Bitcoin Forum

Dear all,
Sorry for any inconvenience for this topic,
I’ve ever joined some bounty campaigns and get some tokens. Bellow are my thinking:
There are some projects attract so much participants, although that means the project is very interesting but it has limited bonus. Result, bonus that each participant receivers from the campaign very small. A lot of participants in one campaign has made so many spams on social networking….
So a question here: Should we limit members in one campaign?
(maybe depend on the bonus value of that campaign)
What are your thinking?
Please share…

Unlikely, the more people are involved, the more spam on the social networks and that is what they want, their ico will be for many people.
The purpose of bounty is to makerting and the more participants they promote success

The market is a battleground for every little space for the promotion of the projects. Everyone wants their own space under the sun so offering something is more efficient than limiting someone or something. You can choose anything you want though. There are so many interesting projects out there with good bonuses where you can participate.

I fully support that there was a limit! this will allow to make Bounty more clearly and qualitatively! I think even all participants will appreciate their place in Bounty and will do more work! it will bring more desire and excitement over bounty, because it will make it possible to make a bigger sum !! it will only affect positively!

Yes i think all kind of bounty campaigns should have a limit for participants. Becuase they are just to many participants which are just doing the stakes down. And for the projects himself it is much better when they are less people out there who received free bounty tokens. Initial coin offerings with huge bounty pool has always a hard dump as soon as they got listed on exchange. Thats why so many projects like envion dont pay the bounty tokens and scma the participants!

The goal of the ICO bounties is to get advertisement and marketing at various media in the internet at a low cost with a form of rewards(tokens) that are given to the bounty hunters for every successful campaign. If this is the case the more the participants with in the campaign just means that the ICO is getting a lot of attention and good publicity which will contribute to its success. Yes you might get a lower share of the total allocation of the ICO however it does not mean that the value of the token will not be good, because it will depend on how good the project is and how the market will react. So all in all it is just natural for any campaign to have many participants.

In my opinion, it is necessary to limit the number of participants. The use of a huge number of participants, but the low quality of "advertising" is not enough.
Restrictions are necessary so that there is not a lot of useless spam.

As bounty hunter I think that limits are good for us, cause we can get more distribution not this low cost tokens in every bounty.

Totaly agree with you, but a few days ago I had the conversation with bounty manager and he said that they don`t want a lot of spam in social networks. So they limited number of participants and made hard rules for own posts. This is good strategy also - they will receive only constructive posts and comments.

That is why we can easily differentiate the bounty on bounties section and services section signature campaign. Most of bounties expect the spammers to be part of the project and they just to show off through out this forum.
But that does not matter for project. If the project has been comes to reputed manager that will refined the way we look the project.
There are successful bounty campaign managers. They takes the project with the right hand to promote. That way of approaching will be needed in every bounty campaigns.

I don't think that. Main taget of bounty is more and more people know about the ICO. That bounty need more people to do that. So, it's marketing.  :) :)

I’ve seen some campaigns put a limit on signature campaigns and others limit telegram bounty members. This is not common practice yet and there is always a dual side to the equation.

Let’s say we’re considering a signature campaign:

On the one side, not placing limits gives the campaign a wider scope of reach, since their signature is carried out in more posts throughout the forum. The downside is for the signatory: the more people the less tokens they’ll eventually get for their stakes.

On the other side, placing more explicit and restricted limits would imply that bounty managers would have to select better the allowed participants, since offer would be smaller than demand. Filtering users not only by rank but by merit would become a common practice.
Nevertheless, having less overall campaign signatures on posts could in fact be more beneficial for the campaign since, theoretically, better posters would be allowed to be the brand ambassadors.

I personally have developed a signature virtual shield, and manage to get through the forum barely looking at people’s signatures. It’s those that figure in decent posts that manage to surpass my shield and catch my eye out of curiosity. Basically if the poster is sound, I don’t mind getting to know what campaign he’s backing.

I recently calculated that the amount of active users (counted either as sender or receiver of sMerit) that participate in a signature campaignis around 71%. That is pretty high considering the amount of users in the forum. An excess can obliviate the point of signatures since none stand out in the forest.

Limiting the participants in a campaign is a good proposal because the fewer partipants the higher profits you may earn but it is not applicable for ico organizers or the bounty manager because they only need higher amount of supporters so they just accepting who'd want to join.

It is called a marketing but at the end, people who are participating in those campaigns will earn less unless those programs increase the amount proportionally if participants go up. But I don't think they will do that part.


It is actually people mistake because they will not ask them to fix certain price for each action on social media instead they will join as soon as they announce as if they will never get again a chance. If no one joins such programs then they will be forced to fix price then you know how much you may be earning at the end of the week.

can not, because managers and participants can not to give restrictions to anyone who wants to come along and this requires some parts to be taken for each participant so that participants are satisfied with the payment result from bounty

Limitation would be depending on on the team itself if they would decide to limit participants into each bounty program.Its true that the more participants the lesser potential income you would able to make since participants are too many which it can be explained by basic calculations.Usually team doesnt make any limit specially on bounty programs because owners or teams would be glad to have lots of people to spread awareness as long they do only give fix percentage allocation they dont matter or mind on how many would join up.

I consider that it is necessary not to limit the number of participants, but to make more stringent requirements for participants and ban for the use of several accounts.

Dear you,
Absolutely agree with you about this problem. Some ICO bounty project did not care about the bonus for participants because they only want many many member join to broadcast their project in social channel or blog and igrore bounus.
By the way, when choose the bounty campaign to join, i usually choose the campaign with <1000 members, it is the tip for you when join bounty.
Goodluck

I do think it really limits the number of rewards per participant when there are too many of them. 

Dear friend,
What you say maybe useful for me and other ones who are new members refer when join bounty Campaign.  Thanks so much,

I think that's a good opinion. Yes should be limited for campaign in bounty program, why? yes that was at least a gift. My suggestion maybe there is a good manager make a bounty for newbie and jr. Member

I think bounty campaign participants should be limited, this is necessary because gift sharing will be high enough and reduce spam in social media.

If you go through the services thread, you will see that almost every good campaign manager has a cap on the number of participants. This is done because people want quality more than the quantity. This is the same reason why people pay more to Hero/Legendary compared to Member/Full Member. In the price of 1 hero, you can probably have 5-7 Members working, but if a company does that, it would lose its reputation since those posts won't be up to the mark. That is why it is necessary to limit members in one campaign.
The more the members, the more the stakes would be divided and the lesser you would earn. So it is preferable to have a cap on number of participants.

yes I think it should and it is very obligatory, limit some members to campaign and market the product, there are only some of the best people who can enter, avoid spam or poor quality postings, so that our product or signature is used by the selected people which has good post quality is not just spam

I think companies that do this are allowed to invest in small investors, and on private pre-sales they already collected a large amount because of this they are considered very valuable

100% sure that all the bounty of the company should limit the number of its participants to ensure that everyone could earn decent money. For example in Facebook and Twitter I would do up to 500 participants, and the forum in the company signature not more than 200 participants per company. Therefore, all participants will be able to get good money for his work in the bounty of the company.

Well that's right but having more participants to advertise their project is an advantage for them to expand the popularity and be known to many, thats how it is and we cant change that rules unless the team behind it implement some changes. Its true that we cant earn huge amount of money by joining in bounty campaigns but its better than nothing at all.

Yes, it is beneficial for the creators of the project to have a lot of participants in their bounty campaign, but for those who participate in the bounty, a large number of participants is not profitable at all, because the common pool is divided into all and the more participants, the less the reward for the work. Recently, a friend of mine showed that he was credited with tokens for $5 for 6 weeks of work in the facebook bounty campaign and all because there were a lot of participants.

In a campaign, it is usually easier to get involved, and the easier it is to go up, the more people will participate in it. I don't think there is much need to play too much, and the patience is limited.

In my opinion, we do not necessarily limit our members to participating in campaigns. Anyone can participate in the important thing is the article of the people, the right topic and guaranteed time according to regulations and the manager scores high, he wins and receives bonuses.

For developers, it is very important that as many people as possible own a token. If most tokens are owned by several whales, then such a project will be too succumb to speculation and will depend very heavily on these whales. As a bounty hunter, I certainly would like to get paid for work more. But this is already a matter of the project developers' greed and not otherwise.

        Well regarding to the number of participants in a campaign is depending on the rules of managers, weather it needs no limits for the number of heads or it is limited up to particular number, and with regards to the payments and bonuses is it's our decision  if we want to stay or leave the crowd.

Limit member campaign its a good decision for the Bounty Hunter do you want to know the reason ? with limited the participant can make the reward stay high for the participant. So you will receive a good reward for your effort. Without limit, you can be received 10$ for work 2-3 month.

On social networks, the lowest percentage of the campaign bounty is allocated, because of that, bounty hunters get a penny. It is necessary to find out whose advertising activity gives the best result. Social networks, or, for example, in video blogs.

Yes, I think so. Too many participants, more spams and the less rewards we get in every bounty. I guess bounty managers should limit the number of the participants and it should be in the first come, first in basis.

I also do not understand why they do not make such restrictions. The fact is that the ico company is quite a lot and each produces a Bounty company. Therefore, there are many people where everyone can participate. Therefore, limiting the number of participants will not bring certain harm to the same participant. At least even earnings will be higher.

Some people start and then stop posting and working in bounty, so it is not a good thing to limit the participants, you can not regulate the qty of people who stop work.

Live and let live. Why setting limits where they are not necessary. This kind of limits would mean just less freedom for projects who want many participants. It is up to each bounty hunter that he chooses campaign. I always take into account how many participants are already there and how many I expect to join after me. Then I calculate how many tokens I expect to get, for example 1.5% of bounty allocation.

Yes I hope that thet will limit the participants, but it will depends on the bounty manager or who is handling the campaign. Some bounty project practice this system.

