Bitcoin Forum

It seems many new bounty hunters are joining this forum weekly or monthly, every single bounty campaign is full of thousands of participants, my claim is some bounty managers don't care how many you really are, even if it's just 5$ for each bounty participants, this is plain bad, I remember telling bubbalex to reduce Cartesi signature participants and I'm glad he listened, if not the reward would be very bad....

I think at least 100 participants would be better, for the signature campaign, and for the social media campaign it seems that it needs a higher limit, because now a lot of bounties are specialized only for social media campaigns

Bounties don't have to be in fixed allocation so that every hunters can get good or fair reward, limited participants is all the answer we need and I've seen few bounties doing this like Cartesi and Spyce bounty but don't think that bounties with limited participants are good

Especially if the reward is not big enough then limiting the number of participants is a good option so that each participant can receive a decent reward in the end, keeping campaign open will potentially make it very difficult for participants to receive a decent reward because it will be diluted by thousands of participants and it will not be worth time and effort.

If rewards are fixed then it doesn't matter for bounty hunters if participants are more or less. For stake allocation it's good to have less participants. But from project perspective this is not good strategy.
For example íf 5% is allocation of bounty pool, then why projects wants limited reach? Within the same budget, if more participants are workiñg on campaigns, off course the reach is vast and can attract more investors.

I completely agree with this idea, we should limit participants just like Bubalex did. He protects the rights of the participants and ensures the participants receive a great amount of money. Other managers should look at it and learn from him, very professional and fast

depends to the team but  they need many participants for promotion to get noticed in the community. they will accept as many as they want.

the rewards in altcoin bounty campaign depends to how long you will hold the tokens til the price goes up. it doesn't matter whether you only got 50 tokens after the campaign but its the wait that you need to get more. if you have a million of tokens but you sold it while the price is 1 satoshi then its worthless.  the tokens has to serve like you invested to it.

It should be like that, with limited participants the prize hunter will get a big prize if the project is truly successful in the market. especially in the signature campaign section, for example like the project that I participated in was a good project, even in a few weeks this project could attract hundreds of participants in the signature slot section.

Having many of participants can promote the site or project is an advantage for the site or project owner but this is not what many bounty hunters want. The main reason is the small amount of token or coin each participant get because the allocation must be distributed to thousand of participants, especially on social media campaign.

As experience, I have seen a number of valid bounty programs that have a limited number of participants and are usually managed by experienced and professional managers. The bounty program was carried out to increase their popularity because basically their products could be traded. But you will find many bounty programs that dont limit participants because they want to get a lot of investor interest in the product because they realize that the chances of success are very small.

Yes, there are very few good campaigns that perform signature campaigns. And if had, their budget is very low, only accounting for 10-20% of the total pool but there are too many participants. It is best to limit participants so that people can get a good sum of money from it

I will go with fixed reward, this way all participants are already aware of what reward they are getting for their rank, this method can also help project to minimize the amount of the tokens they give out that will not affect the price at the end of the campaign, if project owners can consider this method it can go a long way in helping hunters.

and that's not a bad idea, for example 100 participants in the signature slot I think that's enough. but from my point of view I observed the ico project that appeared in the crypto room, most of the project tokens were already listed on the exchange. and maybe this is the first reason why many prize hunters join the ico project or take part in the signature slot because their tokens already have an exchange.

But for a fixed reward, its budget will undoubtedly be very low. Recently I saw a few campaigns like that, they offered only $ 1 per week for each legend account. Those were really the stingiest and worst campaigns I saw

It will definitely be a right choice to select a limited number of participants for each campaign. This will not only contribute to the higher share of the participants, but it will be more useful for the forum by ensuring competition among the members. There is also a situation that scam projects will not be able to participate in the campaigns of many projects and fewer people will see that project because that project will be introduced by fewer people. So, in fact, choosing limited participants for each campaign is something that can lead to very positive results. I hope this happens soon and we will get better results.

Bounties which are paying in their own tokens rarely pick the quality forum members because they knows that no one with better quality posting habit will waste their time with useless tokens so first thing the bounties have to do is to pay in any listed cryptos then think about limiting the participants.

