Bitcoin Forum

I don't know who needs to hear this but after years of being a bounty hunter and keeping a close eye on how bounties are conducted, it's safe to say most projects make the biggest mistake of paying bounty hunters using their native tokens, why do I say so, well bounty hunters don't share the long term foresight as the project to the point of being a hodler to grow with the company but rather see their bounty payment as a service and will sell the tokens for less to get whatever money they can because they owe nobody anything.Of course, for the project to pay using the tokens is cost cutting but if the project is truly slated for the future, paying using non-tokens is a good signal for a strong project.

Going forward in the best interest of investors and the project itself, hope to see "more" bounties being paid with established coins in this industry.

What do you guys think?

Thinks of it this way, since the project team can easily mints the coins in whatever amount the wish, it will cost them nothing against paying in dollars or other stable currencies.

-If the team is serious about growing their project, and at the same time paying a reasonable amount as a reward for their promotion via bounties to the hunter, their can as will pay in their token in other to protect the market and possibly dump, they could offer some form of buy back, in that way, the team will buy back bounty allocation from biunty hunters, that way it becomes a win-win for both the hunter and the project itself.

In a way, yes, because it lessens the value of the token/coin that the investors bought. We all know that most bounty hunters would probably just drop those coins in the market after it has been live in exchanges, and that adds up to the volume that has been offloaded. While the amount might be negligible compared to the total volume of the coin, it still will be offloaded nonetheless.

But then again, those creators paying bounty hunters in the same token just means that they have huge trust on the coin to do well since they have already calculated the amount that they need to pay to the bounty hunters with dollar equivalents.

Many reasons altcoin projects don't want to pay bounty hunters in stable coins or Bitcoin or big altcoins like Ethereum. They are unsure about success of their projects and don't want to spend money from their pockets, project treasury for advertisement campaigns that include bounty.

Bounty hunters bet that their low value works will be paid and optimistic that tokens they get from payment will have good price on market.

Selling from bounty hunters after token distributions create big sell pressure if the project has too small liquidity and trading volume. Bounty hunters often sell their received tokens immediately and don't have enough patience or belief to hold their tokens.

If there are investors who love and want to bet in altcoins, there are bounty hunters with same bet style. Forum can not change their minds, how they work for bounties and how they bet on success of tokens.

On the other hand, project developers doesn't want to use their own money to pay these bounty hunters.
Yes bounty hunters doesn't care about the tokens of these project developers, but look on the other side.

If you're the owner of the project for example, are you willing to use your own money just to pay these bounty hunters? Launching a bounty campaign isn't a guaranteed success for the project, and they can't afford to lose huge amounts of money if they know that the chances of the project becoming successful is low. I know how you're feeling because I already taught of that many years ago back when I'm still participating in these bounty campaigns.

Some might do it, but most will not do it.

The uncertainty of a new project is the reason why they can't afford to pay bounty hunters with established coins like BTC, ETH, USDT etc. If project developers will do, it will favor the bounty hunters, and what if the project fails? The project owners will lose money, and they don't like that. Instead of the owners risking their money, they will pass that risk to the hunters giving them some worthless tokens. :D

After considering different perspectives, it is clear that there are pros and cons to paying bounty hunters using native tokens. While it is cost-effective for the project to pay with tokens, bounty hunters may not have the same long-term vision for the project and may be more inclined to sell their tokens for a quick profit. On the other hand, giving tokens as rewards can also serve as a distribution strategy, allowing bounty hunters to experience the benefits of the tokens firsthand.

In the end, the decision on whether to pay with tokens or established coins should depend on the project's overall goals and vision. If the project is focused on long-term growth and aims to signal strength to investors, paying with non-tokens may be a better choice. However, if the project wants to build a strong community and distribute their tokens more widely, paying with tokens may be a better option. Ultimately, it is important for projects to consider the trade-offs and make informed decisions on how to reward bounty hunters.

well, that is the view of the bounty hunter. If we give our personal opinion, then many people want to use stable coins or use popular altcoins as a means of payment for bounty hunters. It brings a lot of positive things. however, once again that is in the bounty hunter's view.
We know that new projects pay using the coins that they have not only paid, but they are also looking for users, and in that way, there will be lots of people holding the coins or tokens that they created even though most of them will sell them. plus, it saves them any advertising dollars they could spend. even though the potential for their coin price after being listed on the market can fall, personally I think that they can easily increase the price of their coin if they want, because the token allocation for bounty hunters is usually very small. besides that, the fall in price will also make bounty hunters and other coin holders hold the coins they have temporarily, and it will create a natural barrier.
Well, actually there are still very many reasons for that. however, I think each project will have a different strategy.

You shouldn't only look from the bounty hunter's perspective where they're only earn worthless token, but you should look from the project's perspective too because 99% of bounty hunters are spammers, using multiple accounts and have very low quality. What you can expect from the bounty hunters who are only like and share the project post and write one liner post without any point? it will not make the project become successful.

The bounties can offer payout with top 10 altcoins, but the bounty hunters must have a good quality like participants who are joining signature campaign paid with Bitcoin.

I guess at this point paying with tokens just screams their ineligibility to hire proper ways/methods to actually create a proper bounty program. Or, they just follow the usual standards, which should've been rather noticeable and isn't really that effective anymore. And to be fair, project teams/devs would much rather pay their own token instead of real money since it opens up the idea that they aren't really giving up anything in exchange for the service people provide until further time, and in most cases members are just people who spam create accounts with a few people actually just being behind those accounts instead of the intended goal of having multiple people spread it out.

At this point, both managers and participants just try to outwit each other where managers don't want to pay more if they can, and participants trying to hog the rewards for themselves.

It's a strategy of each project to pay participants with their original token so that if something happens to their project, developers still have support in other coins like BTC, ETH, or BNB. But I don't know, we can only guess why they pay their participants with real tokens instead of using BTC, ETH, BNB or even USDT.

This self-preservation is what the developers think about, especially if the project is not successful while they have to pay the participants. Many developers have paid participants with their original tokens but it turns out that the original tokens cannot enter exchanges and instead become fraudulent.

I think thats quite normal. They did bounty campaign for a reason to let their project known or be spread to community. They paid in tokens to make it more valuable. The problem with different hunters are they are demanding of the tokens that either become worthless. Expect some to dump their tokens cause you cant forxe someone to hold especially when they think they deserve to sell the money from it. Its up to anyone whether he believe on the project he promoted for or simply pocketed whatever amount it could give.

Depends; if you are not new in this industry, you'd appreciate token rewards from bounties. Way back 2017 many people earned huge money from token rewards. But I won't say things would be the same as with the present. Most of the projects before are succeeding with their token sales which results to bigger profit for the investors. At this moment, most of the projects being promoted are failing on its start which somehow changed the market. So for now, I guess it is just a good thing to pay on other chain such as Bitcoin than to be patient of the rewards and eventually earning less than expected. Simply because it generates a more stable payout from projects.

And how are bounty hunters going to be paid? in BTC or ETH?

Doesn't make sense for a project to pay with that crypto since obviously, they are in the beginning stage and trying to win the money of investors, so in the beginning they don't have any and what they can offer is their native token.

So it's not a signal for a good project to pay for non-token, in my opinion.

I can mint new token with a few dollars and then i used my token to pay advertisements to increase engagement for my project. I got money when my project gets popular. Does it sound non sense to you? It's a choice already picked by the developers to pay bounty in their own token rather than use a native coin. The developers agreed to pay the hunters with its own token and hunters that already joined have agreed with it. It's not a problem for both of parties.

