Should we limit members in one campaign?

[feehannah]

For me,i also agree for bounty campaign that have limit the number of participants. But also i think,a lot of campaigns should have also a lot of participants,for the purpose of spreading their bounty campaign projects informations,and to introduce their aimed,to be a successful projects,and all including participants will be benifited.

[1714636361]

1714636361

[1714636361]

1714636361

[1714636361]

1714636361

[litolapis1]

It would be grate if one of the campaigns have it limits with there entry inorder to claim rewards exact amount for each participants. To somehow minimize the spam accounts for double entry. The less participants the bigger the rewards will be provided.

[Sermihal]

I think it would be better to limit the number of people. If you participate in a bounty and a lot of people reward for your work will be very small. It is better not to participate at all than to get very little.

[ashaksagnis]

It would be much better if the campaigns had a limited number of members. The largest number of members is always in social media campaigns. Of course everything depends on the bounty budget.  I think that the best is the signature campaign and should definitely introduce limits.

[anwar98]

Unlikely, the more people are involved, the more spam on the social networks and that is what they want, their ico will be for many people.
The purpose of bounty is to makerting and the more participants they promote success

More and more participants and just make spam what's the point?
Better to be limited but choose a member who has higher rank and have good experience in promotion. Better fewer participants have good experience in promotion and have higher previews than many participants but only make spam and only focus on rewards regardless of the quality of their promotions.

[jamesbond007pro]

Dear friend. That's good idea. If  one campaign limit members to join we will get more money. I think one campaign such as Facebook, Twitter should limit 1000 members, that's good for bounty members and bounty managers. Do you agree with me? Thank you very much

[ximenzi]

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…

If you look at this issue from the perspective of a bounty hunter, then your idea is very correct. But if I am a publisher, the purpose of my bounty activities is to promote and promote, then I naturally hope that there will be more people to help me with the promotion. so.....

[A.SanchezNo7]

Dear friend. That's good idea. If  one campaign limit members to join we will get more money. I think one campaign such as Facebook, Twitter should limit 1000 members, that's good for bounty members and bounty managers. Do you agree with me? Thank you very much

Thank you for your sharing.
I agree with you. 1000 is the number make the project manager and bounty hunter both feel satisfied. too little or too much are both not good. The 1000 should be the reference number of participants for twitter and facebook campaign.
However, depend on the bonus pool, the project manager can consider another suitable number.

[mriansa]

it seems to limit everyone to follow the bounty campaign is not necessarily in need but it really should be 1 person 1 bounty, if you want to follow bounty again yes become a participant from other bounty. maybe it is not spam but the marketing strategy of ico is there.

[tntdl]

I think we should limit the participants to the bonus campaign. Because I know many people in my country they spam to participate in the bonus campaign

[crzy]

I think it would be better to limit the number of people. If you participate in a bounty and a lot of people reward for your work will be very small. It is better not to participate at all than to get very little.

There must be limitations with regards to the participants but of course the more volume of bounty hunters it will be in favor for that specific project so technically some ICO don’t limit the participants. Well, btc signature campaign is the best when it comes to implementing rules about that campaign.

[hardtargetbtc002018]

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…

Yes, limiting participants in a bounty campaign can really help bounty hunters to earn more profit especially those with low ranks because the most affected during rewards distribution is the partcipants with low ranks even participated in too many weeks.

[ridhobagus2308]

i think yes , right now bounty have to much people and they even joined with multiple account, its good to us if bounty campaign limited their participant.

[so_stupid]

I consider it necessary to make a limit in bounty companies! The choice of the subscription company should be more responsible for the bounty hunter.

[zhukovt34]

The members number in bounty campaign should be limited in order that every participant participate in a professional manner, do his homework and get bounty it deserve!

[Rustamm]

I am categorically against limiting the number of participants in the ICO generosity campaign from this forum. This restriction can and does sometimes make the ICO team and the manager of the generosity campaign. Other persons should not interfere with this process. Everyone has the right to choose independently to join him to a specific ICO project, or not. This case is voluntary and it must be accepted and taking into account the number of joined participants.

[jurgen444]

in my opinion better in each campaign limited number of participants, I have been following the campaign for 3 months and only get $3 rewards  and it is very sad .. for now, I prefer a campaign that limits the number of participants, hopefully later many bounty manager do it.

[CoinEraser]

in my opinion better in each campaign limited number of participants, I have been following the campaign for 3 months and only get $3 rewards  and it is very sad .. for now, I prefer a campaign that limits the number of participants, hopefully later many bounty manager do it.

I have the same opinion. There should be a limit for participants in a campaign. It would only be fair for the participants. This could also prevent a campaign from being overrun by alt accounts. Although I can understand that a project like to have many people in the campaign, so they can do more advertising, but still they should be fair to the participants. Therefore, I try not to participate in campaigns that are already totally overcrowded anyway. It's usually not worth it. 

[muzkle]

I think not. Because bonus managers and ICO want as many participants as possible. And they will attract as many ICO participants as possible. Nobody wants to limit the number of people who know about the ICO. Except for bounty participants

[Jamboo30]

I think limit the participants is one of the important way to improve the efficiency when marketing the ICO project. Many scammers join with multiaccout and they dont have the responsibility to help this project. In my opinione, vote for limitation.