, then they should at least be having 50K in their hand, right?

This is the most common problem in the bounty and ICO section. The main reasons are too many scam projects and hunters cheating with fake, multiple accounts. Purchased accounts with the fake audience not getting a successful marketing campaign to ICO projects. I would like to add more suggestions to your thread.

1. Add more rank, merit requirements for participate in bounty campaigns to avoid newbies and multiple accounts.
2. Add rank, merit requirements to be a bounty manager.
3. Remove the social media posting and reposting campaigns. (Purchased accounts with the fake audience not getting a successful marketing campaign, they work as spam bots)
3. Accept high-quality articles, videos, infographics. (The blogs, channels have to be with a high-quality audience, premium blogs like cointelegraph)
4. Make payments weekly, monthly period via bitcoin or ethereum. (This method saves bounty distribution dump, bounty hunters can get guaranteed payments, bounty hunters knows they are not wasting their time and scam projects not going to waste bitcoin or ethereum as payments, that means we can easily catch scam projects)
5. Make a verification method for ICO project owners and bounty managers.

I think bounty managers and ICO project owners are not going to follow those things. Because they need to collect funds for free and flood their scam projects on social media. I think bitcointalk to have to get action with those problems and time to change this method.

I am with you brother, I really agree with your suggestions above.

1. Yes, it will be safer if they do deposit in an escrow account firstly, 0.1% of the total amount (of the softcap) is a good number I think.
2. Will the list of the trusted bounty managers posted on bounty section, brother? If it can be listed there, It is the right way, It can remind all parties related to bounty activities about the experienced bounty managers with good track records.
3. Yes, that's nice idea. It can be more simple if all participants put their ETH address on their profile. So bounty managers will note it.
4. Yeah, I don't understand why they blame the bounty hunters whereas It is a hard thing to do by bounty hunters.
5. I have been waiting so long to see the implementation of this idea. KYC must be applied for promoters, developers, bounty managers, or all the team members of an ICO if it is possible. I think it can be one of the ways to minimize the scam ICO projects.   

Implementing on all of those mentioned in the first post would be able to filter project that has a good quality and some scam project.
That way should be able to minimize the possibilities of people making a scam project.

Brother you got a good point. Because nowadays, mostly all of the ico's turned into scam. And the big investors need assurance. Making their own research wont fit if the team itself planned to scam the ico. It is a good move to make assurance that it wont turn into next big scam. Very good information brother.

I think the same must be done when someone wants to create a bounty thread and amount must be equal to a minimum 50% of a bounty pool.

Bounty area really has big problems with keeping rules not only from bounties members side but from project and bounty managers side and this area needs big changes

I understand why you might suggest these as solutions but I think that all the problems with bounties can be solved by market based solutions rather than trying to impose rules.

1. Your idea for an escrow account won't work because either the amount will be too big and deter some great projects from coming forward or too small to be any real deterant to the scammers.

2. An approved list of bounty managers is a horrible idea. They will become a union and just demand ridicules sums to manage bounties. I generally avoid bounties done by well known bounty managers because they are oversubscribed and pay poorly.

3. Again, it should be up to the person running the bounty whether they enforce this rule.

4. Token dumping is caused by giving big discounts in Private sales and Presales. I don't invest in ICO's if they offer more than a 10% discount and don't include a mandatory hold period. The solution is educating investors, not unenforecable rules that inconvenience the honest and will get ignored by the dishonest.

5. KYC is a good idea but it should be for everyone working on the project. Don't see why you would want to exempt level 2 DT as that would just create a market for DT selling like we see with merit.

I don't think that Bitcointalk is capable of acting as an ICO policeman with any real credibility as they can't even deal with corrupt practices on the site like merit selling and people buying high rank usernames. The market will find solutions as we are already seeing with exchanges acting as ICO sponsors and people creating trusted bounty platforms and incubators like Iconiqlab.

I agree all on these but not 100 percent for item #4. There should also be a condition that the promoters should hold on to 90% of their tokens for at least 12 months. I just don't see it is too effective. If it is applied, we can also expect a big dump on the 12th month.

some suggestions are very helpful and useful. I see a lot of bounty manager and some of them hit by red trusts with information promoting the bounty scam. of course, this makes selective in choosing the bounty would be very necessary if you want to get a lot of results as desired.

