Bitcoin Forum

RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A BOUNTY CAMPAIGN = HIGHER PAYOUTS

The limitations can be done in two ways:

1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.

Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign

2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.

Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.

Not all bounties that has limitations paus a high rewards but they limit the participants to pay a small amount in the participants,but depends in the bounty you join if its payment method is fiat or tokens payments,because some good projects now are paying in eth,btc and so on and they limit the participants,Now lets go withIEo since we open this topic,If you are looking for an investment in IEO must try yanu.io it has the power and potential tokens that we can use in the future so dont waste any chance buy now and the trading starts on June 1.

many projects that did not limit the participants because of the large number of participants would influence the promotion of their projects in this case, namely ICO and that also affected google search, which of course was very effective for the implementation of the ICO.

I agree I have one signature bounty that limits participants and I got a higher payout because of the limitation they impose on their participants, 
especially if you are a participant with a higher ranking, bounty managers should implement this.

I gues it depends on the bounty managers because some manager have high reward for they stake then others and before you join any bounty campaign always try to check the token allocation for each in other to calculate perfectly when the bounty end. Some manager allocate as high as 4000 tokens per stake.

actually bounty manager want it , but sometime developers team want the different thing with them.more participants means more people that will spread about their projects.they believe it will bring positive impact to their ico.personally i am agree if bounty limited .

Regardless of the limitations that these bounties will do, you should identify it first if its legit and paying or does have plans to pay in the future after the ICO. With what I observed, distributions are halt before and after the ICO to maintain the supply circulation.

And with that move, it avoids further dumping of the bounty participants. As long as you don't guarantee the payment of that bounty, I think it's the one that should be highly considered before those restrictions and limitations.

This can be good for some projects however there is no guarantee for this. We have to understand that the project is here for promotional purposes so the idea is the more the merrier the better because instead of limiting the number of participants they limit the number of coins/tokens at stake and qualified participants are to divide the prize at the pot. Although I would say that this can be a good option but I doubt if we can impose this idea to all projects.

It seems like only an observation.

Yeah, some bounties may pay with that limitations but i don't think it is a common thing.

You cannot conclude that, though mathematically speaking some of what you are saying is correct but there are still some factors affecting the payments of bounties. Some of them I think are the bounty allocated within the campaign, the value of the coin after distribution and I think one more factor to consider is the duration of the bounty you are joining. Some of bounties would take forever to end and may end eventually to not paying their hunters.

Often times, those limitations are meant to sieve-off poor work delivery and ensure that the project is promoted by the best hands.They also tend to pay better as there are less instances of spams or bots doing the bounty (especially social media campaign).

2017 year was the best year, now people start thinking about the time of cryptocurrency. Rules and regulations was updated and banned for huge participate. This restrictions and limitation rules for all bounty hunters could be payout high rewards but many people can't participate in good ICOs.

Restrictions are not always good. Large projects should be interested in workers. I myself often face limitations. I want to participate and you were late because I was leading a different project.

Indeed there can be higher rewards but if something happen and the price of coin from bounties not grow then is not good for people who join and put some time on, but obviously this depends on luck.

Bounties with limitations and certain conditions for bounty hunters most time translate to higher bounty pay just for example if the bounty manager is deligent enough hell scrutinize the task of every participants to make sure its quality and if not disqualify by that the ones doing good and quality task get  high rewards

All these above does not help a bounty campaign, except other details are resolved

Such as the total cap for the bounty, and its reward in $.
Social media campaigns are always flooded; so there’s no difference

It depends on bounty manager and the project. If they want to promote through more people, there's nothing much we can do. In fact, they want more people to promote their project.

As far as I know only bountyhive platform who have limit participants in each bounty they run.

It all depends, some project can be strict and still not lead to high reward, I support a fair share deal for bounty hunters, I love placing some strict rules to avoid and checkmate bounty abusers which is not healthy for a project. Sometimes when participants are limited in a bounty campaign, some participants do leave the campaign for a better offer and this sometimes will leave the BM with some fall short of exceptions.

they need to limit on social media campaign only. the others still on high payment / reward. social media campaign so far have the highest user that join there, many new bounty  no need qualify to join on social media bounty

This is very true because bounties have specific amount of money which is shared among participants regardless of their number. So whenever there are rules and the numbers decrease, the few participants will get more money as compared to one with more participants.

Of course limited will guarantee higher reward for accepted participants. Cause the bounty allocation will be shared for few people compared to the crowd that would have drastically reduce the bounty allocation.

for bounty participants payment methods are indeed very diverse. we can see that there are indeed from the beginning making regulations with a limited number of participants, some of which are indeed from the beginning never limiting participants but with a fixed allocation. and if the fewer people who join will make the more participants can get as you say.

That's right, and I agree if there is a bounty or project that limits the participants for a better result, and usually it is a good bounty because the team and manager are very concerned about the projects they handle.

I sometimes feel frustrated with some of the current bounties, some that have many participants reduce allocations sometimes those who have fewer participants also reduce allocations because of some things that don't make sense. so for now there will not be much allocation for bounty participants

Most BMs do not take that into consideration. Those who pay with BTC goes like this, but most of the altcoin payers do not consider it. Yes, this means a better bitcointalk in all respects.

Yes it does matter but in some bounties even without ant rsstrictiona and limitations hunters do get decent reward its about how much team has allocated for the bounty campaigns, secondly you forgot to mention KYC, not all bounty hunters want to share their personal details online so such campaigns usually also get less number of participants as compared to the other campaigns that do not require kyc.

Not in all cases,  some bounties with limitations Attimes turns shit too... Attimes the bm cheat with limitations to hold tokens back.  This days, bounties is a game of luck...  Bms use hunters now to get token from dev.  Limitations or not. Some bounties still pay well without limit.

Restrictions are also KYC mandatory, which was announced at the beginning of the bounty of the company.  Further restrictions may be indicated by complex requirements for execution.  In general, payments in these companies are much higher and differ from those with low requirements.

The bounty wouldn't really limit the number that could participate in their campaign ,
Because they need more people for publicity and to promote their campaign to attract investors.
But the limitations would really affect the bounty rewards but that doesn't mean that you could earn more from their campaign,
Remember that not all of the campaign would pay and not all of them would have a value in the market so even with the limitations for participants wouldn't guarantee a thing.

Its just normal to think that the fewer the participant the higher the reward would possibly be able to gain but talking about profitability wont still be sure.Why?

Even how big your reward is if those tokens are shit then you would still end up nothing.So theres no point if you do able to join that project in the first place.
Also that theres only a few bounty that do limits its participants because most project do always have that concern on having maximum exposure which in result
to unlimited members needed.

