When the bounty campaign is weak, but the ICO is successful

[Crumple Cat]

Hi guys,

Perhaps you have encountered situations when some projects have a weak or completely failed bounty campaign, but ultimately they hold a successful ICO. Why is this happening?

For example, the project Ambrosus with whom I happened to deal. In the comments to the bounty campaign there are complaints that nothing can be understood in the campaign rules. And there really is not as usual. Probably therefore the number of participants in the signature campaign, Twitter and other programs is minimal, but the project has already raised more than 100000 ETH. Is this an exception or is it so often?

[Crankautist]

Ever though of the idea that dev and friends are investing in their own ico to p&d on you people afterwards?

^
Yes this is it for sure.

[MMysterious]

Maybe some ICO's have poor management thus making it a failed campaign and less participants joined them but in their own place or area maybe they advertise the project and could be the reason why it was successful.

[Crankautist]

Maybe some ICO's have poor management thus making it a failed campaign and less participants joined them but in their own place or area maybe they advertise the project and could be the reason why it was successful.

No - definitely no. Like 1000% no. Luls

[bhoybitcoin]

I think maybe if the ico is more on promising ideas but lack of strategy that is the time that the ico will failed. Media campaign is a big part of the ico's success. So if that ico have both the strategy plus good management then it will be a success.

[~Bitcoin~]

There are many ICOs which have collected lots of fund even without proper bounty campaign, they might run signature campaign for few weeks and if they have good whitepaper and team behind than only few investor can just make their ICO successful.

There are many other forms of advertisement available other than bounty campaign in this forum from which ICO can get targeted traffics.

[redhondaxrm125]

Hi guys,

Perhaps you have encountered situations when some projects have a weak or completely failed bounty campaign, but ultimately they hold a successful ICO. Why is this happening?

For example, the project Ambrosus with whom I happened to deal. In the comments to the bounty campaign there are complaints that nothing can be understood in the campaign rules. And there really is not as usual. Probably therefore the number of participants in the signature campaign, Twitter and other programs is minimal, but the project has already raised more than 100000 ETH. Is this an exception or is it so often?

I have seen quite a few already. And like you, i have been asking this question in my mind also. But if you think about it, if the campaign is junk, then it reflects to the devs and their ICO. Which means they suck. So it would be suspicious if they would get that much investments with their not so good project. So i think they may be the ones that are investing big percentage of the total funds collected.

[peter0425]

Hi guys,

Perhaps you have encountered situations when some projects have a weak or completely failed bounty campaign, but ultimately they hold a successful ICO. Why is this happening?

For example, the project Ambrosus with whom I happened to deal. In the comments to the bounty campaign there are complaints that nothing can be understood in the campaign rules. And there really is not as usual. Probably therefore the number of participants in the signature campaign, Twitter and other programs is minimal, but the project has already raised more than 100000 ETH. Is this an exception or is it so often?

Ok here is the thing. The bounty has minimal participants but it has raised a lot of funds. I think I would join that campaign, Why? because you are very lucky that the tokens will be divided among few participants. So as a result each one of you will get a lot of tokens. As compare to a bounty that has a lot of participants but if you are going to divide them it will result to like .010 cents or less per token. Did you get the idea?

[anasso]

sometimes it's compaign rules that affect the number of participant!

and if devs are confident, it's also a reason to doesn't any bounty!

[PhucS]

In my opinion, this is also possible by ICO projects when released, the development team of the project not only advertised by the campaign bonus on this forum they also advertise, introduce their ICO project on the social networking site, and also be a direct live promotion in their place. Or it could be that the manager of the bonuses campaign is not well managed, but people still see the potential of project through the external ads or blog posts are not included in the campaign bonus. This is just my personal opinion

[youdacapt]

In my opinion, this is also possible by ICO projects when released, the development team of the project not only advertised by the campaign bonus on this forum they also advertise, introduce their ICO project on the social networking site, and also be a direct live promotion in their place. Or it could be that the manager of the bonuses campaign is not well managed, but people still see the potential of project through the external ads or blog posts are not included in the campaign bonus. This is just my personal opinion

Some projects like LNK and Idice have proven to be good prices despite scammed and even red trust charges from DT2, I do not really understand this but should if the project wants total success it should be perfect in promotions, there should be no stains at all, because they spend capital for project development.