Yes, most of the current bounty managers are very lazy. They didn't update data in spreadsheet for a long time. Some bounty managers said that they will update spreadsheet after the bounty campaign over. In my opinion, this is just an excuse for their laziness, in fact, updating the spreadsheet every week is more conducive to protecting the interests of the bounty participants.


There are many well-known bounty managers. In fact, well-known is not equal to trusted. Well-known bounty managers may also manage scam bounty.
I have seen many well-known bounty managers accused in the Scam Accusations/Reputation section.


This is very necessary, especially for newbie, it is very difficult to find a credible bounty, I have joined some bounties in the past, after a few months, they didn't pay me at the end. I was very angry, but no one could help me, I couldn't predict who was scammer. I believe that most newbies also hard to distinguish a project is a real bounty or scam.
If KYC must be necessary for ICO promoters and bounty managers, then I believe that there will not be so many scammers, and for bounty participants, especially newbie bounty participants, it can be minimized cheated.

If ICO promoters should make the deposit and escrow, I guess they might do like this: “Using tokens to deposit instead of money or bitcoin”.
I noticed that there are some so-called escrowing, no real money, they deposited their tokens, and claimed that they have been escrowed, but these tokens are likely to be just some worthless shittokens.
So if there are further suggestions, I think should ask for Bitcoin/Ethereum to make payments instead of tokens , and before a bounty campaign begins, need to deposit Bitcoin/Ethereum to the escrow account.This is the most credible solution.

Yes, I am an honest member of the bounty campaign, strongly agree that there needs to be an action for a fake ICO. I understand the risk of participating in a fake ICO because I lost time, energy, and waiting for the TOKEN to land in my wallet
I hope that someday there will be ICO rules in this forum so that there will be no loss for the parties

That would even get a lot of team not to be able to use the platform for announcing their projects in the long run for such a huge amount. Sure, it is something they would get back, but the question the OP should ask is that, if he is a project owner, will he be willing to go through that length just to get his project announced to potential investors ?

Personally, I believe when it comes to ICOs investor and promoters likewise, they really would have a huge role to play when it comes to not investing in scam or investing in a scam ICO. Most people tend not to take diligence seriously because they are bounty hunters, but last time I checked, they are forgetting they are also giving their time and resources out to scam projects if they do that.

I really would like the idea of escrowed tokens or equivalent amount for the ICOs. I have been a victim of several ICOs that just disappear, and even the managers cannot so anything. I think bitcoin or eth should be better for escrowed in case the ICO disappear or does not reach their caps.

I have a suggestion and this is suggested by Yahoo one of the most reputed campaign manager from our forum he stated that even in bounty signature campaign the payment should be accepted only in BTC/ETH/LTC this will greatly reduce the scam bounties because they don't have much money to pay their participants upfront and this policy should be followed by all the campaign managers.

I think we need to move this discussion to Service Discussion (Altcoins) (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=198.0) to get healthy discussion. If you forget to quote OP then it will be considered as plagiarism so quote properly to avoid permaban.

Maybe this year will be Bounty's last glory. In fact, bounty is now going down. This is caused by many reasons, because many scam ICOs have seriously reduced people's enthusiasm for ICO,This is one of the most critical factors.
The bounties that are now trusted to be usually those that payment weekly and already listed on the exchange. Other than that,all tokens are not trusted, because before they go exchange, everything is uncertainly, we can no longer pin our hopes on something uncertain, although the weekly payment of the bounty is usually not of high value, but it is the actual income, there is no bubble, you will not worry about scam.

The best suggestion i can give to ICO promoters and Bounty managers is this.

For Bounty Managers: in order to make your work less stressful and accurate, i advise you guys should have a Limit to the number of participants for every Bounty Campaign. Secondly try and Pay Bounty Hunters with Eth or BTC for they end up dumping the prices of the Project token when it gets to an exchange.

For ICO Promoters: Always do your best to promote an ICO

the Scam issue has been known to all  But the difficult part is to get rid from it. Bounty Mangers should need to play vital role to minimize it. 

I agree with you in some points. But the question is how it will be implemented? Is it possible in this particular time as we see today ICO's/ITO's landscape are changing a lot since 2017. Comparing back then, there are too many ICO's running this time sharing in a small pie in the ICO market. I think its very impossible to fulfill those Suggestion for now. And in other cases the Bounty Managers has a rule also to take Extra Precaution or Pre Examine the project before introduce it as a Bounty Thread.

