Bitcoin Forum

To all bounty hunters on here which one do you prefer?
1) Bounty managers should be the ones to hold the coins/tokens and share with bounty participants .
2) Bounty managers should submit spreadsheet back to the teams after bounty ends for distribution.

I prefer the first one
provided that the bounty manager is highly trusted here in Bitcointalk
I have been into a lot of campaigns and some bounty manager also suffers the same fate every time there are delays in bounty distribution
trusted bounty managers want his campaign to go smoothly and all participants to receive his share because a successful bounty distribution is his recommendation for another project.

For your question above, I personally prefer your first question, because if the gift manager holds a coin, there will be no fraudulent fraudulent projects out there, because the token they promised for the prize has been held by the manager. But they also have to be smart in choosing managers so that they are not lied to by the manager, by bringing the tokens they give.

I prefer the first option like the Bounty hive does,  because they are the one es-crowing the tokens after the bounty is over you surely gets your allocated stakes at the right time with no delay. even the tokens has not list on any exchange yet you can still get your hard earn tokens. unlike the second option sometimes they will surprise you with the KYC procedure which is so damn brutal for bounty participants.

of course, I prefer the first suggestion, so the bounty section token is saved by the bounty manager, not by the team. Sometimes the team takes a long time to distribute tokens and there is also a delay in the distribution of the tokens. so if the bounty token hold by the bounty manager, it will make it easier for bounty hunter participants. we get very actual info when and timeliness for the token distribution.

A good and trusted manager fits for the category number one. That a bounty manager should be holding the tokens or coins to share with the bounty participants because it is the bounty manager's duty and responsible for token distribution.

I think most of bounty hunters prefer this one. This is to ensure that every participants will get their rewards after the the campaign ends.

We all know that some campaigns are not paying or delaying the rewards, hence if the manager holds the funds this wont happen as long as the manager is trusted here.

Its always a better choice if bounty managers hold the tokens and distribute after bounty ends because some projects wont pay after the promotion is over,they might disappoint even the bounty managers and leave him with zero payout

Unfortunately, the Bounty thing isn't that simple. It's actually a very complicated process.

Projects make bounty hunters work on marketing the future of their projects. And in return it is not FIAT but is paying with cryptocurrencies. The award distribution of some projects can reach very serious figures. This process is not easy to manage. Therefore care must be taken when setting the bounty manager.

It doesn't matter that it only takes into account these substances. I saw very bounty who does all of what you say, but does not pay.

I prefer your first option,its bounty managers right to hold the tokens or coins as a middle man so once the bounty ends he should be the one to pay bounty hunters not the teams ,most times teams won't bother and ignore the hunters and there are few cases that teams will delay payout for long time

I prefer 1.

---

We want security that the bounty managers holds the fund so whenever the bounty ends, they can send all the pending payments after reviewing the spreadsheets and reports.

I don't suggest bounty managers to be responsible for sharing tokens, hell no to that. It will be the greatest mistake ever to encounter. Truth be told, some bounty managers are greedy and will definitely be sharing the tokens within his own zone of friends but the big issue is, if the bounty manager wants to cheat, even if he shares the tokens or submit forms for tokens. Only few bounty managers are true to their work and work within their limits.

I have to choose number 1 because right now when many ico are rumored to be scams, many teams are not responsible and many bounty managers are affected by team errors when not paying rewards. now it's better for bounty managers to hold tokens so they can be more sporty and can be directly shared when the bounty ends

I prefer number 1 from your selection, because if token already given to the bounty manager we will guaranteed get the pay after complete the bounty task. But on note we will need a trusted and honest manager to avoid the fraud.

For a bounty participants, bounty manager holding the coin would be much more favorable as bounty manager are closer to the participants and know who has dedication to the project and who doesn't. He can consider and solve some issues better than from the team as they only get data that isn't self explanatory.

If the project is going to be a scam than what will be the sense of giving tokens to bounty manager for further distribution?
This thing only protects you from bad situations like was in TPAY bounty campaign.

I prefer the first one if the manager is a trusted and known one. Otherwise, it can end up with a scam.

Still, regardless of what i prefer it mostly happens the otherwise.

I don't care who is hold tokens. Although BM has hold but DEV scam, tokens is still not valid. The allocation of tokens at any reasonable time was carefully calculated by DEV.

