When Bounties are not worth the effort - Limit the numbers

[paxmao]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

[1714821206]

1714821206

[1714821206]

1714821206

[Lerikaweb]

It is extremely unprofitable for  ICOs:)  this is why they will not make such a limitation.  If you are disappointed with what you receive for a campaign -  it is always up to you not to take it. Start trading on the stock or do whatever else you will be happy with   and ICOs need as much advertising as possible for the same token amount. So limitation of participants' number will make ad campaign less efficient,  but more expensive.

[De_nis]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

I also noticed that the more the company says that it spends bounty, the more likely that the purpose of this company is only dishonest gain!

[Jarx]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community.

Well at least a half of modern ICOs are going that way. They put a limit on every rank, kinda "hero - 30; Sr. Member - 20; Member - 10" and sort of that.

[Yudhisthir]

There are many signature bounty campaign running but most of the users are lured to one which has designated larger fund for the bounty and at last decreasing everyones share while other ICO's are not getting enough participants.
It doesn't make any difference for the bounty issuing company as whatever be the number of participants, the payment would be same as designated and they would love large number. So, it all comes to the user to choose which would yield better for them.

[owlman]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

There are a lot of ICO projects, and they are all completely different. Each signature program has its own rules and limitations and we just need to either accept the rules or not participate there. That's all.

[Gabmot]

This theory of yours is actually logical and true. Due to problems like those you mentioned, payouts are not up to tasks done. Well, I think so many incoming ICOs are trying to nip that in the bud by restraining the rank system to start from member or Full member rank. I just hope it worked out like that

[emmmmm]

But I think you just want to get more bounty.
Because for an ICO project, more participants mean more people to advertise for them, and the bounty they give is certain, so why limit it?

[VanDeinsberg12]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

That's indeed, but merit system already prevented those spammers. Look at envion project which has been filled with so many junior members and newbies.
More than 1300 participants.

But that depends on your rank but I think that the manager should try to apply more strict rules. I see someone that gives the limitation seat to the signature campaign.

[SiDtHeBeSt]

I think most bounty campaigns set a fixed amount.of payment either in Bitcoins, Ethereum or a specific amount of their own tokens and the amount varies according to the ranks. I don't think there are much campaigns who don't follow this and let alot of people in. As far as I've seen alot of these campaigns allow around 200 participants in total to join. I think we just need to be careful and try to avoid joining the campaigns which don't seem to be good.
But there are surely some spam campaigns which allow alot of members, which shouldn't be allowed.

[cryptopusa]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

I agree due to large number of participants the bounty campaigns sisnt that much profitable compare to last year's rewards.Campaign Managers should do something about it they can implement the first come first serve basis in accepting participants so the campaign is worth the hussle.

[Tynovten_]

As I've been following when the manager has restricted the signature campaign participants. Beside that sylon and yahoo as i know limit the participants. So the division is consistent as in the agreement. It seems that the restriction was only done by some bounty manager

[yndye]

The one who are implementing the ICOs would like it if there are more people who would participate in their campaign so I think it would be a disadvantage to them if they would limit it. It may be the prerogative of the bounty manager if he wants to limit the participants in the campaign because it is an additional job in his part if there are more participants. You have an option to participate in campaigns paid in bitcoin because they are limited but then you have to be fast to get a spot because within just minutes the slots may be immediately filled except for those managers who will choose those people who have quality post because it takes some time for the slots to be filled up.

[Freezingel]

They prefer more participants because they want more coverage for their project so of course more participants is welcome. As a bounty hunter you should check first and try to count how much you'll get, sometimes it's not worth to enter a campaign where the participant already a lot even though it's a good project.

[neinnein125]

I somekinda keep experiencing this too. There are many new icos that accepts huge number of participants for bounty. That basically kills the purpose. I tend to join best bounties I believe but coins I get aren't really worth.

[ramini]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

I don't agree that the large numbers of participants is the main cause of ICOs failure because the fact that the more participants of a bounty campaign will be the more advantage because participants are wearing ICOs signatures and it will help them advertise ICOs and most of the cases they will succeed and more likely will hit hard capital.
It's otherwise less bounty participants could led into hot hitting soft and hard capital because too few members are wearing their signature and their ICO will fail because advertising isn't enough.