The bounty manager's task is to manage the bounty and if the project developers have their own rules, the manager have to implement it together with his rules so, if the devs don't care about the number of participants and they want as many as they can.

They will accept participants as much as they can. They will not care about the participants cut if you'll get $5-$10 until the end of the bounty. What's important to them is to maximize their exposure in the forum.

Exactly like that. They don't care about the amount of money each bounty hunter receives, they only care about the number of participants in their bounty and make their project more popular. Today the budget of bounty is only about $ 10k but there are thousands of participants, after that the price of the token is reduced many times and each person receives only $ 1-2. Really funny with the bounty now

Very true... That has actually being the best way of bounty hunting and it rewards way more than others. Unfortunately, we can't commonly find such bounties in the industry anymore. These days, bounties are often overcrowded leading to very meagre returns. The projects know this, they try to entertain as many bounty participants as possible. Maybe to ensure better reach of their projects or to discourage dumping since more people will mean lower rewards leading to a discouragement of dumping. I certainly look out for the number of participants in a Bounty before I get involve.

New projects became more and more stingy, they ran the campaign for weeks but their budgets were too low. I used to see campaigns with budgets from $ 100-200k, but now it is only $ 10k-$ 20k.

I haven’t participated in bounties just because of the work that you would be bringing for the bounty. IIRC, you will have to share t different post or something with regards to the project. The purpose of the bounty is probably for marketing, and marketing would be harder now that all kinds of projects come up. Ever since the altcoin season ended, it has always been seen that altcoins are not going to be needed anymore as time goes by; that’s why there are a few bounties left.  these kinds of things and it’s not something that should be taken lightly.

It’s always going to be the positive if the quality is great. With fewer and selected people are trained, it’s going To be better.

From the point of view of ICO scams, the more participants the better, it's not like they quality of advertising would increase dramatically if you limit the number of participants. Maybe if they were legitimate businesses and could afford to pay well for advertisement, then it would make sense to make small campaigns.

Perhaps it's time to realize that bounty campaigns are a shitty way to make money, and things will only get worse because alt season will never come.

Bad indeed, for the bounty campaign itself but at least the project has allocated funds so basically they have their own limits on how many bounty participants can join and also, as well as they really want that because with many participants there is at least a promotion carried out will wider and can reach many sectors and of course it is their hope that popularity can be obtained to make projects grow faster.

I think they still limit the users of this community by joining their campaign especially in the signature campaign on altcoin section but the limit is still high if we calculate all the possible coins that the participants received that will end up divided to a small amount resulting to not worthy of participating at the campaign at all. what they need to do here is make some strict requirements that those members that have some capability of promoting the campaign well can join so that they can really get what they deserved by promoting the project professionally.

Its not always on managers discretion but on the project team itself because they are the ones who do set out rules and knowing that bounty managers are just workers to for the said project or just been paid up to handle out the program but in general rules or likings then the team would always have the final verdict.

Its surprising that a certain manager do hear out suggestions from its members because usually most project do aim for maximum exposure which means there no limit on participant and thats really bad thing when it comes to rewards because we know that it would go smaller as people do join.

This is just part of struggle and problems to be faced when you are a bounty hunter.

But now the average participant's bounty program does not want to be limited because it is a request from the project so there is no limitation in the promotion that the hunters have done but we return to the manager who manages it so that they can manage the bounty that has been launched.

Take a look now if there is a bounty campaign there is already a price like the IQ.qash example which is so wide to join while the allocation is very small, of course this cannot be expected to pay very much for the hunter.

You are right about that, there are a lot of members, who are joining on the forum every day and it seems these numbers are getting up day by day. Maybe the task of a manager is to manage the bounty campaign but if he doesn't want to do it or doesn't care about that. That means they take only care about number of participants of the bounty campaign.

in my opinion limiting all participants depends on the allocation given, but limiting the participants who join is indeed very beneficial for the participants who join the project.

And that depends on the manager holding the campaign.
Some want to have big number of participants because it will be good for the promotion of their project.
However, if the manager or the project is considering the payment to its participants, they won't accept large number of participants.


