Bitcoin Forum

I know that scam bounty projects still shows up on this forum from time to time but after managing to promote the bounty that's not a scam you end up with very low bounty reward, why ? I think the problem about bounties is we have too few bounty campaigns and too many bounty hunters

JUST IF

Just if bounty managers and project teams can start limiting bounty hunters the reward will still be fair enough, how can 500 participants share 3000$ bounty allocation?

Where are the bounties with fixed bounty allocations? After doing some digging on past bounty campaigns I noticed many of them have fixed rewards, this is good or limited participants

What do you think??

It is good to limit participants however the project aims to have as many ptomoters for their project. Your lucky if the project is handled by a good manager where he understand too much participants will make the budget diluted. Good example of manager is parodium who limits and filter participants and only those produced quality works will be rewarded. Also on btc paid campaign but the slot here are limited.

Altcoin campaign is really a hard competition cause everybody will share for a  small rewards if too many will join.

Its the best idea, limiting bounty participants in a campaign could be more profitable and less spam campaign, however its up to bounty managers on how they conduct their bounties. Some of the bounty managers are already implementing that type of rules making rewards more decent.

They need more promoters I don't think they will like this idea, the more promoters the more people will see the advertisement . More advertisement means more potential sales of their tokens.

Its the bounty hunters job to not participate in a bounty  if they think  the payment they paid is not enough because of too many participants.

I do agree with this but the main purpose of marketing campaign to spread the news about the project. We can try to take a look at how many participants that has already participated in the campaign and the dev was aiming to spread the word of the project massively.
As long as the reward will be fixed reward and that's fine.

Do you mean limiting the participants and only accept the ones with 5 to 10 merits in 120 days?  

Good luck to doing that, because I'm not sure if the team gets at least 50 participants to spread the word about them because those guys with 10 merits will prefer to promote the BTC paying campaigns if they have that amount of merits every 120 days.  What a low rank member could do it write a good amount of articles and translate ann and whitepapers to compete the ones with higher rank.

I think what he want to say is to only limit the participants for example to only 50 for signature  and not requiring the merit since this will not work in bounties unless they will also pay in btc or the payment they will pay is convertable already and weekly payment.


The OP want to suggest is to receive high rewards for limiting the campaign participants.

This is a process, a project also needs  participants also investors and each has a function and interdependence.The manager is the one who understands the most important needs in a project to be in accordance with  time schedule. However,  with following certain restrictions set there are times when the number of participants in the bounty and the rules to be applied must also be in accordance with what has been written.

Related to the distribution sometimes on time  in accordance with what has been written and and too often not in line with expectations.

There are two side to this story. While limiting numbers of bounty hunters may work, it may not work in other hands. Most dev team see bounty campaign as the easiest and cost effective way to promote their project. If not, there are many other means that they can adopt to promote their campaign. such as placing ads on popular exchange platforms, coin ranking platforms, etherscan etc. but they know this will involve alot of money, so they will prefer to use bounty campaign without even spending a cent at the beginning. When campaign is being conducted, the hope of hunters depend on the success of the project because if the project does not realized the  required amount, they may decide to cancel the project, meaning the hunters waste their time and energy.

However, there are some campaign that even if they make their target, they will do everything to frustrate hunters in order not to pay them their token, some dev will lock hunters token for a lengthy period of time, while some of them will start telling you to sign up for KYC that they did not tell you before the commencement of the campaign.

Many project dev do not like limiting amount of participants because they believe the higher the people that signup for bounty, the higher the reach of the project.

In another way round, some hunters are cheaters, they registered multiple entries using bot etc. they will steal peoples articles and videos and registered it. Some that participate in social media campaign have followers that are not real (bot) while some have followers that are bounty hunters like them thereby not making real impact when promoting the project.

Actually, if you'll stay on the Bounties you get to see a lot of bounty campaigns. It's not that there are few bounty campaigns out there but the fact is that only few of them are real, paying, and has really a working project.

They are not forcing people to join those fixed pool prize bounties that they have. It's just that bounty hunters are too many and everyone is trying their luck for each bounty that will come. There's a drought for legit bounties and that's why everyone is just like trying to hit a jackpot.

I prefer fixed reward and not stake based, with this participants can be limited to some few persons to accomodate the reward system. Unlimited perticipants without fixed stakes only favours people with high ranking signature and better audience for social media. I should be able to determine how much I will get from a campaign from the beginning.

This contradicts the goals of most projects, which want minimal costs but can still be promoted as much as possible. So Few Projects limit the number of hunters taking out the bonus.

Limiting the participants is good for the hunters and the manager but not for the project because all they look for is to get maximum exposure that is why we have stake based reward calculation in the first place.Very few managers have limiting their participants when it comes to bounties even due to their reputation factor so follow best manager to get more advantage on this.

Good point OP, this will gives less spams and high reward for bounty hunters, the problem is not all bounty managers will accept this, even the project team might not want something like this

As a bounty hunter you probably know, most projects that are already listed on the exchange, will certainly get many participants. and the prize will be divided on that amount. actually to get a bigger prize, the way you have to follow all the campaign programs of project,from translate campaign until telegram campaign. what do you thing ???

I agree that bounty managers make a fixed allocation to the bounty and limit the number of bounty participants with a certain duration, this is also very good for all bounty hunters, because when calculated with the rewards they get, everything looks fair according to the percentage in the campaign.

Some bounty managers are limiting its participants already in their respective bounty campaigns and also implementing the first come first serve basis, In some instances, they are not allowing newbie participants to join in their bounty campaign and also those forum members that have negative trust are also prohibited to join in the most of bounty campaigns. one of the many problems in the most bounty campaign nowadays is the small budget allocation, and a too-long period before getting paid, 6 months to 1 year. to be exact.  for me it's better to limit the participants if the budget allocation was small.

Good idea but they are not paying with Bitcoin or already tradeable coins they are paying bounty hunters with their own token with no value, so they can throw away as many coins because they created it with very little cost, and besides I doubt if they are going to imposed limited participants because that is what they really need, more promoters, more visibility of their project.

Most bounties now want more promotions but there are no restrictions for participants and the allocation is small enough so that this will not be a fixed allocation because they do not want the dump to occur if the allocation is large.

Projects now always need promoters without limits so that their ads can be seen out there but they don't think about the fate of the hunters with unfair rewards, it could be the price dump, the more rewards.

But we must be able to see who manages the campaign and look for the ones who are very professional because they always provide the best for the hunters.

Yes, That's is a good idea to suggest in bounty managers I came up with the same idea a long time ago. But you know what they don't care as long as there is qualified participant they will accept it. Because it is on their advantage, many promoters many audiences it will reach out. So that is why they are not limiting it, I guess they are few bounties that have a limit but in majority most of them are no limits on participants which is not really worth joining. Doing bounty now is not really worth it especially those social media bounties.

My opinion is that followed bounties limits. But it's depend upon the hard working staff and managers Who have big experiences to handle any project & give the best performance to running successfully in the market. I think so

I don't think that's the problem. Its all about the intent. Contrary to above, I can give you many examples where the bounty campaigns with low participants failed to provide a stage for the project to attract investors.


That will be fair for the bounty hunters but will it for the project? Why would they choose to limit participants when they can get more hunters into room to participate? We could but they also need to promotion to work properly and with higher no. of participants they can get some good marketing and buzz.



Fixed bounty rewards are good if the project is willing to spend some extra or are willing to pour some good money into marketing. Fixed bounty is little risky for the projects since there is possibility that the expense could go out of hand if no of. participants go higher. In this case, I would say limiting participants along with fixed bounty could do the work.

Project teams want unlimited promotion, they don't care about how many participants promote their project, I think it's bounty manager's call to set things right here even if the team said no, it will really be good if this is considered, we have too many bounty hunters wanting to share out of a bounty pool

It would be good if the campaign limited the participants, everyone involved will ensure a stable source of income from that campaign. But projects don't care about this, they just want to get as many people involved as possible to promote their projects and make more people aware.

 bounty hunters should know that they are the only medium that could get them more audiences/investors. That's why most bounties doesn't have limited slot because they know they can get unlimited outreach to more audiences instead of paying popular social media for ads.

So next time you come across any bounty with an unfavourable allocation with no limited slot, just skip it because it may get over crowded.

Yes, and it is very natural that the project team wants unlimited promotion, because they also want to attract more investors for their project, so the project team will also be more helpful in terms of running the project, only the other time the bounty participants become victims, because hunters will get fewer rewards.

Recently i have started to like the idea of fixed weekly rewards for example, for signature campaign weekly 50 dollars worth tokens for member rank, 80 for full member and so on, although after market price of the token is unpredictible in these market  conditions and is usually down but still such fixed rewards do give a psychological satisfaction as we know for what we are working for.

I know a few bounty limits of participants, and they end up in great success. And the participants are happy with the money they make from those campaigns. Hopefully from now on we can see such good campaigns, which is the best solution right now to help the participants get the right amount of money after months of work.

I honestly agree with your point, besides the problem of project fraud is about fixed allocations, limited participants and commensurate rewards. as we have seen today there are many good projects that have appeared in the crypto room and there are always many participants joining. maybe the prize manager can hear this and reconsider, at least for the good of the ico project in the future.

the idea is good enough to be applied by prizes because by limiting bounty hunters who want to join a project, the results obtained will also feel a lot later.
but it all depends on the bounty manager, where the rules can be applied or not while we can only follow the rules that are applied.

Yes, campaign managers will both facilitate their own business by setting the participant limit and prevent many users from accumulating in a single campaign. But there is one point I will object to here is that the prize pool is distributed to everyone equally. If such a thing is going to happen, why do we try to reach high ranks? If the rank system will be of no use, everyone should participate in campaigns with their new accounts and receive equal pay in this way. So, as long as the rank system exists, each participant should never win an equal amount of rewards. In addition, since there are differences between the signature of the users who have reached the top ranks and the signature of the accounts with low rank, this affects the equality significantly. Therefore, a limited number of participants should be included in the campaigns, but not everybody should be given an equal amount of reward. Everyone should win awards according to their rank.

It will be very difficult to happen, because managers and projects just want as many people involved as possible. The more people participate, the more their project will become known and the easier it will be for an ICO or IEO to succeed.

Yep, it is difficult for us to find such campaigns because the projects are not interested in bounty hunters, they are only interested in their projects and only want more people to join their bounty. Take a look at bounty Cartesi, which is a great campaign as they limit participants. And now each one receives a lot of money from that campaign

I think bounty manager must to set the limit of participant and choose only promotor with high potential only. It can be review their social media accounts first, manager must eliminate participant who promoting many projects in their social media account.

That's a relief to bounty manager to limit their works as, the only a disadvantage to this is to participants but to the project having more participants to promote is a win-win situation.
If you think the reward is too low then you need to decide whether you want to continue or not.

Agree, if the participant is promoting too many projects in their account. Then they should refuse and not let him join the bounty, I have seen krypital did the same before and they were completely successful

It is really great idea to limit participants, but that is the question if the manager wants to do it, l mean we can realize that they don't care about that, it seems they are only interested in numbers of participants. But if it happens, we can see that limiting participants of campaigns can be more valuable, and maybe there will be fewer spams. Experimenting the ideas is the right way to know which arguments cover the problems while others are nonsense.

I see this as a natural thing for project owners, because for project owners,more people who participate in their projects, the greater chance to get a lot of investors. but for the prize hunters the more participating in project, the smaller we will get prize at the end of campaign
 

From my point of view, it is better to have fixed reward or limited participants in a campaign to ensure that participants actually get rewarded, this is also important in bounty pool, some projects gives unrealistic reward and later they are finding it hard to keep to their promise, better to have a realistic reward pool and fixed payment to protect both hunters and project.
But I guess having too many unlimited participants favors the team more than the hunters.