Paying using their original tokens is also a form of promotion so that their tokens are used and get enough volume when listing on exchanges. Another reason may also be that paying with coins like BTC and ETH will cost a lot of funds and it is quite certain to spend on payments. If you only pay using tokens, then when unwanted events such as projects not running, developers will not lose valuable coins like BTC or stablecoins, they will only leave tokens that are no longer valuable. new projects almost all implement payment by token. and the strategy so that there are no crash dumps when tokens are distributed is by scheduling the token bounty distribution when the main investor receives all of their tokens.

I think all of those new project owners aren’t rich or they haven’t enough money to pay bounty hunters in stable coins, because they want to raise money to investors by selling their tokens. So, mostly new projects offers their own native token in their promotional campaign. So, i think hunters shouldn’t expect to get payment in stable coins in every single project.

What you are saying makes sense as this will diminish the chances of a crash for a project as bounty hunters get paid in bitcoin or ethereum instead and this benefits the ones which invested in that coin, and this also benefits the bounty hunters as they will know in advance how much money they are going to get out of their efforts, but the ones that will obtain no benefit from this are the developers, they love to pay using their tokens as at the time they have almost no value and they can create as many as they want while their reserves of bitcoin and ethereum are limited, and this makes your proposal unlikely to be widely implemented.

Well i personally am part of a bounty for many weeks now that is paying every week in BTC, which is of course a nice thing for the participants because BTC is probably the most stable currency in the crypto space, except stable coins of course. You are right that most bounty hunters don't really care about the long term vision of the project bounty that they are part of. So as soon as the tokens are paid they will dump them which can really threaten a new project.
I still think though that a bounty that pays in native tokens can definitely work. First of all the amount of tokens that is paid for the bounty should not be to high. If a bounty is offering 1 Million $ worth of tokens for bounty participants, then you should stay away from that project and from that bounty.

I get your grudge but bounties are meant to market their own products and in fact they pay in tokens because they can safeguard their real money which was /is invested by investors. If they start paying in other tokens then they will have to buy them for real money which they raised from the investor token sales. It will turn around on them if project failed eventually. In addition to this, giving their own tokens will start publishing about it right away. Peeps keep talking about I have this coin that coin and thus it gets marketed that way as well. I hardly think there are any projects who experimented like this and got success at it.

Most new projects don't have money for marketing, so they have no alternative but to offer tokens as a reward for participants who help them advertise their project, which I don't see as a problem. The only issue I have with bounty programs is the mechanism they use to distribute these tokens. In the beginning, the teams promise a large number of tokens to attract hunters, but if the project does not have good investors, it becomes difficult to pay without the price crashing, leaving the teams with no choice but to distribute the agreed-upon tokens, and the price does crash or even die in the end.

Simply put, just like everyone else said, they can't afford to. I mean it is not even about not trusting if their project will be big or not, even if they think that their project will be huge, they just can't afford to pay people in stablecoins for example. Most projects in the world start with very limited funds and that is why they end up paying people in tokens, which allows them to simply spend zero amounts on any of the marketing.

You could just create a token, promise people some free tokens that didn't cost you anything, they will do your marketing, if you succeed then all of you win together, if you lose, none of you lost anything but time.

I agreed with your ideas about bounties campaign not paid in token and should with stable coins, current bounties campaign I found reward in token allocation above $10,000 each campaign duration more than four weeks. After campaign ended, reward distribution trough bounties campaign token and worth under $10 until small few cent for social media campaign participants.

I think most crazy and Bounty Manager not care about their participants spent weekly report and reward few cent more than four until five weeks duration. Need decision from Bounty Manager not care about your commission only but have looking forward what earn reward from your participants, its realistic working one month with few cent reward only?

It is frustrating for bounty participants to get paid with unvalued coins that they couldn't even trade in the future. After doing all the tasks that they have asked to do, being paid with coins without any value but just volume is frustrating. It is like we are gambling our time and effort in exchange for a coin without an assured value. This has been happening for a long time already but we have no choice but to deal with it. That could be their strategy to save but I admire those projects that are exerting an effort to pay their participants with stable coins.

You also have that point there OP but project developers use to pay their native tokens because it was a sort of market exposure. They work to list their project tokens to any exchanges just to have them available in the market and make their project alive and tradable. Unfortunately, hunters are also a big factor why losing the value of their tokens after being listed usually, these hunters dump their tokens at cheaper prices without thinking about what would happen to the company that pays them. It is a very wrong practice by most bounty hunters which I see till now.

They do that because sending out their own "free" tokens doesn't cost them a cent and provides some possible interest in their project.  Most everyone of them are not needed or just a straight up scam so why would the projects owners use "real" value in providing to bounties?  They all just want to cash in.  That's the trick they are useless.  Steer clear amd you don't have to worry about any of that crap.

Bounty hunters have contributed largely to many projects down fall in the market, and at many projects have chosen not to risk the success so at that they never pay. Bounty Hunters and even if they do, they wi either hard the women locked for a long time or even pay a penny that will not be what is agreed by the Contract.

-I have chosen to avoid all the crises from altcoin projects and the incapacity in some cases to participate in them. Marketing bounty is a total waste of time and no serious teams that have plans to succeed will pay millions and thousands of dollars for bounty promotion talking more of talking of paying in stablecoins.

Actually in this condition I think the condition is still fifty-fifty because apart from thinking about the poachers, we also have to look at the project owners.
The reason they chose to choose token payments aside from making their tokens run, they also anticipate conditions where there is indeed high selling power.
We can't be naive because when we take part in a bounty it doesn't mean that we care about the bounty so indeed to anticipate conditions like this they send tokens because they also don't want to lose from the start.

It is best to pay bounty hunters in top coins like BTC, Usdt or Eth unlike just giving some useless tokens that can't be used on exchange unless it is listed on the big crypto exchange. Some exchanges have higher requirements to list so project owners can't make it happen earlier for obvious reasons. Bounty managers may offer project management to pay hunters in low risk altcoins so both parties will be happy without considering market fluctuations, IMHO.

We shouldn’t blame the bounty hunters for that, we should blame the project owners, bounty hunters are just working to make money, and I don’t think anybody can tell them what to do with there payment after receiving it, most bounty hunters are just working because of money, so the project team should look for alternative so that hunters won’t be dumping there coin, which the best alternative is by paying bounty hunters with stable coin or bitcoin, am very sure they will not be able to dump it. If the project is a very strong one they can distribute there coin atleast hunters won’t be able to dump it.

Developers have to think about the crash dump problem that almost certainly occurs after the token is released to the market because it has happened to many tokens or coins where after getting a place on the exchange, bounty hunters or investors will quickly sell their tokens or buy tokens while the price is still low.

So far, maybe that's a problem that developers have to deal with so that if something goes wrong, the developer and the team can continue their project using valuable coins such as BTC, ETH, BNB, or stablecoins.

You are right mate, i think it is more advantage for the investors if the project will pay stable coin, because most of the project that pays coin will experienced dumping of its coin during the time of distribution, it is because bounty hunter sell thier coin even in a very low price and that will cause a massive dump, and that was very disappointing on the investor side, but if the project is solid i think the price will rise in the few months after it dumps but if the team behind the project look at the investors side they will use stable coin as a payment for bounty to avoid dumping.

To be fair, the bounty projects themselves are not serious in their project development, their goal is also scam after a while. As far as I know, the amount of tokens for marketing only accounts for 1% of the total supply of the project, so when the hunters sell tokens will not be able to cause the project to collapse, this is absurd.