That's one perfect example of a bounty campaign that may give small reward to its participants because they have fixed allotment and if it is shared by many participants, one can end up very small amount.
They just kept on accepting participants without a limit. I don't think that is good for all participants.
If you are a bounty hunter, you have to weigh if that is for you even if it is very promising or jut find another one.

Most bounty participants are absolutely shocking bad, and yet they're still awarded stakes.

If bounty managers actually did their job correctly and only offered stakes to those that have produced meaningful results for the client project, then that would also improve the rewards for all those that deserve them. Anybody producing absolute gutteral spam shouldn't get any reward for their efforts whatsoever.

Maybe one of the main things would be to message the bounty manager right when the bounty starts, and work with them to clarify the rules to ensure this is the case. I guarantee 90% of most bounty tokens are snagged by spamming mult-accounters, rather than those that really helped to market the project—simply due to lazy or overburdened bounty managers.

If you want it fixed, it's best that this occurs right at the start of the bounty.

If bounty reward are really low then in that case it's rally a best option. Cause everyday bounty participate are increasing in this forum. I remember when i first stared bounty hunting only few people participated in signature campaign and maximum 200/300 participated for social media campaign. Now sometimes i see 1500/2000 people participate in social media campaign. Not just social media but also signature, video, article, telegram etc campaign have huge participants. So it's better to limited participants those bounty projects which have really low budget otherwise no one will benefit from bounty.

if you see an increase in bounty participants every week, it shows that this forum, there are already many fans, and this is a good thing of course. even though it will actually have a negative impact on the acquisition of prizes in the campaigns that our participate in.

Some of bounty manager they limit participants on 100 so they will have an equal rewards for bounty hunter, it was a good idea so that the value of each bounty reward is right and not just props on their wallet as of now the reward for bounty hunter is always reduced everytime I don't understand why they always think that the value of coin drop because of bounty hunter.

The best bounty is those paid on BT. And of course, they are limited participants. This is true, to reach this, we must try and do more efforts, more than usual in order to compete with many members in this forum, to be the most suitable member to be chosen by the BM.

However if it is about the usual bounty paid with their new coin or token. I personally agree that the participants should be limited. However, the team may choose not to limit the participants because they think that more participants, more promotions to be spread. And then, giving the next task after the bounty end can decrease the number of participants. One of them is doing KYC, fulfilling more forms, and others. When there are some participants that miss the ways to do KYC or fulfill the task, they will get no payment. Is this a good idea? And I really hate this way when I still did bounties with new token payment.

Actually, a bounty manager should be fair to the participants. Limiting participants is a good idea in order to make it fairer to the members. It will also reduce the spamming (although very little chance). You may need only 200 participants in the maximum numbers, however, of course, the rules and regulations should be more strick.

I think not all of it is due to the influence of the bounty campaign participants because when a project is developed that has a function and usability by many people it will provide a price that will be stable while if the project does not have a useful development then it is certain the price will collapse.

i agree, there should be a limit for every bounty campaign participants to make fair with their effort on working for months , like example for social media campaign with the small amount of allocation and thousand of participants they will just earn small amount. But we cannot blame them, it still better for the project to be advertise more.

You talking about ARCS bounty right? Well I'm thinking about joining after Relictum Pro ends but yesterday I checked the spreadsheet of ARCS bounty out and I was shocked that over 140 bounty hunters already joined this campaign, a bounty with 30k worth allocation with that much participants is way out of my league

And the actual budget that use is coming from the token they made so it's like nothing to them, they will pay a free token from their pockets and the bounty hunters will come and go no matter how much the cut will be.

Bounties didn't evolved for the projects, they became cheaper and might become the cheapest if there will still be some projects in the future. 2016-2017 the budget were likely hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

In this case I strongly agree with the phrase you say, because I myself have also felt a small reward on a campaign just because of the large number of participants, so obviously this is not desired by any hunter.

Yes, and in the case of products we also have to see whether the products of the project have started to become famous or not, if for example the products of the project have become famous, the chances of success for the project will look very large so that the manager holding the project can limit the number of new participants to enter , and vice versa, if a project realizes the chances of success are very small because the product is not yet well known, then the manager will also not make a limit to the number of campaign participants.

