Bitcoin Forum

With stake allocation you can get more tokens based on the stake and how many participants join the bounty but that's that, the reason why I choose fixed allocation over stake is because right from the start you've know how much tokens you will get and the fact is merely looking or comparing bounties from one to another fixed bounty allocation performs better,they pays most times and no single participants is left out,what do you guys say about this?

I think it is not too different from stake. But I really like to be stakes more because it depends on how hard you work.
Those who do more will be rewarded with more tokens. It seems more fair and motivating for bounty hunters.

Stakes have better advantages than fixed bounty allocation,the only advantage fixed allocation has is fair payment across all  bounty hunters but stakes are based on how hardworking you are

I do preffer to join into campaign that payment is based on stake. Usually it can give more token in the last calculation, stake make me want to earn it more and because of this people not be lazzy to get it.
Sometimes fixed allocation in the end of payment, its not all of the allocation are distributed, because some slots are empty, its make bounty allocation not fully distribute.

It depends on total token allocation and number of participants, if there are a lot of participants and only few tokens reserved for bounty, then stake bounty campaign is not profitable.

From my experience stakes based bounty programmes are giving more tokens at the end. But it also depends on fixed rewards. There are bounties that are giving 20 dollars for a signature campaign and 60 dollars for facebook and twitter reports. Generally it all depends on the campaign budget and fixed token rewards.

I notice rewards that stake allocation are more profitable than fixed allocation, I only joined one campaign that offers fix allocation, it is more profitable when you join as a signature bounty hunter than a social media bounty hunter, and besides it's seldom can we see a campaign that offers fix allocation.

Fixed allocations are rare, at least in my experience. I have not participated in many campaigns that had a fixed bounty pool. Most users seem to prefer the staked bounties but I prefer the fixed allocation bounties. That way I know how much I can expect to earn in the end and there arent too many surprises.
The stake based bounties are unpredictable and you never know how popular it will become and how many participants you will have to share your earnings with.    

I prefer systems based on stake because if you work harder, you will get more tokens. I think bounty with fixed stake will be suitable for projects paid by BTC, ETH or liquidated token.

I prefer stake bounty allocation. Earning opportunity is more if there aren't many participants, Also depends on the project. If project is good I'll even participate in fixed bounty allocation.

Stakes base bounty allocation and Fix bounty allocation is just the same! you know why because if the campaign was not controlled its participants its just the same ending  earning with a few tokens at the end of the campaign. But if the fix allocation bounty campaign was only limited in participation thats good after the campaign was end im sure it will be more tokens will be collected.

Both will end up the same. Even it says that fixed bounty allocation, the rewards still depending on the number of participants and the stakes you've received every week.
If we'll want more rewards, then it has to choose a fixed number of participants or having its maximum numbers.

Personally, I also prefer the fixed allocation of a bounty, but I also see the price of coins from the bounty, if the price is cheap and the participants are large, I will not join the bounty, and it's different if the price is expensive, because everyone is sure will like it.

i will choose a bounty campaign depends from the project itself, if the project look good and have a lot of potential
i will joined their campaign, whatever the paying methode, so for me stake based and fixed rewards is same mate  ;)

Stake bounties are more predictable and hence you know from the start how much you could expect to get paid. But with most of the ICOs unable to achieve the hard cap nowadays, even the fixed stake campaign are not providing tokens to the bounty participants.

Stake allocation is much better even though the result of our token will depend on the development progress of the ico itself. as you can see that the fixed allocation gives less payment to the participants and what will you do when there was a platform that offers you a small fixed allocation amount?

Personally i have earned better with stakes based bounty, obviously if they have allocated good enough reward for bounty campaigns while fixed tokens campaigns are usually not much rewarding as they pay certain amount of tokens per week which is fixed and i have not yet seen some good reward fixed bounty yet so i prefer stake based campaigns.

I think each type has a different interest. A default we know in advance what we will get and one must wait, it is also fun. And I like you, I like to fix, know what I will get and decide to join or not

well, that your choice , actually,i have no problem about how allocation seted.
both of them for me still have a same value.
i can joined all of them,but if u talking about signature, of course i will choose stake system.

Recently, I have noticed a very popular trend, when Bounty companies do not comply with the terms of the transaction.  After completing a bounty company, participants always receive a lot less reward than promised from the start.  As an example, companies like ADAB, MenaPay, Dabbling and many others can be cited.

Fixed bounty allocations is much more advantageous than staked bounty allocation. First , your rewards are not in anyway tied to the activities of  other users, you get to know before hand what to expect and are in much more control over what you earn. The longer the campaign, the more the reward- unlike stakes that can be extended without  corresponding increase in the budget.

There is no significant difference. It is an advantage to hunters while it is disadvantage to dev when using stake instead of fixed token. This is because for a stake allocation, the token allocated is fixed. Meaning, if anyone do not fulfill the weekly report and do not have the stake, it will be an advantage to hunters but if the token is fixed, it is not. Irrespective of the two, if the token is doing great and the project has solid background with great token sales. Everyone will smile

for stake, most do offer good rewards, but remember that bounty using stake usually has certain rules, for example they allocate bounties based on sales results, but usually no more than 2-5% and if sales are obtained, the minimum reward offered is also small, different from fixed allocation they offer usually from the total supply / circulating supply but of course the allocation is not as much as the payment of stakes but this is safer in my opinion and I prefer fixed allocations for no

I would prefer the stake to fixed allocation.  A lot of projects i participated that was fixed end up to be shitty work and bm tends to just allocate the payment based on fixed allocation.

Stakes is far better of than fixed reward. With stakes, you earn as much unique and hardwork you put to your tasks than others, which implies that depending on your hardwork, you either earn more or less compare to others

I also like to work in those programs where there is a fixed payment. This allows you to know exactly how much your work is estimated and how much, according to the conditions, you can get. Also, fixed payment is much safer than steaks or a percentage allocated from sales. Unfortunately, not every bounty offers a fixed payment, and this is a bit distressing.

When it comes on assurance on getting paid then it doesnt really depend if the said bounty do give out stake or fix basis.It will always depend on the projects legitimacy on the first place for its hunters to be get paid in the end of the bounty.The difference with fix is that you do already know the amount you would potentially recieve since its fixed then it cant be changed no matter on what would be the price of the said token in the market.When it comes to stakes,you can receive more but due to hundreds of participants you would receive less.

I prefer fixed bounty allocation because you know how much you earn and for how much work. A lot uf us working a lot for few cents while we avoid bounty campaigns where we can earn atleast 20USD per week.

I do prefer fixed bounty allocations over staked based bounties. My reason is that with that everyone is assured of what to get rather than having to think of what will come out after the stake calculation. Most BM shortchange hunters with the stake based stuff cos some hunters do not know how the stakes are calculated.

I feel that if the project allocates enough tokens then stakes would be more beneficial as in case of translations, the communities that are more active benefit the translators and they get maximum number of stakes unlike the cases with fixed bounty allocation where no matter how much recognition you bring in for a project, you get the same reward as another user who hasn't done much to promote the project. If they have a fixed allocation, it's better to give in BTC/ETH rewards then.

I think most of the project stack is unclear, and most participants do not know the exact amount they will receive, unlike  fixed bounty allocations, you can decide if you participate or not from the 1st day, and easy to know amount you will receive.

Actually, both stakes or fixed amount of the bounty rewards will depend on each bounty and rank of the accounts.
1. Stakes will be very worthy of the participants are limited, only a few accounts that have higher ranks, high token allocations for each bounty campaign, and also time for bounty period
2. A fixed amount will be worthy if we are in low rank, there are many participants that are joining, limited token allocations, and also certain period.

Fixed allocation is beneficial for bounty hunters if bounty campaigns are followed by many people. But in my opinion the two methods are good and I think the bounty manager has his own consideration when determining reward distribution based on stake or fixed.

I agrer with you. Fixed bounty allocations has a good advantage that you would know how much would you receive in the end of the bounty campaign, unlike stake bounty campaign, you wouldn't know how much you receive and you also dont know if all of the allocated tokens are distributed.

I prefer stakes allocation because you can have more reward with your extra efforts on doing the task. So you are right, it keeps bounty hunters to do more and feel motivated. Actually, fixed or stakes allocation it won't guarantee the payment. Some bounty campaigns are scam and we have nothing to do about it. Just do what to do and everything will be paid off one day.