You are right, they can easily mint the coins in whatever amount they wish, they are just taking advantage of hunters to help them develop the project but don't want to spend money. Projects from bounty campaigns are mostly trash and not serious in project development, if they are really good, they have been noticed and invested by large investment funds.

I agree, but not all projects though are blatantly scamming investors or bounties of their hard earn money or tokens that have to be paid for them. But again, they should pay in their native tokens in the beginning and maybe exchange it later for let's say ETH if they got more investors and their project becomes successful. But the thing with this bounty is that it's like a gamble per se, you join and you are promised to be paid by this x amount that could be equivalent to Y numbers of dollars. But in the end you could lose everything or make a lot of money.

You're right because what's on the mind of the majority of bounty hunters is to dump the rewards in the form of their project's token. Everyone wants to take out their share as soon as possible and as soon as they've received it.
But on the side of these project developers, it's like a surplus to them and that's why they're paying through their tokens. It's like they're paying everyone out of thin air if ever their project becomes successful and if ever it's a failure, they've got nothing to lose but just a part of their supply.

I agree, they just get rid of project tokens that have no value in the short term. Some investors buy from bounty hunters for dirty cheap prices in order to dump on the market when an altcoin rally happens. Unfortunately, not all bounty hunters are patient enough to wait for the right time and then sell the bounty rewards at the highest possible market price. As a final result, bounty tokens are used to decrease the market value of project coins so it is somewhat lose-lose situation for both parties, IMO.

Many people cosndier that one of the reason why bounty particenpats ebcome the one who make the price of token listed dropped is ebcause theycommonly will sell the rpice however the price.This is sometimes dillema because soemtimes, it is also because of certain inevstors or tactic that are porbbay used, but blaming the bounty participants

There are many projects who pays the hunter with Bitcoin while some are still using their own tokens for some reason and the main reason is that, they don't have much budget for their marketing and that's why they are using their own token to reward the participants.
 
Bounty hunters will always have the choice either to participate or not because campaigns are not forcing anyone to join. I decided only to join a good project that pays using their own token as long as they are legit and they have a good plan for the future, then I believe its worth the risk.

I'm afraid that isn't going to happen, you cannot even blame bounty participants for dumping tokens immediately they receive it, it is because most of these tokens are worthless and even the project owners know it, so to salvage a little profit, the best move is to sell as soon as you have it. Quite a lot of bounty participants don't get paid at all these days, so if you manage to get paid, you have to sell off and gain something at least, it would be quite little, but much better than not getting paid, or holding a token that is a worthless and pump and dump.

Having said that, it costs the project owners nothing to generate their shit tokens and distribute it to participants, most of them have already made their profits before distribution and there is no future for the project afterwards. If they are ever going to pay in established coins, then they must be sure they have created something unique that has an actual utility, and that is something you can't find with all these new altcoin projects.

I'm the one who holds long term for bounties tokens and earns a good amount when holding long term rather than selling when the tokens list immediately. I agree 1000% that if a new project is paid with stablecoin for example rather than their native token, it can make the price for the token under pressure really hard and it's not only for 1 month but many months. If there's going a regulation that says bounties are being paid with established coins in the future then it's nice to see a different thing in bounties.

Crashes are bound to happen with any project. Not only from airdrop hunters, crash dumps also come from investors who want to sell their coins immediately so that sell orders will be full and a crash dump will occur. Actually crash dumps can be overcome with a vesting strategy and that is enough to minimize the occurrence of crash dumps. The same goes for payments for airdrop hunters.
It's not easy to overcome the stability problem of a new project when it's launched early, it requires strong developer support and partners who can cover the project.

That's the usual thing to do because bounty hunters don't really expect a lot from these projects and they also want to take profit as much as possible. No matter how hard they try to keep it, they've got experiences that it's not a good thing to keep those tokens because they're bound to be dumped by the devs, early investors, and then bounty hunters. Even if they put a lock-in period for the bounty hunters, still, those tokens won't be going anywhere but to be dumped.

From the point of investor, yes. As a bounty hunter i know there are some projects that i actually would like to be paid with tokens their native tokens but i doubt that my fellow holders think alike. Most of them want to dump the tokens as soon as possible. This has been the case at least as long i've been in this game.

But i understand this from the point of a team, it costs them nothing to throw away tokens worth of $100M and gives free advertising.
Supply is what they want anyway. They can value their project worth 1B and give away "$100M worth" of tokens. Team doesn't need to care about the starting price anyway. They have their ico money.

This would be the right approach by developers in order to decrease the number of scam projects on the industry and to encourage bounty hunters to continue working on such projects.

When developers pay hunters in native tokens, it's too easy for them, because they are paying out of thin air, instead of allocating a real sum of money on the project to pay the employees. There is no responsability on it. If the token prices something after all, good, and if not, it will be fine as well...

On the other hand, for bounty hunter it will be a big waste of time, so without any doubts campaigns should be paid in solid cryptocurrencies such as btc or stablecoins.

It is much easier for the new altcoin project team to manipulate their unleased new tokens. When paying with bounty hunters, it is easier for them to do this with their own tokens. And at the same time, they risk almost nothing. Indeed, in the world of cryptocurrency, no team can be sure of the long-term price growth of their token. Previously, new project teams at least indicated the future approximate price of their new token, although they usually overestimated their value. At the same time, the pool payable for participation in bounty companies often amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now in bounty campaigns, the pool is indicated only in the number of tokens that will be paid to all participants in the bounty company, or their total amount is indicated in the range from five to ten thousand dollars. This is no longer the amount that the team of the new project should worry about.

I think that most of the participants always sell the tokens immediately received as soon as such an opportunity arises,because they want to make a profit here and now,and only a few who believe in the project, if it is really good,then they store the tokens as long as possible in order to get more profit later.

I have some friends who have sold 12, 10, 16 dollar equivalent tokens for 800 dollars and more. But we also have to admit that nowadays such projects are one in a thousand or a hundred. Now most of the project are scamming and at the end of the day the holding tokens value were became zero.  So I could not see the bounty hunters as wrong that they are selling tokens as soon as they get them, as it is there payment for service. But even if it is less, but wise hunters sell by observing the strength or stand of the project before selling

Bounty hunters or presalers arent really that different which its true that most of them would really be dumping out the coins that they've been holding for profits which its not really that shocking anymore
this is why the earlier of selling the better considering that base or listing price would really be higher on the price that they had able to get in.For those bounty hunters then it is really just right that they would
be selling it right away before it would go its price to the ground unless if the said project did really make some huge hype and the price pumped then it would really be a beneficial
thing for them considering on how much money they could make on just spreading up the word or simply those bounty things.

For me if don't like when bounty is been paid in the local token e are promoting. This project may not survive the sun light so sometimes promoting some of these project can be very annoying when we don't get paid. Some projects are very genuine while some will stress us and take our time.

I think this is the correct opinion. there's nothing wrong with bounty hunters immediately selling the tokens they get, and this should be taken into account by Devs before making the decision to advertise their project through bounties and pay using the tokens they create. because of that, many devs are paying using stablecoins. it's just that, if I've noticed, most of the newly developed projects will pay bounty hunters with their tokens, not with a stable of coins. it aims to increase the number of users. however, a side effect of that was mass selling. Therefore, devs must really consider the behavior of bounty hunters.
In addition, not all bounty hunters will sell the tokens they get. they will definitely make observations and research whether the token is worth holding or not. so, the choice is with the dev. Both types of payment have their advantages and disadvantages.

