Here is why ICOs should pay in ETH instead of Tokens

[OriginTrain]

There is a concerning trend over the last year to pay bounties in project tokens instead of BTC/ETH. This leads to market dumps almost always after the ICO due to bounty sell-offs.

In reality, it makes no difference for the team to pay in ETH instead of the token, and here is why: The amount raised in the ICO is usually in ETH. By sending 2% (or whatever the bounty was) from this project fund to bounty hunters, it makes little difference to the team, they still have 98% of their fund left. Furthermore, no market dumping can occur, and we no longer have to listen to the whining on telegram when the price drops below ICO like it always does.

Here is a fact: Nearly all tokens are dropping below ICO value when they hit exchanges during this bear market. The only people that are stupid enough to invest in ICOs at this time are new investors. Established investors will always wait for the token to hit exchanges and buy-up at a lower value during bear markets. This is because established investors realize a lot of free tokens get dumped after the ICO.

If ICO teams continue to payout bounties in their tokens, eventually all investors will cotton-on and no longer contribute to ICOs anymore. With everyone waiting for post-ICO exchange dumps, teams will no longer be able to raise any capital. As of now, retail investors aren't smart enough to realize this, but give them time, and they will, and this will effect the entire alt-coin sphere.

Simply payout bounties in ETH from the funds raised instead of the token. It literally makes no difference for the team, and it offsets the risk for everyone. This terrible trend of token payouts needs to end.

[tdeannova]

Your idea is very precise, I remember with the XUC exchange union project. If I'm not mistaken they pay campaign prizes using eth. This is very influential on token prices in the future, because there is no dump of the campaign participants and developers do not need to spend money to pump the price of coins. At ico the price of XUC is only $2.2 and the current price has reached $6.6 , very different from the project paying the campaign reward using its own coin. This is the best solution for the project to go according to plan and without any risk.

[Altcoins enthusiast]

It is very good to be pay in ethereum and bitcoin when a company or developer hire people to promote his project but we have to understand that payment in they own tokens will help promote their own projects in the market. I think it will be selfish for one to said we should receive ethereum instead of they own coins or tokens.

[OriginTrain]

Your idea is very precise, I remember with the XUC exchange union project. If I'm not mistaken they pay campaign prizes using eth. This is very influential on token prices in the future, because there is no dump of the campaign participants and developers do not need to spend money to pump the price of coins. At ico the price of XUC is only $2.2 and the current price has reached $6.6 , very different from the project paying the campaign reward using its own coin. This is the best solution for the project to go according to plan and without any risk.

It just seems like such an obvious solution to all the problems everywhere I don't get why the practice is not more widespread. No more telegram chat flooding or fear of bounty dumps, and no need to delay bounty payouts out of fear of said dumps.

[Jimmy palumbo]

But, for now, most of the ICO project is just for the sake of money, so they pay the token, they do not need to pay any cost, but if they pay the ETH, then can be converted into real legal tender.

[haroldtee]

This stuff has been mentioned several times and it seems the devs and the bounty campaign managers have turned deaf ears to it. The truth is that, this would keep happening until they find a solution, and investors are already drifting towards the pattern of waiting for it to hit an exchange first.

I always thought there is a way tokens are locked, but I do not know if this would have to be something general or you can decide to select the ones you are locking. Probably, someone could enlighten me on that, otherwise, it would just be for the devs to lock the tokens of bounty hunters until after a few period when the market is doing well if they do not want to decide to pay in Ethereum.

However, that payment in Ethereum would be the best bet, and any of the bounty hunter who would love to invest in the project, can go to an exchange after the payment to make the purchase and that becomes a win-win situation for everyone.

[helin9108]

I am completely agree with this idea to pay bounty in Ether or BTC. And this is also good for bounty hunters not to wait the coins listed to exchanges to sell the coins for fiat money. And I think the developer team might thinking that with giving their coins , the liquidity of their coin can increase in the exchanges so that they can list their coin in big exchanges as well and the other reason is to give coins is to marketing the coin so that all people can know about the coin and project too. But I prefer to get bounty rewards in Ether or BTC.

[thepo1m]

I think your premiss is wrong, Instar tokens got listed in the market yesterday and was selling below the ICO price, interestingly they did no bounty campaign, so can you tell me who are those selling their tokens below the ICO price. It is a wrong assumptions to think all the bounty tokens go to the market immediately after the tokens was dsitributed. I still have some bountytokens in my wallet that is more than 7 months now that I have not moved and have sold some of my ICO investment immediately it enters market

[marks1976]

There is a concerning trend over the last year to pay bounties in project tokens instead of BTC/ETH. This leads to market dumps almost always after the ICO due to bounty sell-offs.