[coingrow]

Most of the ICO projects hire a bounty manager to manage their campaign. Now the caliber of the bounty manger should not speak about the quality of the core team for the project. For instance, the bounty community of blackmonocrypto was very unhappy and they all suspect that bounty tokens were diverted to false accounts of people who did not even participate in the ICO. On the otherhand, the hardcap of BMC which was 30mil was easily achieved. In the case of BMC, they had hired ICOREWARD team to manage the bounty, who are very unprofessional and rude towards the bounty community.

[Crumple Cat]

Hi guys,

Perhaps you have encountered situations when some projects have a weak or completely failed bounty campaign, but ultimately they hold a successful ICO. Why is this happening?

For example, the project Ambrosus with whom I happened to deal. In the comments to the bounty campaign there are complaints that nothing can be understood in the campaign rules. And there really is not as usual. Probably therefore the number of participants in the signature campaign, Twitter and other programs is minimal, but the project has already raised more than 100000 ETH. Is this an exception or is it so often?

Ok here is the thing. The bounty has minimal participants but it has raised a lot of funds. I think I would join that campaign, Why? because you are very lucky that the tokens will be divided among few participants. So as a result each one of you will get a lot of tokens. As compare to a bounty that has a lot of participants but if you are going to divide them it will result to like .010 cents or less per token. Did you get the idea?

The fact is that in this campaign everything is fixed and based on the Swiss franc, and not divided as usual among the participants. And the conditions are good enough. In particular, in the social media campaign.

[happyValentine]

Hi guys,

Perhaps you have encountered situations when some projects have a weak or completely failed bounty campaign, but ultimately they hold a successful ICO. Why is this happening?

For example, the project Ambrosus with whom I happened to deal. In the comments to the bounty campaign there are complaints that nothing can be understood in the campaign rules. And there really is not as usual. Probably therefore the number of participants in the signature campaign, Twitter and other programs is minimal, but the project has already raised more than 100000 ETH. Is this an exception or is it so often?

It is possible that such companies have an arrangement with very big investors. And the social company is not very important then.

[thepo1m]

Bounty do help an ICO but do not guarantee success, a sound idea and great team is a very good advantage for any project and remember there are several ways to promote one project apart from Bitcointalk

[bongiu]

In my opinion and experience, that is something that doesn't happen quite often but sometimes it happens because of the bounty campaign manager 

[Baofeng]

Hi guys,

Perhaps you have encountered situations when some projects have a weak or completely failed bounty campaign, but ultimately they hold a successful ICO. Why is this happening?

For example, the project Ambrosus with whom I happened to deal. In the comments to the bounty campaign there are complaints that nothing can be understood in the campaign rules. And there really is not as usual. Probably therefore the number of participants in the signature campaign, Twitter and other programs is minimal, but the project has already raised more than 100000 ETH. Is this an exception or is it so often?

Ok here is the thing. The bounty has minimal participants but it has raised a lot of funds. I think I would join that campaign, Why? because you are very lucky that the tokens will be divided among few participants. So as a result each one of you will get a lot of tokens. As compare to a bounty that has a lot of participants but if you are going to divide them it will result to like .010 cents or less per token. Did you get the idea?

The fact is that in this campaign everything is fixed and based on the Swiss franc, and not divided as usual among the participants. And the conditions are good enough. In particular, in the social media campaign.

This maybe one of the factors that why the project didn't get enough traction from the community. And you also said that the rules are not clear, hunters here wants the bounty to be divided and its fixed then there is really a disconnect from the community.

Or maybe there are a lot of hype around this project before the actual ICO that's why they got huge investments from the very beginning. I do think that pre-Marketing has something to contribute to the success eventhough the bounty campaigns has little participants.

[asba]

Good bounty campaign doesn't mean that they will be 100% successful. Probably they get investors from other resources.

[jamirrah]

I think its because lots of investor is still looking on project's whitepaper and other assets than on how it is advertise. Even an ICO did have a very poor advertising and marketing strategy if people who have read their whitepaper got interest they would still succeed. Just my opinion.

[susila_bai]

Ever though of the idea that dev and friends are investing in their own ico to p&d on you people afterwards?

^
Yes this is it for sure.

Perfectly said, This is the only way they can invest high and create a big advertise of getting high investment and listing the coin with high price and trading high and when sufficient users start to buy they start to shift to them and leave it. so this type of ICO should not be touched even if they are giving you 10x profit , even if you entered then sell of immediately even on what ever profit you get as suddenly one day you will see it is going down to 1 sat and then dead.