[badykvik]

This is a simple analogy in my own case. I just don't involve in any bounty whether by limited participants or not. I use to quickly put up a simple research into whether the Bounty worth stressing for of not. After my simple test, I shun it on discovering it does not worth it.

[aceptamosbitcoin]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

It's pointless for the ICO's itself. Just supports projects you like and plan to hold tokens for a while.

They are giving a hard %%% of sales. The more participants = better for ICO's.

[Usui-Kun]

Since the rules about the merit system started, it is not easy now to climb up the ranks and actually have the perks of having higher rank. The new ones will have to work their way to have a substantial amount of shares or stakes which is a good thing for the companies that will conduct bounties.

[Cnut237]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

It is a trade-off between how many people should be rewarded, and how much they should be rewarded, and this is the company's decision to make. It is in their best interests to maximise the number of participants as that gives them more exposure. For various reasons they might limit the number of participants, but again this is entirely up to the company concerned. It is essentially a freelance marketplace. The company sets the terms, and prospective workers decide whether or not to accept those terms.

[Don Stefanello]

Yeah i think that there are plenty of ICOs that have limitations, and as well you should be the one deciding to join them or not, i have noticed a lot of them are promising much more money than they are really giving to the bounty, they are playing the card that bounty hunters will just join and not even check the project

[magle]

It is important to note that signature bounties, is not something you are supposed to live off.

You should think of it as a small extra bonus for just participating on the forum out of your interest.

[Ostonian]

I completely agree that managers should somehow limit the number of participants in the bounty campaign. Because, like and allocate not a small amount of money to the bounty campaign, but in the end, because of the large number of participants it turns out to earn a penny.

[StGermain]

It is extremely unprofitable for  ICOs:)  this is why they will not make such a limitation.  If you are disappointed with what you receive for a campaign -  it is always up to you not to take it. Start trading on the stock or do whatever else you will be happy with   and ICOs need as much advertising as possible for the same token amount. So limitation of participants' number will make ad campaign less efficient,  but more expensive.

The problem is that once you have been posting on a campaign you have made an effort, so I do subscribe the point of the OP.

[StGermain]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

I also noticed that the more the company says that it spends bounty, the more likely that the purpose of this company is only dishonest gain!

There is a limit in credibility I agree. If ICO discounts are above 20% or the bounty is only for referrals or is more than 5% I would tend to think that they are not playing it well.

[StGermain]

It is important to note that signature bounties, is not something you are supposed to live off.

You should think of it as a small extra bonus for just participating on the forum out of your interest.

Can´t agree with that. As far as I am concerned, the ICO is taking advantage of my knowledge and reputation, and that is an asset that I do not give away for free.

[alex_kir]

I think the fact that project developers do not want to think about earning bounty hunters, because they are more concerned with how many people will come to the ICO, so I think that they do not care.

[Baronggot]

While some participants complain about social media campaign where they can only receive a very little amount of token due to a very crowded participants. It will be better for bounty hunters if that's the case but i don't think majority of ICO would agree with the idea because for them, the more people will participate, the better their ICO will be advertised and promoted.

[paloloy]

They prefer more participants because they want more coverage for their project so of course more participants is welcome. As a bounty hunter you should check first and try to count how much you'll get, sometimes it's not worth to enter a campaign where the participant already a lot even though it's a good project.

The only advantage of joining a signature bounty campaigns that has very few participants is participants will get huge amount of bounty stakes upon distribution.
Otherwise, when your are joining when a signature bounty campaigns that has many bounty participants will cause into less bounty campaign distribution stakes. That's why some some unsuccessful ICOs are due to limited bounty campaign participants because there are only few members who are wearing ICO signatures in the forum that will cause limit on advertising.

[cryptomema]

ICOs are aimed to be promoted why would they limit the participants for the sake of stakes?No,they wont do that they dont mind how much these bountt hunters earned they just want their ICOs to achieve success.But i like the idea of limiting the members of a bounty campaign,it will prevent shitposters from spamming here in bitcointalk.

[Cocojam0610]

i'm in favor of limitation but still for what it's worth doing campaign is free money.

[Arngrim]

Depends on the manager also.
If he doesnt care about the price that will be paid specially when it is at stakes then it will not be worth it.
If you already felt that then jump to another campaign.
You will always have a choice.
That is why we have to hand pick the ICO's that are here. Their marketing strategist should always care about everyome who will join it. Even if it is just bounties, some who joins there wants to support and also buyers.