I think it's a good option, because the team has actually set a bounty pool, and maybe that hasn't changed. if the participants are too many and not limited, then the rewards that will be received by participants will be few and many will say that the project is scam because there is little reward.

But what if this "gutteral spam" is a just an "informational noise". What if this spam is only needed to create project more recognizable for web search engines like Google/Yahoo/Bing/etc ?

I remember such scam project as TokenGo. They give rewards for everything what has connection to their projects name. You could even write articles likes "shfsdlflsdjf #TokenGo sfjsdf" and still get reward. That time, they spammed everything, every (at least Russian) social media community and etc. I believe that lots of naive people sent their money in exchange for tokens.

I strongly agree with the participant limit system, so that every participant who participates in the bounty will get a prize that is commensurate with his hard work. And I see a number of bounty managers already doing this, for example like the project I'm in now.

Yes, and it is very unusual for the project that you are taking part in, because it only accepts 25 participants for the signature campaign and the percentage for the signature is also very pretty, this is what many bounty participants like in general.

Agree with limited participant, so this is can reduce Bounty Hunters cheating. But this is same nothing if the project fail.

With limited participants, the promotion will be limited too while with unlimited participants, the chances of reaching potential investors is high. However, why would anyone join in a bounty which pool is too low? I think small bounty payment pool should be ignored. Campaign manager will most of the time think of getting as much as participants possible.

Thats the thing about bounty on altcoin. The best actually is to join a signature campaign with limited participants like on service section that pays btc. Very few altcoin nowadays have a good bounty rewards that can make a participants happy. Ive joining countless altcoin campaign before and only few got paid with decent amount. But Im glad that at least even today Im still on bestchange campaign and its one of the best campaign in forum.

Anything that promises on the altcoin section now really not good except those like cartesi, harmony and some potential campaign. I advise newbies to focus on learning and gain some ranking cause in the end youll realize its much worth it.

In my opinion well I agree that they should limit the participants so that we satisfied our earnings from it. It's ok to suggest it but it depends to the team or the manager if they really want to limit.

Yes, all bounty hunters certainly agree that restrictions are made for campaign participants, only that it is only done by the project team or manager who already has good experience in running the project, because a good and well-known project will be easy to succeed despite restrictions on participants in the campaign, because the teams are also confident in the projects they manage, and this will certainly not be done by project teams that still need a lot of introductions and promotions on their projects.

Im not familiar with how it is done and I'm not a bounty or campaign manager either. When it comes to weekly payments of the signature campaign it is already a thing to have a limited participant since the team needs to send the payment every week it can be easily considered and it is going to be difficult for them if they are going to pay a lot of participants every week.

When it comes to Bounty most of the time there are so many participants involved in promoting could also be the reason why a lot of bounties are becoming a big scam because they could pay all of the participants. When it comes to the payment I'm sure that the manager doesn't decide that the team behind the project will be the one to decide about it what much is the payment etc. Most of the time the bounty manager is just going to send the spreadsheet and the team is going to send it to the escrow now the manager and then the escrow is the one that is going to make the payment/

Echoing the majority of the sentiment.  Bounty managers should prefer quality over quantity so I also strongly agree on limiting participants in a campaign.  Most of the previous bounty campaign does not care about the influx of participants, all they think that the more the better but the thing is most of these participants create poor quality works.  Aside from that, I think those who create quality jobs are being robbed of a decent reward due to a huge number of participants.

the Ludena Bounty program is indeed a little prize, only 24 ETH,
if there is no limit the prize participants will be distributed to the bounty hunter will be a little

More participants = more promotion,
and could actually attract investors but it also has a disadvantage in regards to the rewards, and of course, it usually ends with a small amount to receive. But anyway, it is the company's decision to limit the numbers of participants for this matter but I don't think if they care about it knowing that most bounties do not have such limitation. Instead, they welcome those who want to participate in the campaign until the last week of their promotion.