The answer to too low bounty rewards is limiting the bounty campaign participants, only the bounty manager can make this happen, even if the team said no then the bounty manager have to convince the team or if every bounty managers can come to this one agreement then the project team won't have a choice

Honestly, they don't care about quality in the first place, what they want is SPAM. The more SPAM, more links, more fake followers, etc.
Legit campaigns are very costly, so this is what they can do with their small budget.

What you can do is not participate if you feel your rewards are not acceptable, and the invisible hand will work to regulate these things.

A campaign is looking for volume of promoters, so sometimes the quality of the bounty was already sacrifice because the bounty managers are not limiting the participants, and you are right, the more participants who will join, the more the reward will drop, and this is not applicable now since usually the price will just dump after it sells in the exchange, so bounty hunters will not be getting a good or reasonable reward.

I think there are many bounties already foresaw this problem and introduce the 'stake'. A fixed amount set for bounty and more bounty hunter meaning lower reward per stake. Of course, in the end, this solving nothing as more peoples = more stakes and lower reward per stake as well. The bounty manager doesn't care since more people participate in their project would be more reaches for them. It's up to each bounty hunter to see if the reward worth and balancing out to keep the stake profitable for everyone.

There are bounty managers that use fixed stakes and limited participants, it depends on the allocation of a bounty campaign but not all bounty managers sees this as something unfair to Bounty Hunters, the choice is left for hunters to choose wisely, if you think a particular bounty campaign has too low bounty reward then find another

You can also talk to the bounty manager, I heard few ones like listening to bounty hunters opinion, but for many, rules are just rules, honestly speaking it will be a good thing entirely for all bounty hunters if bounties have limited participants more than unlimited

there are also some bounty managers who make regulations to limit bounty signature participants in a project because of the small allocation of funds for bounty hunters, if all prize managers limit participants from joining a project, participants who are late will be very disappointed if the project is very good.

Every project wants to get more promotion for less money. And now the Bounty Hunters are helping them fulfill this purpose. If the manager makes a fixed participant then it will be good for Bounty Hunters. By doing so, they will be rewarded for their work. But the real issue here is whether the project team will agree or not. Since they are getting huge number of participants with less money then why would they set the limit? I think managers should make fixed rewards and fixed participants in the bounty. As a result, Bounty Hunters will receive a good amount for their work.

That's a good idea but if the project is good many bounty hunters will request to join the bounty campaign even if they are limiting it, and besides, it's advantageous for the campaign that many bounty hunters joined their campaign it's just mean they are a good project, and the campaign will reach many investors.

I strongly agree to limit the participants who join the bounty. besides preventing mass sales, it could have prevented dumps. however, some projects are sometimes only concerned with their achievements so there is no limit to that.
besides, if the participant is indeed unlimited, it would be best to use a coin payment weekly. it's better than using a stake.

Isn't it the bounty hunters own fault? Why would someone want to join a bounty program where they take hundreds of participants and pay really less? If you guys stop joining and promoting them, they will eventually start increasing the rewards.
Though, I don't think its still worth joining a bounty program. The amount of scam project is too high. You will be just wasting your time.

If you look at it from the company's point of view, the more participants there are, the better it is for them.The thing is, I don't join the bounty if there are a lot of participants. It is not difficult to check the spreadsheet before joining the bounty.

Well its not same for everyone. It might be easy for the ones who apply in the middle of the campaign like you but someone who had applied right in the beginning wouldn't know the participants will go beyond some "XX" no.s by the end and will reduce his share of reward significantly.

Fixed bounty reward should be good, rest they can put limit in no. of participants depending upon the part they are willing to allocate towards bounty.

But projects will never want to limit their participation, they want as many participants as possible to promote their projects, making their projects reach more people in this market. Very rarely can we see bounty campaigns restricting participants

I still think the best bounties are those with fixed tokens to stakes. That is 1 stake equal 1 token or 100 tokens as the case may be. Stakes to token basis where there is no fixed amount means once participants get crowded on a particular bounty, it becomes fruitless and non attractive. Many participants will always mean lesser tokens to be shared and that isn't always a good thing. Unfortunately, we have more bounties like this these days..

It does not look good to get low reward after bounty promotions but due to many participants involved, it always plays out like that. It would be nice to limit participants but the developers needs more people to advertise them. I feel the most important aspect of Bounty rewards is the worth of the token received, there's no point of bagging millions of shit tokens in reward

I agree with you if the bounty manager must place restrictions on participants who join in order to get results that are commensurate with their work for months. but sometimes the bounty manager doesn't have the right to do that if the project team wants a lot of promotion

Bounty hunters had learn things. Today you don't see bounty hunters that joins a project that seem scam. They already begin to investigate right after posting in the bounty section.


That is also what is really happening. Bounty managers just doesn't have the control of what the team wants. The bounty manager just count the tweets and posts of their participants and give how many stakes they could receive and the more participants I guess the team will be more happy that users fill the forum with their ads.

If you are running a project and you are planning to collect money to make it successful, do you think you will limit the amount of people willing to market the project, the project team would reveal the budget they have on advertising the project and if it is a limited budget then the users participating should be responsible for the selection rather than complaining about it. The fact is the users who join these bounty programs does not even read what they are doing and spend time to read about the project, once that blind promotion is limited then it would be great for everyone.

I also think that there should be a bounty with a fixed number of participants. The work of the bounty hunters depreciated and some measures needed to be taken. But in fact, project developers do not care about that. The main thing for them is to have as much information as possible about their project and they don’t think that the bounty hunters need good money.

yes, that is the project's prerogative. if they want more participants, they have the privilege to do so. so it is up to the bounty hunter if he will take it or leave it. It is the preference of the participant if he decides to join, given fixed allotment for all those increasing number of participants. very few projects have the initiative to limit their participants because on their end, the more bounty hunters they have, the better as it will give more exposure to their project. so a bounty hunter has the privilege also to accept what is laid on the table or just walk away...

Your suggestion is good, however, the aim of every bounty is to provide as much promotion as possible and from where the teams and bounty managers stand, having a limited bounty participants dosen't really bode well for them as the more hunter participate in the campaign, the more promotion and relevance they will get. So the fact still remains, it is the duty of every hunter to make due and diligence research about a campaign ranging from the potentials of the project, to the total bounty pool and as well the number of participants already participating in the campaign

You won't be convincing anyone devs and their projects won't limit themselves in this forum. They will always want to have as much exposure as possible on the fund they don't have that's why they always max out the participants as this is their only way of marketing if they don't have funds for that. Devs don't care about post qualities in the forum or what sections they do it in as long as the participant is wearing their signature they'll be rewarded a stake. Also its their project and it is really up to you if you consider their rewards fair before you join/participate with their project.

Well limiting is a good idea so the rewards is not that small but in reality it will not happen specially in social media because they want many promoters of their project so many investor would noticed it the more promoters the more exposure of the project specially if they will share it on different facebook group that having big number of members.

This is good idea for limiting participant. If it is implemented, participants will get more payment. But is project team will really do it? I think, they will always avoid it because they are getting more promotion with the same budget. So, if there would be some rules of the forum relating to bounty program like minimum payment for every participant, specific joining time, submitting the budget to the forum authority before starting campaign etc, the scamer couldn't take the advantage and both was befitted.

The good idea for limited bounty participate with with consider fixed rewards because one of the important thinking investors profits. We know many projects want promote with lots of bounty rewards even thinking me totally a unless project. Therefore a real project want fixed rewards analysis there investors profits.

The truth is that fixed rewards do not solve a lot of the puzzle, but instead limiting participants.
And believe me, limiting participants will go a long way to ensuring good contents, reduce spam and help the bounty manager to duly monitor the cause of the promotion.

A real project won't determine the number of its bounty hunters. A project with or without limitation to bounty hunters can be real or fake. The thinking of making a project with fixed participants is just to limit the budget of a campaign.
This is why some bounties don't look to the bounty pool rewards they have because they can get many people to join them which is in favor of them.

Limiting bounty participators is a wise idea to have good bounty reward. But project teams don't want to limit hunters because hunters helps them a lot to promote their project & make successful. So most of them request bounty manager not to limit bounty

yes, regarding the allocation of fixed prizes to the current gift project it is true that it is different from before. Today there are many good projects but there are many participants. I also agree that the bounty project can limit participants in every part of the campaign they launch, especially in the signature slot.

Promoters are DNA sequences whose purpose is not to encode information about the organism itself, but rather they serve as a kind of "On" switch to initiate the biological process of transcription for the genes which follow the promoter DNA sequence. The legal position of promoters is that he is neither agent nor employee of the company but he stands in fiduciary capacity.

Agree with you, they should restrict participants in the signature campaign to ensure rewards for participants. Typically, each campaign only needs 50-100 people to participate in the signature campaign

Limiting participants is always a good choice. The project will receive people who support them for a long time. I was surprised that near the end of the campaign, there were so many accounts participating in the campaign because the project had a lot of good news or an IEO implementation.

This is an easy situation, the perfect solution to too many promoters is to have a Bounty participants cap.

It worked well with spyce Bounty and also with hybrix Bounty.
Then flexible rules, such as removal of anyone that doesn't submit task in 2 consecutive weeks etc

I think when too many people do promotions then you should be able to try to do more research about the project being developed and whether the project is useful for many people or not because cryptocurrency price movements depend on the projects being developed and depending on demand.

it is a very good idea, but every project teams and manager needs more participants so that their promotional targets are easily achieved, and get more investors, because with more promotion participants more investors will be confident in the project.

Now bounty managers and ICO team value more money than anytime before. Few years ago there wasn´t problem to giveaway 1 million usd to bounty promoters, but now the situation changed, they care about every dollar.

It caused by the situation is much more difficult when there will be more coins exist in the market and the money will have divided even more. The problem the team is also doesn't even wanna use some of their money at least to pay the hunters.

It's better to give a limitation to the participants to make sure everyone will get what they deserve to get from their effort.

If BM have already a lot of experience managing bounty campaign. I'm sure he will figure it out how to deal even it have many of participants. There are some BM that being fixed with their reward weekly but do not limit their participants. It's attract many participants to join to their campaign. If I'm going to get back in joining bounty campaigns, I don't care if its high o low reward as long as its legit and they will pay in the end but of course its a good project as well.

with that kind of mindset that you will encounter both for the project team and BM, the choice is left to the bounty hunter if he will join or not, with the possibility of getting small reward as they continue accepting participants. one can't dictate about the decision of the team, they can only suggest but the final decision is still on the team. so if the team will keep on accepting participants for the sake of their exposure, then, it is on the bounty hunter whether he will continue promoting the project or not. the earlier you quit, the less resources/effort you wasted before it's too late. the decision is yours.

That is because many participants want to make money from the project, so they join in the same project. Limiting the participants can be a good idea to the project because they don't have to confuse to handle so many participants, and they can focus on the project too. Besides that, the reward for every participant can be increased if the limiting is applied to the campaign. But we never know what suits for the project because I think some project will be okay if they have so many participants in their project.

Before there are many people who are interested in investing even those who participated with their bounties are also putting money to invest and entrust their money. Nowadays there are only few people who are investing and for that developers and bounty managers are concern with how they will collect more interest from investors to help them with their projects, it will be hard for them to limit as they are aiming for more exposures.

Just because you have too many promoters doesn't mean that you are getting something great. When you have bad promoters that will reflect on your currency badly as well, so you should get only decent ones and good ones just to make a good impression on people.

If I pay 5 bucks to horrible English speaking spammers, I could have 10 thousand of them all around the internet spamming broken English (not like mine is so awesome) spams everywhere they find and that will not help me, in fact that would hurt my business like crazy. Nobody would invest in my project and not only that people would actually complain about my project everywhere and how I am spamming it. Instead just get 100 decent people that you pay big amounts, and you will be doing much better marketing.