If only the BM can stay true to their words stake is good. Although, youe chances of gettinh high reward depends on your followers and quality of your work. Some Project managers tends to look for means of cutting the pool sometimes.

It doesnt matter if its stake or fixed allocation what matters is the project itself,if its good enough i won't mind promoting the project either staked or fixed

Stake all the way,better at rewarding than fixed allocation but fixed allocation bounties always makes more sense than most stake bounties and scammers love using the stakes

Fixed allocation very profitable if the project to be followed has a very large number of participants because you will still get the token that has been agreed before. But on the contrary, allocations remain unsuitable for projects that do not have many participants, when participants are slightly better off using stake-based allocations. And fixed allocation is more suitable for bounties that have a small amount of allocation or they pay with stable coins.


Means you are following a wrong project or a bad project. So far, as long as I follow the bounty, they always give bonuses when their projects reach hardcap. In fact, most projects only reach softcaps that cut the token allocation.

I do with you on the fixed token allocation, it gives more clarity about what you are going into and no matter what happens you sure to get your token but on the stakes allocation no matter how good the project is, issues must surely come up

That defends on your rank but like me which is a legendary rank, I would prefer on stake basis as I know I have bigger share compared to members with lower ranks.

With a system stake, if there are few participants, there will be a lot of reward for bounty hunters. Unlike fixed allocation, if a participant in a bounty campaign, it will not affect the acquisition of tokens because it has been determined by the bounty manager. I think both systems are good as long as the project is running and has value in the market

It depend how much token alocation and how many bounty partisipant. We must look at other factors. If token alocation quite big but bounty partsipant also more than expectation it will also decrease our payment. We must more detail about it.

Indeed. I think stakes or fixed is not really big problem,it depend on how great project it self. Its quite difficult to find project with great plan. Its not 2017 or 2016, we all know so many project failed. If we choose fixed alocation sometimes they limited partisipant also. It better we join on stakes based but they limited partisipant.

The both are good,this doesnt mean the project will do better if  stake or fixed reward are been used,meaning it has no impact on the project itself,why can't we focus on how good the project is?i think that's all that matters?

now it seems like the bounty manager and developer don't really appreciate the bounty hunter. there are no restrictions on participants and they at will limit the participants who can join. and allocation cuts, or other rules changes are very reasonable.

Well there's pros and cons

With Stake allocation, your pay will be vary and it could be much higher than initial or lower than what you expected
With Fixed allocation, your pay will be consistent and you will get what you see

Well i prefer Fixed allocation as it seems better here

If that's the case, then stop supporting the project they like you to promote.
They can't cut the reward or change the rules when it's already part of the contract in the beginning, that would one sided and not fair for bounty participants. There are other bounties that has a statement "the manager reserves the right to change the rules anytime", you should not join that kind of bounty.

Well, actually both have different advantages. But personally, I prefer to choose fixed bounty rewards, moreover, we can get it is fixed amount and sent weekly or monthly so that we will not feel worried not getting the coin or token.
Fixed bounty reward is very profitable especially for the members that have lower accounts (especially for the signature campaign). And we can also count in what amounts we will get in a certain period.

I prefer fixed allocation to stakes system because at the beginning of the bounty, you know the exact amount you can get. In the stakes system, those with higher ranks normally cheat those with lower stakes.

I understand you sentiment, we high rank really benefit more if the stake is followed.
It's the same effort and yet high rank get's higher reward, and I think that would not change because high rank also has a wider and bigger signature display.

yeah very frustrating atimes to see what the high rank members are getting in comparison to low rank accounts, but as a low rank you have to accept it since that is how it is, they are like old staffs in a company that will earn more than new intakes ;D, fixed allocation makes it more just for both high and low ranks, you will get what you deserve no calculation needed.

that's of course. People with higher rankings will get more stake than those with lower rankings. That is the difference between the members in bitcointalk. And you only know the exact amount you received when you received it

I very rarely participated in projects with a fixed payment depending on the rank of BTT. Usually, a staky. But the main thing is to pay on time, which is now a rarity.

indeed this seems unfair to some people, but i think it's legitimate.
as you say high ranking has a pretty large signature display and it will make investors more quickly see the project being promoted.

that is why allocations for high rankings such as Legendary and hero rank are greater than below their rank.

I also prefer fixed allocation of tokens instead of stakes. Bounty hunters can calculate how many tokens they can earn at the end when there is a fixed pool of tokens for bounty campaigns. There are some problems in stakes like bounty pools may be reduced under various pretexts, and you cannot know how many tokens you can get at the end. 

I choose stake allocation, coin that doesn't have a market price yet look more attractive to me than a fixed allocation coin or token.

If we are talking about a signature campaign I always prefer stake allocation, as a high-rank member it's advantageous and profitable for me there are not many signature participants compare to other bounty campaigns where the participants can number thousands of participants because everybody can participate, they can include as many campaigns as possible.

Stakes are more risky but more profitable potentially. Fixed allocation is more predictable but often less profitable. Both types of bounty are good, it's up to you, which one to take part in.

I am doing bounty also for a long time but i didn't think that fixed prize better than stakes. Yes you know that how much you'll earn end of the week but in my little experience that wasn't worth it. example, in stakes way you can earn weekly from a twitter campaign 60$ if that project is really good but in fixed campaign's project it's too much for them. because they have to advertisement there project smoothly with this fixed prize.

I believe stake and fixed bounty allocation are remain the same. But it's also depends on how much is the total participants of the bounty program. I prefer stake allocation rather than fixed allocation, because if the bounty funds are running out, the fixed allocation bounty will be stopped.

if the payment every week uses a token it must have a very long bounty duration because we can get a lot of tokens, if the duration of the bounty is brief and the participant joins a little then it will be very detrimental to the participant because a lot of the remaining tokens will be wasted if left out token?
I prefer calculation using stake because all tokens will be divided evenly depending on the rank of the account

Stake based bounties are preferable to me, cause a fixed amount won't inspire me. But, in stake, probably I can get higher rewards than the fixed one depending on the task, participant limits, etc. But yes, nowadays, there is a high chance of getting fewer tokens due to overwhelming participation in all bounties.

Earlier, when there were more bounty projects, I participated in both, for me the project and its idea was more important than the award type.

It makes sense, but most bounties with fixed allocations have a limited number of participants, and it's usually always full even there is a waiting list. So that no reward is wasted. Just like the op, I also prefer bounty with fixed allocations because we already know for sure what range of prizes we get. On the other hand, the system stakes and fix allocation are equally profitable especially if you have a high rank. It's just that for the stakes system if the participants are not limited, the reward we get is only a little and unsatisfactory.

It all depends on the specific campaign bounty, as well as on the number of participants and the number of tokens allocated for bounty hunters. Of course, a fixed fee is more reliable, but with a different payment method you can earn much more.

When in the bounty, the distribution of tokens takes place at the rates, it is better, because the fewer participants will be in the bounty, the more you will get in the end. But if everyone is given tokens at once, their size will not increase in proportion to the number of participants.

I would prefer a static amount of tokens for campaigns like Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn because usually there are a lot of hunters in such kind of bounties. Another picture with signature campaigns, usually there are less people who participates in it and stakes could be huge.

But if the participants are large, you will get a small reward distribution. Well, fix allocation and stakes have advantages and disadvantages. Stakes system may be more profitable if the participants are limited.

Fixed bounty allocation will pay you with big catch with your hard work, also its depend with your rank, follower, friend or connection. But we can earn just a penni if so many participants

Fixed allocation, rarely we got big money from this, but we can predict how much we got, also we dont worry about so many participants

But for me, i choose stake bounty allocation

Fixed bounty does give better indications of the quantity of tokens to expect at the end of the campaign unlike staked campaign. The downside is that they often offer smaller rewards and the token allocation are quickly exhausted.

In bounty payments i think i prefer the fixed token allocation system to the stake based system. This is quite fair as it does not make higher rank members only get rewarded with huge amounts of the funds despite their little engagement or participation in the bounty campaign. I believe in the notion of work and pay, so the little everybody contributes should be worth decent and the stake system really violates that. Hence my interest in fixed allocation system of rewarding bounty participants.