You are absolutely right, people are just self-centered and they don't care much about others.This even goes beyond bounty managers, there is a project that just finished ICO and rated high in most ICO rating site but with my findings on the project, it is an outright scam. I keep wondering why such a scam project was rated high thereby deceiving thousands of investors.

   A lot of good propositions! I would agree on 1. suggestion, and that would solve problem of 2. so I dont think there would be any need for "trusted bounty managers" because there is a lot of work going through spreadsheets and bounty managers need help there.
   I would agree that promoters and managers have to go trough kyc, but I would also forbid advertising ICOs who hide team members.
It's ok to stay anonymous when you launch new project, but if you ask for money from people to start that project than please introduce yourself!

I find this post quite enlightening as you have raised major contending issue in the crypto community. I hope there can be some standard regulations to curtail the way so many scam ICOs have flood everywhere which has lead to reduction in the confidence potentials investors have in ICOs such that even some legit ICOs no longer succeed due to the negative effect these scam project has caused amongst other factors.

I find your suggestions very helpful and hope some projects will follow your instructions. I agree, that most of the bounties are garbage at the moment and the ICOs should have more responsibility for failing to meet the soft cap or purchase a bounty.

0.1% is just a chicken for the scammers if they can victimized larger amount from the investors,and if they are a legit project for sure they must have capital to put enough amount for escrow to prove that they will not intention to scam people around here,maybe 5% of the softcap for them to provide so investors will have faith and might invest even more

Maybe I'm not as senior as you in this forum who understand a lot of things, but there are some points that I disagree with, especially the selection of bounty managers. You just mention Lutpin and Yahoo as bounty managers that you believe in, it's like lowering the ability of others who might be better than them, maybe I mention some like Lauda, Btcltcdigger, Irfan sir and other bounty managers that I can't mention don't judge someone just because they are in our rank below, because it is not necessarily that we are better even though we are legendary. The calculation of the stake that is not updated may be because each bounty manager has their own style, and the other point may I agree

I agree with the KYC system. In my opinion, there is no perfect solution to that. On one hand, implementing KYC removes scammers completely and gives bigger rewards to honest hunters only. But on the other hand, gathering personal information is a big issue. Especially if the project is shady and could sell that info anytime on the black market (happened before). It is also not what cryptocurrency stands for, it should be anonymous, at least to some extent. Doing KYC for 100$ reward doesn't sound like a good idea for me, especially because hunters are not investors, so you don't need to check on the AML laws here. I can think about two solutions. First is to find a system, which is robust enough to remove scammers without gathering too much personal info. The second is mandatory KYC for ALL campaigns with ONE most trusted provider. You do it once and apply it to a new campaign. Much like how the system on bounty0x platform works.

I have been a member of the forum since December 2, 2017 until now and I really got where you came from because I was involved in a number of gifts and considered myself as an intermediate level about the experience of hunting bounties. I want to argue in addressing your question.

1. The scam project is indeed a problem here. So as a bounty hunter we need to consider well about the project before joining, for those who are experienced, you will understand, but for beginners you need to learn more.

2. agree, I pay attention to that too. This bothers me when I see a spreadsheet that hasn't been updated for weeks, but I try to be patient waiting for the gift program to finish.

3. There are many hunters with twitter and Facebook accounts, which I think are purchased, because they are beginners and it takes a long time to reach a large follower of followers on twitter. These two things don't work together. Exactly what will be the solution for this is difficult to speculate.

4. I can't blame this on hunters because not all of them immediately sell coins or tokens they get from the gift program. the price is broken many things can make prices destroyed.

5. I really want to hold a few tokens with the possibility of the future, but it's very difficult as you say, because in the end, we lost (especially in this bear market). This is in line with the previous point where solutions for agriculture with many accounts must be found.

I think that those are some great suggestions, especially the ones regarding the escrow, that would weed out a lot of scammers

These steps should have been implemented long time ago but i don't know why it is not been done even in the proliferation of scam activities. They say that crypto should not be regulated that is why it is prone to abused.

I doubt if KYC submission is appropriate since we are in crypto and this peer to peer transaction is basing on trust but sad to say that not averyone is trustworthy.