In my opinion, some participants is not really active doing his job. I think it just wasted slot and should be removed from campaign. Maybe next time bounty manager can add a new rule like participants that missed report for a week will be removed  ;D.

I think limiting the bounty hunter is not feasible. For the purpose of bounty is to promote the project. So, if more people join the promotion, the bounty campaign of the project will be more successful. That's the way the bounty hunter should go because we make a profit from the project, or rather the project will pay us to promote their products.

As for the problem of scam projects, we can hardly control because the project is the payer. If they want to be bad people, we can't stop them from cheating. We can minimize the risk by carefully checking the project before signing up to participate. That is my personal thought

In my opinion, at least 2 weeks. Because maybe they will have some problems in life and miss 1 week of the campaign. And now I see a lot of bounty managers working on this idea, anyone who doesn't complete the task in 2-3 weeks will be removed from the campaign.

• Making a selection by making strict rules can be a very good alternative. This can reduce cheaters and spammers, multi-accounts, etc.
• Limiting the number of participants is also very effective so that participants can get rewards that are comparable to their work. In my opinion, this is one of the concerns of the bounty manager for the welfare of the participants.
• Preferably, the dev team also really considered the allocation they spent on the bounty. At least they can handle that nominal so that there will be no more statements "bounty hunters who make dumps"

The right strategy, good cooperation, will certainly make the ecosystem stronger. Support from many sides will strengthen the project, thus all parties will benefit.
[/list]

Limiting the participants will be the solution, Like on social media campaign thousand of participants is going to share with the small amount off allocation on the pass 2-3 months and your earning is only 10-20$, Is your effort worth it? I think not . 

Limiting bounty participants would be advantageous to bounty hunters as stakes would be divided by only a few. Meaning higher rewards would be distributed to participants. But projects managers would prefer more participants because it would mean wider marketing and spread of awareness about the project. If you want fewer participants you can join campaigns that few only are qualified. Like signature, content creation, or even translation.

Actually there are bounty managers that limit the participants in their bounty campaigns in a first come first serve basis, which is I think is fair enough for everyone and some BM don't actually do that to give a fair chance for everyone to atleast earn/gain rewards. But the things is the bounty projects themselves, even if let's say BM have limited the participants in a certain numbers, and get the rewarded for their worked. What are chances of the project to be successful?

each project has the right to make their own rules such as prizes.
although the prizes are few and not reasonable they don't force you to join.
the problem is that most of the projects are scams and don't pay

a good idea to apply, but all policies are in the prize manager because each gift project has different rules, both from the forum devoted to posting, the number of posts and other rules.

there is a big problem that i realized in the last years in this crypto world. People want to create a project without spending a cent out of pocket and that is unacceptable. How does a person want to create a project but have no money to pay fair values to the reward hunters to publicize their project? this is unacceptable and i don't understand why the reward hunters accept to work in these conditions? It is necessary that people do not accept to work in these conditions that are not good. Project owners must have money to pay fair values to bounty hunters and I suggest that all projects pay in bitcoin to bounty hunters.

Yes there's too many hunters waiting for spots in campaigns and it allows managers to decrease the rewards.

They know that there's such a demand for rewards that people will keep coming even if they pay $1 for each participant but of course lowering the payment lowers the quality of the campaign. You wan't get good articles and translations for cheap.

to get high prizes from each project is by applying limited rules. if the project manager can reconsider limited regulations in a project, participants can get high rewards. I personally also miss about fixed allocations, high rewards like the average project in 2017.

Especially if there are many participants who commit fraud, multi-accounts for example.
So strict rules, really careful selection, can provide many benefits for all. I think we all agree that quality is more important than quantity. It would be better if both were balanced.
That is why I tend to be selective in joining bounties, if bounty managers care about this, they will definitely provide strict rules and select participants based on established criteria :)

A few of the bounty campaign are limiting their participants, but majority of the bounty campaign wants as many promoters to promote their project, this is obvious because they want to market their project extensively and they want hype and reach, they cannot do that if they limit their bounty hunters, the possibility for their project to fail if they cannot reach many investors, are high.

This is depend also on the project not just the manager will decide on it. Limiting participants are good but we cant impose it on new projects that are starting to build their portfolio and raise money. I understand the concern of most hunters but we must also learn some patience and remember that we are not investing any money on joining so how can we eventually lose something on the process?

The competition is tight here on forum, if you want legit project join campaigns with btc payment but that is not an easy way compared to altcoins.

Managers here have some power, but they work for the project like the rest of us! They can try to suggest ideas to the team, project owners, they can listen or not, it's up to them. I think we have some good suggestions here, but I don't think this will work, like I said if the team decides to go big with many people and low payouts they will find a manager that will conduct such bounty for them.

there are a number of reasons why they don't limit their participants, it's because they want lots of people to promote the projects they develop. This is not a problem of bounty hunters, but also for the success of the project, so they do not limit participants. maybe there are some projects that limit the participants at this time, but sometimes it's paid using bitcoin or ethereum.

If all bounties have limited participants to share with fixed bounty rewards, then everybody will be very happy but unfornately, not all projects think that way. Many bounty campaigns wants many promoters as much as possible. They want their project to be promoted to many different channels. They are aware that bounty hunters will receive less in doing their campaigns but they don't care about it. As long as their project will get whatever goal they want, then they'll go for it no matter what.

 I think it will be a great idea if the participants are limited.  But it is seldom to happen.  Most of the projects are making the projects with unlimited participants.  Because they want their projects are promoting by lot of participants so they can get their target easily.

I quite agree with your humble opinion of having a certain limited number of bounty participants for a particular project,the whole business is suppose to be a 2 ways affairs for the bounty managers and the bounty hunters. After a certain project succeeds, the bounty hunters are suppose to be smiling home with a reasonable reward also

That's right. If they limit the participants, then their project will be less known and it is difficult to be successful. So they want to have as many participants as possible and they don't care about the bounty hunter, after a few weeks of work each bounty hunter will get a few cents from them.

A few years ago bounty participants are not that many as today. It depends on the manager but usualy the project team want more participants on there campaign so more people can promote and more people can reach about there project. The problem in today is because the time frame of each bounty is too long already unlike before that 1 or 2 months is the longer one already in each campaign.

They need to promote their project and this is why they don't care whether how small the fee a participant of a campaign will get as long as they spread the word about the project. If they limit up to $500 each participant for each month then there will only be 4 people who will join the campaign and that is not enough advertising when these users will just post exactly 10 posts as required every week. They would rather be doing it with theymos forum ads than hiring bounty hunters.

And sometimes just want to form a large community, whereas they don't care there are many cheaters. So that the more participants, the greater their social media community.
Limiting the number of participants to a tight selection can form a more qualified community. It will also give bounty participants the opportunity to get a bigger reward. It has all been the decision of the dev team and the bounty manager team, there is no other choice so we must follow these rules.

Well most of project/bounties I have seen around,
is limiting there participants and when they meet the certain amount, they doesn't accept anymore.
this could benefit the hunters, big reward small attendees
but on the other hand, if the project really needs to get advertise around the crypto world. isn't more reasonable to accept more hunters?

That's the problem. In another side the developer wants more promoters to join and I think this problem will never be solved. BTW the bounty hunters can do nothing caused by the decision will be on the team who managed the bounty.

The choice is left actually to those bounty hunters. They need to read carefully about the rules and limitations of the bounty program. So whether it is limited by participants or not, it is his decision if he will join or not. So once the bounty is over and he will receive what he was not expecting, there's no one to blame but himself. No one is obliging him to join but it is his own free will. So whatever the results of the bounty, he should accept it and just move on to the next.

You're right. Bounty hunters have all of the knowledge and experience to know whether a not a project has a risk of scam. However, sometime they make mistake. I believe that they'll not blame anyone else but themselves for that mistake. I also think that they don't have a lot of time spending to blame anyone else but moving on and do another project!

Good for bounty hunters but not good for the project, because the promotion will not be maximized and we all know these developers want as many promoters as possible, they even extend the promotion so they can attract more bounty hunters I don't think many of bounty managers will implement this.

Limited bounty participants all the way  ;) ,this depends on the bounty manager, I believe if bounty hunters promoting such project could come together to make the bounty manager sees reasons he/she can decide to remove registration form for new participants

Well, it's great if all bounties implement this. so, the reward received is quite satisfying, and participants can work hard. it's just that it's very rare to see a bounty like this. however, at present, a project is more focused on the success of their project and tries to attract as many promoters as possible with not so much allocation.

In some points I hate bounties that has a limits participants and I also hate bounties that has too many participants as well.
So, what I did, I only join in bounties if the participants is below 100 participants, because whether the project campaign will end for good or
not at least there is a high chance for us to earn big in the future, if they will compensate their bounty hunters after the project finish.

More bounty hunters will join in a project if they see the project will likely to succeed, that will decrease the amount of reward everyone will get.
If you like to join in a bounty with less participants, you can always do so, but the fact that only few have join, that means the bounty is not attractive.

Yeah, cannot blame the managers in general, they are also end of the day employees and I have seen some anger towards them for getting paid in advance of the program participants but for me this is unfair, they do much more management work and even in post service. I think,,, people simply just need to take more responsibility.

usually the many participants are social media bounties, I always see spreadsheets on Facebook and Twitter campaigns of more than 500 participants, in my opinion the solution is only in the bounty manager, because he can change the rules

Most of the participants were bots and used multiple accounts. So there will be a lot of people signing up for those tasks because it's easy to do, and I think they shouldn't limit the participants because it will cause the project to receive less attention from community and there will be few people who know the project

It is inevitable that there are so many bounty hunters, so we get a small prize, it is because of the many bounty scams, so that if there is a legitimate bounty, many will join, whereas bounties with fixed fees with limited participants can also only be in  follow by members with high rank

Yes, bounty hunters will be able to do nothing but accept their requests. And if we do not accept, we have the right to leave that campaign

Bounty Hunter always tries to find a legitimate bounty campaign and that's why you would expect many bounty hunters towards the legitimate bounty. After all these things when the legitimate project gets success nevertheless you wouldn't accomplish to get good bounty rewards because of the maximum number of participants.

Some projects have limited number of hunters. I have been involved some projects like that.

Project teams want many bounty hunters to join their promotions so the words about their new project can reach every corner of the earth, seriously not every team will allow limiting bounty participants on their bounties, I recommend fixed tokens instead, it's fair enough and kinda Win/Win for everyone, you will know how much tokens or coins you will earn even before the promotion ends

There are some bounty managers that still apply some strict rules in their bounty to limit the number of bounty participants, yet some still end up getting too low rewards. This is because some of time lack the accounts with high ranks or that they do not have platforms that will make them get a big reward. Also, the quality of work done for the project, such as content creation is very important. All these have their ways of affecting inducing the reward that would be earned.

There is no shortage for bounty managers but it is hard to find legit managers who will do a background check before accepting the offer to promote their work. If people reject to promote any project that are not accepting these campaign managers who does check everything before promoting then you have the choice to reject promoting those project .

Hmm, reasonable and effective advertisement can be seen when it cover wide range in a project, this can only be done when their is many promoters, so as regards to the limit many manager will not think of that because they will see it as a barrier for their goal or motive which can make their efforts fruitless.
Maybe the allocation can be boost or the manager should determine of hunter required or somehow.
To be realistic many manager will not see reason to reduce promoter ooo.

unfortunately some of the bounty managers who were active in the past few years have a good reputation are not very active anymore in managing bounty campaigns and many of the new bounty managers that appear in my opinion are good and have good experience to handle this campaign.