I prefer the allocation that is certain and does not change, and also the stake that must be adjusted according to rank or followers of social media accounts,
but, in many cases allocations are sometimes even cut because those who participate in the campaign are very few, this is very detrimental to me,
because it wasn't as expected, and the bounty finally arrived very little and far from the initial allocation even though it gained a lot of stake.

Bounty are not like before as they are now a cheat to hunters , they use the figure to deceive bounty hunters and use that crazy clause " we have right to change or disqualify any participants " to robbed many hunters , I dont have faith in both but I think the stake on what is sold is very useful than any percentage of allocation .

If you have good skills with promoting cryptocurrency projects, making high-quality contents etc, the fixed bounty allocation is good. Because the team will be rewarded for your quality of work. The stakes based bounties depend on allocation and participants. Because we all know these days getting a large number of participants to bounties. Then we have to check out allocation and participants.

fixed allocation in 99% of cases is completely stupid.
All of us know how token price changes especially after bounty is released.

They calculate fixed allocation as the token would hold the price as in ICO, this almost never happens, so you are left with pennies for your work.

Fixed is okay when bounty is paid in real crypto :D like btc or eth.

that always depends on several factors. with a high rank you are better off with variable stakes.
but that only up to a certain degree. but that has already been discussed here. you can be good or bad with both systems.

the problem is that if the rate is fixed then the payments are usually very small. That is why bounty hunters take risks and participate in projects where rules can be changed

but for each bounty hunter has same payment reward,and if it has differences its not significant.meanwhile its rate in my opinion could stable cause developers team spend less allocation that could prevent massive dump in market.

Its always like a box of chocolate, you'll never know what you get :) Its from Forest Gump of course.

You can chose STAKE but then you don't know how much tokens you get but then there is also FIXED where you know how much tokens you get already even before the the final spreadsheet is calculated. BUT its the price of every token that you have to look forward to and that's when it applies you never know what you get.

I'm ok with fixed if their token is already in the market, but prefer stakes based allocation if it is not, as a legendary member, choosing a stake based allocation is more advantageous and profitable, as long as the project is legit and they will not lock the token, it's not about the stakes anymore it's if the project has a good potential in the market that matters.

I like the stakes , because I only like to participate in a signature campaign so the stake is the best choice in the fixed allocation, because the allocation always pays a small amount per week so I prefer stake. but if bounty allocation is small fixed token will be better than stake.

Well, as the OP has already established, there are advantages and disadvantages to both mentioned concepts of reward "counting". I usually prefer the stake system as most of the time the fixed allocations per activity tends to be quite low, but of course there are shiny exceptions to that.

I think the two bounty systems are both good and profitable. All depends on the responsibility of the bounty provider and their consistency in carrying out the bounty. Whatever system is used if they keep their promises to bounty campaign hunters then there will be no problem with bounty allocation with any system. I am more suited to the stake system because the results I get are in accordance with my business and work. The more I work hard the bigger the stake I get. Big profits motivated me to continue to give the best performance.

Stake based bounties are bringing much more profit, especially with less participants. Just search for them and you can even find a good bounty with 200 Facebook participants. Fixed payouts are pretty small in general, so I would go for stakes.

That's like a hidden gem in the bounty world, lol.
I wish it's just that easy to find good campaign with less participants as normally when the project is good, it has a lot of participants.
Also, the competition now is higher as there are only few bounty that are good while lots of bounty participants in the space.

Fixed allocation is better when we have known if the token already traded in exchange site and we can calculate how much money that will be paid for us, but this is not a good idea when it comes to the coin that is still in the ico phase and the price is not yet determined by the market. In this case, stake reward will be much better consider how much will be received by the bounty participants are random.

In my opinion,I think both systems are good in their own way. Stake system is good if there has no change after the tokensale for low participants or any particular reason. However, fixed allocation is also good because there has no possibility to change it later. It is already fixed.

For the signature campaign, I would prefer to have a combined proposal. For example, we are receiving some fixed value of the coins and at the end of the bounty, if there are still some budget remains, the manager just distributes the rest to the hunters.

The reward will be all about the same - it is annoying. Because some people can try and make a quality product and others do nothing. And in the end, all will receive an equal number of awards.

I think both have their pros and cons.
With fixed allocation we are guarantee of what we will receive. But this method I have observed less rewards, even though there are less participants.
On the other hand there are chances getting more rewards when there are less participants in case of stake based allocation.
I have also seen the criteria in some bounties where its mentioned that if there are less than xxxx participants, rewards will be reduced by 50%. 
I think it matters only taking part in the good project's bounty.

if it's like that, we can only submit to the manager bounty. if the bounty manager is meticulous, they can overcome it. but if the bounty manager does not matter and is not careful, we as original makers must feel disadvantaged.
Regardless of the stake system or fix allocation in the form of tokens, the stake is definitely more fun and profitable.

I think that those who participate in social campaigns like facebook and twitter will like to be able to fix the token fixed because of these campaigns many people participate in.

With the current situation when there are too many cheaters in social and content campaigns , I think the best way is a fixed allocation instead of stake to ensure hunter benefits, and maybe limited participants.

Both stake and fixed bounty allocations have their good sides.  For stake, when there are few bounty hunters and large reward, you benefit more, that's if there won't be extension or slash.  I prefer fixed bounty allocation since you are aware of the tokens/coins you are targeting even if many people flood the campaign. Fixed also gives you motivation to work better. Also even if fixed bounty is extended, it doesn't affect hunters negatively.

It all depends on the hype of the project.  If the hype is very high then fixed allocation can be a much better option as after splitting the stakes through all participants the number of tokens you'll get will be most likely very low.

If the hype is low, this means the bounty pool is split through less participants, then stakes is a better option here.

At the past, I used to participate in the fixed allocated bounty. but now I prefer token-based bounty. When you are doing token-based then there is always a chance of getting a lot or getting nothing. There are some more difficulties also in the fixed allocation.
a. The number of such bounties is very less.
b. You have to do harder work than the stake bounty.
c. Not easy to get the job.
 

I prefer fixed cause the token one will earn will not be determined by the amount of participants that joins the bounty. Sometimes you earn less with stake based bounty cause there will be so much crowd that joined the bounty  except there is a cap for participants.

Fixed is usually employed to control the amount of tokens a participant can likely get an also enable free sharing among participants but the best rewarding type has to be Stake bounty allocation as the amount of tokens acquired by each participant now depends on its competing strength

Stake is not that profitable if you are low rank participant and as long as high rank members keep joining the campaign they keep diluting the reward and low rank member keep losing their reward to them. Also for fixed reward the low number of participants is not beneficial but it is very good for low rank bounty participants, they have guaranteed reward without sharing with anyone

I don't have problems with both types of bounties but personally I prefer the staking bounties to the fixed bounty allocation. Many fixed bounties are most cases the worst bounty to be in.

I also choose the one you choose, fixed allocation is certain and we can predict the tokens or coins that I will get. Bounty allocations remain more consistent and convince bounty hunters like me.

The most advantage of fixed bounty is that you know exactly what you will receive, this help you decide from the beginning to participate or no.

It depends on bounty. Even those who pay a fixed amount mostly pay less. Stake-based payers like this too. So before joining campaign doing proper research about payment saves you from the disappointment.

But bounty with fixed allocation always limit the number of participants. Participants can also estimate the range of rewards that will be obtained. Bounty with stakes system is indeed beneficial for those who have a high rank, but it will become less if the number of participants is large, because most bounties with stakes systems do not limit the number of participants. Well, both have their advantages and disadvantages. Depending on the allocation, depending on the project, and depending on our luck. :)

i actually agree with you, bounty with fixed allocation have a limit to number of participants which means your effort will actually get good reward at the end, but in the case where bounty is base on stakes, there is no limit to participants and rest assured that the high rank members will have the larger stakes at the end some participants will end up with very little reward, fixed allocation seems more better.