I thought that the normal model is that bounty managers are sending the rewarding sheet to the team to make distribution. But I have met both cases, where team members refused to distribute tokens and bounty manager scammed everyone.

i think number one is the best, but in this case it would be better for funds to be stored in trusted escrow to be only to ensure security. but as long as the project has gained a good reputation by the community and the manager also has a good reputation, i think they are more understanding in this matter and i'm not too concerned about it because they can certainly manage the campaign well

But now, the bounty stopped to give the fruits and revenues,it actually is gone,and many projects are now just not worth it or anything,it's the projects that were done on the bounty,many even fell from prices ISO in x 100 or more times,so imagine to make x 100 it should be 10000% percent the token to grow,here's to many, many projects upali sorry

I choose number 1, namely managers who share with bounty participants. I think that all managers want every project they manage to succeed and can pay on time. It can also happen otherwise because of one thing that cannot be explained

As per info on the web many ICO projects are scam so its not a wise choice to allow the project teams to do the distribution and I believe that should be the work of a bounty manager

I believe if all bounty hunter will choose number one.
Because if BM hold that bounty payment, no delay distribution and distribution will have fast finish.
The big problem of bounty hunter is delay of distribution and we don't know when it will happen.

Wouldn't the first option be better? This way, if the bounty manager is someone trusted, there is high chance you guys won't  get scammed. If the second option is taken, there might be a probability that the bounty managers may refuse to pay the bounty rewards and run away. Either way, if the project is a scam, there is no way the tokens will have any value and you will have just wasted your time.

Whether you choose the first or second option, both have advantages and disadvantages. Those advantages and disadvantages mainly come from honesty of bounty manager or project team. It doesn't matter if both manager and team are honest and vice versa if one party is dishonest. From point of view of a bounty doer, I prefer the first option based on the fact that bounty manager's reputation can be evaluated through time. Whereas, project teams' are not that easy to evaluate.

Most would definitely vote for bounty manager's holding the tokens but I would prefer having an escrow instead. Keep in mind also that there are some who do not want the added responsibility holding.

for me it is equally important that they are professionals like they demand participants to be professional.
and another important one is legit.

I will go for the first choice where the bounty managers should be the ones to hold the tokens and distribute them after bounties but this is very unlikely to happen because some bounty managers might not be trusted

I also like the first one like you. The reward manager must be the money holder of bounty hunters or use escrow to minimize the risk for bounty hunters. Because many teams do not distribute bonuses on time after the campaign ends or try to reduce the rewards as announced. Or many teams disappeared after the successful campaign and left the bounty hunters.

I have seen that so many times on so many bounty campaigns, the devs change the rules, from no KYC to KYC, bounty manager will never do that because it harms his reputation and no bounty hunters will trust projects that he is handling, so let the bounty manager hold the tokens, because he has a reputation to protect.

I prefer the first statement, as long as it is trustworthy and does not harm the bounty hunters,
the advantage is that we will quickly get our rewards from each of our jobs.

With a lot of project owners changing rules and regulations or total token allocated for bounty campaign. I bounty managers holding the coin or token allocated for bounty campaign will be the best for this will make bounty hunters feel more save and go after reputable bounty manager bounties.

I've joined a lot of bounties in the past, but I still prefer the #1 statement based on my experience because  those bounties where the team will distribute the rewards later, those are the projects that I've got no rewards.

Accordingly, then do not participate in projects that lead bounty Manager that You do not trust.To be honest,this is the first time I've heard of a bounty Manager having the privilege of distributing tokens on his own.This is mainly done by the project team.It’s a special difference who will distribute tokens no. The main thing is that they have value after the first listing.

I like the first choice actually, but I have a bad experience with that because the bounty manager actually takes part in the participants' rewards. but I know that not all bounty managers do the same thing, for the second choice it is often done only if the team refuses to distribute bounty participants' rewards and the bounty manager cannot do anything.

Of course I will choose and prefer the first choice (number 1). If the bounty manager is in control of the token in the bounty, of course the bounty participants are a little more calm. For reasons, there are no rules that change when counting is completed in a spreadsheet. Participants will be more calm in doing all their work assignments.

If must pick, maybe a lot of people here include me will pick first one, but as bounty manager i know it is really a lot of job and maybe developer itself will think twice to give their coins to bounty manager to pay the reward for bounty participants, and fees from that bounty manager will be higher than usual.