Though I agree with you that limitation is good for higher payment, yes it's good but most times most bounty managers use that opportunity to pay bounty hunters less, and they will keep most of the rewards for themselves. I've seen that kind of thing twice. Either there will be limitations or not, everything is still based on how trustworthy the bounty manager is.

I understand why you want limited participants for every bounty campaign because it will increase people rewards but more participants then more chance to the devs makes their projects popular and if those projects popular then to get more investors is not hard and i think that's why bounty have no limitations of participants because the devs want their projects reach their target sell  

in as much as I think you are correct in a way though but that's not really true. Because most of the bounties with same quality still don't have good payout or they don't pay either just like some bounties

Of course limitation means more stricter rules. If rules are very strict, then normal users will feel reluctant to join them. So this increased reward gives them a reason to join those higher paying campaign. Again, since they have more rules, this means they will have better (not a shit quality poster) users, which means better quality of advertisement by the users. They sure can add a few extra reward for this :).

Judging by the many interests of the community, they began to follow the bounty in order to get the gifts from the projects that were followed, so that all those who governed the stay of the project leader and how many tokens will be distributed especially in the social media budget, if I see all the projects getting more gifts, only those who follow the bounty signature..

In this case, I agree that the limits and limitations for participating in a prize campaign are efforts to achieve the goals that everyone wants, namely higher payments. On the other hand, methods like this are very suitable for maintaining commitment to the success of the project and making participants feel their own satisfaction.

I do not think none of the clients will accepts the limitation on bounty campaigns, there are signature campaigns with the limitations, I hope that is enough for the bitcointalk users. If you want to participate in bounties.
Please look at the campaign manager and confirm the project is really heavy to participate. Check the project owners updates also to confirm their potential.

there are limitation in social campaigns, but it should be, or with many participants rewards are really small, and not sufficient for the work done
on the other hand, in those campaigns it is harder to join and do your work

Some BM set up these limitations but they do not follow it up. You are right by saying it gives better rewards but the project team won't see it this way cos the higher the number if people to participate in the bounty, the greater the chances of the project getting out to target community.

yes, I agree with you because with so many participants the possibility of an ICO being known by investors is getting higher, and of course it also encourages keywords in google to find their ICO. in my opinion the number of participants is a very strategic.

It's the truth. The project requires high-quality content and a large number of people he does not need. After all, the most important thing is quality, not quantity.

Restrictions and limitations for participation in a bounty campaigns is good for bounty hunters, but it dont have benefits for projects. Projects prefer as much as possible bounty hunters promote their company because the sum of rewards don't change no matter how much participants. So bounty hunters should make their decisions is it worth to join such campaigns and get in the end 2-3$ or not.

For some it is and for others its not, for me I think its makes lotta sense to have restrictions or limited participants for bounties so that the bounty promoters can have enough rewards for there work

Back in 2017, I use to see many campaigns do this. I guess things took a turn when the bear market arrived and the interest of ICO investors declined. Bounty manager started accepting unlimited participants for more exposure and to reach more potential investors.  

This is usually the case. I seldom see campaigns allowing hunters with less than 100 followers/friends to join.

I remember promoting a bounty in the past with 100 limited participants for various campaigns and guess what? The rewards are so pleasing ,I was able to make up to 3eth from the bounty alone ,it think it makes sense if bounties that actually start limiting bounty promoters so that those who promote the project can get reasonable payouts

Limitating the bounty participant is a good move to get higher reward  because the number of person to share the bounty pool has a limit number but look at ico bounty this day most of them have no real intension to create product and in the end its turning to scam project its really hard to find a good project.
I remember the popularity of ico project way back 2017 most of the project have been successfully and get a good profit compare the current situation of ico that gives a small portion of reward.

These are some alternative ways to get a higher payout if there is a huge amount of rewards for the bounty. Limitations was an effective way for higher quality work from the bounty hunters but it will also limit the spread of the news especially when it terms to be a social media account. It is up to the project manager or the Bounty Manager what they value that much. Quality or Quantity. I suggest that it would be better if they will meet on some point that will not sacrifice the quality. Get a team that will really have the time and commitment to check the quality of the posts.

Bounties are made for marketing as more people join there will be more mouth of word marketing or people start to market in youtube, blog or bitcointalk about this project . Following bounty no more profitable .

This should be the case for all bounty. I like the way some bounty manager restrict the participants to this so the bounty payment wouldnt be diluted by many participants which sometime have been cheated as long as the campaign is easy.

Much better to have a strict acceptance on some bounty participant's work o only those who are deserving will be rewarded. Would a legit project should pay? Spammer, multi account? I dont think so. I like Parodium handling his campaign and only rewarded quality work plus the participants are limited and have strict requirement for all.

Never thought of this before and even though it like that, you must do due diligence in-respect to the Bounty campaign in order to avoid be scam or scam project. The last i did a checked, it was never done base on limitation, be placed before the bounty will pay higher, but each Bounties have their ways in this aspect.

But think about it, why they should limit number of participants? More participants will do more work for the company than less participants.

Generally, OP's arguments show true and I do prefer bounties with limited numbers of participants. However, there are still some projects with no limits but pay good rewards. Actually, limitations are set by bounty managers. A good and experienced manager usually take care of this. Like someone said above, Parodium is a good manager with limitations and quality campaigns.

It will depends on the bounty manager how clever he will find some rules to manage the campaign.
However, as a bounty hunter, one should not joining campaign just because the reward is higher than others.
The important thing is, the project is real and will paying hunters once they succeed.

I have seen bounty campaigns with limit of participants and the rewards will be high. Some bounty managers don't limit the participants and the payout will be low and waste of time. I appreciate the bounty managers who have the sentiment of protecting the bounty hunters and have the payout they deserve.

That's the point, they wanted to have more participants in order to reached out more potential investors, if your point is to have much higher rewards then it will only benefits the bounty but not exactly the project to get more investors to be involved, there's a positive but also negative sides of this statement.

Having limited participants is good thing which can avoid spam on their project and also will equally beneficial for everyone participating on it by their tasks but paying based on their followers count is unfair because bith done same task but one gets higher while other one receive less rewards .

the more bounty participants, usually the more investors.
HYPE !! woaah, many bounty hunters join in project X, because a lot of enthusiasm will make investors more interested.

if there are fewer bounty participants, it means that no investor will want to invest because the lack of trust can be seen from the number of bounty participants.

even at its limits, but does not reduce the number of bounty/scam projects. actually, the number of bounty participants is not a problem, if the project is indeed good, surely from the total prize pool of 1% of total sales, it will not affect the stability of prices on the market. if it really affects, that means the project is weak and does not have a bright future.

