When Bounties are not worth the effort - Limit the numbers

[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.

[1714835555]

1714835555

[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