What is certain is the developer of the project, or it could be a potential investor who advises the developer because they have an interest, so that the price of the token will not decrease in the future due to massive sales from bounty hunters.

What is also a concern if you want to pay bounty participants with coins other than their coins is that they already to have capital first and put the money in an escrowed, not waiting for the results of the token sale because if wait for the token sale, the bounty participants can get nothing because the token sale failed.

It was a great idea if the goal of the owner is to keep his token success because mostly the dump happens when the bounty hunters received their token and all of them start selling and they don't care of what will happen to the project. Though the problem really is the cost paying on it like others dont have really enough budget to pay those bounty hunters that is why they are going to pay then via their own token. I seen couple of bounties before that pays in USDT but still bounties is really paid by their own tokens

If the majority of serious, honest and quality projects are paid in bitcoin/eth or stablecoin.  I completely agree and welcome.  But it seems from my observation that most of the projects do not raise the available capital before running the bounty project, that will be difficult for them in that option.  There are also some bounty projects that choose to combine the two to pay bounty participants with 50% tokens + 50% stablecoins, it seems to strike a balance for both participants and investors.  But there are really few such projects.  Investors want to ensure return on their investment while bounty work participants really don't want to waste time and have no value.  Perhaps, only when the project starts raising capital first (presale) and then launches the bounty campaign will this possibility be guaranteed.

It seems that the advice you convey has a bright side to maintaining the stability of the value or price of a token, because I have noticed that usually each token has been obtained by a bounty participant, so the price of the token will fall freely in the market because the sales are greater. I think your advice is very good in this regard

This is not the first time someone will make an argument like this against projects paying bounty tokens in their native tokens, there are reasons teams decide on this, budget, loyalty etc. but this is not peculiar to bounty projects alone, people will dump, VCs do dump, what will you say about Airdrops, look at the recent Blur token airdrop, most of the people including VCs dumped their tokens immediately on the market. What I notice is that people tend to bring this up in the bear market when there is no or little liquidity but forget this in the bull market when investors' appetitive for risk are huge. However, what makes you think some bounty hunters don't invest in the projects they carried its signature or promotes

I dont know bro most of the time the bounty campaign rarely pay us. But to answer your question is yes i agree bounties shouldnot be paid in their own tokens. Some of bounty hunters will sell their bounty token as soon as possible because they really need some cash. I think it can effect the price of the token it self. The reward like stablecoin is really good choice. Because the hunter can measure the reward that they can get and the project it self can make a budget for campaign.

@OP - you're correct, but this lot of projects don't mostly have the money to use to buy stable coins and share with the hunters for their participation in promoting their project, and sometimes some prefer to pay in their native token all in the sense of increasing hodlers. But it could have been better if they reserve capital for the buy-back mechanism, instead of letting this hunter engage in the massive dumps.

OP, your perspective has been canvassed in the past and it raised divergent views with some bounty hunters surprisely defending the position of projects to pay with their own tokens. My take on this is that most of these projects coming to the industry aren't financially buoyant and as such would depend on their own tokens to pay hunters. The sad thing about this is that there are some projects that also come to the industry with the sole intention of scamming hunters. These ones have no intention of paying at all. In the true sense of it these projects don't have any token to distribute. They run bounties with the aim of trapping investors and then disappear once the bounty is over. So, they scam both hunters and investors.

For me, I believe it will be better to make it a rule that the least that should be accepted for bounty reward should be tokens already listed and traded on the market if these new projects can't pay with stable coins.

I don't think all BH are selling their coins once the bounty is over. Some of them are also like us who knows how to hold a coin in order to maximize their profits however if they think that the bounty is a scam or weak to last longer, there is no point of holding the tokens.

Dumping is part on how this market works so a project owner should not be worried about that. Even if they don't conduct a bounty campaign, there is still a possibility that some investors will dump coins for the same reason I said above or if they need an emergency money. A good project will always find its way to recover so they must not worry if they knew that they have created one.

As I've experienced before, an abrupt dump really happens when they release their reward to the participants. It was a sad thing to see that even though the project looks promising at the start but these hunters care nothing and never think about what will happen to the project if they all sell their coins at cheap prices. Some bounties had paid their participants in batches avoiding instant drop of process and actually, it helps a little bit. I guess the design isn't really good but paying them in their native tokens is not the best option as this only degrades the value of their project when seeing it dumps to the worse level where no one is even buying.

This is actually depending on someones interest and plans into their coins.Once im a bounty hunter which it is really that there are really times which i've been holding my coins that i do received

but that would really be that depending if the project is really that having the potential but i do believe that most bounty hunters would really be selling out their coins once they do
get a hold of it which as long it would be traded up mainly first on DEX and as long it would really be having that value and this is where BH's would be securing out on what they had earned which it isnt really that something new.

Paid on tokens? Most of projects would really be doing that and its just that rare to find or see that companies paying up with fiat or known established coins
specially when they are still on ICO or presale or whatsoever.

You yourself understand that it is easier for the team to pay you with their tokens, which ultimately cost them free. If the same team uses a well-known coin for settlements with bounty hunters, then this will be additional expenses, which are already enough at the initial stage.

I also noticed that a lot of these projects make a mistake by paying bounty hunters with their own special tokens instead of more established coins like Bitcoin or stablecoins. Now, some people think that it's a bad idea for projects to pay bounty hunters in their own tokens because the bounty hunters are more likely to sell the tokens immediately instead of holding onto them for the long term. This can cause the token price to drop, which is not good for the project or its investors. But for the project, it's cheaper to pay with their own tokens instead of real money, so it's a trade-off. Plus, some bounty hunters actually do research to see if the token is worth holding onto before they decide to sell. Each option has its pros and cons, and it's important for the project to think carefully about what's best for them and their investors.

It's might have something to do with the fact that they are already allocated the tokens initially based on their tokenomics for the bounty hunters which means they already anticipated the fact that it's gonna get massive dumpings, as long as the team committed and also add some money to bag the coins, they should be fine, I'm sure they already take this into their calculation.

Besides the allocation given these days to bounty hunters is so low they should not be able to crash the market even if they all sold at the same time.

And if the price of the coin still collapsed right after the bounties were paid to the bounty hunters then we can conclude there are additional reasons of why such crash happened, like big holders selling out of fear the price could crash or simply the volume was too low and it could not absorb the small amount of coins given to the bounty hunters and this caused such a drop on the price.

It's really a good idea to pay the bounty hunters in established coins like Bitcoin, ETH etc. Because the rewards certainly have a value already. However these developers don't want to spend money from their own pocket to advertise their project because they're also not certain what the future holds. They don't want to spend for advertising then the project failed because it's a big loss for their side.

On the other hand, paying the bounty hunters in their native tokens are the risk the hunters need to take since there's no assurance it will gain value in time you already receive your rewards. The reason it's important to be careful what projects you'll join in because majority of them are shit projects and your effort will only be wasted in the end.

Not all Crypto start ups that do have Venture Capitals that love to invest in them, even if they do, they can't used the money to fund marketing, they need ectra funds for advertisements and since they don't have any, they always go for what is available which is the token, they have to do the adverts to strenghten the awareness of the projects and that is why bounty risk it to and do the work and must be paid in full after their work, it is now left for the team to know how to prevent dump when the coin becomes listed on the exchange, only if there other ways out to pay Bounty hunters, it would be actually better.