Stake does make payments to bounty hunters fairer, but I prefer projects that limit participants, especially for signature campaigns because this will increase people more diligently to update about new projects. And of course, what is found bounty hunter is not very low even though the work is quite heavy

Most participants in the signature campaign are looking for projects that make payments using stake calculations because they can be paid more if the calculation is fixed. The participant gets a little payment because the amount each week has been determined according to the rank

Stake allocation bounties always paid more than fixed allocation,you will get more reward based on how many participants join the stake allocation bounty but with fixed bounties you will know how many tokens you will get right from the begining of the bounty

for bounties with stake now most are a lucky factor because projects that use bounties with a stake system are mostly not good projects even some of them are scam projects, for bounties fixed allocation in my opinion good only bounties like this offer rewards that can be said to be quite a bit compared to bounty stake it's just that I think it's more guaranteed

always depends from each projects and bounty developers how they will provide rewards, every managers have its own ways  both staking and fixed bounties will be depends from what will be the actual value of certain projects after being available inside the market and be ready for traders to exchange
and trade for the certain projects.

The reward must be fair, so that all who work honestly have the opportunity to receive a decent reward. The stakes system is good enough, but the problem is that it is not clear at the beginning of the work how much we can earn for a certain amount of work. The fixed system is also good and more transparent, but the team needs to limit the number of participants depending on the amount allocated to the campaign and, if necessary, extend the campaign, they will not be able to do this without increasing the budget. Therefore, each system has its pros and cons.

I think if all the projects will go over to the feksirovanoy payment will be good. The fact is that a stable income for the hunter is much more important. Than the payment is 1-5 times a year.

Stakes is much better if the participants in every bounty campaign are few only, I think in this way you can have a chance to get good profit in the end even you are in low rank only. But for fixed bounty allocation its not to me especially if the amount total is suitable for the task you are going to make in the campaign.

I like it better when the reward is installed directly. So I can estimate how much I make money for the bounty campaign.
If the reward is set in stacks, then the more people will be accepted in the bounty campaign, the less will be the reward for each participant

Stake allocation is better than fixed because in stake, giving of rewards may vary on different factors like ranks and your hard work. Another disadvantage of fixed if the reward is crypto currency is you will get less fiat after change if the price of that crypto currency goes down.

I like the fixed allocation too. It gives a proper idea about your earning. By this process, you know After the bounty period end, how many tokens you will receive. Though stake allocation also good, it can give you more reward sometimes but yet I prefer fixed allocation!

Stake based allocations is a bit better than fixed allocations for bounty particpants because stake based allocations will reward consistent and higher ranked users than inconsistent or lower ranked ones.

Most campaign would prefer to accept higher ranks, if they can get higher member, they will have bigger exposure of the signature they wear, so that is the basis aside from seniority in the forum. Some signature campaign now that are paying BTC are looking for Hero and Legendary members only, but most of them still stick with member to Legendary, but then like I said, higher rank still get the higher pay, that's the norms that I know.

I think everything is the same because it depends on the price of the token in the market and the allocation that is obtained. sometimes with a stake system, we can see the number of participants so much and we have to share it with any number of participants who join.

but in the allocation system that has been provided for each job we will get the amount of reward that we already know, especially if tokens or coins can already be traded. and any number of participants who join will not affect the reward we will get.

I also like fixed bounty allocation. In fixed bounty allocations, we bounty hunters can know how many tokens we are entitled to. In stake based allocation, bounty pool can be reduced at the end of the campaign under various pretexts like hard cap does not reach. As a result, hunters are deprived of allocated tokens.

I prefer the stake based allocation for bounty. Cause it will depend on the number of participants in the campaign. I took some advantage over some campaign cause of my Full member rank in the signature and some of the others are junior and member rank. I did bagged some tokens on the league and wishing to join also with few low rank participants. Fixed stake is also good but make sure you can earn from it. Fixed stake is profitable for social campaign with lots of subscriber and followers.

tokens alone need to be where there is a sense of compromise based on the results that there is always someone who cares, so the opportunity that is given in the forum must be really understood.

Well I prefer stake bounty because if the allocation is big for the bounty and only few members who are participate it then lucky you,. possible you can get high rewards than fixed bounty.

I believe that fixed payment bounties are more attractive. This makes it possible to know exactly how much you will earn. If the payment is not fixed, then the visibility factor is already included here. Maybe you are lucky enough to get more, but maybe a turn, the payment will be very small.

I don't understand how this fixed reward system is going to work. In case you are taking part in the signature bounty then in the stake method, the shares are calculated according to your forum rank and number of posts per week. Now if you replace this system with fixed payments, then everyone will be getting equal payments regardless of their forum rank and contribution, which is not fair.

I myself prefer calculations that use pegs that are very effective and commensurate with the results of our work to promote a project but now we are left to see all the allocations that will be for bounty hunters. if in my opinion the calculation of using payments is still very unfair and when we follow various campaigns such as facebook or signatures in the calculation count the payment is the same so it's not fair enough

Only stake based bounty programmes are worth it, because I have faced campaigns that are offering 5 bucks worth of their tokens for a Legendary signature participant. This is just silly and the real campaigns are only stake based ones.

I think that the distribution of payments by stakes is more suitable for new projects when the token price after listing is unknown. Fixed payment method is more suitable for already completed projects that need additional advertising

Fixed allocation is my preference. This is because it ensures that hunters are rewarded based on how many tasks they can accomplish  from the start to finish of the bounty campaign. So it won't matter if they new hunters join later or even if the bounty manager extends the campaign. Your reward will always remains the same

I like coins that can be staked because it gives you more reason to hold and lowers the probability of the token being dumped right away. The probability of getting nothing is the same with a fixed reward and a stake because a fixed coin can get be valued so low that you won't earn anything by selling it. The difference is in time. Fixed gives you the value at once even if it's low and with stake you will have to wait and see but don't be mislead. Nothing now and nothing after a month are the same.

Joining a bounty with an already Fixed or Stakes based is what really matters, instead it is the project behind the bounty that matters, a bounty with a fixed allocation could end paying more or being more profitable than a stake based bounty.

I think that it depends on the project. If you participate in a promising project, then you want to get as much as possible. But if the project is not very good, then it is better when you have fixed rewards.

I would gladly choose staked base bounty over fixed staked bounty. Staked bases bounty will really bring out the best in any bounty hunter so as to acquire more tokens and usually all tokens are distributed unlike the fixed bounty allocation.

I choose fixed allocation over stakes during bounty programs because with the fixed allocation, there is no change in rewards irrespective of the number of bounty hunters joining. The staking strategy gradually reduces the token rewards as more participants join the bounty program.

According the value of the token. But now a days so many bounty have stake based calculations but ending with scam. So the thing wr must do are due diligence in every bounty before we join.

Stake bounty allocation is very good actually if the things are very hype or not because there will be an equal shares to each other while this fixed bounty allocation sometimes its fair sometimes its now due to the ranks, followers or just the things you need to make reward higher

I don't care about how much bounty allocation reward for participants but I always worried about why have delay for distributing bounty reward, have bounty manager waiting for lower price.

Yes, when paying with fixed payments, bounty hunters can see in advance what amount in tokens or other cryptocurrency they will receive.
 When paying with bets, this is not only not visible in advance, but also significantly increases the possibility of unfair manipulation of payments by the ICO team. This is very significant, because recently in almost all projects the team has not fulfilled the original obligations when paying bets. With a fixed payment, this usually does not happen. Therefore, for me, a fixed payment in this case is preferable.

fixed allocation is always better than staking. you will know how much token you've been getting before you start the campaign.
much better if the campaign is paying with ethereum of bitcoins.

It depends on how much bounty reward amount itself
If the bounty reward amount is low I think I prefer Fixed allocation because you still can get a high amount of bounty reward if the participants are too much.
But
If the bounty reward amount is High I think I prefer Stake allocation because is probably fair and everyone can get their bounty reward depends on their dedication and skill

The fixed distribution of the bounty reward is more suitable for me. In this case, I can evaluate the possible reward and decide on the advisability of participating in the bounty campaign.

In my opinion it depends on the number of bounty participants. If there are a lot of bounty participants, in my opinion it is more profitable for fixed allocation whereas if there are few bounty campaign participants, in my opinion it is more profitable with a stake allocation system.

I also chose a fixed allocation, as well as in line with your thoughts. the token that I get is clear and I can estimate how many. but for stake there is sometimes news at the end of the distribution about allocations being reduced, this is very often I encounter in the near future.

Very few bounty offer fixed amount, and yes i preferred to paid by fixed amount it is better for me, a lot of project failed and received nothing.