I think this is a good solution for participants of bounty companies as the pool for rewards will be divided between a limited number of participants and the quality of the content will be improved, which will accordingly improve the marketing of this project.

Most of the bounties are doesn't care about the hunter's payment. They do only care about how many people are promoting their project. I don't think this is a good way to catch investors or to raise quality contents. They should care quality over the quantity. I do agree with you that bounty should have limitations in participation and that will be helpful for the hunter and for the projects as well!

With the maximum limit, it will certainly affect what is obtained. Because with the maximum limit, of course the distribution will be even greater. However, it seems that not all bounties do this. Because I see there are still many bounties that continue to accept new participants. Try to see there are even projects that reach 4000 participants for social media and an average of 1000 participants for blogs / media.

Not all campaign limits participants since the more their participants the more chances that their companies will reach more people, and that's how marketing works.

All these doesn't matter if the team are not going to distribute bounty tokens. The most important thing if for the team to stay loyal and keep their promises to bounty hunters. We are fed up working for projects for free.

Also, the lower % the free of the bounty and pr tokens is, less change there's for sell pressure with a low price.

What pays higher rewards, not limitations but the quality of the project, the team members etc.

I like to be interested in this method because surely the payment will definitely get a lot of rewards, but for now this method depends on the project because the last time I followed the project it turned out that the token was not as expected and could even be notified to death (it does not have volume even though the listings in the market are quite famous), but I see some time ago there have been many good projects from the IEO that did it and it seems that getting higher payments will start again

having limit participant on a campaign will indeed have better payment potential, because it means the project has a real budget which will certainly be good in the end, because at least they have a real budget that proves the project will be serious to improve their reputation to be better for long periods of time

In my opinion it depends on the gift manager and the developer in carrying out campaign gifts, for distribution of prize payments can be divided equally.

For me, the limitation in this bounty campaign is very important for managing managerially. With the limitation of the members of the bounty campaign, the members really want to participate maximally and take responsibility. This also makes the team manager of the bounty campaign easy to control the work results of each bounty campaign. If there are many members, then it will waste time in checking bounty campaign work, especially if there are many members who are not working on a bounty campaign project. Of course this limitation makes payments from the bounty campaign even bigger. I am more pleased with this system because we feel that our work in the bounty campaign feels an important part.

Sometimes, limitations in bounties might be of great profits and hunters get very excited,  sometimes it doesn't work that way, it has to be the project allocation,  the price trading (if listed) all that needs a consideration.

That might be valid for ICOs which always pay like %1 of the raised money, so when they raise millions of dollars and number of bounty participants is limited, the payment becomes huge.

Managers do not have the authority to determine allocations for bounty hunters. the team determines the number of prizes and usually 1% or more.
The manager only manages the bounty and checks the work of the bounty hunter.

Now almost all the bounty of the company have any limitations. And it is correct, I consider.  The fewer people, the more opportunities for earnings.

It is not always, but I think that bounties with limitations is better choice. Now it is rare to meet such bounties and it would be perfect if you guys share experience with such bounties.

It was depends on the demand of the project, if the project was good and hype then it has a chance to get a high reward, for now it was better to have a limitation so that they can divide the rewards equally unlike if there is no limitation you will get a low reward, or else you will get is just for gas a very small token and your effort would be wasted.

Depending on the project roadmap it is reasonable to expect high bounty rewards. If there is no interest in the project, I never spend my time with the bounty requirements.

I am not a bounty manager or very familiar with bounties, but the reason the limitations that you mentioned don't exist is because first bounties are made to promote their projects on social media and forums where there are thousands of people, and if like they recruit just a couple hundreds all the posts and tweets that they do will just be forgotten and not seen by the sheer amount of spam on these platforms, the more people they recruit the less of that happening in order to make this bounty successful, and the more people means less payments, and you see where this is going. 

Some managers or project team intentionally do the restriction for some reasons.
That bounty has so many participants, does not mean it will be more effective. In fact, you can have limited participants and yet, such little number can attract so many investors.
This is why some projects try to make such wise decision.

Could you guys share some good bounties with limitations? I haven't seen such programms for ages! Also 1 year ago limitation was lower and current limitation sounds weird, still high number of participants

Well, it still depends on the platform whether how much the can invest for bounty/signatute campaigns.

Nevertheless, it is somehow true. In sig campaigns, there are so many limitations like posting in local boards or Others (Archival, Beginners and Help etc.) do not count, maximum of _ _ posts only will be counted and many more. These rules are set for the sake of avoiding abuse coming from the participants such as spamming, trolling and shitposting. Above all this bitter restrictions, there's a sweet fruit in return — profit. Honestly, profits from such services is not so big compare to btc's prime days but it still worthy for me so i don't mind at all.

These rules are very important because It regulates the behavior of each one of us. Without these, our forum will be toxic once again. Best example I think is when Yobit signature campaign rise again, are you aware of that?

this is true, if the prize allocation is calculated as "stake", then the total prize allocation will be divided according to the income of each participant. but many gifts in quantity are not necessarily good quality. because sometimes I meet big prizes with coins that don't sell well in the market, sometimes the prizes are few but the value is very high.

Yeah since it help to regulate the number of participant by setting the excluding criteria clear, but not always since most at times the success of the project is tied to it exchange price.

The second method is definitely not effective, many can buy fake subscribers to their blogs

In my experience not all bounty with that kind of rules payed good for me,yeah most of them did pay but doesnt seem enough imagining how many months you worked with them.Earning through bounty right now is just by luck compared to last 2017 icos where icos are so good and every bounty pays good

Not all bounties with limitations pays higher. Reasons why is:
1. Some bounties pays you already the exact tokens you will receive and not through stakes.
2. Some bounties have low total bounty given to all of its participants.
3. This would be the last, not most bounties are paying or successful in their sale.

limitation participants will give higher reward to supporter if they using stakes based on reward calculation with high allocation ofcourse.and if using points you mentioned above there is no significant amount there.

Completely agree, I am doing veil bounty right now managed by bountycloud, they have strict standards on quality, here genuine hunters are rewarded well.

Each mass is given in accordance with the reward's allocation and in each given campaign when the bounty is accomplished then the bounty participants in the batasin so that it can launch any distribution at all.