[Praesidium]

If you go to bitcoin services, you'll see signature campaign that limits the number of participants aswell as the price is fixed at certian amount in USD, but in the alt coin section i dont see any signature campaign that limits the participants because the clients wants more participant so that they can be advertise very well.

If you want to earn alot in bounty i think it is a matter of picking what bounty project to join because there are some project ended up booming in the market and with that can get earnings.

[Equity0924]

All of their bounty programs have their own rules and rights. It is only for us to decide either to join the campaign bounty or not. There are many bounties there bro, you can join any that suits your rank and needs. But I see your point and I think it is great.

[Ecex.Exchange]

We made additional bounty functionality to our ecex.exchange platform project: Ziggurat token TELEGRAM BOUNTY - JOIN OUR CHANNEL AND GET 30 ZIG

IN-HOUSE BOUNTY  https://ecex.exchange

Telegram https://t.me/ZigguratICO

[chesegrinder]

For ICO ads it is better for them to have many participant as many as they can to promote the coin, they need more exposure than existing coin in the market, limiting the participant will give them less exposure. Plus it is depend on the marketing strategy of the Company and the agreement of the campaign manager...

Well, it depends on your choice what ICO/Bounty campaign you want to jump in!

GOOD LUCK AND HAPPY EARNING!

[BitCare]

You can find more project where participators number is limited up to 400-600 for social campaigns and 100-150 for signatures. There are few campaigns with such conditions and high requirements to participants. But it worths to take part in them.

[Fasunathan]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

I have observed that too but it is the bounty managers decision if he want to limit his participants or not. To the company's side, the more the better, they will benefit from it because many users are wearing their signatures. On the bounty hunters side, he has to choice which bounty campaign could give him more reward at the end. Bottom line, we all have the free will and no one force us to join a certain bounty campaign.

[Bitcoincole]

You can find more project where participators number is limited up to 400-600 for social campaigns and 100-150 for signatures. There are few campaigns with such conditions and high requirements to participants. But it worths to take part in them.

Well, i believe that bounties are great efforts and worth it, as i have notice many signature campaign have limit the numbers of participants including the rank. Commonly they only accept full member and up and never accept member and jr member because they are only signature I.D compared to signature and avatar were they have a big impact to the product and to the customers. That's what i notice to the developers and managers here.

[aceptamosbitcoin2]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

It's pointless for the ICO's itself. Just supports projects you like and plan to hold tokens for a while.

They are giving a hard %%% of sales. The more participants = better for ICO's.

ATTENTION

the user aceptamosbitcoin stole the user account in this forum.

You are using my name account.

I am already taking the necessary steps to be able to recover my account again.

Please ignore your comments or your signature is a scam.

[hisuka]

You can find more project where participators number is limited up to 400-600 for social campaigns and 100-150 for signatures. There are few campaigns with such conditions and high requirements to participants. But it worths to take part in them.

There are still bounties that accepting limit numbers of participants. Some bounties dont have limit numbers to joined to have their Ico become huge community. If you are not satisfied on your current campaign look for another one which you think you can earned good.

[jorenpo]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

That was not advisable to the campaign that will run ICO though. Remeber more participants = more advertising. Well that only happened on altcoin bounty. If signature campaign pay bitcoin the payment is fixef.

[phelbaby]

This is true sometimes is annoying when you go through the stress of campaigning for a bounties and at the end of the day you are paid pie nut  for your effort,it is worth giving limit to all signature campaign.

[Ali Akbar Torang]

Yes, limiting participants on bounty campaigns will made many of bounty hunter happy as long the bounty hunter can gave true meaning to the ico campaign, because ico need to be introduced wider need to be known. Both sides should get max benefits, win win solutions.

[bering]

in my view plenty of participants will increase the percentages their project will being to sucessfully and that's why ICO owners has been considering this with accepting more participants but indeed the effect for signature campaign participants is not so good because at the end of the campaign most of them hasn't got decent payment

[kriticko29]

The ICO's number of participants isn't a problem for the ICO team since the more people are being lured into their project the more advertisement they can get and it would be great for the project to have a good run in the Token Sale. As for us, bounty hunters would have a smaller amount in our pocket since there is only a fixed price of tokens allotted in the campaign. So therefore, the main solution for this problem is picking an ICO which has a potential rather than joining an ICO that has too many participant's lured in it.