Most of the time, every bounty campaign wants to have many members join their bounty to promote as many places as possible. If there are many members involved, the project will be well-known and attracted investment capital for the project. So limiting the number of bounty participants is a thought that is not feasible, because very few ICO projects limit the number of members unless their marketing budget is too small.

(maybe depend on the bonus value of that campaign)
What are your thinking?
Please share…
yes we should limit, but whos will ask me )

 i think is good if bounty campaign use limit participant
because bounty campaign participant can get good payment
but promote can't masive if use limit participant

I think the bounty campaign should limit the members in one campaign. I strongly agree that the token distribution is clear and feasible to received, rather than the unlimited members of the accepted payout results will disappoint the bounty campaign participants.

Please share more idea! Thanks

This will be normally the exchange on having a limited participant since the exposure wont really be that massive compared to those campaigns which do have lots of participants.For having that kind of limitation then it would be an advantage into its participants yet the reward would be much more higher due to limitation but this kind of campaigns are just few on numbers or just really rare at all because most of them do have hundreds or even thousands of participants into each campaign.

Managers and the dev behind the project should be aware that there are a lot of participants to be expected especially in a known project that is gonna conduct campaigns again. I don't see any bounties get a status of close at least for now and I think they might be expecting a lot from their projects such as investors. What I think should be done is that they should know the "reach" of their project before knowing the limits of participants. A small but effective campaign could already be enough to 10 members. Speaking of social networking sites and its relation to spam, it is up to participants themselves whether they really think the project will be successful as these scammy/shit projects just tend to waste space in the marketing space in popular sites like Facebook and Twitter and it is being polluted continuously, and this could also be the reason that Mark Zuckerberg led him to decide or plan out the ban of cryptocurrency in his site and I think it is just right as it could also ruin the image of cryptos.

This is a should be done because in order for the allocation in the campaign not shared with the people so that the results obtained will become larger. Some are already implemented but not all.

You have a point most of participants in social media were using dummy account and even their followers/friends are product of some apps where you could gain instant followers, and the essence of social media advertisement will be meaningless. Thats why they limit the participants within a particular number of applicants and they are very strict on the setting campaign rules. I absolutely agree in your opinion.

of course they should. otherwise for a couple of months, everyone will receive $ 10

There are many bounties who sets only few members who can join the campaign. But that is why they are paying members so that their company or ico will be known by many people by the use social media so they dont set any limit on who can join the campaign becuase they already provided on how much they will distribute. Maybe, if you want higher rewards, choose the campaign your joining. Check the members who joined.

But the number of members is already been limited in most of bounty campaigns. That's the positive thing and lot of bounty managers are following that idea

agree with u
right now too many peoples joining more tha 5x or more than that
even their social media is full of spaming
i dont think that what campaign work
but well it depend on bounty manager , they have the ruler

In my opinion, the members involved in the campaign should be limited. Because the project gift supply is not available to unlocked members. This has led to the release of a few campaigns due to unlimited participation. I once considered this in the campaign.

Yes they should be limited to one campaign and there should be tighter rules to sig campaigns on this forum, there is way to much abuse of them as there is now...so many bots and other users who dont even care about the signature they represent

Limited participants in one campaign will be a good idea. It will not only lessen spam posts which is good while promoting the project and we can earn much higher bonus if there is only limited participants. It's a win win situation. It is an advantage for both parties.

If you check the services section's btc paid signature campaign they are already have few spots only for the campaign participants there I hope we do not need any regulation at there. If want to reduced the number acceptance means they should done that on bounty campaign.
Since the free spreadsheet application there are people just applying in 1000s in numbers.
Manual acceptance has been done with checking the post quality means we will find the quality posters for the forum and no tons of members in bounties.

It is the decision which is taken by the manger and probably even the ICO team who is bringing the coin would mutually discussion about the plan to go about and how many participants require or what are their target etc and then only the campaign is started.

Maybe is best to everybody to limit the members of so that we do our best to succeed I'm not saying that we cannot do our best if we are crowded and I'm some other place the more members is better campaign.

It makes no sense to limit the number of participants in the generosity campaign in any particular project. The statement that this will stimulate the writing of quality messages is a myth, as always. The forum has already introduced merit. Has anything changed from this? They practically blocked the access of new members to the forum and made earning money in signature campaigns for higher ranks, which by such innovation cut off new competitors with similar ranks. And who will do it? ICO companies that allocate a certain number of tokens to the generosity campaign are not interested in limiting the number of participants, for them the more their number, the better for them, as more of their ICO ads will meet.

I think that such restrictions are necessary for "big interest" projects. And it makes no sense to make restrictions, as the more participants, the higher the marketing result. I do not think that most of ICO will take these restrictions. I believe that they need to monitor the quantity of multi-accs, it's main problem.

Sometimes there are also ico projects that restrict participants to signature campaign rewards, I've read in this forum some time ago, but is it possible that make those rules are bounty managers, but even rarely ICO projects that limit participants to the Gift, the more participants will become better and will be more promising for the success of a project.

I have seen such project too but only once on where they do limit participants numbers and after that they do failed up to accumulate such funding because of limited exposure due to only few people who advertise into their ico sale which means there would always have a negative side when you do only have small number of participants and now ive seen most of them do have lots of members without any restrictions or limits.

Restriction of campaign participants is a good proposal, because with fewer participants in the company, you can give better tasks and perform constant monitoring, correct the program in time, and change the task. This will allow you to get the result not from quantity, but from quality.

I totally agree that there should be a limit in bounty campaigns. The more the participants, the more useless the tokens become. Also, there are more fake/multiple accounts. There really should be a restriction.

On the one hand, limiting the number of new entrants to the company's bounty is a big plus for developers, but for the bounty hunters themselves, this is still a big disadvantage, as the reward is extremely modest.

For bounty hunters of course better to number of participants limited. But for developers, the more people promote the project the more likely it is to raise more funds.

I'm interested to know your opinion about the platform: bountyhive.io, to participate in the bounty. They have a very large number of participants from 4500 to 7000 people. Do you think it is worth it to participate there, or is it unprofitable? What are their payouts, very small? Who is involved and is it worth it to participate?

i think you want more stakes so that can secure more tokens .
but any project want more n more participants so that more marketing .

so they will not limit the number .

i heard about that platform many times .
here people call for limited participants even when 500-1000 participants in a bounty .
on bounty hive this number is too much .
so not interested to visit there .

It depend on the team holding the campaign, but if we are the team developer and doing the ICO we want no limits in participants.
we want a spread of news all over the corner and to get that attention big numbers of participants is a must.
Unless the team has no big budget for the campaign.
but if they are giving allotted percent from the ICO to the bounties, they want limitless of participants.
the more the better for them.

I hope the bounty at the present time limits the number of bounty participants, it is better to open the unlimited number of people. There are a few bounties that approved only 100 players and require a Full Member rank, which is an excellent way to classify the quality of bounty members. With Social, limit the number of accounts per individual because one participant with multiple accounts will be spam on Social and will not good for that ICO.

I think it should be because many people use this opportunity by creating multiple accounts and joining the bounty and the participants who play do not cheat get very small prizes. hopefully the next every bounty using the system of participation limit.

Yes, they won't bother about limits in the campaign because the more people join the campaign and company gets more exposure. Till now, only they made restriction for payments through the bitcoin campaign.

Thanks for your idea.
Thanks so much!

Dear friend,
Your idea is what i think, thanks for your understanding.
But I know other members also has individual opinion and experience so I create this topic with expect more and more sharing. That sharing will be useful for me and everybody. I think sharing for better future.

Thanks

I think it's a very good idea .. but back to the bounty manager if he wants to limit the participants? because the more participants will be more and more who knows their campaign project. the more participants will be more profitable for the project, so it all depends on the project maker.

The more the number of participants the less is their reward. But it should be borne in mind that the probability of a successful ISO depends, among other things, on a large number of participants. Observance of the necessary balance - this is the skill of the manager of the company's bounty.

It is true that the more the participants of a bounty program ,the less the reward but to me it is one of the factors for a successful program.This is because most investors are reached through the various media which makes the project get more investors.Limiting will be very suicidal for most bounty programs hence more people as willing should participate in a bounty program.

as long as the bounty campaign is looking for participants in order for the project be advertise through the entire forum and investors then bounty campaign managers the more participants as long as it is possible but the more the participant the lesser stake you'll get. this is one part of the strategy, but time consuming, and alt accounts are always there, if the campaign is not handled well.

They wont really make any limit because they will accept as many as they can as long there would people who would join they wont make any limit because the more people the more broad they can able to market such project.If you are lucky did able to join a campaign with less participants then stakes would really be more but yet it would still depend on how much being allocated on bounty program.

It is really depend on the ICO and its bounty. Some bounties do not limit their participant because they aim for ICO hardcap, and their reward is huge. Therefore the participant don't need to worry if they only get small reward. But most of bounties especially the one paid with Bitcoin will limit their participant, because it usually only has small amount of reward, and its usually not ICO bounty.

Signature campaigns which do pay up bitcoin are not those bounty ones because if we do mention about bounty then the pay out would be definitely on token form of a certain project.Limiting numbers will not be into their rules because they know that it will be only few exposure.When we try to see all of bounty campaigns they have unlimited spots for its participants.

I think members shouldn't be limited because everyone has a right to participate every campaign. I may join a bounty in the last week and earning one stake with my participation. Also bounty owners want more people to advertise their project.

I don't think so... I don't want to see first come-first served service in bounty campaigns.

From signature participant view I think there should be limit, obviously, because of more money which participants will receive.
From team's view they don't care how many participants will be, they need as much participants they can get, more people promoting them means higher chances for their ico to succeed.

For a project that looks at the ICO, it is profitable that there are as many participants as possible. Therefore, the number of participants will not be limited.