Bounty hunters are the only medium that could get more audiences/investors. That's why most bounties doesn't have limited slot because they know they can get unlimited outreach to more audiences instead of paying popular social media for ads. As we have seen today there are many good projects that have appeared in the crypto room and there are always many participants joining. It all depends on the bounty manager, where the rules can be applied or not while we can only follow the rules that are applied.  If you think a particular bounty campaign has too low bounty reward then find another

There are two solutions to this type of problem that I know of, the first is

1. Fixed allocation

Every bounty hunters who joined the bounty will get a fixed token per their rank on this forum

2. Limited participants

The bounty campaign will only allow a certain number of bounty hunters so they can get reasonable tokens

The great communication with persuasion, energy, passion, and vision leads to a great promoter. To be a good promoter, you need to be aware of the different approaches and angles to take, as well as knowing your competitors. Focusing on the First 50 Days. If too much focus is put on pre-sale activity, then the potential to retain loyal customers is neglected. Turning the Customer into the Brand Promote.

You can't predict how many bounty participants will join a bounty campaign, you can join when there are very small participants on bounty spreadsheet and after few weeks the spread sheet will consists of over hundreds of participants, bounty managers needs to think and make a move on this one.

Limited participants are good for bounty hunters only but doesn't help the project much, the team plan to spread words about their project through bounty hunters help, it's sure that they will want unlimited promoters even if they have to fight on 3000$ bounty pool, they don't care

that's why it is important to constantly check the spreadsheet and if it is full of bots or other participants, you can simply stop being a participant of this company and not work for a penny

Presently, it's hard to curtail the cluster of bounty hunters on projects that seem good,reason being that you hardly find good bounty project and once hunters find such,they would all cluster it making the reward to be small, I think bounty campaigns should be limited,so that reward can make those that participated smile.

even those projects that were limited by the number of participants - they paid very little money. They limit the number of participants and make the reward pool too small so it meant that it does not matter will we have some limits or not

@OP, you make a good point. However, that's not the fault of bounty managers or the project advertised but the responsibility of you yourself not taking into consideration the worth in USD the total allocated tokens.
I usually said this to bounty hunters check the genuine level of project and there payment before working for them or else will work for penny.

It is very easy to fix the issue of too many promoters if the Bounty managers decide to do what is right.
Launch a new Bounty and place participants restrictions.

Top 50/100 registration for hunters, then accept and reject participants because bots will surely join

Did you mean about limiting the registrations for the new participants? I didn't even think that will work because the existence of the managers to clean the bots from the campaign that has been running.
Some projects may did it but it's not all of the projects.

always checking the allocation to be distributed is indeed an important point. but, in the world of bounties, the allocations given are uncertain. even if they say the allocation is millions of dollars. however, the most important thing is to limit the participants. the advantage is, the project will also look higher quality, it's just that the drawback is the promotion of the project in question is not as maximal if participants are not restricted.

I think @masulum has adopted this great method, I believe that if every bounty manager does the same then there can be profit in Bounties, but I do not think it will ever happen.
ShengWorld| by masulum (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5225457.0)

This is like the old platform that is bountyhive which now seems like they no longer operate as bounty managers through their platform, before stopping they also impose restrictions on participants for bounty campaigns and that's good but the problem is the project is not good.
I agree with the participant restrictions, that would be good for bounty hunter income.

It is good in part of bounty hunters but it may be a disadvantage in bounty campaigns since they have a limited promoters. If they will increase the number of promoters, then they will also increase the total allocation of their tokens. Aside from that, late comers will have no opportunity at all specially if the first 300 participants cheat the bounty by enrolling their alts.

Though it is good, there are also weakness and it should be studied so far.

Thank you,

Just want to share the reason why i do that,
1. From my experience have small rewards because of stake system with unlimited participants
2. Limit participants to prevent spamming in this forum
3. To safe project from too many distributed token from bounty
4. To help participants get good rewards if the project success and the rewards have a value.
5. Win-win solution for member, project and bounty manager.

But every BM has own style, and as you say maybe it hard to do same think because of the goal is very differences. Once again, thank you for your support. I wish all of project i handle before have a value so you can get real money from tokens you get.

It seems better that the amount of allocation is not proportional to the participants who followed it. You're right it's good the project team can start limiting the bounty hunters at least the prize is still fair enough to be distributed according to the planned schedule.

This contradicts the goals of most projects, which want minimal costs but can still be promoted as much as possible. So Few Projects limit the number of hunters taking out the bonus.

I totally agree with the idea of limiting participants. However, it's too hard to give out a fixed allocation rate for bounty hunters. There are too many problems with that. When you reward by the fixed amount, it creates unfairness and reduces the motivation for those who want to dedicate their work. Because they know whether they work hard or not, they still receive the same reward as others. Furthermore, paying based on ranking also inaccurate!

New projects will also need max participants, this is their aims, the higher the participants the better for the new project, I think limiting bounty participants will oy make sense if the project is already trading on exchanges, for new projects it's bad

Good day. Bounty rewards before is good but lately bounty hunters get low rewards which is unfair. It is due to many bounty participants and some because of the low result of the token sale. Still its up to the bounty hunters if they are willing to join the campaign or not. Projects don't force us to join. There are also campaigns that has limits on participants.

Why would do they? They rather have 5000 participants than 500 participants because 5000 participants do more work than 500 participants :). So if they attract 5000 participants for same money, why would they limit the number of participants? Do you see the absurdity?  :)

If bounty hunters raise the point bounty manager conducting the project Campaign can consider closing the form to avoid over crowded participants, a good manager must satisfy his fellow bounty hunters

Sometimes there are Bounty Manager's obviously making a fool of some bounty hunters. Like they attract the hunters in millions or billions
of token to help them to promote the project but when you calculate the price of each token there are some the budget allocation was only 1 ETH, 1000$, 100$ and more, this type of deceiving the hunters for me are the one who is a real scammer, Just a thought.

The teams are always going to make their projects popular by getting more participants as much as possible. Unless they ware building a community and are not doing IEO or ICO at all, they can just limit the number of participants into a hundred to 200.

This will still not satisfy bounty hunters though especially when the tokens are distributed and they found out someone had dumped the tokens before them.
Some bounty hunters result in threatening the team by posting a scam accusation.

anyway, I did not see good companies where the number of participants was limited. no one made good money thanks to the limits. I have no examples. Such companies can only be signatures with payment in bitcoins, but for 3 years I have never been so fast to register in such campaigns

I think it's impossible to happen that bounty campaign will limit their participants because it is more in favor of them that there are many participants so that more people can promote their project.

We have many greedy developers, bounty managers like those rules because they will be managing a small number of participants and they can easily distribute, but knowing developers of the project, they want as many promoters in a minimum cost and so, they always have the last say on the how the project will run, they want a full advantage of the campaign.

It's very good solution for bounty hunters. However project owner will never do this because as more bounty hunters join the campaign, the campaign will be more effective. That's what they want, more bounty hunters, more people will know about the project, more potential buyers. So they will not limit bounty hunters

nah that's what im thinking about. the dev and manager need to get massive advertisement to make a lot of investors will know about the project and it needs a lot of participants to make it happen.
In fact so many managers were not putting limitation.

Limited participants is the best solution, we are in pandemic period now and many people have joined this forum meaning that we will have many bounty hunters joining Campaigns and rewards will be too low

It's also very hard to see new project team paying good amount of money to bounty hunters, nowadays almost all bounty allocations are between 20k to 50k worth of token, bubbalex and bounty detective are the two BMs that listens when bounty hunters request for limiting bounty participants

Currently there are too many bounty hunters but there are too few bounty running, in addition they also have very low budgets. I participated in a few campaigns for 8 weeks and received only $ 20 from it, the best way is to restrict participants. It will help the project avoid spam accounts and bounty hunters will also receive a better reward

It's true! Bounty hunters can't live with this low-reward rate! There are too many bounty hunters in the field but too little efficient projects appear. The best way to solve this problem is that promoters and developers should restrict the number of participants. However, I don't think it's an easy way for them because as a developer you always want more people to talk about your campaigns.

I also think like this. however, if it is the will of the bounty manager, then it is possible that the funds can be deposited in escrow, or use USDT or other coins as payment to be more secure. in addition, participants will definitely be selected and become more selective, and impose limits. unfortunately, developers sometimes want to do massive advertising, which makes the number of participants unlimited.

Bounties problem presently

1. We have too many jobless people around the world due to COV-19 and some fresh people came on here to join bounties because of the pandemic

2. Bounties have too low budgets nowadays, you can hardly see a project that will give up 100k $

3. Bounties are very limited, there aren't too many Campaigns to get bounty hunters occupied

It's true that limiting bounty participants per bounty project is the perfect answer

Viewing multiple projects has also run participant restrictions. And the result they get more coins when compared to projects that are not restricted participants. We can see the Bounty project with Bitcoin payments. Participants are also limited but only with an account above full members who can join.

But all the definite decisions in the hands of Bounty managers. Seeing many altcoins of course we must also be intelligent in determining the Bounty project. So, despite the many bounty participants, we can still get good results.

They couldn't limit the participants unless they strongly believe that they have enough publicity to achieve their goals.
The reason why they start bounty is for their projects publicity so why would they limit the people who would promote their project that could affect their growth?
I believe that they wouldn't do it after all they already invested on it by allocating some funds for it if you would put yourself on their place I think you would also understand it.
We as a bounty hunter are getting less but they as a project owner are paying up the same amount the problem is that we are too crowded and there are only few projects to promote.

the big problem is that bounty hunters work with projects without doing any project analytics. very often they do promotion for scam projects and many investors can be scammed

Most bounty managers won't accept this, more bounty hunters means more awareness for the new project, this is something that bounty managers can pull off of they won't, bubbalex had to put a 50 limited participants on his latest bounty because the whole allocation worths 5000$ only, another bounty manager that can do this again is bounty detective

This is of course a very good decision, but unfortunately the companies which making bounties will not make such concessions, after all, they need as many bounty hunters as possible would promote their companies and they don’t care what pennies we will earn.

the problem is there are lots of cheater in  each bounties that's why the rewards is too little for those fair
accounts that doing their job properly with no cheating.
Do you think that  Company cares about the counts of participants?when the truth is they are the one that benefits from this?
common open your eyes,because the team doesn't care about hunters because all they care is their incoming  profit.
The Company Knows ABout cheaters thats why they concern nothing about the allocations of rewards,
what is  important is that we advertised their company  and thats all.

Many bounty managers are already becoming aware of too many bounty hunters in our midst today, for example three different bounty campaigns are ongoing that are using limited participants strategy

1. DIA Bounty Campaign from Bubbalex
2. Ibidtowin bounty Campaign from Exidious
3. Oikos round 2 bounty Campaign from Oikos team
4. ARCS bounty Campaign from Bounty Detective

It's happening already

Limited bounty Campaign is the reason why you will see too many participants on a bounty spreadsheet nowadays, I'm ok with this though because too many bounty projects are scam, it's better to have 10 legit bounty Campaigns than 100 scam bounty projects

Its rare to find bounties with fixed bounty hunters unless they are paying in any listed crypto currency because they are not spending money from their pockets and they fixed rewards for bounty pool so no matter how many participants they are going to spend the same reward amount that is why bounties never wanted to limit the number of participants.

There are two perfect solution to overcrowded bounty participants

1. Fixed tokens per bounty hunters
2. Limited bounty participants per Campaign

 These two solutions works wonder and few bounty managers

Strongly agree with your suggestion, just by limiting bounty hunters to join an allocation campaign will be fair enough, fair and the problem is solved.
Sometimes I am very sad if a good project is always a lot of participants and the results are not fair because the allocation is a little divided among many bounty hunters.

It's only good for bounty participants, but it won't be good for the project. If they limit the participants, I believe their project will not be exaggerated, the projects only care about the number of participants because they want as many people to know the project as possible.

Everyone will clearly agree that the participant restrictions are applied to the bounty campaign, because that will have a good effect on rewards and will be directed to whom he can quickly, and the manager will not feel tired when working on updates to the weekly spreadsheet table for the bounty campaign he holds.