In reality, it makes no difference for the team to pay in ETH instead of the token, and here is why: The amount raised in the ICO is usually in ETH. By sending 2% (or whatever the bounty was) from this project fund to bounty hunters, it makes little difference to the team, they still have 98% of their fund left. Furthermore, no market dumping can occur, and we no longer have to listen to the whining on telegram when the price drops below ICO like it always does.

Here is a fact: Nearly all tokens are dropping below ICO value when they hit exchanges during this bear market. The only people that are stupid enough to invest in ICOs at this time are new investors. Established investors will always wait for the token to hit exchanges and buy-up at a lower value during bear markets. This is because established investors realize a lot of free tokens get dumped after the ICO.

If ICO teams continue to payout bounties in their tokens, eventually all investors will cotton-on and no longer contribute to ICOs anymore. With everyone waiting for post-ICO exchange dumps, teams will no longer be able to raise any capital. As of now, retail investors aren't smart enough to realize this, but give them time, and they will, and this will effect the entire alt-coin sphere.

Simply payout bounties in ETH from the funds raised instead of the token. It literally makes no difference for the team, and it offsets the risk for everyone. This terrible trend of token payouts needs to end.

The problem is the team don't wanna decrease their ethereum amount. The fact that the team was generating it through pay a little cost to the smartcontract and they are raised a lot of money. Not all of these icos interested to do that. Rather than think about to make the price of their token will be stable through pay the bounty through ethereum. And they are feeling better to see their ethereum still in the wallet.
XUC becomes a good example about that how the price of token gets stable anytime.

[Erlinda Santiago]

That would be great if all icos pay etherium instead of tokens because many of people here dont know how to trade tokens especially in etherdelta because its so confusing so it might be easy for us if you use etherium instead

[gnerro2]

That would be great if all icos pay etherium instead of tokens because many of people here dont know how to trade tokens especially in etherdelta because its so confusing so it might be easy for us if you use etherium instead

I agree about etherdelta that isnt so userfriendly as it should be if they want to become a great exchange

[BabatundeM]

I will not want to totally agree with your argument. This is based on the perspective of an investor but also looking at it from the angle of a bounty hunter, it is of two ways. For those bounty hunters who want to sell immediately the token get to them, it is always better to give them eth to even save them the stress of selling the token to get eth. But for those who have the intention to hold the coin for a long time, they will have to start making attempt to buy the tokens of which they would have gotten directly from bounty participation.

[entr]

This is the best solution both investors and bounty hunters but project owners being greedy as always. They tend to cut as much as posibble from bounty pool if they had a chance. It is hard to believe even hundreds of millions collected icos are looking for several thousands to rip off from bounty hunters. Since no one has sanction power over project owners, this suggestion will pretend to be not heard.

[xianbits]

it would just be for the devs to lock the tokens of bounty hunters until after a few period when the market is doing well

This is a way too off for bounty hunters. The token we are locking does not belong to the team anymore since those are the bounty hunters' share. And, I believe same thing will happen after the tokens are unlocked, the bounty hunters will then dump it esp. the market has now stabled.

I think your premiss is wrong, Instar tokens got listed in the market yesterday and was selling below the ICO price, interestingly they did no bounty campaign....

What more if they had a bounty-campaign-paying-tokens, right?

But for those who have the intention to hold the coin for a long time, they will have to start making attempt to buy the tokens....

Thus, basically, helping the price to go up.

My last sentiment. I am totally agree with the OP.

[nickmax]

A good idea! Many companies do so. It will also show that the team is really working on a good project and therefore is spending money on advertising. And for participants it will be nice to receive rewards every week.

[Ciucas]

I will not want to totally agree with your argument. This is based on the perspective of an investor but also looking at it from the angle of a bounty hunter, it is of two ways. For those bounty hunters who want to sell immediately the token get to them, it is always better to give them eth to even save them the stress of selling the token to get eth. But for those who have the intention to hold the coin for a long time, they will have to start making attempt to buy the tokens of which they would have gotten directly from bounty participation.

Maybe another good option would be for bounty hunters to be allowed to choose if they want to receive the payment in ETH or in the ICO's token in this case.