They have bounty manager who held the token which is more safety because they will give the reward of the participants and there's no doubt about that. But the team of the project will choose best bounty manager who have experienced and trusted about managing a campaign and for sure everythinh will be fine . Paritipants will don't have any doubt to join to bounty campaign only they problems is when the token listed.

hunters deserved to be paid. you question is baseless. whether the team paid or not. what we are concern about is our pay for work done. nothing  more to say here. most times the payment delay are as a result of lazy BMs, also bounty managers that are selfish.

I believe it is better if the tokens are kept with the bounty managers
It makes it easy and secure and bounty managers will send spreadsheet to the team for audits

Sending rewards by the team is not bad either; as Long as a mutual agreement is reached

of course I chose the first one because the reward obtained was certain, escaping from tokens or the coins obtained had value and also if all the bounty managers could do that might be a good thing

I prefer to have an escrow.  Though in some point the bounty manager would be an escrow but that would be a conflict of interest because both party, the manager and the owner are involved in such campaign.  It would be best if there is a third party to hold the bounty reward.

There are several cases wherein the bounty manager failed to distribute the token to their paricipant.  Aside from that, there are also cases wherein some manager manipulate stakes in their own favor such as calculating stakes of disqualified participants and divide the stake together with the stake of these dq'ed account.

I think the first option would be the most ideal. Because it often happens that bounty the managers, too, are deceived by the project team, but if they would have tokens at once, the bounty would be paid more. I think so.

The first option should be better or even the use of escrow for bounty Payment. Most times the project reduce payment at the end of the day but if they hand it over to the managers it won't reduce.

I would prefer the first one.. it should be like that.. bounty managers should demand the rewards or escrow it in one wallet for security..For the dev team, they should check the background of the BM if he/she is trust-worthy

I prefer the first choice rather than the second, Bounty managers should be the ones to hold the coins/tokens and share with bounty participants , but until now this has never happened, I hope that in the future this will become a reality

Though most of the people will prefer the first one, but that is not possible for the most bounty managers. Because only highly reputed bounty managers like yahoo or Hhampuz can get the bounty tokens before the campaign ends! Otherwise, maximum bounty managers got their payment in token and they don't have control in payment, only the team does!

I prefer the tean does the distribution. Most of the bounty managers use dubious means to get more tokens especially when they see the project has a great potential.

This is a major issue facing bounty hunters when it comes to receiving reward at the end of the bounty campaign. Both options had its own pros and cons but I would prefer to go with the second option where the spreadsheet will be delivered to the team. Some bounty mangers are cunning in character, who will even prefer to have his way if possible when it comes to distribution of rewards.

I'm ok bounty managers managing the token distribution, bounty managers wants to make the project finish and distribute the token so they will gain trust from investors, bounty managers are nothing if they will not gain support from bounty hunters, their job defends on how hunters reacts to their reputation.

only trusted bounty manager that could on first option.maybe yahoo, hhampuz and other trusted by many developers team to distributed bounty reward.or atleast coins/token hold by escrow, so it will has certainity that reward will distributed soon after bounty finish.

It was not good idea if the bounty manager will hold the bounty reward. Must better to the team will be one distributing on it because they are the one open the project. The bounty manager only only was the one to put some stake in the spreadsheet to pass to a team if the spreads are done.

But not all bounty managers do that because most projects do their own distribution

For this, all bounty managers must do it

I do prefer on this way yet you can somehow assure that participants would be paid up but well its still no an assurance
yet we wont know if the manager itself would ran away with the funds that's why its important to stick into reputable managers.

Even bounty managers cant assure if he himself would be paid up after the bounty.This do depends on their agreement on the first place.

I choose both because showing spreadsheet in all participants is very important things for the transparency to ensure no discrepancy.
Hodling token or coins of manager are one of the most factor that need to considered and also popularity as manager herein bitcointalk.

The second option due to the fact that the task of the bounty manager is to calculate and assign rewards to bounty hunters then submit spreadsheet  to the teams for distribution. some time token is not ready to be distributed by the time of bounty ended, but the manager should keep in contact with hunters and team to ensure distribution.   

Although I prefer that the bounty managers should hold the tokens, but such manager must be very honest and trustworthy, because there are some managers that will not want to pay bounty hunters.
There are several platforms that receive the tokens first before agreeing to manage the project and with such, bounty managers might not have issue with their participants.