I on the contrary met projects where there is a restriction on the participants. sometimes it's 500, and sometimes 2000 people, believe me not every one of them will work until the end of the project

For the project, the more participants, the better. The purpose of bounty is marketing. And if you look at the participants, then of course it's better to limit the number of participants

Yes, there should be limitations in the campaign. Because if the allocations are few and the participants are very numerous, in the distribution of tokens we only get a little bit

I don't think that hosts of the bounty campaign will appreciate this ideas - because the pay the same amount no matter what, but get more people working.

Yes, I agree with you a part. Maybe you are right for most hosts of bounty campaign but some of them after read our sharing in here may change their thinking. I think advertising effectiveness not only need a large number of participants, it also need the quality and control.

If they limit the bounty participants would be a little information that people can get about their ICO, of course, that's not what they expect.

I maybe agree with this kind of rule. It will minimize those who are scammers in the community. This will more help the members to be more active and hardworking to find more bounties for them self to join in. And will also helps for the member who join the campaign to have a sufficient earnings to recieve. Thats only my opinion. Thanks.

Fully agree with you - there definitely must be limit of participants.
Depending of project size and bounty pool. Especially that applies for social media - funny to see, for example twitter - during campaign each tweet got thousand likes and re-posts, after 20  ;D

I would suggest limits:
Signature - 1-500
Social media - 1000-2000
Content creation - maximum 1000
Telegram - unlimited.

 

It is very necessary and will make the campaye more productive and there may be other ways that can generate a clearer market target.

I totally agree with this, too much participants on a single campaign bring down the number of stakes you're getting and this brings down the boost for a certain participant whenever they see that there is a lot of people who will take part. For me, for a bounty to be effective participants must be limited since the bounties do not increase whenever there are lots of participants but in return they should focus on the quality of help that they get from this participants.

This is very necessary and maybe we will wait for bounty innovation that is better and interesting in the future. Maybe there is an idea for it?

I think this is possible. I see some campaigns from reputable bounty managers have limited campaign participants (social media). It is probably their goal to have the token that the participant of the campaign really has value. I think this is better than freeing the number of campaign participants if bounty is published by a reputable manager.

Hi everyone,
Thanks for your sharing about this topic. I hope with all things that we share will contribute a small part to built fair play games and also funny life.
Thanks so much.

I think we have to look at this from different perspectives.

From the company's perspective, its truly beneficial to have more and more people promoting your project for the same amount of prize pool. there is simply no downside for them, maybe the bounty manager will have a hard time sorting things out, but thats all.

From the bounty hunters' perspective, it would be beneficial to limit the numbers, so they will get better payments. But if you think about it, the problem comes from the pool system, which it is as a downside as an upside, as if only a few ones does it, the payment is larger, unrealisticly large. On the other hand if too many does it, the payments will be unrealisticly low.

I'd say a solution might be a system with limited amount of participants, but with flat amounts of rewards, so its not a system with stakes.

To limit the number of participants in one company can the company that holds the ICO, but the company benefits from a large number of participants.

Some bounty campaigns are limiting thier participants and I don't know what's the reason behind it ,it could be the rewards are limited .

In the company where participation is limited to willing all users, as they know about what rewards you can count. This is renowned for attracting skilled residents. I think just the organizer of the bounty of the company care about their community and their future profits.

      It's the bounty managers prerogative to decide regarding that matter perhaps it is in favor of them if two many participants joining the campaign, and we have no rights to impose limits the number of members participating.

Most of the experienced mangers will try to limit the number of people in each campaign category, to maximize the profit for each individual. Where as if there is no limit of members to join, then it ultimately affects the bounty hunters rather than company and may be termed as exploitation of individuals as they might be working for pennies. So, always find a campaign where number of members are limited to gain more profit.

It is up to the campaign manager and the team developer.
But ICO team want to have numbers of participants as much as possible.

they want people to come and join and spread the words all over the world to get more investors.
too many participants on a campaign will limit our earnings but we should also think about the team case.

I think many who follow bounty projeck it is better for investment development on the project, for a little bounty prize, I think it depends on the bounty that we follow also depends on the quality of each of us, that's just my opinion

Of course every bounty participant want to take part in limited campaing,  but for project it means less awareness for the same money. It is not that effective for them.

For developers it is not advantageous to limit the number of participants. The more participants, the better for ICO

The requirement should be more stringent because you don't want low quality help with your project. I believe they should start looking at merits too in combination with rank, that may help them decipher the good posters from the wannabe good. But that is only if they can offer out some merits, because some people are definitely under-merited and vice versa.

I think that entirely resides with the campaign manager. Productive campaigns have plenty or more participants to spread the
word out. Advertisement like campaigning is made more reliable and as efficient with more members working hard to get the
job done. Though there's a point here in limiting members but that decision still befalls on the campaign leader and manager.
It may be vague to say but it does raise the question of the need to limit members, is it so that the pay would be better and bigger?
That would seem greedy.. would this benefit everybody and bounties as well? At any rate as long as the campaign produces
wonderful results then any method or limit would be deemed acceptable I guess.

I think it is necessary for those who make bonuses like us. And some bounty programs put limits on that. But the managers do not seem to like it very much. They need to promote as much as possible.

yups there shd definitely be limits, in fact, some campaigns do set the limits for each type of participant, and useful/fair bounty aggregators like https://bountyhive.io (http://bountyhive.io/r/AlbertLee) already sets very reasonable limits for each type of campaign. fuss-free in the sense that all reports are automatically tracked too...

In terms of social media campaign, it is only appropriate if there are many members who will join. The purpose of social media campaign is to advertise the ICOs and the projects so more people will be able to read and hear all about the said project. This way, the project can attract interested investors.

In terms of signature campaign, I think it is better if the number of applicants will be limited. This way, we can lessen the spam in the forum, as well posts that are inappropriate and not constructive. (spam) The more the members a signature campaign has, the more the probability that they'll just post anything they want just to reach the quota of the week.

Therefore, limiting the numbers of people who join campaigns really depends on what campaign is being held.

Yes, I think the amount of campaign participant should be limited but only with signature campaign. With other bounty campaign like social media, I think it's no needed cause social media campaign often received lower share than signature so we only need to limit number of participant of signature bounty campaign only and there are already some bounty campaigns limit their participant in signture bounty.

Thanks for your sharing,
I think your idea should be considered, but i have a little diffrent with you.

I thinks, forum should be open and welcome everyone join and share. This will good for all because the forum manager are still monitoring and controlling all content of posts very well. Forum are opening under well monitoring. So i think needn't limit participants post in forum but control what they post.
About spam on social networks, It doesn't only effect to this forum but also effect to many people in the real life. So i think should limit participants in a big enough number depend on each project.

Thanks

with the restrictions in bounty campaign will actually make our income bigger. Because we will get a lot of rewards also. But with the restrictions will also make the promotion is limited, because the goal is to promote products to everyone. If more and more are promoting the more successful the project will be. But I am more happy with the restrictions, so bounty hunter can get a big income.  :)

Due to the increase in the number of participants in your company, the number of payments decreases, thereby losing interest in participation of the majority of bounty hunters. I think it is necessary to limit the number of participants.

There is no reason to limit the members of a campaign. If people think that that campaign is really good, then why not let them join. Because it will really be a waste of time joining campaigns that have no future or scams. But it still depends on the project if they want to put a limit on the people who join their campaigns. It will be more challenging if that happens because you don't want to lose the opportunity to join a good campaign.

If a bounty limits their participants that would only mean more workload for the members that joined the project. And I think that is one of the reasons bounty managers open boubties to as much participants of the bounty. Think about it no ones is going to agree to a work that has a haevy workload with a pay that has an unknown value. That is why they are splitting up the workload to many people as they could with minimal workload so that the members that joined the campaign will have equal oportunity on the payout depending on their work.

We've got the same thought. But aren't bounty companies have their rules about spamming on Social Media? They can anytime reject a certain user. There are disadvantages of limitation as it will cause a members to do a hardwork for the project.

As bounty hunter I think that limits are good for us, cause we can get more distribution not this low cost tokens in every bounty.

why should? the more the merrier..

I agree that the more is the merrier and this is one of their marketing strategy, just join in the club and leave those spammers out there. Just leave it on the manager to handle everything besides you are just only participating and it is their project, i mean we are just doing what they want us to do in order to gain something from them.

Keep in mind bro. We cannot able to predict that all the ICO has been goes bigger in the market once they got listed on exchanges. For that first we need to find the projects white paper and other information about the team who are behind the investment and development.
If you analyze all this joining the signature campaign on bounties means you are rare case in this forum.
I do not suggest the limitation of the participants. It is completely based on the team strength and investment capacity they have. So do not right to say this at all. I believe this is unwanted discussion.

As I know new bounty campaigns are doing this thing. They set a limit number of participant in their bountyh campaign and they require Full Member rank and above to be able to join their bounty campaign is also a good way to reduce number of participant. I think this case is really needed to avoid alt account abuse campaign in this forum.

Bounty campaigns has no limitations of participants because they want more people to advertise their product. Participants should be aware of this and if they think the reward is too low then don’t participate. Anyway in btc signature campaign there is a limitation and it makes your reward much higher.

All the bitcoin campaigns have a limited number of slots available for the participants to apply. But on the other side, the bounty campaigns allot a specific number of tokens and most allow unlimited number of participants so as to increase the exposure of their project. This leads to each participant getting lesser tokens and paid less for their work and also for the managers to manage the campaign. In my opinion it is much better to have fixed slots which is beneficial for participants as well as managers.

Some ICO campaigns do limit the number of participants in the generosity campaign in their own terms of joining the generosity campaign, but this is done only when a fixed amount is paid in bitcoin or even if in the released tokens, but in terms of dollars per message. That is, in this case, a certain number of released tokens is not allocated, and a fixed amount is paid in bitcoin or in dollars, and the increase in participants in the generosity campaign leads to an increase in payments. In general, since such ICO companies mainly rely on headhunters for a predetermined amount of tokens to be issued, then even the more such participants are, the better. They are not interested in these cases in limiting their quantity.