Yes, like the IQ.Cash campaign, they have a low budget but not limited to participants. In the end, each participant received only $ 5-10 for a few weeks of work. It is even lower than participating in airdrops

Everyone likes a bounty campaign that limits the participants, because it will be far better than a bounty campaign that opens space for everyone without any restrictions, this will certainly make the hunters more active and faster in drawing conclusions before the slots are full.

The most ridiculous bounty Campaign presently with huge participants and a cruel bounty rule is injective protocol, the allocation is very limited and yet over 240 bounty participants joined the signature campaign, the higher the number of the people that join the better for the team, so cruel, limited participants is the best presently and I will oy follow bounty managers that implements such fairness

Bounty managers can also use fixed tokens for bounty hunters depending on their ranks, you will even know how many tokens you'd make before you start the bounty campaign, limited participants is good too

This is a very nice suggestion and only few bounty managers are doing it while others are not, the reason is up to them. But however, if the allocation is good enough maybe the bounty manager might remove limits which of course will still attract more participants while the good thing is, they will end up with a tangible reward. On the other hand, bounty managers that doesn't place limits only ends up making participants works less rewarding and it doesn't make sense. Also, this issue of limitations makes most participants or bounty hunters appreciate most bounty managers over others and it will remain that way.

When bounties were not yet popular, the number of participants was also not small, but payments from companies were much higher. What I mean. A pool of 3-5% of the total number of coins was allocated. Nowadays, you can often see a pool of 0.5-1%. The next factor is the value of the coin. In 2017-2018, the value of coin was greatly overestimated, so a large number of participants could earn money. Now, when the coin goes public, it costs very cheap. That's all the reasons.

It's bounty managers choice, if they do really well we will praise them and their reputation will rise up but not every bounty managers cares about reputations, they only want their payment

   In long-term trusted managers have more work, and they will earn more money. Managers with lower reputation will not
earn in long-term, they will work for scam projects and their payout will be low, probably!
   There are good suggestions in this topic, I like some of them, but that will not change the structure, managers work for
the team members of the projects, and they will came up with their own rules, regarding what we think.

I think all good solutions have been implemented by most bounty managers at this time, we only follow the rules they have made, because if we as hunters continue to complain about this, then it's better to make our own project, so we can make the rules according to our desires.

I think mainly because they overestimate their reward worth. Even with limited participants, just a change in terms of price could make everyone's efforts down to the drain since the price is too low and not worth it. Fixed bounty allocations and limited participants only work for projects with a stable price both at the start and at the end of the bounty.

I think all managers really care about their reputation, not just pay attention, because with a good reputation, they automatically can also be more flexible in looking for profits in this forum, especially in terms of their trust from the project developer.

A good result in managing the bounty means it will increase the rating of the manager too. Some managers gave veeb getting a lot of big name caused by this. So many times the manager has been giving answer related to this question and it depends on the decision that has already taken by the team.

Is a good idea and reason why I always tell people to check bounty rules and regulations including allocations before doing because not all bounty worth the stress. I chatted with a friend regarding bounty allocation he vividly told me that 5$ worth huge in his country while some countries it's absolutely nothing. Let's always check bounty before doing to avoid issues.

Good point you have there, limiting the participants will be good for the hunters, but not for the team.
The project team usually wants hunters to join the bounty as many as possible without limitation.
Also, if there are many hunters using multiple accounts, then there will be many hunters unable to join because the spot is already full with multiple accounts.

Sooner or later bounty managers have to accept this limited participants master plan because its very clear that many more bounty hunters are joining this forum, even from other crypto forum platforms like altcoinstalk, limiting participants is a must unless bounty budget is big enough

I think they only need to limit participants to the signature campaign. That is the best way to ensure the rights of people in this forum

The developers probably wont want that, even though want hunters want a decent payment most of them dont make a good job on promoting. I dont think limiting bounty participants are gonna be a thing in the future.

Yeah, fixed number of bounty hunters usually when bounty project already has a set of funds for that bounty already. I think not many projects have that kind of luxury to have an unlimited fund aka unset amount fund for the bounty.

It's a free market, so it's already working as it is supposed to work. If there are many bounty hunters it's because the job still worth for them, but once they stop enrolling themselves on these campaigns bounty campaigns will have to change the terms and rewards to make promoters join again.
For an example: if people stopped selling their services for dead coins these campaigns would be naturally forced to pay rewards in decent currencies which price something on the market. So even if the project's coin doesn't have a future, promoters wouldn't have a total loss for their services.

Yes, I agree with your opinion. Restrictions on participants are good. It often happens at the end of the campaign they come to join. It is unfair when participants who join from the first week of low rank are defeated by those of high rank who only joined the last week or two. But this is already our fate of low rank. Be patient and pray that rank can be equal. ;D

That's not right, I think. How can 5 USD be worth of huge money for any country? These people could be an early dumper because they don't care about the price. Actually don't need to limit participation for any campaign because that's form of projects budget is low. A low allocation budget campaign can't offer us high rewards even for low users. I saw more than 5 percent allocation for Bounty hunters, now only see in one campaign "Koinpro Exchange".

I think it is this way because people don't want to miss out on the free chance to become millionaires.It was with some project which I don't remember the name where saying a simple hello in the ANN thread would have made you a millionaire.

The only party that can determine the total token allocation should be the team itself, the hunters can't do something with it as the manager has already stated if the manager was only running what already said by the team. I have been taking with the team so many times and they were still saying the same thing.

Bounty hunters limit could be a majority rule or should follow these types of projects in the future. The best example is the DIA project. The "bubbalex" manager has filled with interest in this type of project. I really appreciate this bubbalex manager's work. Bounty allocation was increased for huge interested hunters. I'm very happy that I'm part of it. Actually now I like to participate, fixed bounty allocation.

You are talking in another direction. The OP is talking mainly about the reward that hunters get and he wants to know if fixed allocation will be better than suing stakes where the number of participants is not limited. A project team and bounty managers who truly loved their project would want to satisfy their hunters and most times they do that by limiting the number of participants.

I strongly agree that the bounty manager puts restrictions on each bounty allocation, because the results we receive are quite large and we can enjoy it, but we must respond quickly when there are new projects that will appear so that we can be registered in the project.

Yeah i think bounties currently have low reward and now you mention it, the reason could be the number of participants.
Limiting the number of bounty participants is a good thing to be done, because it will attracting more qualify promoters due the high reward.

Agree with you, bounty currently has a very low budget. Therefore limiting the participants will be a good way to protect the interests of bounty hunter. Just like the campaign I'm in, they limited 150 participants to signatures with a budget of about $ 7000 for signatures, I think it's really reasonable.

Well, that did solve the problem in the problem of a small prize to be distributed to limited participants. it will make the prize look bigger. however, something like this happens only to projects that are paid for bitcoin and ethereum. For bounties, it seems that currently it is still very rarely applied, especially for bounties that do not yet have a market.

The Project owners wanted full advertising so why would they limit the participants when even if they are paying low still there are many bounty hunters that will participate?

Why not tell the BOUNTY HUNTERS to not join when they already saw the amount of allocated payments is getting smaller?

it is not about the managers and owners but about the Hunters.

The solution is very appropriate if the allocation of a small bounty limits the participants who want to join but I personally before join the bounty saw the allocation and how many participants if not comparable then I look for another bounty

I think when the world conditions are in crisis like now, even the smallest bounty is obliged to be a participant of the bounty campaign because in my opinion, if you miss a golden opportunity it will only make us regret it because it is a waste of the opportunity to earn money and survive.

But not many people like you, they will be willing to join because they have many accounts. I have seen many people using multiple accounts and bounty fraud, which is why we have so many bounty hunters right now.

Good allocations and limited participants is a good way to earn decent rewards and assurance will be guaranteed after bounty ends. I joined recently bounties that so many participants and end up only 20$ rewards for 12 weeks of promotions. Doing social media campaigns is not that good anymore because the allocation is small and with unlimited participants its really impossible to earn big  rewards. Only on articles and translations are worth it now to joined and even signature campaign is quite fair too.

There are already some restrictions being made by some Bounty Managers depending on the preferred style of the Creators of that project. They already implemented this kind of bounty managing and it really affects the outcome of bounties. The bounty hunters will have great profit and in that way, more people will support it in a way that they want to have their own profit by buying tokens from that bounty.

One thing you need to understand here is that a good project would attract a lot of bounty hunters and what the team is looking for is right exposure for their project and the more people promote their project the better the exposure the project have. I think for me it is better to have a fix token for individual in their campaign and once the budget is exhausted the stop admitting people

I feel there are 3 sides to the issue of many promoters, the terms the project devs choose to work with, the conditions set aside by the bm and the terms for bounty. Some bm prefers low participation while some projects prefer large participation, it is up to the bm to strike a balance between rewards cap and participant cap

We should think again about that, we can't randomly limiting the campaign and it must be made based on how much allocation and how big will be received by the participants. In fact, so many bounties were getting ordered by the team. The manager will do when the team has been taking such a decision.

That's quite hard if I am a developer I want as many bounty hunters to promote my project in a small allocation, if I am a bounty hunter and I see a project has potential in the market I will join it even if we have many participating I prefer a project with small allocation but big potential than a bogus project with high allocation.

Right. It's a lot of things to worry about when we joining the bounty campaigns that don't have enough funds to pay for participants. Of course, every project wants to expose its reputation throughout the market by using bounty hunters. Limiting participants is one of the most important things to do if the project wants to encourage their bounty hunters. Obviously, higher rewards, harder works!

Kingcasino was a bad project and it attracts many bounty hunters, can you spare a minute of your time to check kingcasino bounty spreadsheet? Not all bounty hunters are smart enough to spot good bounty projects amongst the bad ones.

If bounty has a big budget then I believe they don't need to limit the participants. Limiting participants will prevent the project from getting the attention of the bounty hunter and the project will not get too much fomo.

I understand your point but which project has big bounty budget that actually maintain their price? There is none, don't believe projects that promise 200k to 1million dollars worth of tokens, they sound big but they won't cost more that 20k to 30k when trading starts on exchange

Don't expect bounty to have a budget of $ 200-300k at the moment. I am sure it will never be and the price will crash many times until you get the token. I think a bounty of about $ 50k budget is enough for the whole campaign

I doubt this will happen, with a limited or allotted budget for promotion without limit for participants is beneficial for the team because they will have more exposure with a certain budget. That is why altcoin bounties with a fixed bounty pool have no limit in regards to participants, unlike bitcoin bounties which pay per participants instead of counting stakes per week.

Meaning you will not make quality promotion because you only gathering small reward?
This is why Developers and even some managers care nothing about how much
You will going to receive as reward because they know that you are just making
promotion to complete your requirements and without even concern about the quality.
Look how you guys present your post in this thread,majority of you are bounty hunters that making
1-2 lines post that tackles the same what others says over and over.
Why not try to make quality even the allocated payments are lower?so
in the future dev will consider raising your income?

Bounty managers do not care about the number, they are just doing their job so there is no way that this could be done thanks to bounty managers, they could only follow orders. When we are talking about the team, why would they pay a lot more money to just few people versus paying small amount for thousands of people?

In the end the result is paying the same amount for them but in one of them they are getting a lot of people while in the other they are getting only few. Sure they could consider quality over quantity but they are not the bounty manager, they don't know who will be picked and they are not sure about the quality, so instead of picking not so sure quality, they pick guaranteed quantity and that way they are making as much profit from it as they can with a lot of people promoting them.

Escrow and limited participants is the best two ways to get rid of too many bounty participants today, it works and few reliable bounty managers like bubbalex and bounty detective are already using this two ways in their bounty campaigns and it works

I saw a fair deal of both fixed bounty allocations and unfixed bounty allocations to know which one is more popular and less a change bounty hunters dropping out because of unprofitable. Of course, fixed bounty allocations are much more popular among bounty hunters since we want something stable throughout the campaign.