It would be nice for campaign managers to distribute tokens for bounty participants. If we make a complaint it's also easy, because it's part of his job. If the team distributes tokens, of course they are very difficult to deal with bounty problems, because many investors also have to send their tokens. But, how about campaign managers who are not trusted?That means goodbye. ;D

After the LIKER locking the thread indefinitely, there are no safe side developers and bounty managers can make things miserable for bounty hunters, but I like bounty manager to handle the token for distribution because they want to do it fast and they are easy to contact than the developers.

I prefer managers to be coin holders to distribute, because when the bounty managers give assignments to the project team they will make continuous delays, and that benefits them but harms us as a bounty hunter.

for me the second one is very relevant. The bounty manager can't hold coins / tokens. The bounty manager function is to calculate the stake obtained by the participant and send it to the team.

Second is being practiced and it is correct I think. I am sorry if my opinion is different. Bounty manager is like us, bounty hunters, who work for a project. Bounty manager works for a project, and act on their direction. And it is always in the hands of project owners to take a decision in distributing tokens in reward. So project owners have the last call.

I guess both have disadvantages and advantages, if the bounty manager is greedy then you can expect the reward not to be accurate if the manager is the one in charge of the distribution but if the team is the one in charge then you can expect a delay in the distribution of the rewards as a disadvantage, still i prefer the first option.

For me I prefer it when the bounty manager holds the coin, but it is also based on if the  bounty manager is trusted or not. The problem with bounty managers submitting spreadsheet is that the  bounty pool will eventually be changed when they see how much they are about to pay some people..

I will also go with the majority here, it will much safer to know that the reward are already in possession of the bounty manager especially if that manager happens to be a trusted one, but in some few cases even some bm can also deceive hunters so this largely depend on trust of the project team or the bounty manager.

Its vice versa,sometimes bounty managers are the ones that will cheat bounty hunters after getting the whole token from the project's team and sometimes giving the bounty spreadsheet back to the tram is a bad idea because they might decide not to distribute the token anymore

Because most bounty managers cannot make their own decisions. therefore they cannot hold allocations for bounty participants. Because the bounty manager can only manage and after the final spreadsheet is sent to the project team for distribution.

I want to be fair to the participants, because sometimes when the bounty is completed, the manager can only support but cannot do anything else. But putting the manager to keep the token will probably happen a lot of trouble like scam bounty hunter

I prefer number one because i don't beliave team very much. Many team keep their token and distribution will be delay. Bounty manager has their image. so, i beliave bounty manager

Well, I am much preferred in the first one dude. But in most of the time happened in every project campaign whether IEO, ICO or STO was the second one. And I think having a high green trust is an advantage for the managers to join in because they have a good reputation here in the forum in my own opinion only.

If we want point 1, usually that is the manager or managing the bounty is from the project team itself. So coins or tokens are certainly in their own hands because they are the managers. If we want point 2 it's like a manager who has his own management or someone else. Become them after completing their work. After that, they only send spreadsheets to the team to distribute to all participants.

I choose the first choice. As a bounty campaign manager, it should be the one who manages everything related to the bounty campaign, including the distribution of tokens or coins offered as gifts. If the distribution of tokens is the authority of the team, I am afraid that the project will eventually cheat or scam. If the token or coin is already in the hands of the bounty manager, we have ensured that the tokens that are promoted are indeed real and can be traded.

I would prefer the number 2, we can't trust the bounty managers with a big money since they can do dark and just scam, they don't have much reputation to protect compared to the project itself.

If the team project will hold, sure it will affect their reputation if they will not pay and that's bad for the future of the project.

I have been experiencing that bounty managers are blamed for everything that they are not responsible for and that is not under their control. I think their duty is to moderate bounty campaign only, but not manage the whole management of a project. They are given responsibility to manage bounty campaigns and submit the report to the management team. So second is right. 

It is better for us if bounty manager holds the fund. But this bounty manager should be trusted and responsible. If not, then we have to believe ICO team that they will appreciate the hard work.

I guess its a case to case basis and both options are okay with me since bounty campaigns mostly depends on the trustworthiness of both the bounty managers and the core team respectively. I guess the real challenge here is to select a good project and a dependable bounty managers altogether to ensure a fruitful bounty campaign. :)

I prefer escrowing it to reputable btt admins, team toils with bounty hunters and not pay on time most time, bounty manager can disappear with bounty token so giving it to an escrow is the best.