I believe that this part must be fully implemented. I also was a victim by this. I have been submitting good quality blogs and articles on a specific campaign. And after a few weeks, when I check the spreadsheet, most of the users copy my blogs and articles because the admin give me a high score stakes. And they just edit a few typo in the username, and they change the receiving address to their address. And what was I angry about? The admin's just ignored my concerns and they even give them tokens for that!

Thank you for bringing this up. Truly I hope the bounty managers will read this and hopefully they can implement this kind of rules to fish out some spammers in the bounty campaign. Thank you for this. You deserve to get merited for this.

Team admin bitcointlak must selectively tighten the rules for each ico project that will be published in the forum, as the project must be real, the project team is clear, and the community and partners are adequate. to keep and keep investors away from fraudulent projects.

Very good idea

But for suggestions  no. 1
It seems that it will be burdensome for project owners in carrying out their work because they need the funds to continue to promote and in other development frameworks ;)

It might be better to use trusted escrow in raising ICO funds so that investor funds remain safe if something unexpected happens

I love your solution / suggestion for ICO promotors and bounty managers. Many people have got many losses following scam IOCs, including me. So, I am sure your suggestion will bring a better change in bounty system. I really hope, it can be implemented.

Below, I try to analyze it:


I experienced many times to see a bounty manager from a bounty program is taken from the team members of an ICO project. And the result when the bounty program ends, he leaved the bounty program together with all the project team members. I want to say that, It is very risky when a bounty manager is taken from an ICO project. Moreover, the project doesn't spend a lot of money to do that. They will disappear easily.

By having deposit 0.1% of the total amount (of the softcap) in an escrow account, we can lessen their chance of leaving.  


It is true. There are some bounty managers with Junior level currently, and personally I don't know well who they are.  
Yes, we need a list of trusted and experienced bounty managers with good track records. And all people can see the list easily to remind them. It can be a guide to choose a project with good bounty manager.


To be honest, you said a truth. Many purchased social media accounts. It because of the prices of the social accounts quite affordable. We need KYC or something like KYC for this case, to minimize the fraudulence.


Yes, the problem of multiple accounts seems hard to solve. Especially in signature campaign, as we know many signature campaigns have big rewards. When someone joined a bounty project with multiple accounts, It can harm other participants. Moreover It can trigger to dumping, the token price is very low / cheap.


This is a very bad result. I know it, many worthless tokens on exchanges. They have no prices, and seem to dead. The promoters just need big profits, don't really take attention to the community.  

I agree with you, and in my opinion if KYC can be applied in every bounty. In addition to reducing scammers who do fake ICOs, they can at least regulate miners who have more than one account.

I think most of your points listed above are Germaine but the issue is we are in a capitalist system and people should be given the opportunity to choose what to do, i know BCT staff don't want to be seen has been to strict or preventing people from growing on this forum that is why they come about the merit system but with the merit system also there is a Mattew effect in play here

Im agree for almost all your point, but i disagree if bounty hunting payment should be in major coin, im personaly prefer to be paid in tokens, simply because i think its the way to investing since early stage, if buyer using thier money to buy an ico, ive using my skill to 'buying' an ico.

But once again, im agree with you in many points :)

We need to list all the bad bounty managers. Let everyone not join these bounty projects.

       You've posting a very sentiments and understandable thoughts but I have only a little suggestion on bounty managers which plenty of them having low rank , so I may suggest that it is better if bounty managers will be from sr.member up to legendary .
       I'm not in favor of submitting our documents for kyc but I  suggest to have e-mail  verification .

I strongly agree with your suggestion especially about bounty hunters.
Honest bounty hunters deserve protection from cheating.
many cases of bounty hunters who work for months don't get paid at all due to fake ICOs or fraudulent bounty managers.
Bounty hunters are also people who need money to meet their life's needs.

I also have suggestions for bounty managers, namely about KYC for bounty participants that are announced after the bounty campaign ends.
in my opinion, KYC requirements should be announced at the beginning of the bounty campaign not at the end.

i agree with this , i working on bounty hunter in found many fake bounty manager he using cheat with corruption alocation for bounty using fake account

Rather than listing the bad bounty managers, it may be easier to list the good ones. Because there are thousands of scammers out there and if someone is blacklisted then the scammers can easily find a replacement. A good idea may be to limit the qualification to DT2 or higher.