In my opinion, it depends upon the situation that bounty manager is blaming under the manipulated because not all campaign are failed to gain benefits, I think this position is hard to make perfect at all times due to climate change.

It is not a good idea. Although, those with lower rank might prefer it, because theyknow they are getting something fixed. The reason stakes, which invariable translates to non-fixed bounty is better is because it brings out the result of hard work and rank. If you are hardworking and you have a lower rank, you can still earn more than when you find yourself ina fixed allocation bounty.

A good manager will always think about how to create win win solution between the team and the hunters. the position is not so hard as you think and you must aware if the same situation is always happening anytime.
This makes people will try to do the thing based on the situation that is happening.

Limit on bounty campaign is good to prevent reward loss of bounty campaign.
There are some bounties that pay in fixed rate, but usually the reward is not much i think.
It is up to you about what you will choose either fixed based or stake based bounty, but the important thing is the bounty payment is guaranteed.

well for solutions for this problem is only limiting the participants on any bounty campaign, because everyday promoters keep growing and increase , no one can avoid them to join the bounty as promoter that joined twitter and facebook bounty unless campaign  manager has a rule for participants and keep the participants limited slot to avoid to much promoters on the bounty campaign.

but I prefer fixed rate ,mostly that currency is already available in exchange and you have all the ability to sell any time you want to.
As long as its weekly payment I don't see any problem partixipating in that kind of bounty. It can also help to reduce newly scam project that just want a free promotion using bounties as  advertisement.

you already participated on a campaign that pays in weekly payment  .you dont need a bounty because they dont pay weekly  . you said you want fix rate on crypto  ?  but crypto itself doesnt have a fixed value   . your only assurance that you can get your expected payout is when the market is in stable times  . campaigns that pays in top coins per week wont mean that they arent scam but there are paying only for their first few weeks and then scam happens the next time or scam happens on thier site  .

I also agree with your opinion, as many bounty hunters complain that they are getting very few tokens, but they all have their own policies regarding the bounty manager.

Limiting the bounty campaign participants is usually not good for the project, because against their purpose of promoting to as many people as possible, I think it is best to increase the conditions for the participants. to avoid spam and cheater

You know ,i agree with you but i think the project team doesn't like this idea because their aim is to promote their project and they need a lot of promoter to do this job as part of their marketing strategy. I think giving a fixed reward and having a limited participants are the same strategy because if the well give a fixed reward of course they will limit the number of participants to join.

Yes, I saw many bounty projects just want as many people to participate in their bounty as possible without thinking about more people = less reward. That's why I agree with you about new bounty projects today have to limited participants or fixed allocations for each participant or both. This actually helps them to have a better bounty since everything already in place with the reward has set. No more complain about low pay, quitting bounty midway, call it a bad bounty,...

it is better to receive less reward, but the tokens must have value and then can bring profit to their holders. very often bounty hunters receive a large amount of tokens but they do not cost any dollar

The team would definitely be happy with more number of participants in the same budget as compared to less number of participants under that same budget. The main purpose of the team is to have more number of social shares and more exposure of their project on the social media platforms so as to reach more number of people and increase their chances of a successful project launch. But it is the choice of the manager to have a hard cap on the number of participants so as to have better post quality of the participants because they will be getting more money for promoting that project and thus they will do a proper job.

I have the same thought with you too. In this case, the manager should see the situation before trying to decide to give limitation for the campaign. The manager also needs to ask the developers for that as all the decision will have decided by the team.

Like the DIA project bounty, the initial project budget is only $ 5000 for the bounty. But after being listed on exchanges the price went up to 3 $ 1 token and now bounty's budget is 300k $. It was really crazy growth

It's a perfect idea for bounty managers to have limited hunters promoting a project. This will help to keep the reward substantial and give the hunters zeal to work harder thereby preventing spam. The major cause of spam posts is too many promoters. The bounty managers can also try to test the knowledge of bounty hunters before allowing them to join a campaign, I believe this could limit the hunters and ensure that its only hunters with a sound knowledge of the project that can promote it.

I think I still like things the way it is currently, the current system makes the money to reach almost every participating bounty hunter, in all honesty I think it is the roject developers that ought to increase their allocation for bounty campaigns and promotion

if the bounty hunter is still thinking about allocations, then you better join the bounty with Bitcoin payments, because you will definitely be paid according to your work, we all know the project allocation for the bounty program is uncertain, and there are many scam projects, so you have to choose the right one. bounty manager for your work

Agree, restrictions on bounty participants can have a good impact on participants' income but do not know what the impact will be on the project, is it bad because of a lack of news distribution so that the project does not run smoothly due to participant boundaries or there are other impact

I think it doesn't really matter if there are too many promoters in a bounty means project it so good that many join but if the allocation is small then it depends on each individual want to join or not, but if allocation small, there are many participants then the prize that will be small

I agree with your points, and it makes sense! Recently Bubbalex limited the participants in his DIA signature and twitter campaign, and now I see the impact of limitation! Almost every full member will make thousands of dollars from the DIA coin; twitter participants also earned good rewards! Bounty manager should follow this, I hate the Sofico bounty management team, they are ruining the greatness of crypto bounty campaign, they Don't limit participants, and they give shit rewards to their supporters. Bounty managers should follow what you pointed out!         

As long as the price of the token will not make the hunters disappointed again and then even with the small allocation and it's still worth to participated but remember when the dev offered a lot of allocation but the price of token was zero and is not it look so bad?

According to what DIA telegram admin say, all the listings of DIA tokens on hoo, biki, hotbit, uniswap and others were not made by them. Team says that tokens are locked till August 18. Bounty hunters haven't received tokens yet.

Probably early investors made this pump, or fake tokens are traded on these exchange (or some sort of "future" tokens). Or the team lies about not transferring tokens to uniswap (where all trade started).

The current bounty system hasn't changed much since a few years ago on the forum and the only difference is the amount allocated. We have nothing to complain about because it's not a mandatory job but an opportunity to earn money and experience blockchain technology. However, each manager has their own style of work and we must know it before joining any campaign.

Actually it did change. Now it has become common to distribute in batches. Answer question about the project before you are accepted. Social media campaign most common rule was “5 retweet+2tweet“, now bounty asks to “retweet with comment using hashtags”. Bounty pulls have decreased. Project ask to “register on a wallet site where tokens will be send”

The truth is that bounty hunting was more lucrative before now, and that was simply because there were fewer hunters on many campaigns. Now we have much more hunters and the reward are even lesser. The best way out is to limit the hunters by any criteria the bounty manager feels fit and share the reward with a limited set of hunters. This would make the bounty hassle more rewarding for hunters.

The problem in the bounty is a scam and unfair. because the manager does not limit the participants is also a problem. I have an idea that if I become a manager, I will adjust the number of participants according to the allocation of rewards. because besides being an easy job for the manager, bounty participants also get a decent reward. how is my idea?

It is too early for the bounty hunters to receive their tokens, as scheduled the bounty will be distributed in three phases. And the first period is 30 days after the bounty ends. So they need to wait until September to receive their tokens

that's good, the restriction will be effective if the bounty is too much. will be the same if the bounty is only a little while the restriction makes other bounty hunters unable to take part. I agree with the restrictions and prizes that can be set for each participant. hopefully this can be taken into consideration by the development team and prospective development team who will share the bounty here and it is a success.

I also agree, aside from having a certain number of participants for a bounty campaign, it will also help to filter the bounty participants to increase the quality of the post for advertising the project. It will be an advantage for both project and bounty hunters if this solution will be implemented.

It is the role of bounty managers that could help minimize the number of the bounty participants. It is easy to be done because all applications are manually added to the list and once it is full then there is no way one can join.

However, it might be good also to do first is to minimize the number of the projects being introduced in the forum. Because of their numbers investors find it hard to chose and invest with. Then most likely investors now are learning that investing in ICO projects is a big NO No for it is a high chance of being a scam project.

Right, it would enable the bounty hunters to receive a reward for their work. After months of work and they only get a few pennies from the bounty is unworthy, like an IQ.cash campaign

If bounties were restricted to few persons, the reward would have been more substantial than what we have now, some projects are so conscious of giving hunters peanut, so when a campaign doesn't get a certain amount of participation, they slash the reward to ensure that the hunters gets a small amount of tokens after the participation and that's unfair.

The conditions in the crypto market for new projects have changed a lot over the past 3 years.
If earlier a project, even with a weak marketing company, could easily carry out a successful fundraising, today it is necessary to make truly titanic efforts so that investors look at your project and decide on an investment.

I think this is for the best, because now it’s extremely difficult for any garbage to get to the top, but for good projects the conditions have become more complicated.
Therefore, the more hunters participating in the project, the higher the chances that he will succeed.

An alternative would be bounty companies that accept only really effective hunters, this would create a natural precedent for improving the overall quality of work among bounty hunters due to the increasing complexity of the conditions.

I think one reason why nowadays we have receive low bounty rewards because all the bounty hunters now are so cautious and vigilant in looking a legit bounty campaign. They are making sure that they will get paid even if they have receive less than they received before.

Can you provide the list of some projects that did this? As far as I know, the project will only cut their bounty allocation if ever that they don't raise their maximum target or if the allocation is fixed, it is the bounty managers job to make sure that it will be fixed even if there is a few bounty hunters will participate.

Limiting the number of participants allows you to receive at least some decent reward, although few projects take such a step. Many consider it best to attract an unlimited number of participants, neglecting the quality of their work. At the same time, bounty hunters who respect their work always plan ahead for opportunities to receive rewards and do not go into the crowd.

The fact is that  hunters are always advisable or expected to hodl their tokens perhaps that coin might be a good project, using DIA as a case study hodlers of those token who had waited patiently  enough earned a massive reward, who among those numerous hunters can exercise such a patience? only few a lot of them, once rewarded dumped and move on thus the cycle continues above all a clear study and research is all that is required to participate in a project with a good prospect.

That's the beauty of doing that, the chance for bounty hunters to receive decent amounts of rewards by limiting participants is
a good step from the team and the bounty managers. With the same concepts BM can hire hunters who have good posting qualities
in returned of advertising the project in the right places where target audiences will be triggered.

it is ineffective, bounty participants should be limited to only 1% of the total allocation, and that is so that bounty participants still get decent rewars. but there are still managers who do not limit the number of bounty participants and result in unfair rewards for bounty participants

Actually its on their prerogative to give you rewards so if the project really wanted to have more promoters, why would they limit it. In fact they wanted a more expand marleting. We can only be lucky to some campaign managers who are concern to the hunters and implementing some limits like bubblealex. But indeed, this will be helpful but we should not complained in the first place.

Obviously, for low budget projects they need to limit their participation. This will keep the project secure and the bounty hunter will receive a small sum from the bounty. Without limiting it, I think people will get 1-2 $ for 2-3 months of work

Yes, some project really doesn't care about quality by using unlimited number of participants in their bounty campaign. This is why they don't want to limited participants and just want to spread about their work as much as they can.

maybe even small rewards it's enough for me because eventually if we are still participate more legitimate campaign I think it becomes double because in particular way for being a promoters is to accept from losing so that,there is no legal job that is easy to do better in one time.I guess we are all living with lack of financial so, we need to wait and encourage to do the right as promoters.

How do you think a bounty manager can define an effective hunter? For example, in a signature campaign there are usually few participants and, in principle, they can be examined. But if it's a social media campaign? There can be 200 or 500 participants. Even with a limited number. It's very difficult and time consuming. I don’t think that someone will do this, because projects need advertising and as extensive as possible.

You all so worried about what you will get paid you don't even care about the actual project and then you want to cry when you don't get paid. Getting $100000000 worth of tokens doesnt mean anything if there is no use for them or no demand. You need to support good projects you believe in. Only good projects will have tokens worth something.


How about you just use your brain and work out the possible payment vs the risk instead of blaming the bounty? If you don't like 500 hunters working for a mere $3000 then why the hell are you supporting it. You don't care about the project only the money and thats why you never make any.