Limited bounty participants? Are you sure? Then you will be happy with limited contributors for your ICO? I guess this sounds like inappropriate idea to over come the bounty abusers. I believe instead of looking for limiting the participants in bounty campaigns, devs and managers must look for options to disqualify those bounty abusers. More number of bounty participants means high level of promotions for a project. This is what a project must be needing hence limiting the number of participants is not sounding as a good idea in my opinion.

There are a lot of experienced managers are available hence devs must hire only those managers so that they will catch all the bounty cheaters which will be helping rewarding only the real bounty hunters.

I'm 100% sure there will be no limit of participants in this campaign. I've never seen that bounties, that are managed by BountyDetective have any kind of limitation.

I would not recommend participating in this campaign. It runs for 10 weeks, with almost $5000 budget (24 ETH), there are already 100+ participants and in the end it may turn out that bounty hunter will receive nothing. Because of the rule, when in the end of campaign only top25-50 will be rewarded (according to campaign).

The main reason why they have opened a "bounty campaign" and not a bitcoin paying campaign is that they wanted to get maximum exposure so that most of the project doesn't care how much participants they have. That's why they have this so called allotment for the bounty. It is already taken in consideration prior to launching their project.

So there will be no effects whatsoever between 10 or 100 to them. The intention is to hire many participants that are going to get paid promoting their project in as many threads in this community. So the numbers doesn't matter for them.

I think in coming time this is going to happen and just like the btc campaign we will have the bounty campaign with the limited number of enrolments and with selected participants. Also they may come up with combine of their coins and with btc as currently mostly they pay with their own coin and does not much value if they do not get list well.

I guess most of the projects want as much marketing as possible and this is the reason why they don't apply any upper limit to the number of participants aa the more the number of participants the more exposure they get. Although if a bounty campaign have a low bounty reward then they should apply some restrictions so that every participant will get enough payment for their time invested in the campaign.

I think when the bounty campaign participants are very limited it will have a good influence on the price of the coin when the project is launched because of course the price will not collapse and investors will still remain calm, and with restrictions on bounty campaign participants can be more controlled.

At the beginning I also joined IQ.qash bounty on the signature but I thought I should go out and look for another campaign because I saw so many who joined so I thought it would not be big in rewards after the bounty ended, although now there is a second round with 100k allocation is also not guaranteed because of its small allocation.

I am also a hunter but I am considering returning to join the bounty now and on average they are only a small reward that hunters always receive, so now I am more focused on looking for btc weekly paid campaigns.

Congratulations that should be the way so bounty hunters will have a reason to stay on promoting projects, some projects wants to have as many bounty hunters participating in their bounty because it will work to their advantages, bounty hunters will just be content on the allocated bounty and they will only received a fraction.

This is just the truth, limited participants for bounty campaigns comes with several beneifts.

1. You get the select the best hunters amongst applicants.
2. You get to reduce spam and spammy contents.

Likewise, a thread to remove task negligers after two weeks too.

1. With unlimited participants as well, you can choose the best one with whom you may want to work with. Being limited or unlimited is not a criteria. Moreover, if you fix with certain number of participants then you may miss out few highly reputed forum members. So, being unlimited will not prevent you working with the best members of this forum.

2. I agree with your point. Still, a bounty program should not allow automatic enrollment for bounties but it should be managed by expereinced bounty mangers so that they will not enroll spammers and they will give priority to high quality posting.

It's a very good idea to limit bounty hunters once they exceed 100 mostly for signature campaigns but it's a different thing entire for social media campaigns, this can't be limit because that's exactly what the team want, to spread the word out there, it's why I think that social media campaigns should have more allocation than the rest

 good thing they listen but others wont care about others opinion  especially if they see that your only a worker on thier campaign and havent enough reputation on this forum . you care for the reward but they arent , they usually care for the exposure of the project and thier budget   .  i also think that projects with bigger participants are the ones that are going to be more succesful and legit because they only pay less anyways but those are promise to pay big usually dont make thier promise  

Seems that bounty is your only primary way of earning, I would suggest that you should have to find another aside from it.  Not all bounty managers will listen to some suggestion for they will only accept what they thing is best to the project.