Good opinion for me to go forward for being a bounty hunter if some ico is scam it's part of our work to go on it. It's a big mistake for being not paid in ico if the project will crash because we pick it on our way of some different ico.

This thread is great, master!
The points are totally the same to what happened here nowadays.
If the promotors and bounty managers have the same idea as you, I think there will not be any scammers hanging around here. 

I agree on other suggestions but I don't agree with KYC implementation. We all know that personal information is a very sensitive information that I cannot afford  to compromise. In terms of dumping of coins, I don't believe that the bounty participants are the main reason of dumping of value because the campaign allocation is so small compared to investors and team allocation.

We have some threads regarding who are the good bounty managers in the service discussion sections and also I have read a thread about bad managers as well but they are not sole responsible for scam maybe they also can be vitim too so it important to be a good analyst before joining on any bounties.

I am sure that today we need to say that bounty managers and bounty hunters really do their job, but the most important thing is that today we are being deceived and this is a problem that we need to talk about.

Your posts are very good, and this can be very helpful for gift seekers. In order to be more careful in finding gifts. I'm still a beginner , and I'm very grateful for the posts you made. And I agree with you.

You have proposed great solutions to the problems plaguing cryptocurrency in its entirety,  the part I love most is about the project team depositing a certain percentage of what they intend to raise to fund the implementation of their idea into an escrow account, that's going to be a very effective means of checking scam ICOs and secondly about cheaters on bounty registration, thorough screening should be adopted and the bounty managers too do some funny stuff on the spreadsheet, when we start having tested and trusted bounty managers, that's when there will be sanity in doing bounties and hard work will start paying off for genuine bounty hunters

Your points are clear and good, if these problems are not checked when the situation is still bearable, then it may likely go out of hand. The greed for more cash is creating more problems and should be brought under control.

As I have already clarified many times, I don't want the bounty hunters to go through the KYC procedure. It's just for the ICO promoters, and to an extent the bounty campaign managers. Now if you are planning to raise $50 million or $100 million, then you need to take some responsibilities. 

The problem is who will supervise these frozen deposits？I don't think this is what Bitcointalk staff should do. As a Bitcointalk staff, their job is to ensure the clean and order of the forum Instead of being custodians.
So we need some other people，But what if custodian collude with the promoter? Who is going to supervise them, this is a never-ending problem.
In my opinion, the best way is to set up a credible supervisory body, preferably with a government background.

Very good concern here, I got introduced into this sometime this year but going through threads and seeing what most persons complain are typically addressed by the poster, the implementation may bot be absolute but I am very much in support of the aspect there developers should deposit some amount in escrow before launching a campaign here. That way scammers will be reduced

Great article by the OP and I agree to all what is being highlighted on his information. Indeed, there are many scam ICO's operating in this forum and I had been one of the victim on almost several bounties that I had participated where I ended up not being rewarded from my participation wherein right after the campaign there was no update on the spreadsheet and no information relayed on the Telegram. Bounty managers should have a strict requirement and I believe it should start with FULL MEMBER rank and  upwards. I hope with my new ICO participation, I could be able to get a reward soon.

What about the trusted users here who offer escrow services? There are a lot of users available with DT2 or higher. The big three (Monbux, Tomatocage & OgNasty) have built quite a bit of reputation for themselves. And then there are others such as SebastianJu and PsychoticBoy.

That is a good idea. Because right now, almost all of the ICO Bounty campaign bounty manager has a negative or a red trust. And we see a good ICO to participate to, but we doubt because the bounty manager in charge have a negative trust. So better to have a list, and on that way, we can find more ICO bounty campaign in a easier yet a secured way. Thank you for that.

Overall I'm with you totally. just some remarks

500 USD is way too little for scammers. on the other hand, legit projects find it bad for their business if this downpayment system is installed.
I do like KYC requirement for bounty managers and some restrictions or suggestions how the bounties are performed. Just cant believe how so many megathreads are created just because everyone has to declare their stats. do the managers even like to waste so much time on doing this manual labor??? there are so much more efficient ways to gather info and main thing is that they are outside of forum space. i can bet it cleans up 10% (20%? 30%?) of the spamposts

OR bitcointalk can just create separate part for bounty hunters, where they can keep their stats. a place most other users never have to go

Well, most ICO-s did KYC verification at some sites like ICO Bench, Coinschedule etc... so, for example, we just recently started the campaign and even thought KYC is not possible on bitcointalk, I personally did it on Coinschedule and foundico for example and you can use it as a proof that everything is legit :)

You should now better by now that this is irrational and ridicolous. First of all everyone is doing it for the money and they have the right to sell their tokens when they want.