Good campaign, but more the limitations the participants number will be the only limit. Apart from the same there won't be any big changes, this is a kind of creating demand. I've participated in such campaigns and very few numbers were worth it when I received my rewards while remaining were the same as other bounties.

Veil is a good one however, I am not agreed they are promoting in a positive way, they should include as much people as possible to let the world know about their project. Limiting the participation isn't helpful for the project.

Bounties with limitations only pays you with a higher rewards only if the project was projected into a higher market demands. If the project was good then it has a chance for you to get paid on a higher rewards.

Yes, bounty with limitations usually pays high rewards than the bounty that no limit. Why? Because if there is no limit the participants will be so many. Take an example for social media bounty, the participants can reach over 5k people and the only allocation for social media bounty usually low. That's why people only can earn some bucks or even under 1 dollar per person.

I think most bounties don't do it this way because more participants means more exposure of the project. Your suggestions are good but i think if a certain bounty doesn't limit the participants to increase each and everyone's rewards then at least increase the bounty allocation to make it fair.

It depends on the bounty manager . some manager prefer quality over quantity which means they will limit the participants to a high profiled users or user that only writes high quality post but this isnt really effective for the exposure of the project  .

 i witnessed a campaign like this before and all if them have failed , right now the campaign that holds alot of participants are the ones that became succesful and still on this game  .

From my experience generalization fails sooner or later. Expecting higher bounty rewards on the projects which attracted more bounty hunters is not the right strategy for grabbing cheap bounty tokens. Bounty managers usually look for high-rank forum accounts in order to increase awareness.

I think this is a good idea. To make every bounty campaign more symmetrical from posting to distribution of token. This is less obstruction and delayed when there is no too much of participant and they only accept for the limit or right number of quota. Hope there is some strategy that all bounty can do tobmake every campaign orderly.

Yeah you're right.
But it's all about the quality of the product itself, if no investors buys it the price of the coins will be nothing and we just will be holding a crap tokens

Not all that has limitations for its participants have huge rewards. One reason it's limited because they do not want participants to have or to get small rewards. Let say the only budget for it is $10000 then they probably set like limitations for each campaign so it will be somehow profitable for its supporters.

ICOs wants to extend their reach farther and limiting participants in social media bounties won't help them to attract many investors. I know that as a bounty hunter, you want to get higher rewards but there are other campaigns that you can take advantage where having less participants like translations, community, and video campaign.

It all depends on the value of the rewards.
No matter how many rewards or how huge you get it would always comes down to the price.
So even if you receive plenty of token it wouldn't matter if the value is zero .
Besides they open up a bounty program because they want to be promoted by as many as possible so why would they limit the participants?

for payout problem, in fact, most offer a lot of rewards, but in some bounties it happens because their allocation is also limited and it is usually done on bounties that use bitcoin payments, for general bounties it is very unfortunate that many bounty managers don't limit participants, of course it is detrimental, because each participant only gets a small reward, but some of bounty platforms that I see are actually many who have implemented it.

Most bounty managers use this tactics to minimize bounty participants for their bounty program which is indeed a great, the lesser the number of participants, the higher the rewards per hunter.

The best opportunity to earn is in those projects that have long been traded on exchanges and conduct a bounty campaign to attract an additional number of investors.

yes of course, because the allocation divided into a few people and of course this makes everyone's payments increase
rather than bounties whose participants are not limited.

limiting user based on account rank is also important because many spammers now participate in several bounties.


yeah that's a good decision from bounty manager, even for me are missed a few bounties and can't join them because the slot are full

Only BTC paid campaigns with fixed BTC coin pool has limited amount of participants in bounty rules.
While bounty campaigns paid tokens doesn't have any limits for participants in most cases.

i agree.. higher payouts.. but the problem is if the project is legit.. time and effort is wasted if they are scam

Limitations of the participants for Bounty campaigns are good for goth hunters and project. Participants get higher rewards, while the project do not get thousands of fake likes and retweets looking very suspicious.

Of course, large projects make different constraints on the participants. This is done so that the hunters would earn more. Can also put conditions for hunters on quality. Let's say in the project Veil seriously reacted to the restrictions and do not take fake Facebook accounts.

There are many bounty after the distribution of their price bonuses still increases. This year I think that the project I am working on for the IEO will cause it to increase several times compared to the price of IEO. And those who join the bounty of Harmony will also sell more money

right, limiting the number of bounty hunters might be a good way to do so that the bounty hunter gets a pretty big bounty and that would make the bounty more attractive to many people and that would make the bounty better because most bounties now waste time.

This is true. That is why some bounty platforms like bountyhive and bounty0x pay better. They have caps. Bitcointalk bounties without strict rules and limitations are usually marred by fraud from participants. Imagine a Telegram Bounty with over 5000 participants on the Spreadsheet and 1k members in the project group. Pathetic

I think participants limitation is dosen't matter if bounty manager will select valuable hunter. After that automatically which participant reward will increased. Because majority of the hunters to be get rejected. Otherwise must be limitation in bounty campaign.

It's depends on the project you are following. Each bounty project pays with their own token/coin. Each of the token/coin they give to bounty participants can be said to be low or high if we look at the total supply of the project ... We can only value that if they have already listed the market they promised

Recently there have been very few bounty hunters, so there were no limitions, but we all see that the market is alive, the forum and telegram are more active, so I think we should start to see new bounty. Even the old scams started to come alive - it's a miracle.

This is not often the case, bounties with such limitations are mostly already trading in the exchange and the bm trying to make sure only those who actually meet the requirements are taken, but do they bring high reward! not necessarily, only that there is 100% guarantee that there is market to trade or sell your token/coin after the end of bounty, the waiting period for an exchange listing has been eliminated,
If you observe closely, any bounty already trading in any exchange is sometimes carries limitations than the yet to be listed bounty, and the bounty pool is always small too.

Unless they are not a scam project. There are few bounties that requires a limited amount of participants. The primary goal of bounties is to grow their community and have a wider range of broadcasting information about their project. Conducting a bounty is an additional marketing strategy for the project. Usually, limiting the number of participants is according to the rules of the bounty manager and not primarily from the company behind the project itself.

I join some bounties with limited number of participants, some are quite successful and some failed. And yeah, they give a nice amount.

the number of bounty hunters now very much.and if bounty manager didn't limiting participant in their campaign they could be super busy to check all of their work.and it's very rare to find manager that limiting participants, except on campaign that paid using btc.

You misunderstand the essence of the bounty program. It is voluntary and optional. Therefore, the organizers are entitled to decide how many participants should be at their bounty. Bounty program is created to popularize the project. Therefore, the more participants the higher the probability of financial success of the project. And it also lower the probability that you will be deceived.