Honestly I would go for a fixed bounty allocation . With stake allocation you are not even sure what you will get and with ranking up in the forum becoming so tough it's getting difficult for member and less to participate in the bounty campaign.

Fixed bounty allocations are usually preferable because the number of participants do not usually affect the tokens earned by users. The reverse is the case for stake based bounties. The only time where stake based bounty is beneficial is when there are few people who participated in the bounty, since if so many people participate the reward diminishes.

You are right, but with a stake based calculation and only a small number of bounty hunters, you have the chance to receive a huge payout. So both have their advantages and for me it depends on the campaign what I like more. If there is a limited number for members of the signature camaign, for example, I'd always prefer a stake base allocation.

Sometimes it decreases by 10-50%, it depends on the number of tokens sold to the market or the amount of money the project has collected from investors. Many bounty programs have reported reducing the amount of bonuses when the work is about to end, which I think is a scam, the bounty hunters have been working continuously for days.

When there's few participants and the project become successful, stake base will be paid a lot as numbers of stakes will only be parted to those lucky supporters. In the other side, fixed rewards in the short run pay decent as you can see the value basing it on the current status of the coin project.

It still depends from the  participants who's willing to participate in any of the available rewards allocations for bounty projects.

If a bounty has more than 2000 participants in each campaign, stake based bounties are making no sense anymore, because everybody would get a tiny bit of tokens. In such cases fixed allocation with limited participation is much better.

As for me that is not the real case here, all i want is a real project that will pay me for my precious time and hardwork, either staked or fixed bounty allocation i care less about it, all i need is good results from bounties, arguing between fixed and stake won't change anything if all new projects are just scamming and luring bounty hunters

I seldom joined fixed allocation, some of the allocation based bounty campaigns I've seen offer small rewards, I prefer stakes based allocation and had good success on this kind of format because of my high rank, plus you are rewarded because of your effort and they will make your stay on the campaign longer.

It depends, because some projects that hold bounties by using stake are mostly not useful even many are scams, and conversely, fixed allocation mostly offers really good projects, of course the rewards are very little according to me, but of course I prefer betting on stake because if we lucky maybe the results will be good.

many bounty campaign are do it, when bounty ended and with many reason they decreased the value of allocation because they want keep demand on market and bla.bla.bla not like the first rule when the bounty start

The fixed distribution of a certain number of tokens or other cryptocurrencies is certainly better. In this case, we can calculate in advance our possible earnings and not worry about the number of signatories that joined the campaign later. However, now the ICO team, at its discretion, reduces the pool for any type of distribution. Since very often now they themselves do not adhere to the terms of the contract, any form of payment does not have much significance.
The activities of the ICO need to be regulated by states, without such regulation of the order in the ICO will never exist.

Each system has its pros and cons. Say for articles or videos I don’t like fixed payouts. Since many admins cross out scammers and there is a chance to earn much more. So I'm a starik not a fixed reward for work.

Depends on lots of factor. Let say if fixed allocation isnt worth to do and you know its price based on ICO or IEO you would know until the end youre profit that is nice. But sometime stake allocation can give you more advantage especially if youre joining in a campaign with a high rank account ( I'm talking about signature campaign), you can really takw advantage of this especially the more tokens alloc for high ranks. Fixed tokens isnt bad but if fixed payment, Id rather join to btc or eth payment terms.

No, I still think calculating stakes would be a wise choice. because it will make the most of a project's pool, and divide it up for the most active people.
For weekly token projects, if the participants exceed the threshold, they will have management problems.
So stakes would be a better idea.

I don't think that is possible since 2000 people in a single bounty campaign since the manager had to limit the campaign in order make payouts more reasonable for bounty hunters and also properly manage the camapign and besides i don't see any ICO/IEO campaign here on bitcointalk holding a 2000 or more partcipants and if so, the trusted dts and moderators would have notice it and shutdown it

It purely depends on the participant limit on the bounty campaign. If there are more than 5000 bounty hunter stake based token allocation will ruin the efforts of the bounty hunters. If the fixed bounty rewards will be distributed after the end of the ICO, it makes sense to continue in the bounty campaigns as a bounty hunter.  Fixed token allocated bounty campaigns never send the rewards before the team asks from the bounty manager to filter the cheaters and double entries. The consequences of the weak bounty management decrease the reward even for the devoted and honest bounty participants. Stakes don't pop up on the bounty spreadsheets and this is the last way of conducting any bounty campaign in my opinion.

Truth is I will much rather get stake than fall for fixed allocation If you actually work hard enough you will surely get enough stake compared to the other way and in case the bounty have less participants then man you will be so lucky there for sure

Fixed bounty allocation is better but problem is after distribution when price dump by bounty hunters. For this problem fixed bounty allocation is now below 1 percent. Weekly fixed rewards also good. Without project is getting success nothing is better.

yes, especially since the participants are limited, that's what makes me more interested in fixed allocations, so we can estimate the income we will get. It will be more profitable if the token is already listed in the market. But bounties like that are quite rare, as you mentioned.
Well, fixed allocation and stake-based are both beneficial as long as we analyze them to the maximum, work according to rules, and be consistent. After that, good luck comes so the price matches expectations.

i don't think, i'm prefer to join in bounty campaign with stakes based, because is fair, people who join in early time they get more rewards than people just joined in lately time.
and the reward is based on our work, but like you said sometime people who not work got their reward and it's not fair

You will need to doing more calculation to know which one will more profiting.
The most important thing from stake based bounty is the number of participants,
because it will be more profiting if the campaign has limit for participants. It will be better to join fixed based reward campaign if there are too many participants.

The capability of the project to become successful in order for the rewards paid out to bounty participants become worth the time and resources used is what matters most. Being a stake or fixed allocation does not have major impact on the project. A fixed bounty with limited participants is a good strategy to earn more of the bounty tokens because very limited bounty hunters who are lucky to join get to share the rewards however this is not an assurance to the success of the project.

But even though many participants promoted up to 2000 participants if the project was not convincing it would not be successful, but hunters now know a lot which is better to join and promote it.

At least with fixed bounty allocation we know how much "money" we get at the end. Most of them give limitation bounty participant and if you think that not worth to join you can skip whenever you want.

Stake, or fixed bounty, are the same for me. I don't really care whether the allocation we get is calculated based on the allocation of token fixes, or based on stake because the most important thing for me is a good, reliable project.

I have followed the bounty several times with the fix allocation system, and the project ended in a scam. That certainly makes me disappointed, and I have also participated in several projects with a stake allocation system, and that also ended badly. The point is, whether it's stake or fixed allocation, as long as it is paid and gives good results, I will not complain  ::)

Most of the time stakes allocations on bounties gives you a high percentage earning than the fixed one.
however if you joined some trash bounties that allocation is meaningless you will not gain anything.
so it's the same whether in stakes or fixed allocation if the bounty is bad the stakes are no good.

yes of course, when some bounty campaign using stakes based allocation people who join in early time get more reward, and this is more interest than bounty campaign based on fixed allocation even they are giving $5M or more we still get fixed allocation and not have chance to earn more money

Bounty campaigns with fixed allocation are in most cases less profitable. It is due to low amount of participants in bounty campaigns. I remember when twitter campaigns had around 5000 participants, now most of them have around 200 participants. This makes stake bounty campaigns more profitable.

So the only thing you are interested in is getting paid? And you don't care if you receive 10$ or 100$?

I prefer Fixed bounty allocation. Because from the beginning you can calculate how much you will receive. While in stake system, multi accounts can turn all your effort to 1$< in the end.

I would choose also a stake bounty campaign if the reward is in token, but if the reward is in BTC or other coins that have a good liquidity, I might choose it since it's more stable and will assure that I will be getting my reward.

Everyone might have different approach when it comes to bounty hunting, when the market for altcoins will be stable again, maybe we will see a number of members here who will choose to join bounties than pays in tokens based on stake than a bounty or a campaign that pays in BTC.  What bounty hunters just like is to earn a big amount of reward, so they will also have to adjust.

i think stakes allocation is better than fixed allocation cause bounty payment system with stakes is always in accordance with your hard work. in stakes allocation, if you work harder, you will get more tokens, it means you get more rewards for your jobs. in my experience i never join bounty with fixed allocation payment so i dont know more about that ;D. but if i see, all member here prefer stakes allocation than fixed allocation, so i will suggest stakes allocation too ;)

I prefer fixed bounty because it won't change after bounty ends. I saw a lot of bounty stakes but until the end of the bounty, the team made the decision to cut stakes if there were few participants.

