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.

[1714029579]

1714029579

[1714029579]

1714029579

[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.