The limitations and restrictions can make the rewards higher indeed, but it can reduce the number of hunters too.
I think the most campaign filled by hunters is the content creation campaign.
Maybe limitations will be required in content creation campaign, so the hunters won't make copy paste articles.

absolutelly right, few participant mean more rewards will we get, because divide by few people, not divide over 1k people.

I have actually participated in some bounties that operated that way, just the way most bounty campaigns limit thenumber of signature campaign participants is the same way they limit the number of bounty hunters, but I think most companies that does that are projects that already has funds to run their company.

They just need little more to make it a success, so they don’t really need too much campaign, these projects usually ends in like 2 to 4 weeks, unlike those other ones that are raising funds from zero and extends the time of campaign o almost 9 months before they finish their ICO.

I think this is also true for KYC bounties, as it's a form of limitation in itself. I've noticed enough KYC bounties that are more rewarding, no doubt due to it's restrictions.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, in fact I disagree with KYC for bounties, but the average KYC bounty value is notably higher than the average bounty value.

We really should have limitations on the participants, I've participated in a bounty campaign where there are no restrictions people are joining and admin keeps them as long as they can report, I end up getting $8 worth of the stakes because of the so many participants and that's over two months of campaign, can you imagine that.

It is true, because the big projects know exactly what they want from participants and are doing harder limitations to protect the whole bounty from fraud participants. I also mentioned that really big projects do not have huge bounty funds, but they always pay and you can trade those coins.

What benefits will the project have if the bounty manager limits the number of participants in the bounty campaign? None benefits. They pursue only one goal - more advertising for the same money.

you can see in a good bounty they will certainly give a limit, and also for a bounty signature. if you see the bounty in bountyhive.io, there are usually often limited bounties and the quota of participants is always very quickly fulfilled because the project is really good.

I think there are not enough bounties that pay big rewards so there is also a risky opportunity in the bounty bounty because many bounty scams are showing up and the low price of bitcoin or higher is high other new projects will be affected by the price to tell if the market collapsed and the holders and investors are losing money so others are so lazy to join the bounty because the rewards are small with the encounters just like it's been too late bounty and ultimately scam the bounty or so their project is not successful and other reasons do not reach hardcap so risky bounty is great.

you are wrong, when the manager limits the number of participants then it will make each participant's reward big. and the benefits for the manager can support the big names of the managers, the better. it becomes important for managers to still get the trust of the community that has been built.

Often times, bounties with limitation do bring higher reward and at the same time, there has been some bounties with limitation that doesn't bring higher reward because of infinitesimal bounty pool. Higher reward in bounty depends largely on the bounty pool of a particular project and the quality of the project itself.

I agree with you on the first part (Quantative ), but not on the second (Qualitative ). But even if they limit the number of participants, there is no guarantee that they will get high quality participants. There are a number of scammers here, who will enroll in to the social media bounty using their dozens of FB and Twitter accounts. And now coming to the second part, if they set a threshold, there is no guarantee that those accounts which are able to satisfy those requirement will be having high quality. What if the bounty hunter had just purchased those accounts, from someone else.

But I agree that it will be good for the bounty hunters. The payouts per participants will rise, although still there is no surety that one user will register with only one account.

Some projects want large number of participants in order to create more audience and attract potential investors towards their project, which is why they do not get bothered even if they have hundreds of thousands of participants.
Well, there are quite good number of such bounty that succeeded, but also know that some of them did not succeed. So it is a game of chance.

There are many such companies with limits, but they put too big limits. if they put a limit of 200 participants on facebook or twitter, it would be much more interesting than the companies that exist now. I have not seen a single company in which the established limit of participants was reached

They dont limit because they do need maximum exposure of their project thats why most of them doesnt really implement such rule.
This is why its being flooded by lots of members on each bounty program and make the rewards even more lesser as the member counts
rises up so its not a surprising thing.

Maybe it depens on what bounties is running. I think social media campaign doesnot need limitation because bigger participants means bigger attraction. Higher reward achieve from less participants like signature, content creator, etc.

I'll pick the first one it guarantees that all participants will get high rewards to compare to number two because so many bounty hunters had a lot of followers and connections in their social media account, I experienced participating in a campaign with a limited number of participants and it's really profitable for bounty hunters.

In my opinion, if a project bounties limits participants, it is most likely that the project pays a higher prize. other than that the price of the token is also worth quite high.

This was only working for campaigns when ICO had not become rampant then and they were meeting their target easily even with very few participants most especially from participants that have very large friends database on their social media handle but this method has now become unproductive to ICO has few participants could no longer get them their softcap again and not to talk of hardcap, so they have to extend it to as much as participants as possible, which is why many of us participating in ICO now get little token for doing a job for so long, no ico can ever go through this method again.

This regulation already exists, but not all bounty managers implement it and in my opinion it is quite effective in reducing spammers in several bounties.
I am also very pleased that all bounty managers will implement it, especially well-known bounty managers like Sylon, yahoo, etc.

For bounty hunters this limitation is a good thing as you can easily calculate how much you can possibly be paid and gets better if bounty manager goes through all submissions to reward participants according to effort and content exposure.

On second thought if the majority of these bounty hunters have shitty content it denies the project the advertisement it needed, so quantity is not always better than quality!

Well, this may be true to some extent. But, it's isn't all about it. Know it, even some bounties that have done this or even more have also failed to fulfill their own end of the deal. Why because,  bounty payment lies so much on the team responsible for a project. So the team is more important for me.

Can you tell me which bounty manager didn't implement at least one of these two model? I think all campaign has almost the same rules, they always limit participants to join. The first one mentioned on this thread is to cut off new participants, so the reward wouldn't be less and the second one is to avoid spammers and cheaters.

I can say that there are other bounties with great allocation in their bounty and there are also bounty with little allocation in their bounty with big bounty allocation to say if there is a chance to be dump its price when it is already listed on the exchanger there are bounty hunter because they already get their rewards in the bounty they immediately sell it even if the price of the exchanger is one of them knowing that the advantage of a huge allocation in the bounty with the small allocation in the bounty is their advantage is nothing it's too dumper and it's enough to quickly price the price even a lot of dumpers.

if you see a good team as the background for a bounty payment, maybe you are right. where many of the teams also cut the allocation for the bounty when it was finished because they had fear of the impact of the price decline that might occur due to the bounty. they just want to get success without accepting the risks that might occur.

The team is the most important part of a successful project. I always first check the social network teams and their experience in creating projects.