On other hand teams shoud be takeing care of their token price and it is easiliy done, and it seems that only 1% is doing it right or semi right.They should
1) At least lock bounty tokens for a month after the listing, this would prevent the otken to be crashed in the begining in DEX exchnages. And after a month thre would be some buy orders which would prevent tokens of being dumped to the level if it was at the start.
2) Pay in ETH and avoid token drop alltogether.


This could actually make sense but it will never happen to this forum and if there was such such thing then who would stop these campaign management to be takens offf platform?

One of the most interesting post in this section! Your ideas could be very good for Bounty participants. But there is some issues that will not allow to bounty hunters to be payed well. One of them is small credibility of ICOs - the bets of it could not gain more than 1 million usd.

Very good post made. This is what we want the forum to be. They've been cheating bounty hunters for long and in the same way hunters have been cheating for long. I really wished they could take this into consideration and put it to action.
What I'd like most is that bounties should be bought back and paid in either ETH/BTC.

There were some ICOs which paid the rewards in BTC/ETH, but such campaigns are too few and far in between. 90% of the ICO promoters want to make quick profits. So they prefer to pay in tokens than in BTC or ETH.

I sincerely support your comments, it's wonderful, being a bounty hunter I wish the above conditions were the forum applied to the bonus campaign, to reduce the cheating issue, cheated Island and sincerely thank you, I support you.

To be honest your points is right on the spot specially the requirement to post an ANN thread in the forum since it might have the potential to weed out the scam and questionable bounties or ICOs and to potentially raise the fund raising of legit bounties and ICOs in the forum, since I have seen that in the most of the bounties and ICOs that have good potential and are legit are getting small crowdfunding due to these behavior and the ones that are suffering are the bounty hunters, though I would not say that this is a full proof resolution since that in every structure their would be loopholes and in what I am seeing here is that if the promoters get their desired profit in the crowdfunding if their so called projects then they could just move leave the held amount in the escrow account. I feel like making the fee bit higher(1-2%) would make sense since the promoter that would want to scam investors and bounty hunters would think twice before they would continue with making an ANN thread in the forum.

Making the fee at 1% or 2% is a wonderful idea, but in that case the promoters may say that it is too high and may go to other forums and post their ANN there. Anyway, even a 0.1% fee can weed out 90% of the scammers, IMO.

If the softcap of an ICO project is set to $1 million, then the 0.1% fee is $1,000, which seems too low, and I think 1% is better. If the fee is 0.1%, it still can't stop most of the scammers, because many ICOs hardcap seem to be very high, but the softcap is actually very low, and the fee usually depends on the amount of softcap.
At least I think that for scammers, $1,000 is not a big obstacle.

I totally agree with you that promising project need to be protected as well as investors and bounty hunters,but I feel depositing 1% when you stand to make 100% does not count,you know,giving 1$ when I know I can make 10% cannot be a problem to scammer.I feel,if we van have a body that will regulate the number of project been develop and also put bounty managers at check,we might be able to create a new dawn for crypto at large.

I beg to differ!!!!

I have been a victim of many scams and now I believe that I know how the scammers think. The scammers are not guaranteed of a positive outcome. So if they invest $1,000 they don't know whether they will be getting a positive return on that investment. This can scare away more than 90% of the scammers.

many fraud in the crypto world, only we are not easy to believe quickly, especially in the negative news that circulates, because all will not necessarily be certainly, it is better to stick to our stand

Even previously a lot of the users had proposed to put some restriction on who are able to post in the ANN section. But no steps were taken and I am at a loss to understand why the admins are ignoring this issue for so long.

It sounds like you believe that high ranking members of BCT are not scamming too. Higher probability as the were farming many BCT accounts. BCT rankings has nothing to do with managing a bounty. So your saying that BCT should force projects to use managers just because they are from ranked members of the BCT community? You opinion sound very biased indeed. I hear a lot of make them pay!! Make these “particular” people rich, but little about how to protect bounty participants. I think this OP has it right!!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5065599.msg47700518#msg47700518

I am not saying that higher ranking members are all saints. But it is difficult for them to get involved in scams because they don't want to risk their reputation which was earned through hard work after so many years.