I do not think there is any need to limit the number of participants in the generosity campaign in one ICO project. The number of such participants is limited to the ICO campaign in cases of payments in bitcoin and if paid for each message in new tokens, only in terms of fiat. In signature campaigns of such a problem with the number of participants in the campaign of generosity, I do not see. There, in half of the cases, the opposite is not enough. In the campaigns on social networks there, probably, this is really a problem. When I come out of curiosity in the tables for a campaign in social networks, there are always hundreds of participants.

it is true, facebook and twitter campaign to be one spam that even participants can reach thousands. the limit I know about social media campaigns is about 2000 participants. but for signature campaigns there are limitations depending on the allocation of bounty provided. the more participants the rewards are received less.

Yes, the ICO owner can limit the member who can join their campaign, it is up to them if their budget is also good in few members, but the best way to have a successful ICO is also to have a good amount of member to introduce their ICO. Maybe it will always depend on the owner and their budget.

I believe that it is necessary to limit the number of participants in the subscription company. When there are no restrictions in the company includes a large number of people and the proportion of participants becomes very small. Better to were restrictions in the number of participants.

Well for me we should not actually limit the members in one campaigns so that the popularity of it will be found out then that`s the time that investor will be interested and trying to invest for bigger opportunities.

on the part of projects this is correct.look at the distribution of tokens of projects.for marketing large amounts are allocated.my answer-let the projects themselves decide whether or not to adjust.

It would be ideal to limit the bounty participants on a bounty campaign so that bounty hunters can get high rewards and its easy to liquidate for bounty managers and easy to spot the scammers.

For me it would be a great idea. It will help minimize participants in every bounties to give satisfactory salary for each members. It will helps those who are scammers who abuse the campaigns in our community. It will be more challenge for all members to look and watch bounties that are newly release and and be the first legit member.

it`s better for the project if it has more participants. The purpose of bounty is marketing and if u look at the participants, then of course it's better to limit the number of participants

You are right, the more campaign participants the gift sharing will be small. Campaign participants can not restrict it. I think that is the authority of the bounty program manager. So as a participant there is no authority to limit a bounty campaign.

This type of conversation has been held many times before also on this forum and some bounty managers have restricted the number of participants in a single campaigns based on the past work as they dont want any scams.This means the less the members greater will be rewards for the selected members.Now most of the people also avoid ICO with greater number of participants as they think it can be scam but its all in the hand of bounty manager.

I believe that it is necessary not to limit the number of participants, but to establish fair rules, and strictly punish for violation of the rules, in particular for multi-account.

No. Reason because some project need more participants to promote the business or project including all medias, that was why different pools was created to make sure they project have gone round the world. So you telling us to limits the numbers of participants in a bounty campaign is not encouraging because without more participants no spreading of the project..
The only to do is that any spam or cheater should be disqualify immediately.
Thanks you

There should be some bar on numbers of participants in ico when it is too crowded the reward are too small to share mostly telegram campaign it is getting too boring to participate in these days.

My thought on this your question is that if at all the number of participants in a particular campaign should be limited, it shouldn’t be generalized. Considerations needs to be taken note of, for instance if the project has a lot of tokens to offer to participants of the bounty and they need their advert to spread across all medias, that way they need more participants to take part in the bounty campaign, so it shouldn’t be limited for such projects. On the contrary, If a project has little tokens to distribute to participants and they equally need their advert to be spread across all media borads, what they need to do is to limit the the number of participants for the bounty campaigns and make sure that the selected few are very serious with spreading the information round the globe.

But it is better for bounty hunters to have less participants because reward will be higher. I don't think it is important for project to have 1000+ participants, I've seen bounties with only 100 signature participants reaching hard cap and I have also seen campaigns reaching hard cap in first day, so quantity doesn't really matter.

Many companies launch competent marketing and give a chance to the majority of people to receive an award. But every day it gets harder and the mosses are used by a lot of not very literate people. This is a fact

Yes of course so, yesterday I followed one bounty program and there is a human spam. embarrassing, this inconvenience makes the gift that shares little

It is not a decent idea because what benefits the project will get from it?

There would be no such changes of rules on the project itself when it comes to number of participants.They do need max exposure which means they would really need lots of participants as they have already allocate amount of tokens mainly for marketing stuff. The more members the lesser the stake and the reward which is somehow expected for this thing.

It looks bad to restrain the quantity of members in the liberality crusade in a specific undertaking. The announcement that this will invigorate the written work of value messages is a myth, as usual. The discussion has just presented justify. Has anything transformed from this? They essentially obstructed the entrance of new individuals to the gathering and profited in signature battles for higher positions, which by such development cut off new contenders with comparative positions.
Furthermore, who will do it? ICO organizations that distribute a specific number of tokens to the liberality crusade are not inspired by restricting the quantity of members, for them the more their number, the better for them, as a greater amount of their ICO advertisements will meet.

As bounty hunter I think that limits are good for us, cause we can get more distribution not this low cost tokens in every bounty....

Maybe at this moment we could see the stability of the campaign that consists of volume of members on each campaign. But in the other hand we may consider also the advantages and the disadvantages of the number of participants in one campaign.

That is why we can easily differentiate the bounty on bounties section and services section signature campaign. Most of bounties expect the spammers to be part of the project and they just to show off through out this forum.
But that does not matter for project. If the project has been comes to reputed manager that will refined the way we look the project.
There are successful bounty campaign managers. They takes the project with the right hand to promote. That way of approaching will be needed in every bounty campaigns.

Thanks for sharing, please continue....

I understand your concern, however the purpose of a bounty campaign is to advertise - reach as many potential investors as possible.
Even if there were restrictions, realistically how could these be put into place? And what would be the criteria?
If they were to accept bounty hunters with over a certain amount of followers etc that would be unfair to beginners.
If they were to accept the first 100, they would be missing out on all the potential investors from the other bounty hunters

Yes, but if a participant gets a penny for his work. It makes no sense to participate. For example, if I see the number of participants more than 1k- I do not want to participate. because I understand that during the months of my work I will hardly get a worthy reward.

Thank you! This indeed are posts that I think is constructive. You, too, have a good point. All things considered.

Anyway, with regards to what you said, about controlling what people posts in the forum, is a little difficult. The forum manager deletes posts that they think is not constructive or way out of the topic. Every person is entitled to their opinions, afterall, so I agree that we should not limit it.

However,in terms of signature campaign, I do believe that limiting and choosing the participants is good because they can filter those with constructive posts and those who really contributes to the forum. (also minus the wrong ghammar and syntax) Some signature participants tends to repeat what other people have already said to just so they can earn a post.

I am not limiting people's freedom of expression or sharing. They can still do so, even if they are not doing the signature campaign.

I don't think that there's a must to do so. What benefits it will bring?

Of course, this is a good idea to limit participants. The crowdy projects make tiny payments, and that is why experienced people won't join it.

It would be a good thing to set a limit on the number of participants in a certain campaign. This is to ensure that each participant would still receive a reasonable amount of reward. This would also be easier to track and control for the managers. Having too many participants to monitor would be too hectic and stressful for most campaigns.

Yes, i think the Admin of campaign should give a rule to limit the numbers of member to take part the campaign. Why? Because after a long time (such as 2,3 months) to join the campaign if the lager of members already join it means that rate (ratio stakes convert to tokens) very small, , unhappy. Result: we work hard but we get a small rewards. To improve rewards I think the admin should limit the number of members to submit the campaign. Good luck.

The limit of bounty members to make more money than having multiple members. But for the project manager, they want to have as many members as possible so their project will be more widely advertised on the forum. From my personal point of view, I would like the bounty project to be limited to 100 members only, and the rank is from Full Member upwards.

Yes, I agree with you, we should do that!

IMHO, I'd say we limit the number of participants on bounty campaigns like 100 per campaign and have a merit requirement for each one of them so that it will help on reducing the spam that the admins and mods are trying to eradicate. I've been to a lot of bounty campaigns and whatever I choose at first, I know that this will be worth to invest my time with but in the end, after a lot of particpants joined, I only get a little amount of tokens which is veery frustrating.

Yes, as a bounty hunter, it would be more profitable to limit participants for social media bounties, but then it might not be profitable to the bounty manager or the team.

The goal of hunters is to market the project to potential investors, but it's left for the bounty manager to be able to know when the progress of the fund raised so to know when he would limit participants.

I definitely agree on this. Most fb and twitter campaign are being useless because of the number of participants. You are doing too much work and investing much of your time but you will earn little because the bounty do not increase even there are lots of participant. I recommend limiting the participants and focusing on the quality of the work.

No dounbt that some bounty campaigns r limiting thier participants and I don't know what's the reason behind it, it could be the rewards r limited.

We have a different point of view with ico organizers, they want their projects to be scattered and known to as many people as possible, consequently rewards for bounty participants to be limited. While the bounty participants want to get a big wage. To overcome this you should find a bounty that gives great results. There is a bounty that gives estimation with dollar value. Try to find a bounty that is roughly in line with your expectations. So much bounty is going on right now.

See its not in our hands to limit the number of participants in a single bounty campaign as manager appointed by the team could do so or the team behind ICO if they are managing single handidly.But what i think is limiting the number of members can increase the profit and number of tokens we get and not every person who don't have knowledge can join that project.

For the participants point of view, the idea to limit the number of participants is good to us since we can get bigger shares of rewards, but the final decision is from the developer side as many participants can make hype to their ico and that what they wanted to spread their ico all over the world. As for me, I will not join once it already crowded to give way to those early participants.

Yes, sometimes there are a lot of people in the projects. how they work is not very clear, everyone wants to grab his piece more. for me, this is very strange, maybe it's true if a large team is not a promising project.

If campaign pays stakes then there is no limit for participants because owners will fix one amount and they will share that money equally after finishing the campaign. this is a loss for bounty hunters but if they pay BTC or tokens then they only limit the participants and it is worth for bounty hunters we will receive a good amount of coins.