There is little difference between the stakes or fixed bounty; the most important factor is the number of participants and the strategy you want to apply

But frankly; I like a stake bounty; it gives you an avenue to work strategically

Fixed awards bounty campaigns have an advantage because they do not depend on the number of participants and the time duration of the campaign. You also clearly know how many will be your earnings in one week and are willing to work for such money.

For me personally, I don't really mind what kind of bounty at I do, as long as the project is decent and it pays out and we can in the end trade the tokens or coins they dish out. If I am doing either a stake or fixed bounty, but the project turns out to be a scam or some crap coin that never ever gets onto an exchange, then it doesn't really matter what I do. I am now just looking for a few very decent bounties to do over the coming months, in the hope that by 2020 bull run or beyond, I have a few decent coins to hold as I believe this is my last chance and year in Crypto to do anything of substance. I lsot my big chance in 2018 so now am giving myself one more go at it. I notice many of the fixed bounties don't give high rewards, but if the project is very good, then it might work out better than a so-called higher-paying stake type bunty, especially if the coin or token gets dumped hard.

The two are basically the same, they are just two words that can be used interchangeably. Bounty mangers can decide to use fixed tokens or stake based. At the end of the day, it is just a way or means to divide or distribute tokens to participants of a bounty campaign.

The both have their advantages and disadvantages, however, I will personally choose stake bounties over token based bounties. This is simply because with a stake bounty, there is always a great chance of earning more if the level of participation is low. The more stakes you accumulate as a hunter, the greater your earnings and vice versa. This doesn't apply to token based bounties.

It is unlikely that one can say that we are in that position from which we can make some kind of choice regarding the preferred way of calculating payments. Rather, we are forced to choose from what is.
Fixed payments are a good choice when it comes to coins that are already being traded and are worth something, such as bitcoin. The best bounties with payment in Bitcoin have fixed payments.

Stake based bounty campaigns have more disadvantages compared to the fixed bounty token allocation campaigns. The token-based campaigns usually pay the bounty hunters with the rewards that diversified among the participants of the campaign.  The participant cap has decided by the team in order to prevent the misunderstandings during the token distribution in the fixed token bounties. The lower rewards in the fixed bounty campaigns are the reason why bounty participants prefer to stay out of the profitable bounty campaigns. Day by day the priority of the stake bounty allocation increase in my opinion due to the declared judgments.

Fixed bounty allocation is suitable for projects that provide a small number of tokens for the entire campaign in a short time. With Stake, I often participate in projects that last for months with a more significant amount of tokens distributed. Based on the timing of each different campaign, I chose different options to fit.

From my experience, stake based bounty allocation is my choice any day any time. In fixed bounty, when allocation pool is not exhausted, the team keeps the tokens to them selves but in stake, all allocation is exhausted irrespective of how little the participants are and this means more rewards unlike in fixed

We will be able to maximize our earning if the project succeed and there are only few participants that will divide the bounty pool.

I like stake based since I experience in the past that I receive a good reward, but that was a long time ago, it was last 2017 where ICO have most of its success but lately, I only saw a few projects that are successful and the reward is not that so generous, but anyway, we have the spirit of a bounty hunter so we will not stop finding the best one until we can earn a great amount here, when altcoins season will come, things will be better.

This comes down to the fact that the being a stake or fixed bounty does not really matter although one of them gives higher number of tokens to the bounty participants. What is necessary here and must be look out for by all bounty hunters before investing is the potentials of the project. If the project hosting the bounty project does not has any capability of becoming successful, the whatever strategy adopted for its bounty program will be in vain.

If I choose bounties, I usually don't think too much about stake and fixed bounty issues, but look at the potential of the project. If I think there is something good, whether it's stake or fixed allocation, I will follow it, only at this time that I observe fixed allocation is interesting.

I will choose depends on what is the fix stake value!
For me in general i will always choose the staking for all the participants and equally divide it base on the stake earned.
Though if the fix stake per week is good to see and value much, they i might consider it.

IF we are talking abount bitcoin or ethereum bounty the fixed stake will be the best and i will definitely join that if the price is good.
If we are about to have a token payment of the bounty project then it is always okay for staking that will be total at the end to maximize the prize and equally divided to participants.

I think with fixed allocation, people get much higher tokens than that of stake based system in a sense that if say, in a signature campaign of stakes from member to legendary as 1, 2, 10, 20 and 30 respectively, a legendary member that join for just 2 weeks gets much higher total stake than that of a member who even does for 30 weeks. Suppose it were a fixed allocation, one does not care about the higher ranks that join later to make the coin distribution skewed to higher staked ranks.

If it's gonna be a fixed allocation, we can still expect that higher rank will receive a better pay compared to the lower rank, that's the norm here.
The advantage of the high rank if they join a signature campaign is they can wait and see if the project is close to success then they can join even in the last stage of the campaign.

other managers are making capping the number of participants which is a good idea, usually, they cap to 150 to 200 participants in the campaign, so this will prevent from those high rank who are taking advantage to join in the later period.

if the calculation through stake allocation is something that is not liked by Jr. ranking because the distribution of tokens will be very different from other ranks because it takes into account the number of weekly bets through the ranking, but different from the calculation through fixed allocation, at least the average participant receives a good token payment.

I prefer to take part in a bounty project that does the stake allocation method rather than using the fixed allocation method ... because many projects that use fixed allocation do not pay according to their allocation ... and I have followed the fixed allocation but not according to the bounty allocation. and it was very disappointing ... so now I only follow bounty projects that allocate coins according to the stake we get ...

projects that use stakes are also not always honest. very often they reduce rewards and as a result, you get several times less than you expected

there are such projects, but there are very few of them and, as a rule, the reward there is not at all high. but if you constantly participate in the bounty, then you have great chances to catch a very good project

The same thing that I like. It is better to know from the beginning how much the allocation for the bounty is, of course what will affect is the number of participants. Unless BM has made the maximum number of participants for each campaign, it will be even better that we will get later.

There is no effect if one is putting more effort and the other does not, this is base on the task you will do and complete for the week.
The manager are the one who is giving the task individually. so there is no effect.


AS  i said! if the one completed the task then he or she will get the payment if the others put an effort but didn't finish the task then there is no payment or stake

I think you are misunderstanding the fix and stake based.
Stake based- even the other participants did not get a weekly stake at the end of the campaign every single token will be distributed to participants according to their shares.
Fixed base- you will get the fixed stake(payment) weekly or at the end of the campaign according to the task you complete weekly. on this, the budget is not stretch and there will be some tokens that will not be distributed.

The best to have is the stake based!

Yes you are right, fixed bounty allocation got the assurance of how many tokens you will get from the start. Unlike in stakes you will not know how many tokens you will get after the end of the campaign because there are so much factors to be consider like number of participants, number of total stakes and total stakes you get.

Right now, doing a fixed allocated bounty programmes make absolutely no sense. 95 percent of all bounties are ending scam or you will get peanuts at the very end. Stakes are much better, because they are giving a chance for the most creative ones to earn more.

At first, I love fixed bounty allocation as you can directly compute how much you are going to earn in the whole bounty campaign period and your share will not reduce even if the participants will increase rapidly unlike stake base.

But right now, there are very few campaigns that offer this kind of campaign so we don't have a choice but to join the stake base campaign especially if the project is very attractive.

I agree with you. A stake system gives at least some chance of equal distribution and fair payment. But going public is not known how much a coin will cost.
As practice shows, coins are listed on the exchange with a price of 0.1 from the selling price. In this case, it is better to get a percentage of the total pool than the fixed part.

There are no specific differences between fixed allocation and stakes. Both are good for a specific situation. But I think stakes is better than fixed allocation when hunters for.a stake bounty are not many,  each hunter is assured of getting extra tokens. With huge number of hunters on one bounty, fixed allocation is far better than stakes. You are assured to have specific amount of the tokens even if the number exceed what was expected.

I'd also go for fixed bounty allocation.