Idenity theft is very widespread issues withing digital market and I consider that KYC and AML for every team member should be completely obligatory.

Please, stop participating bounties untill the entire situation will be clear. Chance of wasting your time is extremely high, so you can spend it for something else.

There is no point in speaking about it, untill there will be a reliable organization to control the entire market. I may not be connected to any county, but we need it right now.

KYC for ICOs is very good thought, but I consider that it is too late. Teams will go for it only in case, if investors will push them pretty hard.

KYC with one groan is good. On the other hand, you don’t always want to transfer your data, it’s unclear to whom and subsequently it’s unclear how this data can be used against you. Perhaps it would be nice to make a portfolio for the participants of the bounty. Wherever both good and negative sides of this participant are recorded.

Noone would deposit such amount of money and about money there good and bad situuations, first if we would have it then most of scamers leave us its great but second many projects with great ideas and without money leave us too.

I think your suggestions are highly appreciated and should be taking seriously to salvage the ICO and bounty processes, i am also of the same opinion that bounty rewards should be done in ETH or BTC. Thanks for your positive suggestions.

You have made a good point mate and i will also add a point to what you have said my point is bounty manager should be nice and keep to there word.

It is almost impossible to find fake pretty fast, but you can do it just during the ICO stage. Just pay some more attentions to the details.

All of these are known facts and most of readers have already know it. In the same time, your post is good for newbies and newcomers.

The idea proposed by the author is very good, but hardly feasible as it is not necessary to moderators of the site. Here everything happens by itself, and everyone is trying to get only their own benefit, unfortunately.

I think KYC for ICO promoter and bounty managers just nail the issue of ICO running away with investor%s money and putting bounty hunter's work at risk of earning nothing! The escrow suggestion is also on point for those that are looking to raise money on this forum!

I think escrow matters in this case. many have assumed that the bounty and ICO were bad because the scam continued to scatter. When escrow could help to this then at least the case for the scam with little resolved. other things such as manager I think this flexible enough because it will certainly be a new manager popping up and replace the old. even though they have not experienced too but will need a process towards the stage.

People need to learn on their own. It is not enough to just get certain knowledge, you also need a way to use it in some real conditions.

Well, holding of most ICO tokens is completely insane but I am sure that people will be making it even in thousand years, when there will be no BTC.

This should be read by many especially those who are legit and truthful bounty hunters, let them petition for this one and let the bitcointalk staffs be aware of what is happening right now on this forum. I've also noticed that this forum are gradually owning by a few people with a huge number of accounts eliminating some people to go hunt on such the campaigns and i think KYC must be a thing on this platform.

The fact is, we cannot hold it back and cannot go back. The time has come where everyone abusing every single step to get money in here.

KYC is not also just required upon the investors, but also for the team and the promoters behind the project. This is a must requirement, to ensure that when the ico turns out to be a scam, we know the backgrounds behind the team. And also we can easily detected if they have a bad intention of aiming to scam.

Very useful tips for the upcoming ICOs. I am sure, if they would stick to these rules, they will be able to revolutionise the way of holding a bounty campaign or an ICO. Hope these suggestions will come true one day.

I agree 100%. ICOs in which the promoters refuse to undergo KYC should not be allowed to post in the ANN or bounty section of this forum. If this is implemented, then 99% of the scamming cases can be prevented.

That is indeed so sad, even in bounty participant side, there are also some scammer who are duplicating someone else profile to be used as their own.
They are hoping to get a payment by using someone else work, that makes me sick.

I agree with most of what was said here in the post because it concerns about the bounty managers, the bounty hunters and the legit crypto projects and icos. This post is very considerate with all the people or group of people involved like the bounty hunyers, bounty managers and others and it should be given the attention to maintain the quality of works and also the credibility of everyone involved. Awesome!

but how to implement these requirements? I also support your opinion and I believe that the biggest problem in the market of ico companies is the presence of a large number of scammers. Moreover, to date, Bounty Hunters are used as slaves, while paying very little and in most cases very often changing the terms of payment.