Yes, it would be good for us. But not good for ICO's. More participants, more ads effect. There is such managers as Yahoo for example, who limit participants, but there is, as always, a big BUT. If Manager will limit participants, he will choose only the best users, from sr.member and above to get better ad effect. So think twice if you realy want it.

Limiting members is a choice entirely up to the campaign manager. Whoever runs the campaign is the one responsible for the number of applicants that may participate within a bounty campaign. While you raise an excellent point, there is not much a bounty hunter can do but either except admission to the campaign or to look elsewhere for bounties.
   One way to gather more rewards would be to take upon more tasks within the campaign. Most campaigns leave a portion of the bounty to creative participants who come up with unique ideas promoting the campaign, whatever that may be.

It is not at your discretion to choose how a bounty program should be run. The bounty campaign manager in conjunction with the project team reserve that right. Good project truly attract many bounty participants and in this case, the participants will get very little at the end.

Strongly agree with your opinion gan, pity that low level as I Jr. member. I only get a little coin, although it's great follow the signature campaign

More and more people who follow bounty projects and make income from bounty smaller especially social media campaign. So memnag needs to limit the bounty participants so that we can get the appropriate results after we do everything. If we do not miss out on a bounty project, we can still stop the others. Because there are so many bounty projects in this forum. happy hunting and good luck :)

Perhaps it is also good to do. several projects have already been doing so if you ever noticed. In addition, if you open the bountyhive platform, the project there are also limiting the number of their participants.

Well, the decision is in the company's hands, and the company will do what is beneficial itself. Limiting is not good for them, because they want to reach a broader crowd.
So I dont think so, you should be happy for your easy money.

Actually we means the forum members right,we can't do anything in these case because the project needs as much as promotions to become more successful so they never limits the participants whatsoever,if you want high bonus from campaign join on the campaign with less participants or in the signature campaigns where the spots are very limited.

I think that of course it is worth limiting the number of participants in the bounty. Who first stood up and sneakers :D

There was one bounty company on a tweet, a man very much, I figured that it would be a maximum of 10 dollars per month approximately, did not even participate

There is no sense in limiting the number of participants, the more people are engaged in advertising, the more people in general will know about the product

Bounty Campaigns is creative promotion and knowledge sharing there would be restrictions for campaign restriction of the number of members count

some Bounty companies have a limitation on the number of participants. But some manager also sets the conditions for limiting the rankings of bitcointalk accounts.

Twitter and Facebook or social media should be at least limit their joiners since most of the hunter only join this category and signature is lesser... Hahaha but it's up to the manager also since the team will decide it themselves.

Of course, they should be limited, but it is not profitable for any of the managers, because the more people, the more powerful the marketing company is. And the fact that the participants of the bounty program can't have it nobody cares.

First of all, no "we" can limit or decide anything in a campaign that doesn't belong to them, their only decision may be whether to participate or not.
Having said that, I do notice too that bounties are becoming smaller to the point when they become ridiculously small and aren't worth any effort.

It can be classified since there are campaign which do pay on bitcoin and on altcoin which is on bounty campaign. If the company would decide to pay tokens then limitation isnt possible and as you said they would really need exposure as big as possible for their token or project.This is why we commonly see there are lots of participants into a campaign but this would be totally on projects budget.

In my opinion you need to limit amount of members, who will be faster that will get more coins, because if a lot of members then you'll get very little.

On the one hand it sounds good to limit members to rise the bonus for them but on the other hand i think we should not limit them so everyone would have an opportunity to have experience such as this

         Regarding this topic, I think a limitation of participants to a campaign is an advantage for active and already enrolled participants, because weekly stakes will increase for them so they will be more significant. But to promote the project does not. The more enrolled, the more you will know about that project. Therefore, I think they will not put all the projects in the future, limiting the participants, because it is not for their advantage.

I definitely support your idea to limit the number of participants in the bounty. But managers need to raise funds for the project and they will not do it.

Instead of limiting the number of participants in a campaign why not just add more requirements for the participants. The ranking, friends and followers of members sometimes are just not enough. What bounties need is members that can provide quality postings and/or topics. Pre selecting members depending on skill set can be a way to lessen the members that cannot do the job weekly and it will provide a good marketing to the ICO.

Founders want to get a better result for a fixed amount of money. Therefore, it is hardly possible to see strict restrictions on the number of participants in social campaigns.

If viewed from the bounty party, the ideal variant is up to 1000 participants in social campaigns and up to 200 in signatures.

I believe that it is definitely worthwhile to introduce a limit in social campaigns. Soon we will generally work for free. Theme by a little dies.

Some managers already limit the number of participants, as on the Bountyhive platform, but the payments are still very small ...

I don't agree with limiting people. Everyone has equal chance to participate in bounties. It's a marketing event for the projects, so more the people more the advertisement.

When restrictions on the number of participants in the campaign could make a project running smoothly then it doesn't matter. spam is very troubling indeed all people and if these restrictions are imposed is also not a problem. of course, if the participant is limited then the allocation results acceptable to be slightly larger.

Well, many companies now began to limit the number of participants in social networks companies, so everything depends on the company, and in the company's principle, how many of the companies advertise it the more the better. So that from this point of view, there will be no restrictions.

Yes I agree with your opinion, should all the gifts be limited to the participants, so we bounty the hunters so eager in the search for the gift.
And also with limited participants, so we can know to calculate our allocations.
Many big projects,
participants a lot but we got a little gift.
Or change the rules such as bounty signature system, the rank is also in use

there are of course some bounty projects that limit the number of bounty participants for their campaigns, for example, the number of signature campaign participants is limited to 300 participants, to 1000 social media participants and so on. it aims to limit the scammers.

I think the same thing. Because I think it is very necessary to limit participants to all campaigns. If the campaign limits the participants and the allocation is not too large. Of course, we get not too small and in accordance with what we do. This is also to avoid the number of participants who spam. As more and more participants are also spam. So it should be limited.

Have you seen the table of bounty programs of the TokenSuite team? There are no restrictions and they are packed with a huge number of bots and scams, duplicating data with incorrect purse addresses. This command fills the table very well, but they need to limit the number of participants.

It depends cause for guys which are joining campaign it is worst when it has a lot of participants but for guys which are making campaign it is better thanks to bigger spam and bigger ad of their project.

Yes, I have seen. but i hope there are not too many participants in a campaign.

I think your concerns are well shared. The marketing/bounty is primarily an effort to get attention and attract prospects that could hopefully pick interest in the project and invest. It is a no brainer that good projects attract more bounty participants, but the outcome can be managed by the campaign managers through various ways. For instance, this is obtainable in bounty0x, a cap is allocated and counts down from the start till the cap is exhausted. This makes it more targeted if each campaign plan out and know exactly to what extent they want the marketing. I have seen bounty campaigns with a very low cap lasting 15 weeks and participants getting average of 20$ to 60$ after 15 weeks (poor).

I think that the number of participants in 1000 people in social companies will be sufficient. In the subscription companies will be optimal for 200 people. Why recruit 10 000 people with a reward of $ 5? it's funny

Because it is all about advertisement and visibility. Almost no one cares what participants will post, what matters to them is signature visibility and to get as many participants they can.
In my opinion, participants should be smarter and when they see there are already lots people in these bounties they should look for another bounty, but that is just me.

Dear all,
Thank you all of you for sharing idea in this topic.

yes must limit, the result of the sale is not necessarily exhausted, a project must be really compact in taking decisions in limiting members

Most bounty don't limit their participants as they want a bigger community and also if you find many participants on that ico, a sign that it's a good bounty. Yes it should be limited to 2k participants only but we have no choice as those developers wants many participants for advantage to them. As bounty hunters we should not join once we find out that it's already crowded to respect those early participants.

Yes, it seems to me that in order to bounty companies live on, it is necessary to limit the number of participants in them. Otherwise, in the future, the quality of such bounties will be simply awful. Money and time will be lost both by participants and organizers of the bounty.

normally in some project they always have limited numbers of participant, so once that exert number is reached they don't longer accept participant again.
but for that not withstanding they have to limit numbers of participant in a single campaign so we that can gain enough token, i know some managers can not do because they want there project to hit as possible to the market which people are spreading on so many platforms.

Limiting participants will be a good thing for the bounty hunters, but not good for ico, as they need to forecast the number of participants who will survive till the end of the bounty campaign which means more work for the team.

I think it's worth limiting the number of participants in bounty companies, since you get really cheap pays. Assume up to 500 people at least.

This type of conversation has been held many times before also on this forum and some bounty managers have restricted the number of participants in a single campaigns based on the past work as they dont want any scams.This means the less the members greater will be rewards for the selected members.Now most of the people also avoid ICO with greater number of participants as they think it can be scam but its all in the hand of bounty manager.

limiting the number of participants that many gift managers have done, restricting the social media community to the lack of project promotion, can affect the achievement of ico itself,
so again all managers' decisions can determine because the token allocation for the prize remains the same

I am categorically against the introduction of any new restrictions. This forum should always give the right of choice. You now have the right to choose to participate in any ICO project or not to participate. If there are restrictions on the number of participants in the generosity campaign, there will be no such choice. On the other hand, the ICO team is not interested in this limitation. On the participants of the generosity campaign, they allocate a certain percentage of their new tokens and they are interested, on the contrary, in a large number of participants who will advertise and promote their project.

The limit on the number of participants in the generosity campaign and even the number of participants of the same rank is introduced by ICO in case of payment of generosity in bitcoin or ethereum, or linked to the dollar or euro.

I do not see the need to impose any restrictions on the number of participants in the ICO generosity campaign. If someone worries that he will get little payment, he may not participate in this ICO campaign and choose another. They are now held very much and quite often only a few dozen people are involved, if we consider the campaign signature. Recently, this forum has introduced and so many restrictions, and above all the restrictions associated with the introduction of the system of merit.