With stakes, it's easy for the bounty campaign manager to simply add fake accounts to the participants list and then as a result see a decrease in everyone's payouts. There is simply too much trust placed upon the bounty creators when stakes are used. Better to join fixed bounties where you at least are guaranteed reward you are amenable to.

I think that's part of the marketing strategy. The fact is if the developer puts a fixed amount, then the campaign participants will automatically be limited according to the number of allocations. but if it applies to stakeholders, that's why the developer will get a lot of participants. And it benefits them because more and more people are promoting them. But I prefer the fix allocation.

It seems to me that it makes sense to invest only in projects that bring coins i.e. to coins with PIC mining. I prefer to invest in coins with the POS algorithm. Since only such coins can make a profit in the period of depression as it is now. By the way, the other day I found a new YUSRA GLOBAL coin (https://yusra.global) with a POS-mine. Now mining has just started and you can earn up to 30% per month. This is cooler than masternodes!

It is hard to predict which campaign will be more profitable for you.
You can participate in many stake based campaign and at the end you will receive less than working for fixed amount of money.

it is very difficult to know whether the project will be profitable or not. but as said you can participate in several projects in social media or articles then you will see which projects will be profitable, but this way I think is quite bad because you only work without analyzing the project correctly when you want to join

A fixed rate has its pros and cons. Of course, the fact that you can calculate how many tokens you get in the end is good. However, if you participate in a bounty campaign where the value of the bet in tokens will be determined at the end of the company, there is always the opportunity to earn more, as someone may be banned or a duplicate will be detected, etc.

I still go for stake allocation since i could get more tokens at the end of the campaign instead of a fixed allocation but it depends on the bounty hunters on which they prefer because i always do some calculation first on how much i could get before participating on any bounty campaigns.

For me it depends on the market situation and the project itself, if the project is not so popular, I would go for stake allocation as for sure they will not sell at the IEO price when traded in exchange, so with better stake, you'll get a better price.

For project that are likely to sell at a good price, it's alright for me to get a fixed allocation as its less risky and there's a chance that I will be payed with the amount I expected after the bounty period.

Fixed allocation are done to reward participants in a fair way but still some higher of course based on youre tier. Like in signature, if youre rank is higher the higher fixed tokens you will get. I think I'll settle with stake allocation since you can take advantage with a campaign if youre a high rank and bonus if only few got in.

The stake system is better, however sometimes the campaign managers implement maximum thresholds for payments. For example, if only a few users are signing up for the bounty campaign, then with the stake method they will be getting very high payouts. But the campaign managers don't want to do that and they will set a condition that the maximum payouts can't exceed a certain threshold.

However, another type of threshold needs to be set if they are going with the fixed payment system. There should be a limit on the total number of participants. Else, if too many people sign up for the campaign, the manager won't be able to honor the promises. With stake system, he doesn't need to worry about that, as the total pool is fixed.

I would like to have a fixed allocation, because it will be base on your current rank whild in stake, many members of this forum will join the campaign, also we dont know it they are really true, it is hard to join to a campaign that have many hunters , many members will lead to few tokens because the amount of token to be given away will be divided to all the participants.

I have the same opinion. For projects that do not yet have a market, and are still doing IEO, I choose to be paid based on stake. it might be more profitable, especially when we choose the right project. however, for projects that already have a market, it is best to choose Fix allocation, because it is clearer and makes us comfortable enough at work.

I like bounty manager always update stake every week without asking from bounty participants, big or not reward depend on bounty campaign rule and how many participants will give higher or lower value after coin distribution for bounty participants, I joined with bounty campaign give alloaction about 2% to 5%.

Staking is way better in part of bounty hunters, especially now that only few are able to join in campaigns due to some rules and elimination of Newbies and Red Trust account and the idea that it is hard to analyze now which campaign is good that only few participants joins now. While in fixed allocation its a  fair way to calculate what we will able to earn from the start to end it is much favor in developers team since not all their budget in bounty might not all used since some might be late in joining or only few can have a chance to join. Whatever the allocation mode is, what important is that they will pay the bounty hunters fair and in time.

but now very rarely a project gives a large allocation of 2% -5% like Crypterium, Titanium which is managed by Aerys,
you know that now projects rarely use signature campaigns, and that makes me worry

Having a fixed bounty allocation is good, you can count already the possible earnings you can get until the end of the campaign, than stake which will depends on how much the project will accumulate through their ico. Sometimes stake is only 2% of the accumulate fund where it will be divided to different kinds of bounty campaigns and it will be too small for every participant.

The prize distribution system for bounties is indeed different. Usually if the coins are circulating in exchange, they pay with a fixed system. While coins that are still under development use a percentage payment system. I think the percentage system will be more profitable, if they pay absolutely what has been promised.

Fixed bounty is fair for all participant, but as i know many bounty with fixed allocation is not pay hunter higher than stakes based bounty.
that's why even i'm prefer to participate in stakes based bounty than fixed allocation

Its been a long time since the last time i join in bounty? About the fixed terms its too obvious that this one is securing  allocated payment in that way they cannot use all for bounties not even get 0.5 % of total supply to pay for participants. Only the owner / dveloper can only be benefited with the fixed rate.

Well it depends. Higher the no. of participants lower will be your stake and that obviously bounty hunters won't like it. Also in case of lower no. of participants their will be higher stake resulting in unevenly high rate of payout which obviously team would resist to pay so many would payout by changing some rules or the structure which will result in conflict.

I think fixed bounty allocation is better way, both for the bounty hunters and the team. I have tested out myself and have seen stake model bounties fail most of the time.

With stake allocation a hunter is the sole determinant of how much they earn fixed award restricts hunters ability to earn as much as their effort can carry them. Stakes is better than fixed to me because some hunters are more hardworking than others and its stakes rewards to distinguishes them.

especially for stakes allocation based, of course participant with higher rank get more advantages from their rank, especially for signature campaign.
i think this is not fair, but after all i'm prefer to bounty where participant payed based on the stakes than fixed allocation

Fixed allocation is good if the task has the same difficulty all throughout the campaign. Stake is better if you can exceed your qouta. I like stake more because of course I could earn a lot more and exceeding your quota sounds kind of very good to me. At least, it gets to pay you the more you work.

There is none of the campaign I cannot join. Inasmuch as the team and the bounty manager are sincere with what they are doing. Stakes most times are more favourable with those that are able to earn more, most especially those with higher ranks,. Also this is what happens to the ones that are fixed.

The truth is that we all have different experiences with bounties, whether stake based or fixed reward allocations. Stake bounties paid off well in the past but presently things changed. I've done some stake campaigns whereby the total allocation is reduced drastically for some reasons like : few number of people in the campaign or hardcap not met. Lately, fixed reward allocation paid me well since I already know the amount of tokens to expect when I put in the required energy to the bounty. Both are OK, depends on the bounty manager.

Based on my past experiences, I would rather go for a stake allocation rather than a fixed bounty allocation. When it comes to stake allocation, there is a chance for you to get more token equivalent at the end if there will be lesser amount of participant. Fixed bounty is not that attractive since you already have a fixed and there is no chance for you to get more.

But I don't think right now, it is worth your effort to join these bounty programs paying their tokens or coins. Most of them are going to be abandoned if they haven't raised their targets. Very rare that you can see a project that their bounty participants are satisfied with their share. But in case you find a good one, I think stake allocation is a better deal than fixed bounty allocation.

Not necessary all the time. It depends on the project itself but in my opinion stake bases bounty allocation is better than fixed bounty allocation since in stake allocation, all of the allocated funds for bounty is guaranteed to be distributed; there should be no discrepancy. On the other hand in fixed bounty allocation, there is always unspent or undistributed bounty funds allocation since the allocated funds are not consumed by all participants who joined. Thus, the excess funds doesn't benefit among bounty partcipants.

Actually i'm prefer stakes bounty because if we have more effort than the others, we'll receive more rewards.
But nowdays using too much effort on stakes sometimes ended dissapointedly because the token's price will ended bad in the exchanges.
So, i think it's better doing bounty paid with BTC right now

We cannot find BTC payment anymore now as most of the project has no fund at all, they are just hoping and wishing from the money that they will raised in ICO and IEO, so for me, even though a certain project is good, if they don't even invest a portion of their own fund, I won't trust too, if they can't take risk on it, I won't take risk too.