The social media campaign has a lot of tools and api to ease the management so it wasn't that hard to check for their quality. But yes, some project doesn't really care about quality in their bounty and only want to reach as many people as possible. Hence, unlimited participants allow joining before it becomes unprofitable for everyone.

I personally like the way Bubbalex is handling his campaigns, it is very encouraging and many are always looking forward to it including myself. It is important for bounty managers to care about the reward of participants instead of loading up a campaign with too many people why not set maximum cap.

Each project has different rules from one another and I rarely see projects with fixed allocations for participants. I also agree about limiting project participants, this rule will at least be worth our efforts when promoting the project, only if the project is really successful and the team pays the participants.

the restriction will make the bounty better, as it triggers healthy competition.
1. registration speed
2. Participant consistency level
3. Maximum prizes
No matter how good the project is, if there are many who promote the biggest beneficiary is the project team, because the product is getting famous, while the bouty participants only get a few benefits.

by limiting the participants, i also think that the manager should do the participants check before allowing them to register the campaigns. if it is a signature campaign, manager should check the post quality, accusations against those users, date when the account created. it does not matter who is faster at register but at least you can have the participants who have good quality post, that is better in my eyes

I think that is the only way to limit the participants who can participate in a project, but when giving limits, you must be able to choose participants who have a lot of money, because if only people with little money will make the project unable to develop and certainly not. will be able to make the price go up.

Thats why we need to look for a legit team with background of previous successful project, they should be transparent about it. In this way we have an idea if they can create a successful project because it wont be easy, they need a concrete plan and budget to execute it without getting any problem.

Lowering the participants are fair for hunters because we can get a deserving amount by promoting, but its not an advantage to the dev because we know as much as possible they are looking for more promoters to spread awareness.

It does not matter to me if many promoters promote the project because I have noticed more and more projects or bounties are popping up every day
not all bounties can get maximum results if the promoter can't judge or be more careful before joining, then only got a loss

Im agree with you make a limit to participant bounty was the only way to make the pay was fair and worthed project to do
But i believe the company who make the bounty campaign ofcourse already counted all of it
And the company make bounty campaign ofcourse have a target to reach to
The main purpose to make bounty campaign in all of social media was to reach people, to make people know the company was exist and have a good project and if the participant was limited maybe they dont get the target they must achieve

Apparently, crypto project devs now want to see more value and are unwilling to pay very high amounts of money to bounty hunters, especially those who spam and cheat by creating multiple accounts. Rewards are much less now and the best way to distribute is to set fixed amount of rewards for each campaign and cap the number of participants that will be allowed to join.

Did you realize that ICOs do not collect such money like in 2017? Did you realize that investors are less and less interested in low market cappitalization coins? That is the reason of our low rewards because there aren´t many investors that would buy our earned tokens.  :)

investor confidence in ICO is getting worse of course many investors run away if the project takes the form of an ICO but the era is already developing
defi is the choice of many investors because defi projects can generate profits in a short time

if investors are not wrong in choosing they will get an instinct of profit, but if the wrong choice investors will lose 90% of their funds, because if they are trapped in scam DeFi it is a terrible thing, for example, there is a token whose presale price is 50 tokens / 1 eth when listing becomes 500 tokens / 1 eth and it happens a lot, I think DeFi already resembles the ICO hype.

I think,there are also some bounty managers who make regulations to limit bounty signature participants in a project because of the small allocation of funds for bounty hunters, if all prize managers limit participants from joining a project, participants who are late will be very disappointed if the project is very good.

The bounty project depends if the project actually earn a good amount of investors funds. Most of the time the number of participants doesn't matter at all since their are only a allocated funds that is going to go in the participants and it is going to be split depending in the stakes of the participants. Project could fail at some point when the bounty doesn't have enough investors so the devs probably wants to get a high number of promoter that they could get to encourage a lot of investors in the project. So it doesn't matter since it is a big help if their are so many promoters.

By this time, there are a few, actually. Compared to how the bounty campaign works before, right now, bounty managers are starting to make it better. Instead of accepting every participant to promote the project, they started to have a limitation of how many participants are allowed to at least participate. And I think it is normal to be disappointed if you are not able to participate in a good project, but if you are late, that is not the reason to be disappointed.

I think there is no team who wants to limit their participants because that will give them less promoters.
They will save extra cost from doing that, because limiting participants means they need to add more cost to gain more promoters.
Running fixed reward based campaign is one of the right solution without limiting the participants.

if 3000 $ is divided by 500 participants then the result is 6 $ so actually it depends on the bounty hunter to respond if they think it's too little amount then they shouldn't have to join and choose another project.
can't make the project as an excuse the prize is too little because it's been told at the beginning.

that's a good solution, but the problem is the project owner will never do this because the more bounty hunters join the campaign, the more effective the campaign will be. That's what they want, more bounty hunters, more people will know about the project.

Limited participants is the best solution, we are in pandemic period now and many people have joined this forum meaning that we will have many bounty hunters joining Campaigns and rewards will be too low ,even now there is a trend of Defi and many people are taking part in it too.

many bounty hunters joined not yet able to prove the project is good or not Most of the bounty hunters joining the bounty only see the allocation
If the allocation is large they will join without checking how the quality of the project is that's what happened so far

Yes, there really is no other solution besides limiting participants in each campaign for now, because forum users have also started to increase a lot during the pandemic, so that it will reduce the rewards of campaign participants if there are no restrictions on participants.

it is not easy to prove that a project is good or not, as a hunter you can only take a leap of faith even if you have done all the necessary research and background check, it still depend on the project team to fulfill the promise of payment, once a project was able to pay all bounty reward as at when due then you can confidently say the project is good.

The solution to this issue is purely within the competence of the company's leaders. And frankly, they are least concerned about who gets how much as a reward. They are more concerned with the issue of target audience coverage. The bigger, the better. Not many will go for the imposition of restrictions, only the most interested in quality content.

So many bounty hunters do not care about bounty hunters, have you read about IQ.Cash bounty so many bounty hunters have received from $2 to $10 only after months of promoting their project and they are now holding another campaign, it makes bounty hunters beggars, bounty hunters should not join,. IQ.Cash they treat them as slaves and not independent partners.

Yes, there are not many campaigns that impose restrictions for bounty participants, because basically they (the team) want many people who like their project, but for bounty hunters this must be considered because they have to calculate the time they will spend on a project, if indeed the time they spend is in accordance with the reward he will get through the project, then it will not be a problem to follow, but if it is the opposite, then the hunter must reconsider this, because the small reward is not very suitable for time. valuable, except for those who do not value their own time.

It is hard to find solutions to lots of bounty participants, which is why i believe there is a single way, capped participants.

Each Bounty should cap each section ofbthe Bounty, then let it be first come, first served basis; then the bm is to evaluate each participation and ensure that spammers and defaulters are removed and replaced

Then the situation becomes win/win, project gets capable promoters, and low cap participants

It is inevitable that there are so many bounty hunters, so we get a small prize, it is because of the many bounty scams, so that if there is a legitimate bounty, many will join, whereas bounties with fixed fees with limited participants can also only be in  follow by members with high rank

This is what makes a project insanely rewarding for bounty hunters

1. High demand for the projects coin or token
2. Limited participants for bounty campaigns
3. Low bounty allocation ( of course this won't matter since the coin has good value )

Spend your time and energy with projects that are very transparency in all ways.

A bounty campaign that keeps costs fixed and limits participants is a good thing and it is also carried out by the manager because it is forced and usually such campaigns are also due to small allocations, so restrictions are made for participants, because if that is not done the reward will be earned by each. Obviously there will be very few participants, so this is what we must understand because the conditions and situations are different.

We seldom see this campaign anymore and just so lucky that I am on one of those campaigns the campaign I'm in  has closed registration because they want to protect the stakes of their early promoters, this is a good move and we can see that the bounty manager and the team cared for their participants.

I can't support OP though, but the limited bounty allocation is very low. Although bounty hunters aren't much more than before. Bounty allocation is decreasing day by day, I found some bounty allocation is 0.005 percent. Bounty managers should increase the allocation as before 1-5 percent, but distribution will happen at different times.

I totally agree to this sentiments knowing that there are several bounty participants who join a particular campaign with a lesser bounty allocation which they work for so long it is really inhumane. I second the motion with regards to limiting the bounty hunter to a specific campaign so it can ensure that there will still be a good number of rewards for each bounty participants or just a suggestion that instead of rewarding them with the token of the project why not paying them in terms of stable coins or well-known cryptos, it can lessen the dumping of the token/coin of the project as well.

it's only fair to the project itself and unfair to bounty hunters. I mean like this if a project picks up thousands of bounty hunters and this is the profit point for the project. the more participants the more the ad. whereas for bounty hunters the more participants the less the reward. isn't it begiutu?

a good solution might be with limited participants as well as a fixed bounty allocation. and this is certainly good, so it's worth our efforts in promoting the bounty project. but the problem is that good projects are always the target of bounty hunters.

It would be best if the bounty managers limit participation of hunters on the basis of first come, first served. One of the reasons for low reward is because when a project looks promising, several hunters will desire to participate in the bounty program and thus reduce the reward.

This is the problem with herd mentality in selecting the bounty projects to promote. While it is necessary to select a genuine project to promote it is also a must that we select a project which will reward us for the time we spend in promoting the project.
Getting 10 $ worth after a month work is really really bad.

and also you have to calculate whether it is worth doing for you.
for example as you mentioned earlier, if 3000 $ is divided by 500 participants then the result is 6 $ for each participant until the campaign ends.
this is just an addition so that each participant always counts in advance when they want to join, and will not blame the bm or the project for getting a small fee.

I would think that the majority would prefer this system of limited bounty spots, but this would mean that the whole thing would be based on the FCFS (first come first serve) basis, so you would have to constantly look for newly created bounties if you would not want to miss your spot, which could be a major pain in the ass. There is no perfect system for this, but this could definitely be a step in the right direction.

I also think they should limit the participants and we have seen this already implemented by some popular bounty manager like bubblex and ulum. Their campaign was successful. Actually, bounty hunters are decreasing because of low reward allocation. What we are seeing in the spreadsheet is multi id users mostly especially on a social media campaign.

This is the difference between good bounty managers and ordinary ones. A good one will hire a person, for a small fee, who will check all social network participants for the quality of the content and the quality of the services provided.
A good project does not need useless marketing; it needs a precise and high-quality presentation of itself through bounty hunters.

Is there really a way to check the quality of the work of the bounty hunter if their only task is to like or share in social media? I don't think that there is a need for that quality check. What they need is to limit their bounty participants to at least give them enough opportunity to receive more rewards.

I think he is talking about completing the tasks and also some campaigns have task like they need to create own posts about the project they were promoting in the required number of characters so it could also fall into the quality.

There are enough bounty hunters on this forum. I even think that the forum is popular primarily because you can earn money here. When someone starts to arrange something, it always turns out with excesses. If you see that someone is doing their job badly or violates the rules of the forum, you can always complain to his bounty manager. If he does not take any response measures, then the moderators on the forum will always be ready to listen to you, they are responsive and work hard.

This is an exceptionally pleasant recommendation and just hardly any bounty chiefs are doing it while others are not, the explanation is up to them. Be that as it may, notwithstanding, if the assignment is good enough perhaps the bounty director may eliminate limits which obviously will at present pull in more members while the good thing is, they will wind up with a substantial prize. Then again, bounty supervisors that doesn't put restricts just winds up making members works less fulfilling and it doesn't bode well.

You are very right, the only solution to bounty hunters getting low rewards is what you've stated in your post, there should be limit to numbers of participants needed for specific bounty campaign, so that rewards will be fair for few hunters that manage to get in.