The author made good suggestions. About KYC very true statement. I have repeatedly met the same managers of different ICO. My suggestion is that would Amazis, Sandra Events, Ltcbtcdigger introduced a black list of fraudsters. Then deception will be less.

Please stop participating bounty until until it becomes clear to the whole situation. The probability of wasting your time is extremely high, so you can spend it on something else.

How about if bitcointalk should hold the percentage of tokens that are meant to be paid to bounty hunters to avoid not getting paid after bounty ended? Any ICO who is willing to do this no doubt a real project and not scam

I support your suggestion. I always think that when all the bounty activities can pay a certain amount of prepaid funds from the beginning, it will attract more investors and hunters!

KYC for ICO - a very good idea, but I believe that it is too late. Teams will do so only if investors will strongly push them.

It makes no sense to talk about it until it is a reliable company that will control the entire market. Perhaps I am not affiliated with any of the county, but we need it right now.

Identity theft - a very common problem in the digital market, and I believe that KYC and AML for each member of the team must be fully binding.

This is a great idea, your suggestions are really reasonable and able to make bounty companies more attractive for honest bounty hunters. What is happening now is lawlessness and fraudsters enjoy their impunity. I suggest we put a vote on the promotion of your idea, it's really necessary.

You have described what every second bounty hunter who has worked on more than 40 projects knows. This is not some kind of discovery, but only a banal statement of facts. You should have called the theme "Farewell to new bounty hunters!".

You have painted so much about what can happen and how we should act, but we do not see your results in this activity. In the beginning we should say why we should listen to you or at least take your words into account.

Good that is someone who is concerned about the whole situation on bitcointalk if only this idea can implemented then it will be good for us all for so longer as there is lawlessness there wont be any regulation thanks

Payments really fell, especially when compared to those that were a year ago. I was still not happy that I was paid $ 500 for one company, wanted more, and now me and$ 200 lead to a smile. Oh, so good time...

I think there are chances to restore this sphere, due to the fact that it is very difficult to come up with a better way to raise money for such a high-tech production. The state will not Finance such projects.

I believe that the ICO's are all dead right now. I used to invest in some ICO's in the past but right now i would never invest them! When the ICO finishes and the coins go to the markets the first price would be too low for the ICO price. For example i did invest Farma Trust ICO and bought some coins from there. The ICO price was  $0.05. The ICO was successful and more than $20 millions of coins sold. But when the coins arrive to the market the price was $0.001. Today when you check the price it is $0.0022. So why would i invest in ICO's? I wait for the ICO finishes and i buy way cheaper from the market in the first days..

Your suggestion is very good. If you need more support, then I will be your first follower. I think the current ICO market is in urgent need of improvement because the ICO scam has caused the market to lose many investors.

Great views on the current market. For the solution proposal I am not sure as we should not over regulate the bounty market. I have some negative experience with Hero and Legendary managers who do not update the spreadsheet and they are running like 10 campaigns and delegating the jobs and do not taking responsibility for the cheating and non transparency in their campaigns.

The idea is very good, BUT there will always be fraudsters who will not pay for bounty.

A good option to pay remuneration immediately is BTC or ETH, but where does the campaign money come from if they raise money for their project?

A variant with KYC ... some simply collect a document base under the guise of a real campaign.

Advertising, even in the form that it now brings results. Even if the bots do it.

We must try, offer our ideas and then everything will change for the better.

Great thoughts from the author. Respect

All this has long been known to prevent such regulation, we need to, otherwise it will continue. As an option, creating a coalition of bounty managers with an extremely strict selection of projects, however, this will not give any guarantees.

1. I have long argued for payments to be made in BTC or ETH (at least partially). This will reduce the amount of scam and also it will end never ending allegations that bounty hunters are crashing the exchange rates as they dump their rewards immediately.

2. I have never favored KYC for bounty hunters. My suggestion is to ban all the bounty campaigns, that ask for KYC. Doing KYC in return for $20 or $25 sounds ridiculous. On top of that there is always the risk of these people selling your KYC documents to someone else.

I suggest them to stop promoting scam projects,we can stop scammers and scam projects if they know how to look for the project before investing thats why they are the one of who can stop promoting scam projects.Im only promotes good project as a bounty hunter and i will promote Dencoin project as i look the project its good and has potential on the future if you want to look at this you can go the Dencoin website.