Some bounty managers are implementing these two, it's advantageous to the bounty hunters and to the campaign also, as a campaign can only get the best bounty hunters, and bounty hunters are assured of high stakes, it's a win-win situation for both, all the other bounty hunters should look for this when looking for a new campaign.

Bounty managers are supposed to control and check all content to decline low-quality stuff. Participants limitation makes it much more easier for managers.

Yes it is true that if the number of bounty participants is limited, it will greatly affect our income, it could be that with the limitation of participants, there will be more prizes for those who have registered, something like this is much expected by bounty hunters

if the campaign will put the limit of participants it will be very good, but it is important that real people will book this limit but not bots.

bounties with limitations that pays high reward? I don't think so, well it depends to the bounty if that pays high reward, but some pays low because their allocations for bounties are low.

What some bounty hunters do not understand is that, it is not the number participants of bounty that makes it a good and worthwhile programme, but the quality of the work done by the bounty hunters. This is what should be implemented, so that projects that are being promoted will feel much of the impact of the marketing.

I agree with you partially on this, that the limitations and strict bounty rules will lead to higher rewards because the number of participants in the bounty will not be much which will make the total stakes small and rewards huge. But it can also have an adverse effect on the project because the bounty will not meet the purpose of making a large number of people aware about the project and therefore the demand might not be as much as it is supposed to be.

The only problem is that if there no limitations it could lead to the destruction of the project itself. For example the team deceive the participants and paid them with less than half of what they should, the effects will backfire and the participants will talk bad stuffs about the project in the main community channel for example telegram leaving the messages to be seen by the investors resulting on backing on their plan on investing. The crowd should be control as much as possible, another is if the bounty team don't show the total amounts of participants then they could easily manipulate bounty rewards just by saying there are lots of participants but rather they just dummy because there no proofs them being real.

Campaigns that limit how many participants can partake in each category tend to offer a larger reward especially if they have higher standards for content, however, a decrease in the number of crowdsales that provide these types of campaigns has lowered the prospects of bounty hunters for now but hopefully this will soon change as the market improves

Of course, restrictions on the quantity and quality of participants in ICO bounty campaigns play a big role in obtaining remuneration. However, first of all, the perspective of the project itself matters. We can get a lot of tokens, which in the end may be useless. Therefore, in ICO bounty campaigns, everything matters. I appreciate first of all the availability of the finished product and whether this token is traded on the cryptocurrency market. You can join ICO projects with lower payouts if the project is promising for development and growth.

Gone are the days bounties rewars were good. Now a days either bounty rewards are less or coins do not get right value after its launch on an exchange. I agreed to the point that limitations in bounties lead to good reward but it is not true everytime. It depends how good the project is and how much value its coin will have on an exchange. More the participants lesser is the reward and more dumping. There is hardly any project now a days which commits of pay a good reward for bounties, so bounty campaigns should be chosen carefully.

Definitely, bounty with cap usually pays more compare to those without any cap, i think it's logical that few number of participants will result to higher reward.

I think that the quantitative or qualitative constraints in the bounty campaign do not provide guarantees for a project that pays high. The success of a coin cannot be determined only from the limits of a bounty campaign. Bounty campaigns are only a small part of contributing to the success of a project. Many factors contributed to the success of a bounty campaign project. No one can guarantee how much income we get when we take part in a bounty campaign. A project that has not yet achieved a soft cap is certainly still being considered. Bounty campaigns that require restrictions are not necessarily good bounty campaigns.

Restricting participants who join is indeed very good because each participant will get a lot of payments but now seldom do projects because their think more and more are joining, greater the chance to spread project news

That's right a Capped bounty participants ensures those selected earns big from it. An open bounty leads to less earnings.

Yes, at the moment, more and more people refuse to participate in bounty companies and for the fact that projects do not restrict participants and the number of participants is so large that everyone gets a penny and I think that this is unfair and with that you need to do something or increase the pool for a fee or enter limits on participants.

Is it profitable to join any bounty in 2019, can you provide some good projects you think are worth to join, i know that all of the tokens and projects are worthless in the long run, but if there is any project that looks promising in the short run i would like to hear from people who have invested their time in bounties. The main reason for these bounties and promotions to have maximum exposure for their project and i do not think they will limit the amount of participants because you could earn a bigger share :P.

You are very right and I share your sentiment. Restriction, limitations and being strict with bounty rules will allow genuine and hard-working bounty participants earn what they deserve. When bounty is overpopulated, at the end of the day, the reward might not be up to a dollar.

Of course with that limitation, we can calculate how many tokens we get according to the allocations they provide with some participants participating in the project, of course that is a big opportunity for us to get a large number of tokens, thus limiting participants to a Bounty is a good quality project, but also depends on the rules of each manager who holds the project.

It is not entirely true. The bounty payment are always base on the amount of money raised. So even if many people filled the project and more money is raised, everyone can have share of the allocated amount. A bounty can have limitation yet the amount to share will be small and even if 10 people are sharing it , it won't be enough. I think all is base on percentage allocated and the amount raised.

Bounties are no longer what it used to be most projects have lost a great deal of their worth over the past year. ICOs fail to reach softcap all these has weakened bounty hunting spirit.

I will agree with you on that, like 3 projects that I sis bounty campaign for that has limitation has actually paid off very well for me but that does not mean that bounties without limitation doesn't pay

of course it is true that what you say is the limitation of participants in a campaign is one of the advantages for the participants, because with these restrictions the stake can be obtained so much that of course the pay will also be better than the unrestricted campaign

I agree on this one, but its very rare for some bounty projects to limit their participants from participating in the projects, because the rule, is to scatter the awareness to the community, thats why, the higher the number of participants, the better to the projects, compared to a few number of participants promoting the projects.

This statement can be work if the project is really good and successful/booming in the market. Of course bounty hunters will get higher rewards. Its just a math, the less people, the more you get.
But the important thing is it all depend on its project.

I agree with you. If the project is a good one , then the limitations can pay well. But if the allocation is worth nothing, the limitation won't work well. The reward wil het shitty

Obviously bounties with limitations should pay higher cause the number of participants that will share the bounty allocation will be reduced. This means more token for the eligible participants. Some bounties restrict in different ways.

Bounty rewards for cryptocurrency projects where the number of participants are capped is always going to be higher or more reasonable than projects which are not capped, and this is just basic maths. Capped participants mean the rewards is shared fairly among the participants but open projects will have u limited number of signups and will result is smaller bounty hunters rewards.