[visiblehand]

This should be less of a problem in situations where the company:
1.  Already has an operating product or service before the ICO.
2.  Has created a real benefit to using the tokens if you want to use the product or service.
3.  Has created a mass market product where most token holders will be temped to use the tokens rather than sell them.

[CrazeCoinz]

It's the decision of the developer to pay their bounty hunters a token because bounty hunters are also investors and has the knowledge about the project being part of their army in advertisements. Sad to say that most bounty hunters are not holding their coins and easily dumps when the coins hit at exchanges. I understand that not all coins are worth to hold but if you take to hold for 3-6 months maybe a better price at that time. Although, it's the prerogative of the bounty hunters what to do of his token besides in my opinion, the 2% allocation of token for bounty hunters can't influence the market price if their project is a real project.

[alyssa85]

There is a concerning trend over the last year to pay bounties in project tokens instead of BTC/ETH. This leads to market dumps almost always after the ICO due to bounty sell-offs.

In reality, it makes no difference for the team to pay in ETH instead of the token, and here is why: The amount raised in the ICO is usually in ETH. By sending 2% (or whatever the bounty was) from this project fund to bounty hunters, it makes little difference to the team, they still have 98% of their fund left. Furthermore, no market dumping can occur, and we no longer have to listen to the whining on telegram when the price drops below ICO like it always does.

You are assuming that some of these developers want their tokens to succeed. But a lot of them just want to get their hands on Ethereum, and don't care if the token crashes and burns, its the investors that take the hit.

Once investors stop being fools and stop participating in these ICO's, you might see a change in behaviour, but not till then. And the change will be reduced ICOs, not bounties paid with ETH.

[OriginTrain]

This stuff has been mentioned several times and it seems the devs and the bounty campaign managers have turned deaf ears to it. The truth is that, this would keep happening until they find a solution, and investors are already drifting towards the pattern of waiting for it to hit an exchange first.

I always thought there is a way tokens are locked, but I do not know if this would have to be something general or you can decide to select the ones you are locking. Probably, someone could enlighten me on that, otherwise, it would just be for the devs to lock the tokens of bounty hunters until after a few period when the market is doing well if they do not want to decide to pay in Ethereum.

However, that payment in Ethereum would be the best bet, and any of the bounty hunter who would love to invest in the project, can go to an exchange after the payment to make the purchase and that becomes a win-win situation for everyone.

Very well said, I agree entirely. I am also noticing the pattern is starting to begin where ICO investors are being more cautious. Such greed by project managers will negatively effect the entire alt-sphere when it makes nearly no difference for them to simply pay in ETH. The difference is literally insignificant for them, but huge for the "tokenomics" (to use the latest buzz-word) of their token.

I will not want to totally agree with your argument. This is based on the perspective of an investor but also looking at it from the angle of a bounty hunter, it is of two ways. For those bounty hunters who want to sell immediately the token get to them, it is always better to give them eth to even save them the stress of selling the token to get eth. But for those who have the intention to hold the coin for a long time, they will have to start making attempt to buy the tokens of which they would have gotten directly from bounty participation.

I'm also in the same shoes as you, as I'm both a fiat investor and a bounty hunter too, so see it from both sides. The question is how do you tell which bounty hunters want to HODL the token and BELIEVE in the project they're promoting, vs those that just see their bounty as "work" that they need to convert to ETH immediately once the token hits an exchange?

This is the best solution both investors and bounty hunters but project owners being greedy as always. They tend to cut as much as posibble from bounty pool if they had a chance. It is hard to believe even hundreds of millions collected icos are looking for several thousands to rip off from bounty hunters. Since no one has sanction power over project owners, this suggestion will pretend to be not heard.

It's unfortunate but true. ICO teams are raking in millions of capital when via traditional venture funding they'd receive exactly $0. And then they are so greedy they cannot even allocate 2% of their holdings to the people that promoted their project?

Maybe another good option would be for bounty hunters to be allowed to choose if they want to receive the payment in ETH or in the ICO's token in this case.

Excellent suggestion.

You are assuming that some of these developers want their tokens to succeed. But a lot of them just want to get their hands on Ethereum, and don't care if the token crashes and burns, its the investors that take the hit.

Once investors stop being fools and stop participating in these ICO's, you might see a change in behaviour, but not till then. And the change will be reduced ICOs, not bounties paid with ETH.

Herein lies the sobering truth. This is the sad reality of it.