There are lots of bounties which pay to bounty hunters in the form of tokens and I think that when they receive that so lots of people sell these coins immediately and the price of token reduces therefore bounty hunters do not get actual reward. I think bounty manager should rewards the participants with those token which are stable and their value doesn't reduces as such as that of the other's tokens. Some bounties rewards users with those tokens which have lower price so the users prefers to hold it rather than sell it because the price become so reduced that it has no benefit to bounty hunters.

It is the cherished dream of bounty hunters that their reward is paid in a stablecoin or bitcoins. Since everyone already knows from their own experience that most of the coins of the project turn into shit immediately after the end of the bounty program. But the project team is also aware of such risks, and therefore pays with tokens in order not to incur additional costs.

These developers don't have money to pay bounty hunters they don't even have money to launch their platform that is why they do crowdfunding if the project did not reach the soft cap they cannot pay their bounty hunters so why will they spend money when they cannot get money to fund their project.
In the old days 5 to 6 years ago its worth receiving tokens for your effort in promoting ICO, In one of the ICO I joined I earn $2000 in two months participating in a bounty campaign, but that was then, now you could not even earn $50 for a week campaign and you have to wait for several months before the token you receive to get a value.

It is very difficult indeed to talk about payments for bounty hunters, some pay using usdt some use tokens and most often they pay using tokens, often hunters don't get paid for their work, even though they do get paid it is often worthless  their tokens, then the exact solution is that the project pays using Usdt or coins that are more valuable BNB, BSC, or ETH, so that inventors and bounty hunters get the results of the project's work.

As most altcoin projects these days turn out to be scams, it's not hard to see why project owners aren't willing to put real money into bounty campaigns. They know their project is unlikely to succeed and their main goal is to make a quick buck without any genuine commitment to their project's success. While there are certainly legitimate projects out there, the prevalence of scams can make it difficult for investors and users to differentiate between the two. Moreover, it's not just the project owners who are at fault for these scams. Bounty hunters and other individuals who participate in these campaigns also play a role in perpetuating fraudulent projects. By promoting these scams in exchange for a quick payout, they are enabling the continuation of these schemes and contributing to the erosion of trust in the cryptocurrency space.

Depend on bounties campaign kinds when accepting payment with native token or using stable coins, when promoting bounties campaign have already listing on the exchange market seems they will pay using stable coins like BUSD or Ethereum, but if token not listing yet on the market they will publish payment using token and have exact how much bounties reward allocation.

Some time rule about payment with stable coin or native token will be change, if early listing and project have good price when listing actually the developer will pay using stable coins, but if price drop there not option payment using stable coins.

The problem is that most of the bounty managers end up getting paid in stablecoins, which is a proof that even the manager doesn't believe in the project, and why would they? They do not have to work that much for something that may not even have any value in the end and I get it. But, expecting bounty hunters to work for something that you created on your living room while having some fun, while the team and bounty managers all expecting to get paid in stablecoins, is not really a good idea at all.

Investors would have to pay with coins that actually have real value to get the token, so that the team gets stablecoins or something, and bounty managers too, while hunters will get paid in useless and worthless tokens.

The bounty manager will receive a salary in stablecoins only if he proves to the team that he is the most the best. I don't think this rule has changed now, but before, when I was engaged in bounty, it was exactly like this, and all managers received payment in tokens, with the exception of some.

Most of bounty participants must also think that it will be worthy if paidin topcoins, stable coins, ro Bitcoin, but the paymenet is fixedpayement. So, they will have no matter if the token is listed or not in the exchanges.But,, in the termof developer, most of them don't have enough funds to pay them, they only have thier native token so that theya re able to pay the bounty participants.

Additionally, some investors may have certain strategy to utilize all chances that they have by releasing their token at the right time. But atcually, we cannot also blame the bounty participants who wnat money as soon as possible after the token is listed. And many of them will sell the tokens at whatever price. This is bad, but sometimes, we also don't know if exactly the one that makes the price dropped very much is the bounty participants or the developer it self, or the investors itself.

If the coin was any good then even if the bounty holders sold their rewards as soon as possible then no crash will happen, also if the coin was good then the bounty hunters may not be interested at all on selling as soon as they go their payment as their profits could grow if they held those tokens.

Years ago when bounties were still popular, many bounty hunters preferred to be paid on those native tokens, as they knew they could go up in value really quickly and make way more money with those tokens than if they accepted bitcoin or ethereum as payment.

if we look at the negative side of this, then if the project fails, the biggest losers will be the investors, and after that the bounty hunters. because the project team and manager have been getting paid their money's worth. However, that can turn into a huge advantage when the project team is actually working on their project. In my experience, a few years ago there were quite a lot of projects that paid using tokens. They got big profits, especially for investors and bounty hunters. Because of the success of this, there are currently many projects that do the same thing. however, sometimes the quality of the project is very poor. However, as a bounty hunter, I wish the best for the projects I support. besides that, bounty managers always say that they don't force anyone to join or invest in the projects they present. it all depends on our decisions. But, personally I also hope that future bounties will pay out in stable coins or coins that are already on the market like ethereum or bnb. it might benefit all parties, it's just that the project team must have more funds for advertising.

This is why many bounty hunters failed in the past years, I know that almost all bounty hunters dump their tokens in the past but the few that held did so amazingly well, because the tokens surged in 2021 and many made lots of money, most new alt bounties are from projects that haven't raise any fund, the best way to go about this is to pay bounty hunters with their tokens, it is left for bounty hunters to do diligent research first before promoting any project.

Recently, the team of the new project allocates very few of its tokens for all bounty campaigns. If a few years ago the pool was estimated at several hundred thousand dollars, now it is within ten thousand dollars. So the bounty hunters get an almost token reward for their work, given the large influx of newcomers who work on social networks. Even if in the future the participants of bounty campaigns discard the received tokens, they no longer have such an impact on lowering the price of the new token as before. Of course, it is beneficial for bounty hunters to be paid for their work in stablecoins or top coins. Talks about this have been going on since at least 2017, but the situation has not changed in any way.

While I will agree with you that it is in the best interest of investors if bounty hunters are not paid in the tokens but other established coins, I don't think it is always in the best interest of the project.

Most early adopters (holders) of new tokens are bounty hunters and some of the hunters keep promoting the project for free after getting paid with the hope that the project can give better ROI, also bounty hunters also contribute to community building. If they are not paid in the project token, all will move on to other projects.

Maybe they should be paid in both tokens and other coins to strike a balance.

Bounty hunters would always took the blame on being the main dumpers on the time that the coins/token is being listed without even trying to look or realized that the ones who do make out those dumps
are the main presalers who do hold of a huge chunk of coins that they had bought earlier.If we do see on the piechart on how much token is allocated for marketing then it is really just
that small which i could say that it wont really be that enough on making some impact in overall price.Lets just really that get rid of this kind of idea because people doesnt even
realize on whats happening behind those candles.  :D

agreed sometimes even when bounties was yet to be distributed market already dumping and bounty hunter always took the blame meanwhile even airdrops are being held at the same time and there has been some incentive programs before hand, if a coin is dumping so hard then I guess one should make it have more liquidity through betterment of the project, there are many other projects that didn't even flinch despite the massive airdrops it have.

Bounties campaign allocation usually under 2% if payment trough paid in token, there are seems impossible will get impact price drop drastically when first time listing on the market. But seems fact with many time after coins distribution have impact dump more than 5% until 20% and need long time wake up to higher price.