I think that it is necessary to introduce limits for the campaign of social networks. Spam will not give much for the project, but many hunters will simply lose interest in these projects

Limiting members will create more demand for campaigns hence  we may miss quality of posts so it is better to give opportunity for every one

There should definitely be a limit to the participants in a campaign, however it is very unlikely that the developers of that ico will want that, it is just common sense, the developers want as many promoters as they can get for their coin and if they limited the number of the participants that will limit the exposure of the project and that is something they do not want.

The more the merrier which this would really be their aim in the very first place as long they do already give token allocation then they wont mind on how much participants would set in but somehow this would really result into less rewards due to division of such amount into each participants. Advantage for the project but would be disadvatange for the the bounty hunters or promoters. We cant do anything since they do have the final decision.

I agree with this topic, we should be limit members of a campaign.

In the practician's view, few people mean higher earn, so they always want limit members.

But from the other side, more members mean better promotion, so almost project teams don't limit member in their bounty campaigns.

I think the limits are needed for the followers in a campaign so that it is not too crowded and the distribution of payments is not small

Promoting is the key aspect of every project. They need to get more people involved and I do not see anything bad in it - projects need to start from somewhere. Look at this one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2637453.0) - it's promising and interesting and deserves more people to watch to it.

if in my opinion by limiting the number of participants who join can be a good alternative

Your idea is right maybe ypu saw it as a solution to avoid spamming... Maybe if they have a little opportunity recieved in bounty project surely they will seek better to have a quality post...  But if we do that we are just controlling them to improve...  All of us is not perfect so we must give them an opportunity to learn from their experience...  Because we believe that everyone deserve to be here...  If they learned about cryptocurrency surely they will help themselves to develop...  At least we are just here to guide them...

its not good for a project to limit his participant in bounty campaign... this is marketing strategy broadcasting your project to the public would means a lot of people to participate in order to broaden the market scope.. other project use television to reach out to the general public... here in ICO they are using us to publish their project in order to attack many crypto people to invest in their project.

Of course we should. There are a lot of advantages of this action. For example the quality of work would rise and amount of gained money would be more than enough for members

In my point of view I guess it would be a good idea to limt memebers in one campaign, because the profit for each of them would rise, and I think that make min rank of members for some companies would be also good idea (in that case if they need a high quality of memebers)

I believe that you need to do limit the number of participants bounty campaigns, unless of course you want to respect the interests of bountyhunters. Also you can close entry to new participants after collecting softcap.

The outlet is a field enacting every immature elbow-room enacting the advance of the projects.

I definitely agree to you everyone wants to work here....  So if we limit the members in one project it is just likewe are limiting the chances to make that project successful...  As what you said it is better to create a lots of bounty programs than limiting the members who wants to participate....  Everyone has a freedom to be here even we are just a begginer or a professional one....  We are all hoping that cryto currency will really change us....  Always think that the more participants involved in one bounty project the better because there are a lots of people who will promote it....

Dear everybody,

Very very thanks for your mention and sharing,
There are very very many great ideas both agree and disagree. All of them are very useful for everybody who attention to bounty campaign.
On advertising, As many participants as possible. It’s always right. But I think we should mention to advertisement quality so we need more and more good articles/posts/tweets, not the spams.
Dear everyone, please continue share your thinking!!!!

Thank you...

Yes, and i think it should be properly implemented in every campaign so that every participants can earn a big amount of money for their hardwork and dedeication to the projects the paticipated.

It's good to hear and if this will happen many people will benefited because limiting the number of participants in a campaigns increases the bounty rewards earned  of the bounty hunters.

I think you should limit the number of jr.member, member .... so it will attract more participants and come to the campaign the more qualified members, so the marketing of the coin will better.

Should we limit the members of a campaign because I think that if we do a lot of things, it will make our managers rush to check posts and they will spend a lot of time on more management

That is not a good idea to limit the members because that thing will be decided by the company and the manager. If they limit the participants then they won't get much awareness about the ICO progress. So limiting the members is a bad idea and it is allowing other new members to promote the campaign.

In my opinion this is a good thing and I think this rule will make the outcome for each campaign participant even better,

I think that if the rewards activity may limit the number of participants to be considered in different periods, when it is just launched, of course, there is no need to limit the number of people, because the goal is to rapidly expand the popularity and increase the community population. When the activities are approaching the planned target number, they should start to limit the participants. It is a good habit to plan the target number in advance in the design activities. Of course, it is important to understand that the measures to limit the number of people are to improve the quality, such as increasing the difficulty or level of participation. If there are many people participating in more demanding requirements, then you should be happy, not to limit them.

I think we should limit the number of participants
Joining many leads to little reward, no one wants this to happen at all

The developer of the project is important advertising of his product, they give bonuses for marketing, and not just for you to earn. The more people will advertise their project, the more profitable they are. They do not care how much you earned.

Limiting members only good for participants, not for bounty hosts. The hosts always want more and more people to know about their ICO, so more participants mean better marketing effect.

It's better to have a limit signature campaign restrict to control participating and prevent duplication. great reward for  because there's a limit, No more effort for the admin when they update ... Thanks.

Thank you everybody,
Someone tell that the project manager need the big number of member as much as possible. I think as project manager, they do as you say because they need more and more participants for advertisement. I agree with you about that.
But, what are your thinking as a bounty hunter? please continue share...
Thanks so much!

I think it would be a good idea to limit the participants in one campaign, since the profits for each of them will go up, and I think that making a member rank for some companies would be also a good idea (in one case if they need high quality ).

It seems to me that in answering this question, I need to think about the possibilities of Bounty Hunters in different Bounty companies. One company can be promising and can satisfy the coins of many users, and another company may not even collect a softcap and will not be able to pay anyone.

We do really mind about the spam thing but I would tell you this. Most projects wont really care at all as long the extent or spread of exposure would be on its maximum no matter what the cost since they do paid or allocate amount for the sake of advertising. For us bounty hunters ,limitation on participant would be ideal to have a possible maximum good payrate due to low numbers compared to higher ones but well decisions would always vary on the team itself on what would they do prefer.

No, I believe that there should be no restriction on the number of participants in the ICO generosity campaign either on this forum or in social networks. There are already quite a few restrictions on this forum. Now there are a lot of different ICO projects, among which are prospective and fraudulent. In many projects of the participants of the signature campaign, there are several dozen people. This is quite a bit. In some campaigns, ICO campaign participants signatures reach up to six hundred. Therefore, everyone has the right to choose, which can not be denied. In addition, the ICO teams themselves are not interested in this restriction. They allocate a certain number of tokens to the generosity campaign and the more people will advertise their project, the better for them.

Yes, talking about the purpose for popularization of the idea of the project -yes, you are quite right. The more people mention about the concrete project in their social profiles or other resources - the better for the rising interest to the project from potential investors. But for the people, who participate in the bounty - who make the contribute to the development of the idea of ​​the project - it is less interesting... everyone wants to get the right and attractive own benefit... May be it`s a good idea to limit the amount of participants members, but taking into account the both side`s interest.

For the bounty hunters, of course, it is advantageous to limit the participants, since indeed in many bounties very many participants are registered, while their share is decreasing.
But for companies, on the contrary, it is better when there are many participants and the audience's reach in social networks is greater.

I totally agree on the limit on members participating on a campaign to curb spam and enable a larger allocation of tokens to be given on a bounty and  of course it will mean more work for the bounty participants,but I don't mind since an increase in  the allocated tokens are certain.

The harvest is ripe, so why should the laborers be few, i know because we we are humans we cannot promote all the bounties at a time, but my advice is this, participate in as much bounty that you can, promote as many project as possible but keep to their bounty rules.

more participants will be more profitable project, but not profitable for us because rewards are shared for the participants.but there are also managers who limit the number of participants sergei name.

Limiting the members of a campaign will make the quality of the job more secure and the testing of the campaign manager easier, I am very supportive of this. Without limiting the number of members, there are many campaigns with too many members and that leads to poor quality of work and difficult management.

I really believe that the number of bounty hunters in a single campain should be limit jus to ensure that even with small ranks  can be benefit and can earn more.

Dear admin, in my opinion i would like to suggest the bounty manager should limit the number of members to join in one campaigns. Now i see many team they limit amout of members and they also require to do KYC. I think we should join these team and we may have a big chance to get more rewrads. Many thanks

For me,i also agree for bounty campaign that have limit the number of participants. But also i think,a lot of campaigns should have also a lot of participants,for the purpose of spreading their bounty campaign projects informations,and to introduce their aimed,to be a successful projects,and all including participants will be benifited.

It would be grate if one of the campaigns have it limits with there entry inorder to claim rewards exact amount for each participants. To somehow minimize the spam accounts for double entry. The less participants the bigger the rewards will be provided.

I think it would be better to limit the number of people. If you participate in a bounty and a lot of people reward for your work will be very small. It is better not to participate at all than to get very little.

It would be much better if the campaigns had a limited number of members. The largest number of members is always in social media campaigns. Of course everything depends on the bounty budget.  I think that the best is the signature campaign and should definitely introduce limits.

More and more participants and just make spam what's the point?
Better to be limited but choose a member who has higher rank and have good experience in promotion. Better fewer participants have good experience in promotion and have higher previews than many participants but only make spam and only focus on rewards regardless of the quality of their promotions.

Dear friend. That's good idea. If  one campaign limit members to join we will get more money. I think one campaign such as Facebook, Twitter should limit 1000 members, that's good for bounty members and bounty managers. Do you agree with me? Thank you very much

If you look at this issue from the perspective of a bounty hunter, then your idea is very correct. But if I am a publisher, the purpose of my bounty activities is to promote and promote, then I naturally hope that there will be more people to help me with the promotion. so.....