The first point is applicable, if the manager is trustworthy.
Else i would suggest to hire an escrow.
They will distribute the funds to the particiapnts.
These are the answers of your question.
Hope this helps you.

Yes, I also think the same about the above statement, namely I prefer number 1, because the name of the bounty manager's must be fully in control of the existence of the project. from the beginning of the campaign held to the token distribution. however, the project owner must monitor the manager's bounty during the token distribution. but remember, the project owner must provide ethereum to the manager's bounty as gas.

I choose the first option. That's why we have bounty managers so that they will manage and fix everything that are related to bounty campaign they handle. But either of the two options there are instances when the bounty hunters are being fooled by the bm and they sometimes take advantage of their position for their own personal gains alone. I just hope that all the bm's are just and fair with their people because as a bounty hunter it's undeniable that we truly contribute to the success of the project by means of spreading updates with every campaign we joined in.

in my opinion tokens / coins are held or managed by the project team to be distributed to all bounty participants ... because I often experience fraud if the distribution is carried out by the bounties manager and team ... there is a reduction in the amount of coins previously set ... we should get 1000 coins, but in the end we only get 700 - 800 coins.. so I agree more like the answer number 2 that you mentioned above.

I think the first choice is  really save for bounty hunter if bounty manager is trusted like yahoo, sapta, arteezy and many good manager here, and i really like if we all paid not token but BTC or ETH is good one

It depends on the credibility of the manager or the team. There are some reliable bounty manager, i will like  to hold the tokens. There are also some faithful teams too. Your prayer as a hunter is for you not to meet a fraudulent manager or team. 

now there are so many new bounty managers if you choose option 1 then I think it's too risky, you could just run away with a bounty manager carrying bounty hunter token

Its better to hold the token by manager itself or under some escrows but that doesn't make much difference.

Tokens are worthless until it hit exchange,so it is all in the hands of team.

Basically I would prefer 1), like the majority here does.

In case I still have one wish left, I would like to have the payment in BTC or ETH. Thank you.  ;)

It should be if I will choose the first choice, because if the Bounty Manager holds the coin it will make me relieved and not think negatively. If the gift manager must send the spreadsheet back to the team after the prize ends for distribution, I think it's about technicality. Sometimes it makes participants bored with rules that might be changed.

If I would choose among the two options, then I prefer to choose the first option provided that the Bounty Manager have a good track record and the integrity is really high on doing his/her job. The reason would be speed because we don't need to wait for the team to assign one of their team to distribute. They are so busy to do that. One thing is that the Bounty Manager knows who really works hard and support the project.

I think my answer will be like a double-edged stick when each end can strike.  On the one hand, you can rely on the project team, But despite the fact that the team may have an official legal entity, it can still be deceived by explaining for various reasons, as it has already been repeatedly noted.  And now if you put all the responsibility and funding on the Bounty Manager, then you need to know the person specifically and have an influence on him so that there is no temptation to deceive members of the Bounty company.  Today, both those and others successfully abuse their capabilities.

Given the choices, i would focus on the list number 1, because a trusted bounty manager could easily distribute the token after the campaign, unlike list number 2 it could take months that the team could be able to.distribute the coins to the participants, and yes its a good idea that the tokens be hold by the bounty manager.

I think the first option is better than the second. If you find a normal manager who can be trusted, then if he has tokens for payments, it will be much better than if the manager sends the table to admins and we will wait for the tokens from them. Still, finding a good manager is easier than constantly worrying about whether the admins are reliable in a particular project.

Really difficult question, in my memory there were bad cases in both option, if the Manager is trusted by the community, then the first option, if it is a beginner, then the second option.

I Prefer Both Bounty managers and the team holding a bounty funds in an escrow account. So at the end of the campaign, both can initiate the transfer to hunters. The bounty manager alone holding the coin is not safe since the hunter is a also a bounty hunter working for incentives, he can bolt away with the funds if so huge ; the only punishment will be to get red trust on Bitcointalk forum.

Not both. If we have bad manager, he/she can run with the token from option one
If we choose option two, it all depends with the team. They can not pay us too.
So I don't know, but usually I join with the second option. It's more familiar.

A well integrated bounty platform is more performant than the options mentioned above.