Limiting bounty participants is good, this will make bounty hunters want to work more for bounty projects another time, promoting a bounty project for 12 weeks and getting 10$ reward is so depressing, maybe we should start making bounty managers see reasons to this and hopefully some will take to correction

To reduce spam, simply select and accept participants who have good and quality posts. You cannot reduce the amount of spam by limiting them. Limiting the participants to only guarantee the rights of the bounty hunter, they will surely get more money and deserve the work and time they spend on it.

Of course, this is the best option.  For example, in a subscription company, for example, a restriction of one hundred or a maximum of two hundred members.  Also with social networks and other companies.  The project itself can select participants by quality and rank on the forum.  I think that this is better for the project itself.

This option is good to keep some "high" rewards between the participants, some bounties don't have much money allocated on it, and choosing a limited number o participants can easily help to no draw and keep interested between those are joining.

probably yes, its better to have a limited participants for biunty this days, as some of the project has a limited bounty pool as well

I agree with you, I think the newbie account that has not been in six months he is not eligible to participate in the bounty campaign, they must adapt to the forum first to increase their knowledge in this forum, and the bounty manager limits the participants is very good

As the campaign that I am taking part now only accepts 33 participants to join and in my opinion by limiting the participants we will get paid according to the work while supporting the project. I just hope that in the future there will be more bounties that limit the number of participants

The percentage of projects that limiting its participants is really small compared with the project that doesn't apply that rules. The problem is how the developer wanna try to do that while they needs a lot of publication and it must be everywhere and that needs a lot of marketers.

It should be borne in mind that any ICO team is interested in attracting as many project participants as possible to advertise it. Therefore, the restriction of the participants in the ICO bounty is not really necessary for the team. If fixed rates are set, then of course, a limit is set for participants in connection with the volume of allocated new tokens.
In this case, 33 signatories of the campaign may not be able to cope with the task and the project may fail. In this case, bounty hunters will not receive any reward at all.

Well, yeah I think it's better to have limitations how man participates will join in a bounty campaign so that the reward of the hunters will be better.

Too much bounty hunters on a single bounty campaign is not good, this will only favour the project team not bounty hunters, that fact is project team care less about how much rewards gets to each bounty hunters, bounty managers should be the ones to fix this issue or make the team see reasons

Thats how promoting is. The competition for campaign is really hard for those limited campaign that pays good reward. Also only good poster were able to join campaigns that pay btc. For the altcoin sections there are in the past employing limited participants but since the demand for bounty is decreasing we dony have much choice but to pick on the current ones but honestly there is not much good campaigns now.

The problem is we have too low bounty campaigns, if there is enough campaigns this will get many bounty hunters occupied, there won't be too many participants on the spreadsheet, not all bounty managers will bide by this rule of limiting participants, we all know that it's all in favour to the developers

This strategy should work well but bouny projects with high reward allocation don't need to limit bounty participants, like 100k to 300k or more will want many participants to join to achieve high awareness easily but the problem is value will drop once trading starts, this is one big problem about bounties

Reducing the participants means high rewards for bounty hunters but its on the dev's discretion. Having more to advertise their project is favor to them because it can maximize the exposure by spreading awareness here in the forum and in different social media platforms. In bounties having low rewards are not only the problem because even choosing a legit project is hard to spot nowadays.

If a campaign has low reward with unlimited participants, I will rather buy the token when listed on exchange than to stress myself for the bounty activities only to get a useless reward. BM must ensure they limit participants

Just note that limited of unlimited doesn't clear the fact that you might not get paid in the end, this doesn't mean the project is legit or not, its better to do better research before giving a try, bounties are still all about luck but limited participants gives hope to more rewards

Because projects favor as many as participants that will join for their campaign. Actually it sucks that the process is like that. Lucky are those who have enough merits that can join those btc paid campaign cause  the participants there are limited and they got paid by btc. I am an altcoin fanatics and joined many campaigns in the past. I recall the same process since then, but the problem now is hunters are increasing but the cmapaign are not. So we dont have much choice but to participate on single campaign full of participants.

agree , some bounty are just paying 5-10$ max for 3 month work , that really sad , its like real bounty when you try to sign up as soon as possible xd

indeed there should be a limit for bounty participants, especially those who follow social media bounties,
such as Facebook and Twitter participation can be up to 1000 more, I think it will be bad, because prizes will be divided a little

It caused by the price didn't meet what already speculated or expected by the hunters. I remember sometimes the creator of bounty mentioned a huge value for each token but the reality will be very different.

it's good to give limitation but it will be much better if there will be a fixed allocation.