Thank you for your sharing.
I agree with you. 1000 is the number make the project manager and bounty hunter both feel satisfied. too little or too much are both not good. The 1000 should be the reference number of participants for twitter and facebook campaign.
However, depend on the bonus pool, the project manager can consider another suitable number.

it seems to limit everyone to follow the bounty campaign is not necessarily in need but it really should be 1 person 1 bounty, if you want to follow bounty again yes become a participant from other bounty. maybe it is not spam but the marketing strategy of ico is there.

I think we should limit the participants to the bonus campaign. Because I know many people in my country they spam to participate in the bonus campaign

There must be limitations with regards to the participants but of course the more volume of bounty hunters it will be in favor for that specific project so technically some ICO don’t limit the participants. Well, btc signature campaign is the best when it comes to implementing rules about that campaign.

Yes, limiting participants in a bounty campaign can really help bounty hunters to earn more profit especially those with low ranks because the most affected during rewards distribution is the partcipants with low ranks even participated in too many weeks.

i think yes , right now bounty have to much people and they even joined with multiple account, its good to us if bounty campaign limited their participant.

I consider it necessary to make a limit in bounty companies! The choice of the subscription company should be more responsible for the bounty hunter.

The members number in bounty campaign should be limited in order that every participant participate in a professional manner, do his homework and get bounty it deserve!

I am categorically against limiting the number of participants in the ICO generosity campaign from this forum. This restriction can and does sometimes make the ICO team and the manager of the generosity campaign. Other persons should not interfere with this process. Everyone has the right to choose independently to join him to a specific ICO project, or not. This case is voluntary and it must be accepted and taking into account the number of joined participants.

in my opinion better in each campaign limited number of participants, I have been following the campaign for 3 months and only get $3 rewards  and it is very sad .. for now, I prefer a campaign that limits the number of participants, hopefully later many bounty manager do it.

I have the same opinion. There should be a limit for participants in a campaign. It would only be fair for the participants. This could also prevent a campaign from being overrun by alt accounts. Although I can understand that a project like to have many people in the campaign, so they can do more advertising, but still they should be fair to the participants. Therefore, I try not to participate in campaigns that are already totally overcrowded anyway. It's usually not worth it.  ;)

I think not. Because bonus managers and ICO want as many participants as possible. And they will attract as many ICO participants as possible. Nobody wants to limit the number of people who know about the ICO. Except for bounty participants

I think limit the participants is one of the important way to improve the efficiency when marketing the ICO project. Many scammers join with multiaccout and they dont have the responsibility to help this project. In my opinione, vote for limitation.

Undoubtedly, limiting the number of participants would have a positive effect on the promotion of the project and on the reward of each participant. You could even limit by rank, as do some bounty managers.

I think limiting participants in bounty companies is the right decision. From this win both bounty participants and its organizers.

to limit members seems unlikely, as more people join, the better the project will be.

in any case, the restriction appears not only at the beginning of the company's Bounty, But also during the Bounty campaign. Such an example can be given by Bounty company Jimbi, where not only began to limit the number of participants several times after a certain time, but also began to reduce the reward for the work done for each week.

Limiting participants in a campaign is not new. It's done by some bounty platforms but it's not technically possible in the forum to count the participants. Bitcointalk should find a way to do it to make bounties more effective.

The main purpose of a bounty campaign is to attract the attention of potential investors to the project but not to reward bounty hunters. The reward is only to motivate bounty hunters to help spread word about the project. You have to be selective in the kind of bounty you join.

I think that ICO's won't go for it because it's profitable for bounty hunters, but not for the projects.

Well this is sounds unfair for the others but real talk we are aquiring the exact reward that we are aiming for. And how can we recieve a bigger amount of token if there is full of participants? For me i was favor for the limits of participants in each bounty.

This is interesting topic to discuss....
for us bounty hunters, it's really needed to limit participants to maximize our earning, but to team that doing ICO/project, they need as much as participants to promote their project....
But lately, too many participants joined, and what makes me so upset, many of them are scammers/bounty fraud, doesn't follow rules and try to cheating

Yes. I always like to participate in a campaign with limited participants if not the reward will be noting at the end of the campaign. If some did a bigger task and the reward is lesser I think this is not encouraging

No that not a good idea...  Bounty campaign is created for everone...  Well we have our own freedom as a crypto user to participate in the bounty project we want... And if we limit it is just like we are a selfish person...  Everyone deserve it...  It is our choice to participate even we think we will get a little reward o:our participation...  Much better if lots of bounty campaign created than limiting participants....

yes you really should be in a campaign should limit the existing participants because if too many participants the results obtained to be not good and bad now there are bounty social media like facebook and twitter broken because too many participants.

too many participants indeed affect the results we will get, the more participants the tokens we get will also be less, but everyone is entitled to join in bounty and earn income from bounty

The problem here is the result. I think that bounty is an indispensable component in the promotion and marketing. Therefore, depending on the purpose of a project or the allocation of rewards, there are times that limit the number of participants to achieve the best results.

Huge participants in a campaign will result to less rewards that they will get. If a bounty is only required 150 members in each category , partipants will get high stakes and big rewards after the campaign.

This you have shared about the conclusion what you get as a payment mate but it is all upon the requirement of client who want their campaign run on this forum mate. Please check the requirements and rules to be participate in this campaign mate.

Please review all that will it work or not! Then you can apply for it. If you want to participate in any bounty signature campaign please refer the project well and participate in this signature campaign mate.

In general,
With many many things that we shared in this topic, we know that a limitation of participants in a bounty campaign will help to distribute members to diffrent campaign. This thing is better for bounty hunters. But it is too hard for project managers who always need more and more participants for advertisement.
Dear everyone, if you have more solution for this issue, please share it.
Thank you so much!

I am for limiting the number of participants. This gives us the opportunity to earn more. When we participate in a project with a large number of people, the earnings are small.

To be honest, being an bounty hunters means to solve a lot of issues like searching the real projects that wont become scam eventually. And I think members limit is needed for both sides profit.

Most organizers of bounty campaigns limit the number of participants so that you can split the pool normally. Sometimes i miss good campaigns and it's a pity.

well the bounty managers knows the best about the each campaign they are running.. but to me i will advise that some project are meant to have limit some participants from participating in there campaign after some certain amount of participation are reached. e.g they should have a limited numbers of 2000 or 2500 to keep the tokens get valued. moreover just as you said that the people are spamming the project on the social media.
so in summaries; it will help to reduce spamming the projects on the social medias and the token will worth valuable after the exchange is being launched.

In my opinion, no restrictions are imposed on the participants of the ICO signature campaign from this forum. Campaigns ICO now every day there is a lot, there is where to choose. Almost half of the ICO's projects of the participants of the signature campaign are more often ten or two. So it can not be said that everything here is overcrowded here. Of course, for some ICO projects, sometimes 500-600 people join, or even more. However, because of this restriction should not be introduced. In my opinion, the right to limit the number of joined sites should be left only to the ICO team itself. Otherwise, we will invade their sphere of interest. The ICO team allocates a certain number of tokens to the generosity campaign and vice versa, is interested in the largest number of participants who would advertise their project.

Its up to the campaign manager if they want to limit thier participants in every category of the bounty campaign,  more amd more members in the campaign will result to less reward that everyine that could get.

I think that in any companies need to limit the number of participants to be the first incentive to get into such a company and kept a good reward.

Unfortunately there's no solution yet, and i wouldn't recommend using bots since it is against in all of the forum rules and they weren't advisable to use for a good project. In the first place, the participants should accept what's the manager will give them at the end of the campaign or else they shouldn't be joining that campaign if they don't want to accept a small bonus.

yes it should be like that because by making a restriction of each member to be able to follow and become a bounty campaign participants should have been applied for now in order to bounty campaign is not too many participants.

i am in favor. there are bounties that are so crowded that its hardly worth taking part in them. a limit would be really good.

making restrictions bounty participants is possible in need, because it affects the benefits received by the bounty hunter, maybe the limit is 1000 participants for each campaign depending on the allocation of tokens

Am agree with you, now there are a lot of bots in companies, and payments are quite penny, I think you need to enter a rule first com- first serve!

I support the idea of ​​limiting the number of participants in the company bonuses, and given the popularity of the bounty at the present time, even in a very strong and promising company with a huge number of participants, earnings turn out to be scanty. And this kills all prospects of this sphere of earnings. It is necessary to put a limit on the number of people in proportion to the pool allocated to a certain company and then the work on the PR of the project will be made better and the people will have more money. Although companies do pay all the same for a million 1 per 10k people or 500k people, the result is important to them, and the bounty is a consumable, as in other real industries.

preferably so, for a good level of profit in a bounty, there should be a limitation of participants in a bounty project, because the large number of participants becomes the determinant of the amount of benefits that the participants will get

In the campaign, Jinbi is simply not a very good position with fundraising. The ICO term has already been extended until the end of July, and a few days ago only 17 percent of the planned funds were collected, that is, more than $ 10 million. Since the promised awards were too generous, the ICO team took the right step and began to gradually limit the joining participants and reduce the payments already acceded. Therefore, it is necessary to leave the right to the campaigns themselves to determine when and with whom to impose restrictions. This is an internal matter for every ICO team and should not interfere with them.

concereza we should limit as standard of any bounty but infezlimente niguem wants to cooperate greed for divulgation does not exist but ico announcements therefore bounty are their princupal way of divulging therefore we have to be more valued

yes I think that is very important. if ico it limits participants in their campaigns. because if it is limited many will join and it will be an injustice in giving rewards to the bounty hunters. like now the bouty sosmed Twitter and Facebook programs are very much the participants and the rewards they share will be less for the prizes they receive. its better if there is a restriction of participants then the payment will be regular. and we hunters will not be disappointed.

Yes i do believe that's the best thing to do so as the participants can gain something tangible from the work they are doing

yes i think There must be limitations with respect to the members. restricting members in bounties can truly help bounty hunters to procure more benefit.because during reward distributions low ranks members most affected

Limit the members in the bounty campaign is the other way to improve the efficency when asdvertise the ICO or some coin marketing campaign. The limit participant will bring the high rewards and help them try to help the project.