Still confused how possibility with 2% reward coins allocation for Bounties participant have bigger impact and make price drop, I don't stand with bounty campaign participants but its not their mistake when receiving coins from bounties sell as soon possible after having price and they have been waiting for several weeks joining campaign and duration time for distribution.

to be honest, I really agree that bounty hunters should not be paid with the token project, because of course this will have a negative impact on the continuity of the project, we all know that most bounty hunters will immediately sell the tokens they get when the token is listed on certain market, this will have the impact of dropping the token price drastically, so that it is very detrimental to investors

But if you will understand their intention why using their native token instead of using established coins like ETH and BNB, you'll somehow get the idea of why they use it. I'd see that the situation is not the problem of the developers or the project itself but it dumps because of these hunters who care nothing about the project improvement and they are just after for money only, not by helping crypto to grow. In this case, if the situation will continue, it was too hard to expect new projects to grow but rather see them falling apart.

there are many reasons why most bounty hunters are paid with native tokens, but the most appropriate reason is because the developers of the project do not have sufficient allocated funds to pay bounty hunters using USD or BTC, therefore the developer pays bounty hunters after investor funds have been collected with native tokens

To somehow stimulate the development of projects that use the Bounty model, we need to introduce a vesting system, as implemented on IDO Launchpads. People receive coins, but they cannot sell them all at once, but only after a certain period of time, and the unlocking will happen gradually, monthly by a few percent of the total stake that has been earned by the bounty hunter. This way there won't be an abrupt withdrawal of liquidity from the project.

I don't see that happening.

Reason 1: Basically free marketing. They are giving out tokens. They don't pay straight out of their pocket.

Reason 2: Usually the amounts they decide to give to bounty hunters isn't that big. So there will be little to none market impact.

This has been like a common thing that some other users are confused. They think that just because bounty hunters or even those "Airdrop" hunters sold their tokens would cause a collapse on the price immediately. It's hardly going to make any difference.

Maybe the only thing to notice from that is the high selling pressure when observed in the charts. There should be other factors that contribute to the price drop aside from just those users selling. Sometimes it is just the project itself being crappy and not valuable at all.

It was ages ago when bounty hunters wants them to be paid by token because most of the projects before where going to the moon and as far as I remember, Those projects who are paying in $ are just being ignored by bounty hunters. Though today is different and in an completely opposite scenario. Most Altcoin projects that has bounty campaigns don't succeed and is easily being abandoned resulting the bounty hunters having little to no pay with their service. Today bounty hunters just want something stable as payment for their service that's why they projects who offer USD based or reward token that has a value are always crowded by bounty hunters. I don't think it's healthy for a project to pay in token as bounty hunters today are immediately selling their rewards compared before that most bounty hunters are trying to hold and maximizing the value of their reward token. Yep, It's somehow way for project to lessen the cost of promotion by giving away their tokens but they didn't recognized that it's the one that triggers the downfall of their token upon release since majority of bounty hunters are rushing to sell their tokens as soon as they get their rewards.

Most teams don't care much about the value of their tokens otherwise they will most likely consider the option of paying bounty with any other tokens than the native token of the project.
Protecting investors' investments is not a strong point to some teams, they are too stingy to want to pay with stablecoins, hence they will rather make payment with their tokens knowing the possibility of that token getting dumped is high. only a few teams sometimes consider this.

what you mean in my opinion is not right, we fellow bounty hunters also maintain market stability and do not damage the price or value of a Bounty token. the amount of tokens held by bounty hunters is not going to make the market worse I don't think, as there are very few tokens in circulation and held by bounty hunters. I think what you are proposing is the wrong idea

Everything cannot be absolutely perfect with crypto when many of us do not understand the most basic concept. Like many others here, I have also experienced joys and sorrows with bounty programs, airdrops, tests, ... so I understand the feelings of those who contribute work and it's almost worthless. And only a few can bring laughter. But anyway, such a process gives me a lot of skill in assessing which projects might be potential.

Back then when bounties were popular I think a case could have been made about bounty hunters having too much power as the amount of coins that was distributed to them was huge.

But now the amount of coins being given to bounty hunters is very low, so even if they sold their coins at the same time we should not see a big movement on the coin in question, and if for some reason this was the case then you will know the coin is not a good one anyway as it cannot endure such a low selling pressure.

I agree with you.  Because very few people can be successful from here.  Most people get scammed from here.  So I'd say no one can ever improve by working on Bounty, maybe they can get some money for a while and they won't be able to move on completely.  Almost 90% of people are victims of fraud in this sector.  So I would say good for any work.  And there are some managers who get 100% profit if they work.  Some managers have a bad reputation.

for the first reason, it's obvious. some teams might recruit customers this way while minimizing advertising dollars. Personally, I have supported several bounties, they sometimes encourage bounty hunters to use the applications they develop. it can also have an impact on their products because indirectly, we will become their consumers, and we will also advertise their products.

the second reason should be the most important reason. because the tokens distributed to hunters are only a few, it shouldn't affect the market. however, the fact is that it affects a lot, and many investors object to it. Not many projects actually survive this state.

There's a lot of talk about the quality of bounty programs, and I think it's not about what they do and how interested the projects are in these programs.
So most of the community encouragement is to give the participants what they have, because most of the bounty programs I see are projects that lack capital and are looking for investors, only a few have money available. face and pay to the community. And it doesn't matter if a project is of good quality, it doesn't matter whether it is paying for tokens or other cryptocurrencies, but the problem in the first place is that those projects are reputable enough to not take advantage of hunters. .

I participated in projects that changed the rules when they apparently understood that it would be better for them to pay out not with their own tokens. And they paid for the bounty in stablecoins and the reward was worthy for me personally. But if they paid in their tokens, it would be 5 times the minimum

That is a common problem this time as most bounties turn into scams after paying the participants which really have no chance to sell their rewards in exchange for their hard work and effort promoting their project. Because it was very okay to have their tokens as a sort of reward provided that there is assurance that participants can get what it meant for them, not just shitcoins that only got stuck in their wallet forever. Of course, nobody will become happy with that situation but rather regrets and hatred.

The benefit here makes me quite funny!

We are all increasingly aware of the market conditions that determine the quality of the bonus programs. To me in the past there were some bonus programs that brought in a lot of money, but it is becoming more and more inefficient and meaningless to be able to make money in this market.
Some of today's new ways for projects to interact and refer them to are more effective than bounty programs, so bounty will not really appeal to many people.

This is right and wrong, sometimes bounty hunters make more than the actual price of the token they got paid with, value increase and the 50$ they made can turn to 500$ or even more, since we are promoting a altcoins, there is no need to be paid in stable coins or Bitcoin, if you don't want this then all you need to do is stop promoting altcoins, because 99% of altcoins pays bounty hunters with their native tokens.

Well, According to those bounty hunters this rarely happens and most of the projects aren't strong enough to be a 10x upon their launch. I personally haven't joined any bounty campaigns for years now because most altcoins that are being paid on these campaigns are usually becoming worthless. Those project who doesn't have enough support from their investors and the community can easily go bottom upon their launch given that the liquidity of the token can easily get drained by the bounty hunters who are selling it on a rush being scared that they will not get rewarded from the time and efforts they have made. I believe that not all tokens survive that given that the selling pressure of those bounty hunters and some investors is just so much for them to handle.

if you think about the price that continues to decline after distributing the prizes received by hunters and continuing to sell them in a short time then it's okay for hunters not to receive prizes in the form of tokens. but if the project has a strong foundation i think the token price of the project will improve again with time. I don't think the bounty hunters get is not going to make the market worse for a long time to come

There are many arguments on both sides that native token payments will be given to bounty hunters or some other stablecoin payments will be given. Most people cite bounty hunters as the cause of token dumping. But I don't accept it. Because only a small amount of the total supply of any token has a bounty budget. I often see that the day before the distribution of a token, the price of that token is dumped, that is, before the bounty token enters the market.
Bounty hunters don't mind paying in any other coin because they only want their payment be it tokens or coins.

