Should we limit members in one campaign?

[icalical]

It is really depend on the ICO and its bounty. Some bounties do not limit their participant because they aim for ICO hardcap, and their reward is huge. Therefore the participant don't need to worry if they only get small reward. But most of bounties especially the one paid with Bitcoin will limit their participant, because it usually only has small amount of reward, and its usually not ICO bounty.

[1714648577]

1714648577

[1714648577]

1714648577

[1714648577]

1714648577

[1714648577]

1714648577

[1714648577]

1714648577

[1714648577]

1714648577

[dunfida]

It is really depend on the ICO and its bounty. Some bounties do not limit their participant because they aim for ICO hardcap, and their reward is huge. Therefore the participant don't need to worry if they only get small reward. But most of bounties especially the one paid with Bitcoin will limit their participant, because it usually only has small amount of reward, and its usually not ICO bounty.

Signature campaigns which do pay up bitcoin are not those bounty ones because if we do mention about bounty then the pay out would be definitely on token form of a certain project.Limiting numbers will not be into their rules because they know that it will be only few exposure.When we try to see all of bounty campaigns they have unlimited spots for its participants.

[palermofc]

I think members shouldn't be limited because everyone has a right to participate every campaign. I may join a bounty in the last week and earning one stake with my participation. Also bounty owners want more people to advertise their project.

[SkvorNyc777]

I don't think so... I don't want to see first come-first served service in bounty campaigns.

[zikabra]

From signature participant view I think there should be limit, obviously, because of more money which participants will receive.
From team's view they don't care how many participants will be, they need as much participants they can get, more people promoting them means higher chances for their ico to succeed.

[Eaholevan]

For a project that looks at the ICO, it is profitable that there are as many participants as possible. Therefore, the number of participants will not be limited.

[noxlord93]

I on the contrary met projects where there is a restriction on the participants. sometimes it's 500, and sometimes 2000 people, believe me not every one of them will work until the end of the project

[trrewqs]

For the project, the more participants, the better. The purpose of bounty is marketing. And if you look at the participants, then of course it's better to limit the number of participants

[tak bisa]

Yes, there should be limitations in the campaign. Because if the allocations are few and the participants are very numerous, in the distribution of tokens we only get a little bit

[missmaria]

I don't think that hosts of the bounty campaign will appreciate this ideas - because the pay the same amount no matter what, but get more people working.

[A.SanchezNo7]

I don't think that hosts of the bounty campaign will appreciate this ideas - because the pay the same amount no matter what, but get more people working.

Yes, I agree with you a part. Maybe you are right for most hosts of bounty campaign but some of them after read our sharing in here may change their thinking. I think advertising effectiveness not only need a large number of participants, it also need the quality and control.

[yatno75]

If they limit the bounty participants would be a little information that people can get about their ICO, of course, that's not what they expect.

[gabum19]

I maybe agree with this kind of rule. It will minimize those who are scammers in the community. This will more help the members to be more active and hardworking to find more bounties for them self to join in. And will also helps for the member who join the campaign to have a sufficient earnings to recieve. Thats only my opinion. Thanks.

[kewlc3s]

Fully agree with you - there definitely must be limit of participants.
Depending of project size and bounty pool. Especially that applies for social media - funny to see, for example twitter - during campaign each tweet got thousand likes and re-posts, after 20 

I would suggest limits:
Signature - 1-500
Social media - 1000-2000
Content creation - maximum 1000
Telegram - unlimited.

 

[nanang]

It is very necessary and will make the campaye more productive and there may be other ways that can generate a clearer market target.

[Captainluffy24]

I totally agree with this, too much participants on a single campaign bring down the number of stakes you're getting and this brings down the boost for a certain participant whenever they see that there is a lot of people who will take part. For me, for a bounty to be effective participants must be limited since the bounties do not increase whenever there are lots of participants but in return they should focus on the quality of help that they get from this participants.

[Hommer]

This is very necessary and maybe we will wait for bounty innovation that is better and interesting in the future. Maybe there is an idea for it?

[tiar4dewie]

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

I think this is possible. I see some campaigns from reputable bounty managers have limited campaign participants (social media). It is probably their goal to have the token that the participant of the campaign really has value. I think this is better than freeing the number of campaign participants if bounty is published by a reputable manager.

[A.SanchezNo7]

Hi everyone,
Thanks for your sharing about this topic. I hope with all things that we share will contribute a small part to built fair play games and also funny life.
Thanks so much.

[Bencus]

I think we have to look at this from different perspectives.

From the company's perspective, its truly beneficial to have more and more people promoting your project for the same amount of prize pool. there is simply no downside for them, maybe the bounty manager will have a hard time sorting things out, but thats all.

From the bounty hunters' perspective, it would be beneficial to limit the numbers, so they will get better payments. But if you think about it, the problem comes from the pool system, which it is as a downside as an upside, as if only a few ones does it, the payment is larger, unrealisticly large. On the other hand if too many does it, the payments will be unrealisticly low.

I'd say a solution might be a system with limited amount of participants, but with flat amounts of rewards, so its not a system with stakes.