Everything depends on the generosity of the project team that conducts ICO.I notice that the more means are allocated to the bounty of the company, the more they subsequently raise funds.

In fact, many bounty tasks have restrictions on the number of participants. Generally speaking, they will require 1000-2000 participants. However, many projects do not have so many participants, so it does not matter if you do not limit the number of people.

I do not agree with you, according to my observations, quite often projects that put a limit on the number of participants in the bounty run into the limit. As a rule, these are projects with good previous experience, or from the real business sector.

You have a point. Maybe that is the reason why many bounty participants only receives small amount of tokens and not enough for their hardwork during the campaign. If the campaign managers will set a number of particiapants that are enough for the campaign, for sure the participants will received a big amount of tokens after the ICO. 

Generally I have see potential and successful project have bounty with limited participation which is quite good as it help improve  quality rather than quantity.it is also a sign that how team value their project and supporting members.

In my opinion, it is necessary to introduce a restriction on the quantity in general in all kinds of bounty campaigns.

of course, today because of the poor state of the market, there is a very low level of earnings in Bounty campaigns. Therefore, a large number of participants who pretend to a small pool of Bounty companies need to reduce. but apparently the Bounty manager has other views on this matter.

You are only seeing this from your perspective, it makes sense that you want to limit the number of participants since that means you will get bigger profits, but from the point of view of the developers they want as many participants as they can since they want as much publicity as they can get, after all there are many people that start strong and then get tired of doing bounties and quit, while others never do any work, so the number of people actually getting rewards is smaller than the number of people that were accepted in the bounty campaign.

Yes,I agree with the previous comment. Some companies register a lot of participants but a small number of participants receive steaks because of the complex requirements for the bounty program.

This is a nice a idea. The fewer the participants the higher the rewards  you will get. But the thing is project team or bounty manager want to have plenty of parcipants due to that there are a lot of people would be able to get involve in promoting the project and which means it would attract more imvestors. I would something in mind. BM eould limit their participants to alteast 1k or leass then increase the volume of posts that the partcipant would deliver, like 20 post per day. In that way it investors would still catch the attention of the ICO, limited person with spam post, same thing with more particpants involve but lesser post.

it seems that it already exists, signature campaign, in every bitcointalk profile you have if you want to be a participant of your signature campaign can only be a participant in one campaign only, will not be used for some campaign before the signature campaign that you follow is complete.

The goal of the ICO bounties is to get advertisement and marketing at various media in the internet at a low cost with a form of rewards(tokens) that are given to the bounty hunters for every successful campaign. If this is the case the more the participants with in the campaign just means that the ICO is getting a lot of attention and good publicity which will contribute to its success.the more people are involved, the more spam on the social networks and that is what they want, their ico will be for many people.
The purpose of bounty is to makerting and the more participants they promote success.But, as bounty hunter I think that limits are good for us, cause we can get more distribution not this low cost tokens in every bounty.

Who will deal with this restriction? Here the question is raised about making restrictions on this forum. I am absolutely against such restrictions on the part of the forum. This possibility is in the company ICO itself and if they deem it necessary, they apply this right to such a restriction. This is mainly done when the payment is made first not in shares, but directly in certain quantities of new tokens a week, or in bitcoin.

Yes, I hope that in the future they reconsider and have new rules to limits the number of participants. But I'm afraid that it's too hard for that thing happend because they need the a huge nuber of member for advertisement.

definitely, Yes. then there will be a quality and payment more. I like managers who have restrictions, especially for the subscription. and some restrictions do not and if you look at their table, you will be horrified. there are too many bots and multiaccounts

Personally, I support the idea of having a particular limit of members in a campaign because this will help reduce the rate of having multiple accounts in a campaign and there will be enough allocations to distribute reasonable amount to participant at the end rather than having very large number of participant and the reward each get will not be reasonable.

I will say a very big yes because if there is a limit to numbers of participants in a campaign, there will be less crowd and there will be a reasonable amount of rewards to distribute to participant at the end of the campaign and it will also help to reduce the rate of having multiple account in a particular campaign.

having a large number of participants is good because they are aiming for a posible wide exposure around the forum and there is no problem with that at all as long as they are not scamming their participants  .  they should also restrict their rules in order to avoid cheater and spammers to roam around the forum .

there is no need to limit the campaign participants because all of the users here do always want to be apart of the campaign but the problem is that there arent any new campaigns lately . some campaigns nowadays are also strict ( too much ) when it comes to their rules , even qualified participants cant seem to participate on their campaign .

I think yes, otherwise the payments will be quite tiny, right rulle- first come-first serve!

Bounty managers won't like to limit members in a campaign. I believe the more people get involve, the more news about the ICO spread. However bounty members will want it to be limited.

Due to the increase in the number of participants in your company, the number of payments decreases, thereby losing interest in participation of the majority of bounty hunters.
I think that limits are good for us, cause we can get more distribution not this low cost tokens in every bounty.

No new campaings lately? Then you are not basically seeing on whats happening on bounty section where almost everyday a new project do launch just to raise a fund and its already too hard for hunters to identify which project would really be worth of to join. Limiting members in campaign is not possible because project owners would definitely use it up for max exposure which same as you said and I do completely agree with that.

The problem with bounty campaigns with too many participants is the bounty payout will be small and it's not good for the low tier participants. Because they can get the small percentage of the pool. Although it's good for the project to have many hunters advertise their project or product. But in exchange is the low bounty payout when it doesn't do any justice. When you worked more than 12 weeks and got only a less than $10 worth of tokens. And it's very disappointing.

I consider that the number of participants of a bounty needs to be limited. That's because of a large number of participants, rewards are too small. Of course for bounty campaigns it is perhaps not the really good idea as advertizing extends the smaller number of participants. But efficiency of such advertizing, unfortunately, low. All this because of a large number of bots, fake accounts and etc. But if to raise requirements to quality of accounts of participants, then the advertizing efficiency will increase.

I think members shouldn't be limited because everyone has a right to participate every campaign. I may join a bounty in the last week and earning one stake with my participation. Also bounty owners want more people to advertise their project.

The bountier like this ideal but the bounty manager or the owner if ICO project dont like this.  . The want to attractive more and more investor who invest in their project and dont care about the rewards for participant.

Dear friend,
I agree with you.
As my thinking, It is hard to limit the number of participants when the developers, project managers want to do reverse things because of advertisement purpose. I think we must accept that thing. I just hope they apply limit in part.

It has advantages and disadvantages if we limit the members per campaign as other troll accounts may register and fill up all the slot and the genuine bounty hunters cannot participate thus all of the rewards can be rewarded by few people.

The main advantage of it is that the genuine bounty hunters will have decent bounty rewards on their work.

These should be considered in case the campaign will be limited.

in my opinion, we will limit the campaign accordingly. As a social media bonus campaign, we can not limit it because with the larger community, the more popular the ICO will be and the more successful it will be.

Limiting the number of participants is also a good idea. I should limit the number of new members too.

I agree with you that bouty campaign need limits, otherwise bounty hunters will get a pittance. To promote the project, creators need to use other sources of advertising. For example upvotes on Reddit they can buy on upvotes.io (https://upvotes.io/buy-reddit-upvotes/)

im think yes too, because the number of participants is growing time after time. and with such success in a few months, even subscription companies for months of work will bring mere pennies

More and more people are discovering about this opportunity so I think it is about time to implement it. I also just want to salute the admin for making new rules that discourage a lot of farmers and spammers in this forum. It helped a lot to lessen the users a bit because it's very hard to rank up which you need to get higher rewards.

Yeah I think there must be limitation in participants, so that it would be worthwhile to join and stay till end, I hate these staky campaigns, where they give you unknown stakes till end of the bounty, in one if these campaigns I only got 10 tokens after 1 month of participating in there, they said its small because the huge amount of participants!
After that I just decided to join In campaigns that they have specified tokens from beginning.

I think there is no possibility of limiting the members because many ICO companies are giving bounties their ICO should get more awareness about the projects. That's why even bounty managers will not restrict them either in social media and Signature campaign promotions.

I also think like you. Limited number of participants will make the project more quality. Also, avoid the number of bots joining the project

recently as I know bounty got kind of popular and lots of people want to participate there and limiting number of members seems as good enough idea for saving acceptable level of reward

no we shouldnt and that is a bad idea imo , there are too many users on this forum and every one is verry eager to join a campaign . we should give them a chance to join a campaign so that they can also earn . dont be so selfish guys  .

many campaign managers nowadays do have this mentality , they are only limiting the spot for thier campaigns . the worst and horrible part is they also limit the campaign to high ranked members only .  lastly ,  they also add stricker rules such as merrit reuirements , good quality post , etc ..

Even if you limit the members who participate in the ad, can you guarantee that other members of the ad will not create spam? If not, then such restrictions will have no meaning!

recently as I know bounty got kind of popular and lots of people want to participate there and limiting number of members seems as good enough idea for saving acceptable level of reward

The more participants of generosity are attracted to advertising social networks, for the company this is, of course, the best way, and they have no reason to limit, but all this affects the payment of the hunter, who receives 3-5 dollars for 2-3 months of work.

I think it's a must!
There are a lot of staky campaigns , and you don't know how many tokens you are going to get finally when it is like that!
I'd rather to know how many tokens im going to get at the end so would pick those ones which have specified the number of each bounty token at the beginning .

Since there are tons of participants now. There should be limit atleaat in social media like Facebook and Twitter since there are to many who registeres.

A limit of the participants would certainly not be bad to ensure that you get a minimum wage for the work done.
But something would certainly lead to more trouble and therefore something is probably implemented in almost no bounty.

If there is a limit, the more chance that we can really earn, some bounties tend to give a very little amount since there are many participants, but most of the campaign who limits have a bigger task to do or posting unlike those who are unlimited.