I don't agree if bounty hunters are paid using bitcoin or other altcoins besides their native token, project developers decide to pay bounty hunters using their native token, they must have certain reasons, one of which is that project developers and teams don't have enough funds to pay bounty hunters , so they pay bounty hunters using their native token after the campaign is finished, if it's not like that then the project being worked on will not run and end up being abandoned due to lack of funds for marketing campaigns

First of all, it’s not easy to pay stable coins for every project owners, because they have no enough funds to pay for hunters, another thing is they don’t want to pay from their own pocket if they can use their native token in advertisement, so why they will pay stable coin in the promotional campaign.

If they do not have enough funds to provide stablecoins to bounty hunters, they should not start any new project at all, how about that? Why do people think that everyone should be able to start a new project, do we have everyone starting any business they want? Can you start a bank?

Obviously this is not that big, but you need like at max 20k dollars to start a proper project with everything, obviously if you have the developer and designer in house, the rest would cost at most 20k for it, you can do marketing and apply the right places. You can spend as much as millions, but need a minimum 20k and you have a decent one. Under that? You are creating a rug pull, even if you do not steal, you will fail. For everyone 1 successful project that started with less than 20k, there are a million failed ones.

Do you know! A good project should pay bounty hunter tokens. because they spend a lot of trouble and time to complete the work of social promoting. Tokens can be distributed in many ways, which will not harm the project as a whole. In fact, the number of good projects has decreased and the number of bounty hunters has also decreased. This is one of the main reasons that most projects are fraudulent

Most of the projects are greedy, they don't even care about the performance and how well the project can survive in the market, they just think about the money and once they reach the goal, they will just dump everything and run away. That's away most of the new bounty campaigns out there pays with their tokens, as they can't distribute 1 penny to the promoters because of how greedy they are.

But I can see the good thing to be paid with something else such as USDT or Bitcoin for example. So they don't dump the tokens to the ground like to what happened in most newly released projects in exchanges. It's up to them to choose between that, but still it doesn't mean that the projects that pay with USDT will "survive" in the market. But at least they try.

Paying using their own tokens increase the popularity of the tokens as more wallets holds the tokens so will the interest of investors grow thinking those wallets all bought the tokens and that's why airdrops were introduced. It's a form of marketing that make people talk about the project and people could pick interest and invest in the project.
Also to cut cost and you don't have to worry because before the project launched, they have already kept aside tokens meant for promotion and the bounty tokens are part of those allocation. Airdrop and bounties need to be in the project tokens for better marketing.
If the project have stablecoin for promotion then they should just go to popular sites that their ads will be seen by many and they'll be guaranteed of having a successful campaign as bounties aren't guaranteed to be successful.

I concur with your observation that most bounty hunters tend to sell their coins as soon as they are listed, and only a small proportion of about 10-15% hold onto them with the hope of a higher return in the future. Therefore, it would be advantageous for the project to consider paying out alternative coins such as USDT, BNB, BUSD, and the like.

I also believe that if rewards are given in stable currency, it would be much better for the project. Many bounty hunters sell their coins as soon as they are listed, which has a significant impact on the price and delays its stability. Investors also have to wait because they don't want to sell at a loss. Some hunters are desperate to sell regardless of the price they get. However, I am aware that in order to pay in stable currency, the developer will have to pay from their own pocket, while they raise funds through an ICO and use those funds for development, which is why they prefer to pay in native tokens to avoid additional burdens.

It is the most chippest way to pay bounty in tokens. For founders it is not necessary to have fiat for promotion, Just create tokens and pay in them. All risks have the participants in bounty because tokens can become very chip or just have a 0 price.

The problem is how many projects are really successful with the ideas they create, and most of the bounty projects that I see appearing here are poor quality products, there are things that just want to create Take advantage of the interaction. Even when some projects achieve great success, they set easy rules for hunters such as the issue of vesting is constantly changing, almost everyone wants to benefit themselves, including the project and hunter side. However, it must also be said about the issue of paying rewards in stable coins and leading cryptocurrencies such as btc, eth, bnb, ... but few projects do so because only when the project has available capital, and Most of the projects here need to raise capital and need people to share their goals, so failure or success are both common results, so the problem is that we are responsible for our own decisions. when participating in bonus programs and not necessarily demanding benefits with new projects.

If they pay with tokens that are stable on the market or pay with non-tokens such as dollars, then what about their project? And where do they get enough money to pay the bounty hunters? Logically, if you pay $200,000 but using your tokens, of course you can allocate your tokens in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars. But bounty projects pay $100,000 in dollars, of course they have to find investors who have that many dollars.
Which of these two options is advantageous for the project developer?

That means when the token worth penny and the hunters will receive nothing. It's quite better in focusing to escrow the funds rather than try to believe in the team to distributing the reward.

The better thing to focus into the how developer will able to at least escrowing the token or funds to the trusted manager.

I fully agree given the total uncertainty of the markets and the impossibility of knowing in advance whether a project will be successful or not it would be better for bounty hunters to be paid in stable coins or eth/bnb

Not necessarily. At first glance, yes, it sounds like a good alternative and if I notice, not all of them perform well post participant bounty payments, for example, the team changed the payment option for bounty hunters in a project campaign with USDT or BUSD.

I think what makes the project big and advanced is having a big concept, long term and having strong partners and strong funds and always maintaining the value of the coin when it crashes with a buyback pattern when the price is corrected. Even without vigorous promotion, it can grow and develop and unexpectedly listing on well-known platforms.

hope that there will be changes or implementation of regulations even though it is far from expectations with definite payments such as stable, BTC or others that have value. it will be better and increase the quality of the project. so many times there are many obscure bounty projects that have little big potential.

Most likely getting paid in stablecoins for completing a bounty seems to be impossible. If yes, most likely they will only have a very few stables to allocate to the qualified hunters.

I still remember about a bounty campaign by BMY.Guide (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5210650.0) where we are paid in BTC, but I am a little too late in completing all of the weeks. Maybe I’ve joined somewhere in the middle of that period.

As for GOLD stablecoin as they have their own token, they have been consistent for a few years in paying bounty hunters that can be exchanged to either BTC to ETH until my signature campaign contract ended with them.

I also remember those golden days in 2017 where bounties are giving us insane amounts of money especially in signature campaigns. That was the turning point for me when I was still broke. It really changed my life and made me who I am today.

Not all bounty hunters have the same opinion, and whatever they want is their choice even if they know there is a risk. Others may agree that it's okay for them to pay the project's native token, and for my opinion it's okay to pay me a native token, or one of the top altcoins, I don't want stablecoins or dollars.

Because for me, you can still play the native token once it's listed on an exchange, if you see that the trading volume is good, you can pay back if you have a deep idea in trading. This is in my opinion and I think it is better. And most of the bounty project they promote their own token and that is valid to make their investors see the usage of the token if it is useful.

This has always been talked about and paying bounties in USD or popular coins is not only beneficial to the bounty participants but also favourable for the team, the coin community and the future of coin overall. There would not be any need for worrying about the price drop due to bounty selling. But still projects are not confident about the future of their own coin and prefers to provide generated coins than sending collected funds.

exactly , it is depending on their  decision and how to manage their expectations and desires.
but best  to have a many chances so better be it.
but how many of them comes to exchange?
actually small part of them are going to and mostly are denied .