Yes, definitely this option for the bounty participation offered by the project promoter is best. This because of the reward accumulation will be a decent amount for the bounty hunter. If the number of participants decrease then they reward amount will increase proportionally.

That's true, it make sense to me. The more participants listed in the bounty campaign, is more chances to each of them to earn small in the end for sure after their project finish. But the more few of the participants join with it, is the higher chances for them to earn good to promote the project as well, but that's only if the project will become successful in the end.

Good post, this deserves merit, we can't stop new bounty hunters from joining any projects they like but bounty managers can actually limit the participants so that the reward will make sense, when too much bounty hunters join a bounty campaign they get pennies in the end

It's a good option, and it will fully support the development of the project, but bounty rewards are still desirable because it's a free token with minimal work, not everyone here can buy a token because they lack the funds especially in this time of the pandemic and bounty hunting is the answer.

Actually it simply does not matter either way. Unlimited participants or limited, as long as bounties are just valueless actions where people do not even have any need to engage properly or even use the product? Just give it up. Token economics do not matter as much in these cases to me.

I will be very happy if bounty managers can start limiting bounty participants from their bounty campaigns, it's sad to promote projects for months and get 20$, this happens because of crowdy hunters looking to get their own piece of the pie

Seems to me better 100-150 participate for signature campaign after others social media. Actually i like to thank a limit participate bounty with weekly/monthly payment. However, you can shouldn't those bounty unlimited participate with lots of rewards. because it's just a project greedy thinking after that there has no value in crypto market.

Indeed fewer bounty participants would be more rewarding on campaigns as only a few would divide the rewards. But I think projects want many participants as it would mean wider opportunity to market the project. But if you want fewer participants, you can choose bounty campaigns like the signature, translation, or content creation that only few are qualified.

I have also participated in many altcoin bounty campaigns in the past and have witnessed in numerous spreadsheets that the social media campaigns and the article campaigns are the ones that are filled with a flood of participants but if you look at the signature campaign participants, they are in the least number as compared to the social media bounty participants. So I guess you should check the bounty type before participating as signature campaign have least participants and definitely pays better as compared to the social media bounties.

But if you participate on other campaigns like signature campaign you can earn a lot from it and making your followers and friends more in social media can make a huge different than other bounty hunters stakes.

Most bounty participants are just trying to make money and pay for their lives, so they won't care about the amount of tokens they will receive from each project. They will participate in everything if possible, I also like you, will ignore low-budget bounty but have many participants

We really are in a long dry season. Many projects are a scam, don't reach the target, and eventually, die. This has an impact on the bounty campaign, so that a lot of drama appears, such as extended duration without additional rewards, distribution is delayed, listings are delayed, the reward is locked, distribution is divided into several stages, etc. So. when there are projects that are truly legit, with products that work and are functional, they will surely be invaded by bounty hunters.

Well, limiting the number of participants is one of the best ways, which is why the trend of the bounty campaign has recently changed, such as:
1) there is a minimum merit requirement for a join signature campaign
2) reward distribution is divided into several stages to avoid massive selling
3) reward is locked for a certain period and unlock by a certain percentage every day
It looks difficult, but that's a fact. Bounty hunters must adapt to this increasingly difficult ecosystem. In the hope of a successful project, so don't give up, luck may be on your way.

actually depending on the project you are taking, sometimes the allocation of social media is more than the signature and you can get a lot of results also from social media on condition that you have to have enough friends in your social media

I think some managers have already applied the rules to give limit for the participants. You can see some managers have already closed the spreadsheet before the bounty has already ended.
The result of bounty can't be speculated even bounty with big allocation can go to the zero value. More campaign and more change for them to get money.