Exactly, with restrictions on bounty participants so that prizes are also quite high besides controlling the work done will be easier.  Doing a quality project will give a high value to the participants or the team. Quality projects and success so that high values will also be able to achieve.

I've been in these bounties with limitations but that is not always the case. I've joined signature campaigns where the members are capped and I was expecting a higher amount of tokens and higher price of the coins. But in the end, it still depended on how the team will perform in their project. I did receive a lot of tokens but it's still not profitable.

Some have claimed to participated in bounties with no limitations and have huge payout reward ,meaning they are able to sell there tokens at a worthful rewards so I guess not all bounties with no limitations pays bad rewards

I'm tired of joining bounties with tempting rewards over millions of dollars and when they finally get listed on exchanges they become literally worthless

That's right even there is a bounty that prizes 2 million dollars. This is just a softcap joke, not up to $ 2m. After entering the market, the hotbit token fell 100x fold and was worthless.

There are a lot of such tokens and I do not understand why people still continue to invest in such coins. it is obvious that they will not be able to hold the price and develop

Maybe some of them pay higher rewards because the price is high but not all, because some of bounties pay on tokens and tokens are not listed and even after listing not value high and sometimes limitation is not good.

The quality of the project matters a lot, you can be given many token with no value, you should always look after the quality of a project before you do their bounties, what is the importance of getting many tokens with no value.

You don't have to wait for decades before you can sell your tokens from bounties that are already listed on exchanges but the rewards are always very low but bounties with limitations seem to be the solution for low  rewards ,its indeed a brilliant idea ,it means the hunters will get a more fair rewards to share

From a marketing point of view, limiting the number of participants should be compensated by the presence of well-developed social networks and blogs, then such bounty campaign will be effective. I'm always
suspicious to flashy advertisements in the bounty  campaign — pool 2 million, price of token = $ 1! As a rule, such projects often do not pay hunters, or we get the next shitkoins.

Its really not that a common thing but I've joined some bounties with limitations in the past ,like 4 different projects

Well, that is not always the case. Higher payouts may also depend on the number of campaigns the bounty hunter can participate in within that particular bounty program.
The fact is, higher payouts does not guarantee the success of a project. This should not be the key factor to look out for before choosing which bounty to join. Hunters must always do their personal research and look out for the potentials of the project before joining.

I just thought they are limitations regarding bounty participants because of the balance tend to allocate or because of the  supply to be distributed to tje bbounty participants. Somehow, I agreed that the more they limit the participants, the higher the reward. But I am just thinking, the importance is the legitimacy of the project to consider and not the other way around.

I think all the bounty hunters are always looking the higher reward but there are few bounties with higher rewards but they have limitations for the participants to participate that bounty, but for me it is good for the project that have no limitation of the participants to help the project promote.

I think limitation always brings competition and competition always brings the best in us. I makes the reward good. It also goes a long way to increase value to the coin because it will be talked about and people will get interested

Limitations reduced the number of the participants thereby leading to high reward for eligible ones after the end of the campaign. However, I have seen in some cases that the limitation does not have effect especially when the campaign suffers other challenges such as not making enough sales, technical problems that lead to reduction in amount allocated to bounty. This often happen and at the end of the day, hunters only earn penny. cointorox allocated more than $300k for bounty campaign, less than 400 hunters participated. When token was distributed, no hunter earn above $60 even when you participate in all their campaign.

developers team or bounty manager have their own reason about limitation bounty participants.maybe less bounty hunter get reward it could keep token price stable.more people join bigger chance to token price drop.

Maybe, but not necessarily. The most important thing is the quality of the project - if it's a bad project, it doesn't matter if they limit it to even 10 participants, you won't get much of a payout.
Second most important probably are the percentages - so the percent that it paid out as bounty, this can vary hugely, and then following on from that is the split of the percentage that is going to your chosen campaign, e.g. Facebook bount could be 25% or could be 5% of total bounty.
After this yes, I'd agree that a cap on people joining can have an effect.

When you might think so but the issue is the confirmation of the project and the rules in place and there is always a clause of can change the rules in no time at their own , but the reward set for every campaign is good too to know what you can be expecting at the end of the campaign.

By doing generosity it becomes immediately clear what the company is. If the team itself conducts bounty and makes a tough selection so as not to miss scammers, this is only a positive plus.

It is okay that participation limitation will increase stake allocation and rewards. But I do wonder that if a project itself is not good or do not have practical goals, then it is worthless to acquire a large amount of tokens. I will be better off getting a small amount of worthy and good tokens. So it means we must pick a good project for bounty programme. 

I never get why people who go for bounties keep complaining after one thing or another. Give them limits to protect the supply and they complain. Tell them it is unlimited and they complain that there are too much supply and say devs should burn the tokens.

Basically bounty hunters are a bad bunch of people just looking to make money,,, they actually could not care less about the project.

Get your tokens, use them, try them. Maybe you can be surprised how it helps the price.

I think most of the bounty campaigns have limitations. From the maximum tokens for the bounty campaign to the maximum number of participants to participate in each campaign.

I think most of these campaigns are more strict and sometimes, they need KYC from the bounty participants. I'm not joining in bounty campaigns anymore but I think campaigns with limits are better for me.

In my opinion, limiting the number of participants is a good idea to protect bounty hunters, you can take months of finishing work to get only a few dollars due to the large number of participants. But perhaps this limits the promotion of the project, the team will want more and more participants to disseminate their products.

Yes. This is a good idea for bounty participants. within that limit, people will be more fair and will definitely receive higher value rewards. However, it is necessary to consider the degree of success in promoting the news of the project. Having more participants to promote and market the project (including many campaigns) will be more effective than specified by quantity.

The of bounty participants has dropped since they are becoming much less profitable especially as the bitcoin market has not recovered. This means bounties will not have many limitations otherwise less people will join

Its correct but most of the bounties right now don't do that. I think its good for all the bounty hunters hen they limit the participants and its good for the project also if they increase the quality of work of the participants. It all depends on the manager on how to check the work carefully.

You forget that the main goal of bounty campaigns is to advertise the project and attract new investors, not to distribute rewards for stupid reposts. The quantity passing in quality does not always work; does not mean that 1000 participants with 10000 subscribers are better than 10000 participants with 1000 subscribers (though you should not forget that more than a half of subscribers are the same bots). The result on social networks is elementary tracked and checked by transitions.

I think the bounty restrictions and limitations only intended for enough allocation to be given to participants, not the amount that's got to be a higer rewards. Even less participants still it can have also lesa rewards if the rewards tokens has a low value amount.