Though I agree with you that bounties should be paid in stable coin to avoid dump by bounty Hunters who have no plans of holding these tokens. But then, sometimes, the idea of paying with the tokens besides cutting cost is also to increase holders of these token.
But, honestly, it would be better to pay in stable coins.

But can you or anyone can force that to happen? Bitcointalk is not a moderated forum so anyone could post anything including in what form they want to pay those people who do certain task for them. This acceptance would really be depend on the user since if they don't like what the campaign pays then they should ignore it. Remember that there are signature campaigns that pays bitcoin and for some people they prefer to choose that since its more rewarding rather than joining on bounty campaigns.

But what's happening there even if they know that to many bounty campaigns doesn't pay well to their bounty hunters but there are still people willing to join and its like they are willing to help those scammers to make their plan succeed. So people should think about it and for me bounty campaign is not a good option to spend your time on.

There are many aspects to it. Both ways, paying in stablecoins/established tokens or own project's tokens have pros and cons. If paid a fixed amount in stablecoins, and the project has performed really well, multiplying the coin's value, bounty hunters may feel pain seeing the gain. Having said so, seeing the percentage of projects succeeding, having payment in stable coins or established coins is the best option. This will also showcase more confidence and trustworthiness from the project to bounty hunters as well as the community.

You are right. Bounty hunters can receive their rewards in stablecoins. and they may feel disturbed when the project's tokens are listed on exchange platforms and succeed in establishing a good market value one day. In this case, they will barely miss out on an excellent opportunity that may surpass the gains they obtained from stablecoins. Despite many scam projects in the market, paying in stablecoins is a safe decision for bounty hunters. However, I do not think it will be suitable for the new token project team, who may likely not have sufficient liquidity in stablecoins to pay thousands of hunters. Even if they do so, you will find that the bounty campaign is limited and restricted to a small number of participants, and the marketing campaign may not succeed in the end. Just as bounty hunters look at taking the benefit, project owners also look at their marketing interests that benefit the project and its new tokens without incurring massive costs.

If the projects are serious and they want to optimize the development of their tokens, the project teams must prefer to pay the bounty hunters with established coins (ex: Bitcoin or USDT). But if you learned the projects deeply, there are many project teams that don't want to spend much money for their marketing/promotion. They pay the bounty hunters with the project tokens because they don't need to spend money. They think it is they best way to reduce expenses during the promotional period.

So, if the project fails to grow, the project teams don't lose too huge money. It is because they don't spend much money for marketing/promotion. That's what I guess, according to many project teams that prefer to pay bounty hunters with their own tokens.

That's true. Paying using their native token means less expenses even their project didn't succeed. It's not wise for them to use established coins since it can cost them huge losses if everything didn't go as planned. However, as we know if a bounty is paying an established coins, it's one of an indication for hunters that this particular project is different to others since the team is confident to spend money just to promote their project.

Trust is necessary, therefore by doing this, the dev can gain this important factor for their project. That is the trust of the community here and of course it can attract the potential investors. Even their bounty hunters might gain interest also to support their tokens by investing aside from the reward given to them through established coins.

You are right. There's a choice before the bounty Hunter, they weren't forced into these campaigns and they could choose not to involve themselves in these campaigns.

Signature campaigns pay better, and are reliable, but it's very competitive and mostly have limited slots, I guess that's why most Hunter still go back to those campaigns though they know that they may not pay.

In order to pay, they must first have money for it, but new projects do not have money. That's why new projects look for creative fundraising methods, and ICO is one of the first ones in the crypto industry. So projects without money can offer just their tokens, they pay everything with that... at least everything and anyone who is willing to work for that token.

So if you think that new projects should pay for everything with some established coins or stable coins I guess there would be 99% less projects around.

When project pays in his own token, his only expenses are his network fees. Projects spends zero on creating tokens, for him they cost nothing. Payment in stable coins means increased expense on promotion. Not many can allow that from the start. Of course projects can pay in stable coins, but the budget of such bounties would be only few thousands, because nowadays, traditional social media bounties dont make a lot of response or get attention to project. Paying in stable coins will raise a lot of negative noise from hunters, that they will create when they get few USDT for few months of "work". I doubt that project needs that. Dont forget also, that investors can always buy token from hunters for a cheap price. So investors are highly interested that bounties should be in tokens.

For bounty hunters, getting tokens from a new project for their work has always been a big problem. No matter how much we research a new project, it is impossible to say with certainty not only whether it will be successful, which means bounty hunters will receive real money for their work, but also whether the project itself is fraudulent or simply useless for the market, and therefore its tokens will not be have no future value at all. The problem for headhunters is that the vast majority of these projects disappear from the market within a short time. Therefore, you shouldn’t blame bounty hunters for immediately selling the new tokens they receive. In this case, they at least somehow try to get real liquid money, and not a useless digital record in a wallet. Moreover, more than 90 percent of such tokens completely lose their value in a year or two.

Bounties would really be normally be paying up with their own native coins rather  than on giving those USDT or BTC or something that has value. Come to think that they are running an ICO on which they cant really be even so sure that they would really be getting funding support. They cant really just that afford on spending up tons on marketing even if they dont know on how this sale would be ending up.This is why as part of marketing and exposure then they would really be running some bounty and it would really be just that so normal that they would really be paying up their own coins as a reward. Its true that no one forces out for those bounty hunters on joining up the bounty because on the time that they had joined a specific program then its impossible that they werent aware that they would be paid up some coins. Its not really just that right that you would really be making out some money or assured thing on dealing up with bounties and its a hit or miss kind of thing most of the time considering on how many projects been launching then it would really be hard on
hitting the bullseye.

Its true that campaigns that paying up BTC or USDT is really hard to find nowadays or getting yourself get selected or in.Criteria is much more higher and selection would really be that more stricter.
If you dont have that good ranking and reputation and merit here on this forum then there's no chance for you to be able to get in one of those things.
This is why if you do thrive for something better then you should work hard for it.

Yeah. I understand why projects must pay bounty hunters with their token. It is normal for that, but the challenge these days is that some bounty hunters do not even waste any time dumping their rewards, that's why some are advocating for payment using stable coins.

well i dont mind paid in any currency either native token or stable one, as long they dont cut the rates when native token rise up and they decided to pay with stable one
lol, best interest for them not for sake the rules already accepted in the first sign

Bounty managers don't usually change their rates unless you are payed on a dollar value of their native token. In short, the number of token would be lesser if the token value rises. Though it can't be guaranteed since not all bounty campaign are handled by reputable campaign managers, some campaigns are handled by the project team members that can change the rules if they want since most of those bounty project rules states that they can change their rules at any given time.

But yeah, it's rare to see a forum member who don't mind to be paid in a native token, most of us here want to have a stable coin or some other altcoin that has a value as a reward.

I have 2 opinions :
1. paying using stablecoins (BUSD/USDT)
if the bounty project pays bounty hunters using stablecoins, then that's fine for bounty hunters, because bounty hunters will get paid as promised;
2. pay using the project coin
if bounty hunters get paid using coin from the bounty project, then bounty hunters cannot ensure that they get paid accordingly or sometimes don't even get paid (the coin does not have a price or the price dump from the ICO price), but for the project itself has an advantage, because by paying bounty hunters using coin from the project, then the coin has trading volume on the exchange, even though the price will definitely go down at first, but if the project is good then the price will definitely recover and increase again.

therefore I prefer if bounty hunters are paid using the 50:50 method (50% payment using coin from the bounty project and 50% using stablecoin).