[Kevin77]

It is extremely unprofitable for  ICOs:)  this is why they will not make such a limitation.  If you are disappointed with what you receive for a campaign -  it is always up to you not to take it. Start trading on the stock or do whatever else you will be happy with   and ICOs need as much advertising as possible for the same token amount. So limitation of participants' number will make ad campaign less efficient,  but more expensive.

Simple fact. Their aim is to spread the news to as much participants as possible and they are paying for that. It would be bad for them to see just few participants with not much impact at the end of the day. It totally depends on each individual whether they want to go ahead with the campaign or not, but really limiting participants will not make any sense, the most important thing is for managers to audit participants thoroughly for alts or bots as the case may be, which I am sure they are doing.

[thesmallgod]

its all boil down to what the ICO owner want but campaign manager too has a say as well. there are some campaign manager here on bitcointalk like yahoo that limit the number of participant.

[Kryptogenie]

Yes I am completely agree with you. It is just wastage of efforts of the participants. In my opinion they should get a nice reward of their work at the end of the campaign and not just 10 or 20 stakes.

[slapper]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

This is a really good advice, thanks for saying so. But you need to, or every bounty managers needs to know this because if there is only one ICO does that, every other ICOs will take all the participants so that that ICO won't have enough participants to advertise its own project that leads to the lack of their profit. I think other managers have thought about this problem but they do have reason right not to do so.

[Sephire]

High number of bounty participants happens with hot ICOs and thereby cutting the benefit for everyone
in the bounty. Some limit the number of participants and close bounty to new people after some time while
others let people join even in the last week. It is for every person to estimate the benefit before joining
the bounty.

[Lucky_U]

Conversely, for ICO project owner the more participants join the bounty campaign the better promotion they get. So, I think there will be not so much bounty campaigns with such limits.

[CurrencyGold]

The ICO's number of participants isn't a problem for the ICO team since the more people are being lured into their project the more advertisement they can get and it would be great for the project to have a good run in the Token Sale. As for us, bounty hunters would have a smaller amount in our pocket since there is only a fixed price of tokens allotted in the campaign. So therefore, the main solution for this problem is picking an ICO which has a potential rather than joining an ICO that has too many participant's lured in it.

You might want to check out this project: https://www.cubaaz.io/bounties/

[pprun]

Every ICOs have a different platform. Different manager and ways to manage. There isn't unfair with that, the problem is those who wants to participate. Ofcourse many members follow the campaign of (name of manager/ handler) because they trust him. He was tested in the past and true to every participants. I think you can join in signature campaign that required a limit numbers.

[raven7886]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community.

Well at least a half of modern ICOs are going that way. They put a limit on every rank, kinda "hero - 30; Sr. Member - 20; Member - 10" and sort of that.

Yeah, these days, most especially for signature campaigns, we tend to see this happen now a lot. Some still do not have limits though, but the managers try as much as possible to give the slot to quality posters. There is just so much ICO to go around, so each individual can decide to pick from the one he or she feels will be more profitable for them at the long run.

Some have limits, but some really do not bother. The more the merrier for them as long as you are all fighting for stakes. It is only left for you to join or not. However, I understand your plight, because, the more the participants, the less the bounty participants get from such ICO. The only thing that managers can just do is to make sure that they give the chance to those with real and quality accounts.

[myrliska1313]

Of course, that a limited number of participants is more profitable for the bounty performer, but for the ICO itself it works on the contrary, the more people, the more they learn about the company. In any case, everyone makes a choice himself

[minivan]

Your idea is correct for bounties, but it is not interesting for bounty managers. After all, it is better for them if more people work for them for the same money

[mangkanor]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

If you limit the participants of a bounty campaign you really dont understand why these ICOs are paying for,they are paying the boutny hunters because they want to promote their ICO,if these managers will limit the participants the promotional activities of an ICO would be limited too,why would they pay us if they didnt achieve successful ICO at the end?its not about the bounties its about support the campaign or project that you know would be worthy in the future.

[kinki32]

The attitude towards people who takes part in bounty has become worse for this year - thats true.

[tresbien21]

I agree that there should be a limit to how many people can promote a coin, and there are ICO's that are already doing this. For example , the coin from my signature has a limit of 300 Users for the signature campaign .
There are still 40 places available at the moment for this signature campaign

[Melfoy72]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

Why bounty manager or ICO marketing team should do this?
They share a limit of tokens for ALL participants. And no matter it will be for 100 or 1000 participants.