Every body who keeps asking for btc payment in bounties don't know that the give away is always from the fund they raise and since the fund hasn't been raises successful it will be hard to predict, only projects that are already trading can give bitcoin as reward to bounty hunters

They both have their advantages and disadvantages. With the stake bounty, there is the likelihood to earn higher reward when you are fortunate and the participants are low. But one disadvantage is that if the number of entries become too high, you might be receiving as little as $1, especially in social media campaign

Stake allocations have higher rewards than fixed allocation but i just prefer fixed allocation, the token or coin will be divide among all participants based of their ranks and as for other campaigns its equal rewards

Both the systems have their own advantages and disadvantages. For example, with the stake system you will be getting higher payouts if the number of participants is low. However, in case too many people signup for the campaign, then the reward per user will be very low and in the end the bounty hunters will be left with a maximum $5 or $15 worth of tokens.

And one more disadvantage with the stake system is that in case the campaign manager fails to weed out the duplicate entries and bots, then the bounty hunters are going to suffer. This has previously happened to a lot many of the campaigns here and left many of the honest bounty hunters angry and frustrated. If you ask me personally, then I prefer a fixed payment system rather than a stake based one.

Most of bounty hunters prefer fixed bounty, as you said the bounty will not be reduced and it is good for us. Unlike in stake allocation, wherein the bounty allocated for bounty hunters will be defined depends on the funds they can raise during their ICO. Allocated funds will also be divided depends on the number of bounty hunters, your reward may be lower if that happens.

Most of bounty this days do not pay you, so looking to stable project first, if the project pay fixed value in short time it will be better, instead of waiting long time and get nothing.

I think it depends, Fixed bounty allocation is more suitable for campaign types where a lot participants are cheating, like sosial media & article campaign because the honest participant payment stake doesn't cut by them. And the signature campaign is more suitable to use the stake payment method because it's hard to cheat and trick the manager on this campaign. So I think this is the most ideal method.

There's a fundamental mistake being made with the choice given here.  Instead of *any* stake, bounty hunters should be demanding that they get paid in bitcoin or some other crypto that isn't going to be worthless once the bounty is over.  These project devs are taking advantage of participants in a big way by offering them stakes which cost them absolutely nothing to give out, and it doesn't matter if its a fixed amount or not.

Does anyone actually hold onto their tokens once they're done with the bounty?  I highly doubt recipients actually care much for the projects they help to advertise.  That being the case, they ought to be paid in another currency as I said.  There are a lot of other things that need changing with respect to bounties, but this is a major one. 

Escrow would help reduce scams, but that can't be done with tokens that aren't on the market yet.  And yep, devs are taking advantage of that fact as well.  You bounty hunters need to smarten up to the tricks being played on you.

Most new projects are misusing bounty hunters this days and after bounty ends no payment will be received, the ball is in your court spend time to choose wisely, as a bounty hunter you can't rely on research alone, sometimes you can find clues from other existing projects too

Fixed bounty allocation would be much more preferred plus having a limit into its participants.Majority of them would tend to get max number of people who would join but they should be true to their words on having a fixed payment.For some this kind of arrangement isn't ideal for some bounters.

Stake is good but only if only few participants yet you can possibly earn huge allocations basing on what they had budgeted but on the opposite side
the more people would join the smaller tokens would be getting.

Pay by bitcoin is the most way we void scam project, if the project pay with bitcoin this mean it is good project and the team believes of the project.

Although staked bounties seem more lucrative,  bounty hunters may lose out eventually in the case of large influx of hunters.  Also,  the project may choose to reduce the allocation to a particular campaign if the number of hunters are fewer than they expected.  I think fixed campaigns are still a better option, but all in all VIP campaigns with limited participants and staked pool take the cake. 

Both works for me actually. If youre joining with signature campaign the rates will still depend on youre rank actually so the higher youre rank is, the higher the tokens you will grab regardless its stake or fixed allocation. But many prefer stake allocation since they can get many tokens in the end if not many joined a project campaign. Also, some prefer bitcoin payment to be sure already of profit but only few got in this campaign due to limited slots.

Well, whichever one is good for now, but I might prefer to fix allocation over the stake. maybe it's more worth it, and calmer when we do the task. in addition, we can also calculate tokens that we get every week, unfortunately, at this time, there are so few bounties that have an allocation fix.

Same here. Stake system is advantageous for the bounty hunter where the number of participants is low. But in case the number of participants is low, then there is a very high chance that the project is a scam and irrespective of whether you get the tokens or not, ultimately you will not be able to cash out your rewards. Because the tokens from scam projects are worthless. If a project is really good, a lot many participants will enroll and therefore the bounty hunter will get more tokens if they follow a fixed allocation system.

sometimes getting a project that pays btc can indeed ensure a stable income, but the project will be hard to find. so you have to get used to when projects pay with their tokens, and practice your analysis so you can find projects that pay according to their tokens. You have to develop with the situation if there are no projects that pay btc

sometimes low participants didnt rellafed with scam.maybe only few people that knew about that projects.using stakes system sometimes give us more chance to get more reward if this projects not scam.but it also have high possibility to dump in market while every hunter get alot token.we dont know how much reward when projects finish.meanwhile in fix calculation we could set it based how long we joined.

I think this depends on the large number of bounty participants. If there are many bounty participants, fixed allocation is more profitable than stake allocation. But the bounty manager certainly has a reason to have a stake or fixed allocation

I like the bounty activities that are distributed by shares, because of uncertainties, usually the profits of the activities are higher.

Many new bounties have low bounty allocation and yet project team want many to promote the project, it's really not fair, that is why many bounty hunters got nothing in the end, bounty rewards will easily turn to airdrop reward when the are too many bounty hunters promoting them

   When a team tries to save some money on advertising that is not a good thing. Today good marketing is needed for everything,
without it the projects don't have chance to be noticed. In the way you described the situation the team decided to pay very low
to many participants, they sacrifice good promoters for quantity, for them it's better to be more then good. It's on us to choose a
campaign that worth our time.

For me, stakes or fixed bounty allocation remain the same, even though there is actually a difference between stake and fixed allocation. The most important thing is I get paid from the bounty results, it makes me satisfied, especially if stakes I get are very large after being sold on the market because of the pump factor, and I've experienced them. For fixed allocation is also very tempting, especially if the allocation is large enough.

For now that is really the most important because bounty is not as profitable as before, last year if we focus on bounty, it's like we are wasting most of our time as most of the bounty last year are scams, so that is not really attractive and although the reward is high, but if people will realize they won't be able to monetize it based on their expectation, they won't join.

Stake rewards are utterly useless nowadays since many bounties don't live up to their ICO fixed values, in this area fixed allocation still have better chance, limited bounty hunters higher reward and everyone will be happy

I'd rather believe that everyone would be happy if bounty rewards would be in form of BTC or ETH or other top alts but for an another altcoins that doesnt have a sure value? I dont see for any reason to be happy
yet as usual when bounty rewards are given neither stake or fixed ones, if the value is still low then its still useless.Talking back generally on whats better if we disregard the value between staking and fixed?
Then i would go for fixed ones yet no matter how many the participants would be you do still have the fair share.

same here . id go for the fix ones but is it still called stake when you are waiting for your reward  ? example when you completed a week of work you have x amount of stake  . 

meanwhile i also agree that bounty should be payed by btc , eth or other top cryptos because i will be more happy with that and it does not matter for me if the reward is fix or unfix but atleast we still have an assurance that our top cryptos will grow if we hodl them in the long run  .

Compared to the volatile price tokens, receiving the bounty reward in stable or low volatile altcoins will be a good idea. For bounty hunters, this option looks sweety but it is horror for the teams to pay the bounty allocation in BTC if they fail to achieve the soft cap. In stake based token reward, there is no such possibility, IMO.

Not every project team will like fixed bounty allocation but its a fairness way of paying bounty hunters, teams only cares more about spreading the words about their projects by all means so millions of bounty hunters are welcome, to me fixed allocation will always be the best

Fixed allocations in terms of real value is fine but most of the time the allocated tokens even it's already fixed in numbers but the value is unable to
figure since you need to wait for the project being listed inside the exchange before you get the actual price. Both stake and Fix will be decided upon
the completions and the addition of project to any possible trading venues.