Should we limit members in one campaign?

[Alex Melkov]

I believe that it is necessary not to limit the number of participants, but to establish fair rules, and strictly punish for violation of the rules, in particular for multi-account.

[1714627651]

1714627651

[1714627651]

1714627651

[1714627651]

1714627651

[1714627651]

1714627651

[hh4mmm]

Dear all,
Sorry for any inconvenience for this topic,
I’ve ever joined some bounty campaigns and get some tokens. Bellow are my thinking:
There are some projects attract so much participants, although that means the project is very interesting but it has limited bonus. Result, bonus that each participant receivers from the campaign very small. A lot of participants in one campaign has made so many spams on social networking….
So a question here: Should we limit members in one campaign?
(maybe depend on the bonus value of that campaign)
What are your thinking?
Please share…

No. Reason because some project need more participants to promote the business or project including all medias, that was why different pools was created to make sure they project have gone round the world. So you telling us to limits the numbers of participants in a bounty campaign is not encouraging because without more participants no spreading of the project..
The only to do is that any spam or cheater should be disqualify immediately.
Thanks you

[Tosyn2]

There should be some bar on numbers of participants in ico when it is too crowded the reward are too small to share mostly telegram campaign it is getting too boring to participate in these days.

[Quincy01]

My thought on this your question is that if at all the number of participants in a particular campaign should be limited, it shouldn’t be generalized. Considerations needs to be taken note of, for instance if the project has a lot of tokens to offer to participants of the bounty and they need their advert to spread across all medias, that way they need more participants to take part in the bounty campaign, so it shouldn’t be limited for such projects. On the contrary, If a project has little tokens to distribute to participants and they equally need their advert to be spread across all media borads, what they need to do is to limit the the number of participants for the bounty campaigns and make sure that the selected few are very serious with spreading the information round the globe.

[radokan]

it`s better for the project if it has more participants. The purpose of bounty is marketing and if u look at the participants, then of course it's better to limit the number of participants

But it is better for bounty hunters to have less participants because reward will be higher. I don't think it is important for project to have 1000+ participants, I've seen bounties with only 100 signature participants reaching hard cap and I have also seen campaigns reaching hard cap in first day, so quantity doesn't really matter.

[ArturoProfit]

Many companies launch competent marketing and give a chance to the majority of people to receive an award. But every day it gets harder and the mosses are used by a lot of not very literate people. This is a fact

[Sungeb_Gali]

Yes of course so, yesterday I followed one bounty program and there is a human spam. embarrassing, this inconvenience makes the gift that shares little

[suhoy]

It is not a decent idea because what benefits the project will get from it?

[Koadharber]

I believe that it is necessary not to limit the number of participants, but to establish fair rules, and strictly punish for violation of the rules, in particular for multi-account.

There would be no such changes of rules on the project itself when it comes to number of participants.They do need max exposure which means they would really need lots of participants as they have already allocate amount of tokens mainly for marketing stuff. The more members the lesser the stake and the reward which is somehow expected for this thing.

[mirror001]

It looks bad to restrain the quantity of members in the liberality crusade in a specific undertaking. The announcement that this will invigorate the written work of value messages is a myth, as usual. The discussion has just presented justify. Has anything transformed from this? They essentially obstructed the entrance of new individuals to the gathering and profited in signature battles for higher positions, which by such development cut off new contenders with comparative positions.
Furthermore, who will do it? ICO organizations that distribute a specific number of tokens to the liberality crusade are not inspired by restricting the quantity of members, for them the more their number, the better for them, as a greater amount of their ICO advertisements will meet.

[kadal88]

As bounty hunter I think that limits are good for us, cause we can get more distribution not this low cost tokens in every bounty....

[regalis]

Maybe at this moment we could see the stability of the campaign that consists of volume of members on each campaign. But in the other hand we may consider also the advantages and the disadvantages of the number of participants in one campaign.

[queenhallmark]

That is why we can easily differentiate the bounty on bounties section and services section signature campaign. Most of bounties expect the spammers to be part of the project and they just to show off through out this forum.
But that does not matter for project. If the project has been comes to reputed manager that will refined the way we look the project.
There are successful bounty campaign managers. They takes the project with the right hand to promote. That way of approaching will be needed in every bounty campaigns.

[A.SanchezNo7]

Thanks for sharing, please continue....

[danmoris]

I understand your concern, however the purpose of a bounty campaign is to advertise - reach as many potential investors as possible.
Even if there were restrictions, realistically how could these be put into place? And what would be the criteria?
If they were to accept bounty hunters with over a certain amount of followers etc that would be unfair to beginners.
If they were to accept the first 100, they would be missing out on all the potential investors from the other bounty hunters

[AlexKr]

Yes, but if a participant gets a penny for his work. It makes no sense to participate. For example, if I see the number of participants more than 1k- I do not want to participate. because I understand that during the months of my work I will hardly get a worthy reward.

[Swenna]

-snip-

Thanks for your sharing,
I think your idea should be considered, but i have a little diffrent with you.

I thinks, forum should be open and welcome everyone join and share. This will good for all because the forum manager are still monitoring and controlling all content of posts very well. Forum are opening under well monitoring. So i think needn't limit participants post in forum but control what they post.
About spam on social networks, It doesn't only effect to this forum but also effect to many people in the real life. So i think should limit participants in a big enough number depend on each project.

Thanks

Thank you! This indeed are posts that I think is constructive. You, too, have a good point. All things considered.

Anyway, with regards to what you said, about controlling what people posts in the forum, is a little difficult. The forum manager deletes posts that they think is not constructive or way out of the topic. Every person is entitled to their opinions, afterall, so I agree that we should not limit it.

However,in terms of signature campaign, I do believe that limiting and choosing the participants is good because they can filter those with constructive posts and those who really contributes to the forum. (also minus the wrong ghammar and syntax) Some signature participants tends to repeat what other people have already said to just so they can earn a post.

I am not limiting people's freedom of expression or sharing. They can still do so, even if they are not doing the signature campaign.

[Barbatsutsa]

I don't think that there's a must to do so. What benefits it will bring?

[otreza]

Of course, this is a good idea to limit participants. The crowdy projects make tiny payments, and that is why experienced people won't join it.

[kendra1107]

Dear all,
Sorry for any inconvenience for this topic,
I’ve ever joined some bounty campaigns and get some tokens. Bellow are my thinking:
There are some projects attract so much participants, although that means the project is very interesting but it has limited bonus. Result, bonus that each participant receivers from the campaign very small. A lot of participants in one campaign has made so many spams on social networking….
So a question here: Should we limit members in one campaign?
(maybe depend on the bonus value of that campaign)
What are your thinking?
Please share…

It would be a good thing to set a limit on the number of participants in a certain campaign. This is to ensure that each participant would still receive a reasonable amount of reward. This would also be easier to track and control for the managers. Having too many participants to monitor would be too hectic and stressful for most campaigns.