I think you wont stop a barman who brings you 10 pints of beer instead of 1 pint for same price

But as a bounty participant I'm totally agree with you.

[camport]

If you find an ICO with a great project and team then its definitely worth the effort, without a doubt, I've heard of people making 50k USD from bounties. If the project is good enough then it can still be worthwhile even with plenty of other bounty hunters

[meer45]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

Why bounty manager or ICO marketing team should do this?
They share a limit of tokens for ALL participants. And no matter it will be for 100 or 1000 participants.

I think you wont stop a barman who brings you 10 pints of beer instead of 1 pint for same price

But as a bounty participant I'm totally agree with you.

It is a double edged sword; the increased number of participants decrease your cut, that is true. However, additional participants may mean that the ICO has a higher chance of succeeding due to the additional exposure brought about by the people in the signature campaign.

So I think it is not necessarily a bad thing. It decreases the risk of failed ICOs.

[cryptopan]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

Why would these campaign managers will limit these bounty campaigns?in the first place bounty campaigns are intented to promote these ICOs to be able to raise funds for their projects,so the development will go thru.If you limit the participants of each campaigns the newbies here wont have any chance to have free money from these campaigns,unless they have some followers in twitter and facebook they can surely participate.

[bitcon]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

For ICO you need as many participants as possible for the campaign of signatures to get as much effective advertising as possible. You just need to consider the bounty as a nice bonus, and not as a basic earnings.

[ausbit]

This theory of yours is actually logical and true. Due to problems like those you mentioned, payouts are not up to tasks done. Well, I think so many incoming ICOs are trying to nip that in the bud by restraining the rank system to start from member or Full member rank. I just hope it worked out like that

Well, for signature bounties, I want to believe this is one thing most of the managers themselves have really looked at which is why we see some limits now and we see some shit posters being bounced even from ICOs. From the look of things though, a higher percentage of stakes is being given to signature campaign, so at the end, there may be enough to go around, just that looking at the number of weeks involved and getting some peanuts, it can really be frustrating.

[sebinator]

Yes, I noticed that, too. In addition to that there a lot of cheaters, who gain double of the normal stakes. Furthermore, the quality of the posts from most of the participants is horrible and simply spam for this forum.

[paxmao]

The one who are implementing the ICOs would like it if there are more people who would participate in their campaign so I think it would be a disadvantage to them if they would limit it. It may be the prerogative of the bounty manager if he wants to limit the participants in the campaign because it is an additional job in his part if there are more participants. You have an option to participate in campaigns paid in bitcoin because they are limited but then you have to be fast to get a spot because within just minutes the slots may be immediately filled except for those managers who will choose those people who have quality post because it takes some time for the slots to be filled up.

It may come that indeed, a filter by merit that requires some quality in the posts to participate in the campaigns, apart from mere raking.

[DeepChipolino]

In fact, there is no need to set limits on the number of participants, the rank of the participants or something else. I think need to act on the target audience. If the project has a specific matter, then it is necessary to act in the corresponding community.
Now it's like shooting a cannon on sparrows. But it's better to act like a sniper.

[coin5haker]

First came, 1st served would make the sense, but what if all slots will be taken by Jr., Members, leaving Full, Senior, Legendary off-board? Dividing slots into groups would make more sense. Like only certain amount of junior members, more Full-Senior and unlimited Legendary (who doesn't want them?  )

But for BM and ICO, more ppl join means more word spread. So it will be as it is, unless people won't join bounties (won't happen)

[TwoSides]

I've seen some bounty campaigns that only accept Member ranks as the lowest rank that could participate. I'm actually disappointed as I can't participate but I guess that only shows how good that bounty is. Ranks means experience in the forum and marketing that's maybe why they limit the participants through it. I guess us with lower ranks should strive more in providing good posts/comments which are worth reading to rank up.

[Kim Ji Won]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

We can't do anything about that because a seemingly good ICO attracts many investors and bitcointalk members who also want to be a part of the project and advertise it so that they will also have a fair share of the token. It will also be a good exposure to the ICO that will help to their success if there will be a lot of members advertising the said campaign.