The only way to get rid of them is to go into them and consider the best factors to decide on a bounty program. Find the best project and use up your skills to bring out the most rewards. If you are a good writer, do it well and develop your video editing skills. I think self-skill development has a big advantage in bonus programs.

Bounty campaigns do not care how much each participant will earn. They allocate a pool for a bounty campaign and it makes no difference to them by how many participants divide it by 10 or by 100. On the contrary, the more participants there are, the more noticeable the advertising on the forum will be. You yourself can see how many people are already participating in the campaign and decide whether it makes sense to participate because the reward will turn out to be small.

It depends on which side to look at.

If from the customer's side - you allocate a pool of rewards, in order to increase the information flow in social networks about your project. What difference does it make to you how much each bounty hunter gets? You need the highest coverage per 1 unit of the reward pool.

On the bounty hunter's side, of course, it is better for him to participate where there is a limited number of participants. But even if you take a subscription company, and if it has for example 10 participants, including 4 members, 5 Full and one Legendary, in the end, the Legendary will take everything.

It's unfair that hundreds have joined to work at bounty, and its allocation tokens are low, I am with the idea of ​​setting a suitable allocation with a limited number of participants so that bounty hunters who work for months get what they deserve from the tokens that give them a good return, and if the project team wants hundreds of hunters, they must increase the bounty allocation. There is no free promotion.

Before it wasn't unfair because after the ICO they can sell the token at a good price, sometimes even higher than the ICO price, it was only unfair now because there's no guarantee that price will rise and most of the time it will sell lower than the ICO or IEO price.

I think bounties are open to everyone and the minimum rank of jr.member is fair because not all bounty hunters work well and sometimes they even do or spread FUD on the project.

I have never seen a bounty hunter spread fud when they promote a project,
I only see many participants and small rewards for bounty participants,
indeed there are bounty managers who have bounty participant limit rules, but many bounties still haven't used this rules

Campaign participant restrictions should have been implemented when they made small allocations. especially with the payment of coins that have been traded on the market. we can clearly see the allocation given and there should indeed be restrictions on the participants who can join for each campaign.

There are already some bounties like that and I remember joining one, its called "Aureus"? Or its near that word. These types of Bounties are really helpful and might yield a big amount of profit but that will also depend on the contract within the Bounty manager and the Bounty employer which are the developers themselves. Its a good way to earn Cryptocurrencies since you will only have a limited number of participants having it.

Yes, it still looks very fair to this day, depending on which side one will judge, but everyone at this point can make their participation in the bounty even though the rank is still below Jr.member.

They say Fud is in the official group, and that I think is stupid action that can affect investors and even people who will invest. The project is successful because there are investors, but when investors want to invest, they see that there are people who spread Fud and of course the investors will think longer or not invest in the project.

and what will happen? the project failed, bounties did not get paid and bounty hunters were increasingly spreading FUD.

In my opinion this idea is not the best, because I think promoting a project is not enough if the participants are limited and the project must really need more promoters so that the project can be known by many people and can achieve its target. The gift manager cannot decide with certainty without direction from the project owner, the gift manager can only enforce the rules if the project owner has agreed to what they have implemented.

Many bounty managers still choose quantity over quality, they don't really understand how their followers feels, if the project team wants more and many promoters to atleast meet their target of fundraising then they should let the payment fit, you can't promote a project for 4 months and ends up with 20$ because the project team has a target, this is slavery

it applies only to some campaigns. If indeed there will be a rule update that must be applied by all managers to be able to participate in the campaign I think it will be better. The manager definitely has his own rules, but it would be better if there are suggestions from the forum to make rules that are fairer and better for everyone. The manager will then just have to run and develop the agreed rules.

You are wrong mister, bounty managers aren't toys for any new projects, nowadays smart bounty managers even use escrowed, if the project team says no then the bounty manager must drop the job and find another, I've seen few bounty managers who did this, new projects are using bounty hunters like slaves, they want them to promote their projects unlimitedly but never consider how much a hunter will earn, if the bounty allocation is 10,000$ and just 1000 hunters joined thats approximately 10$ per hunter, using limited participants like 500 hunters will increase the earning per hunter, if the team don't like limited participants then they should add to the bounty allocation reward, problem solved.

That is somehow an answer to many disappointment by bounty hunters, limiting the number of bounty participants especially if the bounty reward is small is a great option and it will be a good indicators for every bounty hunters to have a better earnings from all their hardworks and efforts in promoting a project.

You are judging it from bounty hunter point of view. Put yourself on project marketing director place. You dont need that participants limitation as you wish to get as huge as possible promotional impact for same amount spent. This limitation and wish to get more for less is like white and black; that never will match.

Adding bigger allocation is also not a solution. If you increase allocation, the number of participants will also go up, you increase more, more hunters will join. Till all your circulating supply is allocated to bounty. Then who will invest in it? Who will buy altcoins? Investors will never invest a project, whos large part of tokens will be distributed to hunters.

limiting the number of participants will only make the scope of information dissemination less extensive, whereas if you have many participants such as social media, there will be many people who know about the project that is being promoted and will increase interest.

Limiting bounty hunters will do good if the projects are going to produce profitable rewards for bounty hunters cause there are only few bounty campaigns that actually turned out paying so well, most are paying shits coins or being scammed even worsts. Maybe BM's should atleast filter/screen every bounty hunter who will join the campaigns according to their Ranks.

I agree with this but the sole purpose of bounty campaigns is to have a crowd hype. By this, it is quite good to have more people who will join. It is also quite a strategy by some projects to have false hopes to campaign participants and ending up with no gains.

as developer works on extensive as referring notion of message with the offers of involvement for the project, we might gains of objective as referring decision to put of spares with funds and resource on authorization to exchange with shifts of difference of the profit on returns.

Even if you find the best project and decide to give it your all so as to acquire good reward it won't make any difference if there are too many participants that join the bounty campaign, it's all about calculations mate, do your math, your hardwork would help up a waste, I don't spend too much energy on bounty project with unlimited participants

the more the promoters, the higher chances of connecting to market but the downside is that the segmented market will be randomly shot and the project will look cheap because of unprofessional posts by dummy accounts.

Bounty campaigns with limited number of participants and with fixed reward are superb, but I think it`s not as profitable for project. Why they should to limit participants number, when they can get much more promoters, if they will delete limit. Fortunately, some bounty managers still take care of particicpants and give really good circumstances for participation and reward. I don`t think number of bounties can increase to balance number of hunters, but I hope some managers will come up with something to make situation better. Now participation in bounties is really hard and non-profitable

It will not do. There are things that has been done actually here in the forum and that by tagging the post with warning above it to signifies project would be scam. However, it is a load of work to be done by the staff in this forum. What you had suggested is right and I would like to see it happen but probably it will not because project's team or the owner could not earn in it by spending too much money for bounties. But there are good projects being establish already and bounty hunters that are joining in that project are getting huge profit due to low participants and high raise income.

yes,I agree with your stated solution, limiting the number of participants in a project campaign would be very good, at least worth the bounty hunter's efforts to promote his project. I miss the fixed allocation campaign, where someone can make a lot of money but if the project is really successful.

I immediately have a question - what is the benefit of this for the project? Its goal is to reach as large a layer of the audience as possible, and how much bounty hunters will get in the end is the last thing they care about. They and we are on opposite sides of the fence))

Restriction of participants is also the best thing, as it will provide sufficient results for the participants. However, it also had a negative impact on some participants. If a project is promising but limits participants, it is unfortunate for participants who do not get the opportunity.

$ 3000 is a very small amount. We can avoid this if we see a large number of participants listed in the spreadsheet.

Teams wanna get as much advertising as possinle for their projects so they will accept as much bouty hunters in their campaigns as possible. And i strongly doubt that bounty hunters would provide better content if there were participants' number limitations)

its all rather pointless when you have relatively new accounts who are hero members through just bounty posting, and heres this account which is not a bounty hunter and is just senior member.

I agree that there are many bounty participants who do not care about the rules and are not productive in joining the bounty. But what I do think is that the more people see the project that is being promoted, the better chance the project will succeed. I hope that the process of eliminating negative things in the bounty can be minimized with an objective assessment.

They would not agree with it tho. The more participants the better. They will not care about how much the participants will earn. As long as their project are promoted they will have no problem with it.

I guess the problem starts with the numerous number of participants but very few bounty campaigns.

For the bounty system now, maybe I prefer the participation limit, because when the token is distributed, is the price in accordance with the rewards that you get especially if you participate in full all campaigns
maybe it is better for bounty management and those who have a fair take project within the limits of bounty participants, and more agree that the duration of the bounty might be better shortened from the most 3-5 months can be shortened to 1-2 months because after the campaign is over, we still waiting for certainty when it will be distributed besides the after ico / ieo answer we don't know for sure when it will be completed and the last time it will be listed on the excange. but it all depends on the project and who manages the bounty

Yes. This benefits the developer of the project, while those of us who promote the project will not get anything.
If it is a low cost project to promote, it is better to limit participants, but if the promotional costs are high, there is no need to restrict participants.

Yes it would be better if they lessen the participants and the duration of the bounty campaign. This is to get a high rewards for the allocated campaign for having a limited participants and a short period waiting after the bounty is finish.

However only the dev has the power to make it real, we can give our suggestions but its not certain if this can happen in bounty campaign. Since they have their own rules and its an advantage for them if there are many bounty hunters who will spread awareness about their project.

Limits on the bounty campaign is really good idea because sometimes it is a cause also why the rewards is very low when campaign ends and they get the rewards. Many bounty hunters now and we know some of them are joining their multiple accounts so they get a high rewards than the other 1 account only and I hope those hunters be honest and don't join their other accounts to one campaign so the other people can join also to the campaign.

Honestly isnt something that you can really guarantee for most people now yet alts is a common thing since they do know that rewards are less then they do make out most of it by
having multiple ones to recieve multiple rewards which would be significant if it would be pooled all in one.Its impossible for bounties to have some limit or restriction in numbers
yet the main priority of these things are for maximum exposure which means limitation is unlikely to happen.

The Fixed reward is not good, because I see many bounties using fixed reward allocation, and at the end of the campaign, not all reward is distributed, so fixed reward is not a solution, stake reward is better

If limited participants, we agree this is the solution, and now already so many bounty managers using it, so I think no more worried about too many promoters

Absolutely, there should be limits on bounty campaigns because there is also limited supply allocated on the bounty and it is split into different types. There should also be a KYC when the payout is applied so that the people who have multiple accounts cannot get it. I am good at fixed rewards so that there is no confusion. Limited participants is better for the active users to be rewarded based really on what they deserved.

I agree on limiting the bounty participants. I recently noticed a campaign wants 4 weeks signature campaign and its budget allocation is only $750 and they want 250 signature participants. I don't know how this bounty manager agree to post this type of bounty. Probably they don't considering bounty hunters as man. So it is high time to limit the participants according to the allocation so that one participant can get a minimum payment to cover the transaction fees and withdraw fees from any exchange.

Your fortunate if the task is dealt with by a decent administrator where he see an excessive amount of members will make the spending plan weakened. Most dev group see abundance crusade as the simplest and practical approach to advance their undertaking. If not, there are numerous different implies that they can embrace to advance their mission. This will assist with keeping the prize considerable and give the trackers energy to work more diligently accordingly forestalling spam. The significant reason for spam posts is an excessive number of advertisers.

That is a good idea but the developers and bounty manager will only think things that will favor the promotion of the campaign if they can get thousands of promoters by just allocating a very small portion of their token and many bounty hunters participate, it will be to their advantages, bounty hunters should always check the number of participants and the token allocation so they will know if they are not getting good shares.

Limiting of participants is the best choice, but there needs to be specific amount need to be allocated as minimum for every level of member. This will make the project worthy and the participants have better involvement in promoting the project. These day bounty campaigns have started to provide large volume of rewards. Very few are give good earning when listed while majority of the large volume tokens provided go with very less values.