That mostly happens, it is bacause they are calculating their allocation carefully according to certain amount of participants to enjoy their reward, but no matter how high the reward is, if the value of the coin or token is very low then its not really a high reward.

During my involvement in bounties, I saw - / + 40% of projects implementing participant restrictions in each campaign. Programs like this are good to implement to maximize gifts and other things we don't want. I hope, programs like this can be 100%.

I agree on this restriction and i feel its a will give a better benefits on every bounty hunter but in order for the project to get known in the public that there should be  no limitation on participants. More participants in bounty is more the project get known in public and more investors to come.

It is relative but when comparing to all paying bounties it is pays more, at least there won't be need for having worked for some months with your junior or memeber rank for some months all of a sudden a lot of persons with the hero or legendary memeber rank will participate for two weeks and pack all the stakes and token.

Yes this is so true and it means there won't be too much dumpers too since the participants are limited but many bounties don't care about reducing participants I think that's why most projects coins lose value too quick

I believe that the limitations of which are written above affect payments, but not always effectively. For me, however, there remains such a formula: the maximum pool for payments + a minimum of participants. In this case, you can get the maximum reward, well, if only admins want to pay so much. Last time, if the earnings are really big, they take it and cut it down. In my practice, there have already been several such bounty. When asked why? Answer - you have earned too much, it should not be so. So only luck can help in this matter.

I met such restrictions, but such companies still do not gain this number.
Be careful fraudsters can use this method too.

This is very true. In fact I love any Bounty that actually have max number of people that can join a particular campaign. This way each participants is sure to earn a good amount of reward. For example bountyhive, bounties on bountyhive as restrictions on the number of people that can join and that's makes every participant to be adequately rewarded. Too many crowd in a campaign only leads to people earning peanuts.

It really will result in good rewards I remember participating in one campaign, where there is no limit of participants and this is a signature campaign and I am already with a legendary account, I end up getting $50 worth of their token, there is no spreadsheet but the number of participants is over 300 bounty manager should really limit the participants.

If there is capped on participants yes i can say you can get a better rewards but allocation is the most important for higher bounty

Maybe because the bounty that locks a limited participants wants to make sure that the bounty hunters who promote the project will be benefited well as they will work harder for the promoting they do so i must choose project that locks a limited and high allocation in bounty campaigns.

I strongly agree with this idea, because at least a baounty hunter pays one of them because of the many participants who register, and it's not effective in my opinion

I know you don't mean that bounties without limitations pay less because I do a lot of bounties without limitation and some of them pay very well. What I get from this post is that, bounties with limitations have better chances of paying higher rewards. I agree though, bounties like utrum was incredible

yes you are partially right although this does not include all bounties with limitations. But I have know quite some bounties which has placed limitations and the payment was quite good.

For sure, the more limitations, the harder it is to get through and to get your reward. Especially, when the team requires a KYC process as well, so the more you need to do, the bigger your rewards are going to be.

But as a rule, getting into such companies is also very difficult, so you need to constantly monitor the beginning of new projects on the forum.

We all know about this problem. But that is problem for bounty hunters, not for managers and ICO teams.
They need as many participants as possible. More participants = bigger influence on social media sites.

you're right. The team spent some money and of course wanted their project to spread as much as possible, which was beneficial for their project but it was a nightmare for bounty hunters. I support limiting the number of people participating in campaigns, getting tired of only getting a few dollars after a few months.

In companies with a limited number of participants, payments may be higher.  Performing such an award is an opportunity to calculate your award, since the total number of tokens allocated by the project is divided into a limited number of participants.

It is logical that the restrictions or limitations in bounties lead to higher rewards and this is because when there is restrictions not everybody will be able to participate in that bounty which will lead to low total stakes and higher rewards or tokens per stakes.

today, almost all bounty companies cause a lot of mistrust.  All participants of the Bounty company are faced with either non-payment of earned rewards, as well as a complete lack of information not only about their remuneration, but also about the prospects of the project in which they participated.  Most likely such projects can be called fraud.  But there are projects that seem promising, but in fact the team is trying in every way to deceive people and not give the reward that was announced at the very beginning.  As an example, the bounty of the company MenaPay, when instead of real remuneration paid a penny.

I know what you're talking about, because I have already met information about this company on the bitcointalk.org forum.  Menapay received a very large negative rating from the forum participants, because it deceived those who worked for the good of the project.

Yes! I agree with you! A good bounty without limitations will give you a penny as rewards! Look at the recent 000btc and CyberMiles bounty campaign! They had no limitations, so within a week, more than 9K people joined in CyberMiles bounty and in 000Btc more than 10 thousand replies has made already! So, after ending the bounty, hunters will get a little reward! But if they come with limitations then we might see a good reward for the bounty hunters! This is the difference!

usually so, good projects usually limit participants. I often see it in the bounty signatures that limit the maximum participants to 100 or more. but usually not more than 300. that's fair because it means that from the start the team has set a definite target and doesn't change so the project will run smoothly according to the whitepapper and road map.

Other example is the stake campaign that pays on btc  . the campaign is not strict and it says no limit but the pay is also to little even at higher rank accounts  .

 this kind of campaign does not do any good in the forum because they are only going to attract spammers that will pollute the forum with their nonsensical post burst  just to claim the small reward   .

good thing that stake campaign have been shut down  . i hope that other will end the same so that the forum will look clean again .

I had participated in those not too long ago and somewhat did observed that most of them set limitations when it comes to the number of participants. But that is not really the top factor as to why I choose the bounties that I choose. My main factor is choosing bounties is more on the leadership and the community that participates on it. You look at the participation volume, how many are joining on their telegram group, social media, trends and others.

Indeed, there are many bounties with very many participants,perhaps many hunters think the project is good and potential. And I think with participant restrictions, the rewards obtained by bounty hunters must be greater and many bounty managers use this method to reward bounty hunters.

If the number of participants has been set the maximum limit will certainly have a higher impact. Because only with the number of participants, certainly the allocation distributed will be high. Not to mention if there are participants who don't get stakes every week, they will get more.

What a load of crap. There is no fact behind what you saying you speculating and making up things without properly checking. It depends on the total stake / the number of people. they sometimes have to readjust this sometimes. You are new so you can be forgiven.

It's not, it doesn't matter how much the participants are if:

• The reserved coins for bounties are low or even not equally distributed on the entire campaigns.
• The token's price is shit

They put those limit rules just to make sure that they will get what they want with high "quality" goods instead of just filling campaigns with bunch of newbies.

This is of course very good, but the best option is fixed payments that do not depend on the number of stacks.