[y3v63n]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

Totally agree. The limit of participation should become a norm in bounties. I have been taking part in Twitter campaigns and I can tell that half of the people just post crap, use Google Translate, post the same posts, use multiple accounts to cheat, etc. What's more, many participants just do the minimum contribution (often, they don't even contribute regularly and disappear) and in the end receive only a small fraction of the bounty fund. But by doing so they also dilute the stakes of those who have been working their asses off. So everyone gets peanuts. Moreover, many bounty managers seem to be overwhelmed with such amount of entries and are just unable to do the checking part properly.

But if there was a limit, and I am happy that some campaigns choose this way, everyone would be able to see what they can actually earn and increase the quality of the content they post.

[cryptothreads]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

I really feel that reducing the number of people participating in the signature campaign is a bad thing. Everyone wants to have their own profit in many ways, the signature campaign is bringing a lot of profit for the bounties. I'm a bounty and I'm always trying for this job.
Those who do not work on the project will pay for it. Managers will warn or punish them. It's all thanks to the good management of the manager and everything that is not related to the people who try to do the signature work.
We can't do anything about that because a seemingly good ICO attracts many investors and bitcointalk members who also want to be a part of the project and advertise it so that they will also have a fair share of the token. It will also be a good exposure to the ICO that will help to their success if there will be a lot of members advertising the said campaign.

[KXC247]

The icos that launched this bounty programs would want the best in terms of marketing . you should be grateful for the ones you receive from them .

Capping the participants in signature bounty would not go well with project owners but it would be more profitable for participants.

A balance just needs to be stroked so that every one would be happy about it.

That's my opinion

[sserge009]

Unfortunately, a bounty may not be worth it not only because of the large number of participants. Sometimes the project does not justify itself and payments are minimal.

[mrcastelo]

I check first how much the bounty pool  a certain ICO has before joining because If I see that they have a very low bounty pool for the bounty I don't joined the bounty of that specific ICO. We cannot suggest that they limit the participants because the more participants the wider the reached of the advertisement. So it will be our discretion if we will joined a certain bounty especially if there are too many participants.

[grumpy619]

So it's a bit offensive , if there are unlimited number of participants.  Especially when I joined the signature program  from the very beginning, but the remaining 80% of the people fly when it became clear, that the project is successful because it has collected softcap.That's not fair, if you worked on the project from the beginning and someone came when all the hard work is done and you share rewards with thousands of people.

[Wonder_woman]

I don`t think bounties are not worthy because every ICO needs to be promoted as vast as possible and if you limit the participants on bounty campaigns it would be a less effective campaign and bounty campaign is the best way to promote ICO in the social media nothing more. So, I think it is better not to limit the bounty participants number. And these campaigns must be honest in giving what is meant for these participants as well.

[paxmao]

How about setting a fixed amount like PolicyPal or others, that simply say 50 per week for Juniors, maximum of 15 juniors. Other methods are not fair to the promoter and all I see is thing like "if you don´t like it don´t take it" or "you are not supposed to want to make money"....
 If I don´t like something, I try to change it. And why would I not want to make money when everyone else involved is going to make money? If you are so altruistic  let me PM you my ETH address. You can prove your generosity there.

[jk9694]

ICO is developing along with the bounty at high rates, so in 1-2 months we will see more well-considered rules not only in the signature campaign

[y3v63n]

How about setting a fixed amount like PolicyPal or others, that simply say 50 per week for Juniors, maximum of 15 juniors.

Yes, something like this seems reasonable. There should be some limits, otherwise the whole promotion will turn into making the same posts with different hashtags and ICO names.

[cryptonianz]

I believe there should be no limit, since they are marketeers of the ICO and the popularity level increases. More bounties campaigns means more participants.

[DirtyMartini]

Most bounties or signature campaigns give you access to a spreadsheet of all the participants so if you can see that there are too many to be worth your while, simply do not participate.

[herurist]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

I agree with you but maybe develop team has another opinion why they not limit the number of participants. Maybe they don't have any brilliant concept or clearly road map that make they lost faith and way how to successful a project. Even dev team give limit that's not guarantee ICO project will success also. Let dev team work with their own way and we just follow the rules to finish the task. Simple like that.

[Bitcoininspace]

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

On the one hand, it's more profitable for developers when more participants write about their project for the same expenses. But if they do not make the rules more fair, most of the participants will simply stop participating in the bounty at all.