When Bounties are not worth the effort - Limit the numbers

[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.