I found many managers to be dishonest and rigged the campaign, this is the reason that No. 1 is not a good choice. Except using Escrow is more reliable

There are particular managers I work with and as for those I work with, I do not mind if they pay by themselves, because I trust them.
There are now new managers allover, but their integrity has not yet been tested. For those type of managers, I might prefer that the team do the distribution.

Better those bounty managers who have the tokens of the project and then immediately distribute them to the bounty hunter. It is safer I believe.

I think it does not matter if you participate in those projects that are reputable bounty managers. But if you have joined a project with a Manager unknown to you before, it is better to have tokens with him, not with the team.

I hope the first selection is more attractive for everyone. Because, although in the title it is written 3 weeks after the bounty is completed, it is not acceptable for distrubiting to take 2-3 months or more time. Already waiting will not add more value.

There were a lot of bounty managers, but now there aren't too much good bounties, so I don't pay attention to bounty manager leading project.
Also it is common when new ICO use their own team to lead bounty

I aggressive with you. Bounty managers like bountyhive are reputed and are very professional in their handling or bounty payment. However, some managers are very dishonest and don't pay bounty participants. I've had some issues on this before and I wonder why did they do that. Some don't pay even after 5 months of bounty and the tokens have been transferred to them.

If it's from your options then I'd opt for the first one, but that one comes along with many questions as well.

Personally, I'd wish that all bounty should be paid to a reliable escrow and then the tokens get released after the end of the bounty. Because the bounty hunter may also run away but a registered escrow has a lesser likelihood of doing that.

sometimes its not the managers fault but its the owner . maybe because they have not reach thier qouta and they suspend the project but if ever they have succesfully end the project and you still dont recive you rewards this should be the fault of the manager because he maybe a scammer . reputable managers can also end on scamming  . i have seen alot of them here before but dont worry because they will be punished by mods and admins here  .they can be kicked out and will recieve a negative trust so that they cant  scam again  .

I think the team should keep our token. because bounty managers are not good. Sometimes they keep the project token, they will run away and no one will be able to find them.
and project owners will not let this happen. After completing the campaign, they will get bonuses and bounty hunters will be paid later.

Now everyone will use to produce in a way
1) if the regulation is more sophisticated, it will be invested in several fields
2) the manager also always wants to release all his accounts to someone who can be relied on in this forum

This is the best strategy. but there are also very good managers on the forum who will not risk their reputation and they can be trusted with the distribution of tokens

For me it doesn't matter who holds the bounty tokens as long as they are honest and will not take advantage of the participants. Nowadays, majority of bounties are scam. For the sake of the argument, if I have to choose, I prefer the first option wherein the bounty manager holds the tokens and then distribute it after the campaign. That will minimize the delay of distribution because the one whose checking the work is also the distributor.

The first option in my opinion is the best. If the manager is trust worthy and he is known for good conduct and discipline here on bitcointalk, why not? He should be in charge

Neither option is good. Because it involves the distribution of interests. The problem is too complicated. The Bounty manager has his concerns. Teams have their own problems to consider. The key is whether the Bounty Hunter receives the bounty.

I trust bounty manager than the developers, bounty managers wants to satisfy bounty hunters because the success of the bounty depends so much on bounty hunters, and besides developers are the ones delaying bounty distribution, and even locking it just like the case of Dexage, and Liker.

What I feel is that only a serious and reputable team will send their tokens to a bounty manager for distribution to be done by him, which in another sense, the manager might be corrupt.
If I am into a bounty campaign where I do not trust the manager or that the manager is still new to me, I will prefer that the token is distributed by the team.

What is the difference who will distribute tokens? I personally do not care, the main thing that I got them.

Totally agree with you.  I have this extra information for nothing.  I am the main result to which I am going.

I prefer the first with a little adjustment, probably combining the 2 process. The spreadsheet should be submitted, vetted by the team before sending the token to the bounty managers for distribution. There are cases bounty managers have a lot of spam accounts that they reward, in the process diverting the money to themselves and reducing hunters reward. The vetting process can correct such cases

Knowing that the bounty manager already have the token in his/her possession makes the bounty more secure and guarantee to some extent, however, so far in all bounties i have participated in, the team always pay the reward to hunters eventually, only on few occasions that team will refuse to pay the reward, if you have trusted team, you don't worry about getting paid because the team will ensure it is done.