Should we limit members in one campaign?

[cryptowonders@20]

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…

well the bounty managers knows the best about the each campaign they are running.. but to me i will advise that some project are meant to have limit some participants from participating in there campaign after some certain amount of participation are reached. e.g they should have a limited numbers of 2000 or 2500 to keep the tokens get valued. moreover just as you said that the people are spamming the project on the social media.
so in summaries; it will help to reduce spamming the projects on the social medias and the token will worth valuable after the exchange is being launched.

[1714636017]

1714636017

[1714636017]

1714636017

[1714636017]

1714636017

[Spaffin]

In my opinion, no restrictions are imposed on the participants of the ICO signature campaign from this forum. Campaigns ICO now every day there is a lot, there is where to choose. Almost half of the ICO's projects of the participants of the signature campaign are more often ten or two. So it can not be said that everything here is overcrowded here. Of course, for some ICO projects, sometimes 500-600 people join, or even more. However, because of this restriction should not be introduced. In my opinion, the right to limit the number of joined sites should be left only to the ICO team itself. Otherwise, we will invade their sphere of interest. The ICO team allocates a certain number of tokens to the generosity campaign and vice versa, is interested in the largest number of participants who would advertise their project.

[fourpiece]

Its up to the campaign manager if they want to limit thier participants in every category of the bounty campaign,  more amd more members in the campaign will result to less reward that everyine that could get.

[AlekseyCrypto]

I think that in any companies need to limit the number of participants to be the first incentive to get into such a company and kept a good reward.

[Oceat]

In general,
With many many things that we shared in this topic, we know that a limitation of participants in a bounty campaign will help to distribute members to diffrent campaign. This thing is better for bounty hunters. But it is too hard for project managers who always need more and more participants for advertisement.
Dear everyone, if you have more solution for this issue, please share it.
Thank you so much!

Unfortunately there's no solution yet, and i wouldn't recommend using bots since it is against in all of the forum rules and they weren't advisable to use for a good project. In the first place, the participants should accept what's the manager will give them at the end of the campaign or else they shouldn't be joining that campaign if they don't want to accept a small bonus.

[putrii]

yes it should be like that because by making a restriction of each member to be able to follow and become a bounty campaign participants should have been applied for now in order to bounty campaign is not too many participants.

[gabagandalf]

i am in favor. there are bounties that are so crowded that its hardly worth taking part in them. a limit would be really good.

[imell]

making restrictions bounty participants is possible in need, because it affects the benefits received by the bounty hunter, maybe the limit is 1000 participants for each campaign depending on the allocation of tokens

[petrovkirill808]

To be honest, being an bounty hunters means to solve a lot of issues like searching the real projects that wont become scam eventually. And I think members limit is needed for both sides profit.

Am agree with you, now there are a lot of bots in companies, and payments are quite penny, I think you need to enter a rule first com- first serve!

[oksanet421]

I support the idea of ​​limiting the number of participants in the company bonuses, and given the popularity of the bounty at the present time, even in a very strong and promising company with a huge number of participants, earnings turn out to be scanty. And this kills all prospects of this sphere of earnings. It is necessary to put a limit on the number of people in proportion to the pool allocated to a certain company and then the work on the PR of the project will be made better and the people will have more money. Although companies do pay all the same for a million 1 per 10k people or 500k people, the result is important to them, and the bounty is a consumable, as in other real industries.

[sedihnya8]

preferably so, for a good level of profit in a bounty, there should be a limitation of participants in a bounty project, because the large number of participants becomes the determinant of the amount of benefits that the participants will get

[Snaic]

Undoubtedly, limiting the number of participants would have a positive effect on the promotion of the project and on the reward of each participant. You could even limit by rank, as do some bounty managers.

in any case, the restriction appears not only at the beginning of the company's Bounty, But also during the Bounty campaign. Such an example can be given by Bounty company Jimbi, where not only began to limit the number of participants several times after a certain time, but also began to reduce the reward for the work done for each week.

In the campaign, Jinbi is simply not a very good position with fundraising. The ICO term has already been extended until the end of July, and a few days ago only 17 percent of the planned funds were collected, that is, more than $ 10 million. Since the promised awards were too generous, the ICO team took the right step and began to gradually limit the joining participants and reduce the payments already acceded. Therefore, it is necessary to leave the right to the campaigns themselves to determine when and with whom to impose restrictions. This is an internal matter for every ICO team and should not interfere with them.

[ZeusTrade]

concereza we should limit as standard of any bounty but infezlimente niguem wants to cooperate greed for divulgation does not exist but ico announcements therefore bounty are their princupal way of divulging therefore we have to be more valued

[Irvanremok]

yes I think that is very important. if ico it limits participants in their campaigns. because if it is limited many will join and it will be an injustice in giving rewards to the bounty hunters. like now the bouty sosmed Twitter and Facebook programs are very much the participants and the rewards they share will be less for the prizes they receive. its better if there is a restriction of participants then the payment will be regular. and we hunters will not be disappointed.

[Micheals231]

Yes i do believe that's the best thing to do so as the participants can gain something tangible from the work they are doing

[Pardeep kaur]

yes i think There must be limitations with respect to the members. restricting members in bounties can truly help bounty hunters to procure more benefit.because during reward distributions low ranks members most affected

[Xuaquing141]

Limit the members in the bounty campaign is the other way to improve the efficency when asdvertise the ICO or some coin marketing campaign. The limit participant will bring the high rewards and help them try to help the project.

[Nolimitz84]

Everything depends on the generosity of the project team that conducts ICO.I notice that the more means are allocated to the bounty of the company, the more they subsequently raise funds.

[clololck]

In fact, many bounty tasks have restrictions on the number of participants. Generally speaking, they will require 1000-2000 participants. However, many projects do not have so many participants, so it does not matter if you do not limit the number of people.

[tomsoier]

In fact, many bounty tasks have restrictions on the number of participants. Generally speaking, they will require 1000-2000 participants. However, many projects do not have so many participants, so it does not matter if you do not limit the number of people.

I do not agree with you, according to my observations, quite often projects that put a limit on the number of participants in the bounty run into the limit. As a rule, these are projects with good previous experience, or from the real business sector.