Should we limit members in one campaign?

[gahsh]

It makes no sense to limit the number of participants in the generosity campaign in any particular project. The statement that this will stimulate the writing of quality messages is a myth, as always. The forum has already introduced merit. Has anything changed from this? They practically blocked the access of new members to the forum and made earning money in signature campaigns for higher ranks, which by such innovation cut off new competitors with similar ranks. And who will do it? ICO companies that allocate a certain number of tokens to the generosity campaign are not interested in limiting the number of participants, for them the more their number, the better for them, as more of their ICO ads will meet.

Sometimes there are also ico projects that restrict participants to signature campaign rewards, I've read in this forum some time ago, but is it possible that make those rules are bounty managers, but even rarely ICO projects that limit participants to the Gift, the more participants will become better and will be more promising for the success of a project.

[Mahanton]

It makes no sense to limit the number of participants in the generosity campaign in any particular project. The statement that this will stimulate the writing of quality messages is a myth, as always. The forum has already introduced merit. Has anything changed from this? They practically blocked the access of new members to the forum and made earning money in signature campaigns for higher ranks, which by such innovation cut off new competitors with similar ranks. And who will do it? ICO companies that allocate a certain number of tokens to the generosity campaign are not interested in limiting the number of participants, for them the more their number, the better for them, as more of their ICO ads will meet.

Sometimes there are also ico projects that restrict participants to signature campaign rewards, I've read in this forum some time ago, but is it possible that make those rules are bounty managers, but even rarely ICO projects that limit participants to the Gift, the more participants will become better and will be more promising for the success of a project.

I have seen such project too but only once on where they do limit participants numbers and after that they do failed up to accumulate such funding because of limited exposure due to only few people who advertise into their ico sale which means there would always have a negative side when you do only have small number of participants and now ive seen most of them do have lots of members without any restrictions or limits.

[EHT7500]

Restriction of campaign participants is a good proposal, because with fewer participants in the company, you can give better tasks and perform constant monitoring, correct the program in time, and change the task. This will allow you to get the result not from quantity, but from quality.

[ayo_deji1]

I totally agree that there should be a limit in bounty campaigns. The more the participants, the more useless the tokens become. Also, there are more fake/multiple accounts. There really should be a restriction.

[vadim.etc]

On the one hand, limiting the number of new entrants to the company's bounty is a big plus for developers, but for the bounty hunters themselves, this is still a big disadvantage, as the reward is extremely modest.

[AlekseyCrypto]

For bounty hunters of course better to number of participants limited. But for developers, the more people promote the project the more likely it is to raise more funds.

[vasilvas15]

I'm interested to know your opinion about the platform: bountyhive.io, to participate in the bounty. They have a very large number of participants from 4500 to 7000 people. Do you think it is worth it to participate there, or is it unprofitable? What are their payouts, very small? Who is involved and is it worth it to participate?

[dulari1]

i think you want more stakes so that can secure more tokens .
but any project want more n more participants so that more marketing .

so they will not limit the number .

[dulari1]

I'm interested to know your opinion about the platform: bountyhive.io, to participate in the bounty. They have a very large number of participants from 4500 to 7000 people. Do you think it is worth it to participate there, or is it unprofitable? What are their payouts, very small? Who is involved and is it worth it to participate?

i heard about that platform many times .
here people call for limited participants even when 500-1000 participants in a bounty .
on bounty hive this number is too much .
so not interested to visit there .

[kramchers]

It depend on the team holding the campaign, but if we are the team developer and doing the ICO we want no limits in participants.
we want a spread of news all over the corner and to get that attention big numbers of participants is a must.
Unless the team has no big budget for the campaign.
but if they are giving allotted percent from the ICO to the bounties, they want limitless of participants.
the more the better for them.

[CopMom]

I hope the bounty at the present time limits the number of bounty participants, it is better to open the unlimited number of people. There are a few bounties that approved only 100 players and require a Full Member rank, which is an excellent way to classify the quality of bounty members. With Social, limit the number of accounts per individual because one participant with multiple accounts will be spam on Social and will not good for that ICO.

[celakkenyang]

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…

I think it should be because many people use this opportunity by creating multiple accounts and joining the bounty and the participants who play do not cheat get very small prizes. hopefully the next every bounty using the system of participation limit.

[legendbtc]

i think you want more stakes so that can secure more tokens .
but any project want more n more participants so that more marketing.

so they will not limit the number.

Yes, they won't bother about limits in the campaign because the more people join the campaign and company gets more exposure. Till now, only they made restriction for payments through the bitcoin campaign.

[A.SanchezNo7]

It makes no sense to limit the number of participants in the generosity campaign in any particular project. The statement that this will stimulate the writing of quality messages is a myth, as always. The forum has already introduced merit. Has anything changed from this? They practically blocked the access of new members to the forum and made earning money in signature campaigns for higher ranks, which by such innovation cut off new competitors with similar ranks. And who will do it? ICO companies that allocate a certain number of tokens to the generosity campaign are not interested in limiting the number of participants, for them the more their number, the better for them, as more of their ICO ads will meet.

Sometimes there are also ico projects that restrict participants to signature campaign rewards, I've read in this forum some time ago, but is it possible that make those rules are bounty managers, but even rarely ICO projects that limit participants to the Gift, the more participants will become better and will be more promising for the success of a project.

I have seen such project too but only once on where they do limit participants numbers and after that they do failed up to accumulate such funding because of limited exposure due to only few people who advertise into their ico sale which means there would always have a negative side when you do only have small number of participants and now ive seen most of them do have lots of members without any restrictions or limits.

Thanks for your idea.
Thanks so much!

[A.SanchezNo7]

If you go through the services thread, you will see that almost every good campaign manager has a cap on the number of participants. This is done because people want quality more than the quantity. This is the same reason why people pay more to Hero/Legendary compared to Member/Full Member. In the price of 1 hero, you can probably have 5-7 Members working, but if a company does that, it would lose its reputation since those posts won't be up to the mark. That is why it is necessary to limit members in one campaign.
The more the members, the more the stakes would be divided and the lesser you would earn. So it is preferable to have a cap on number of participants.

Dear friend,
Your idea is what i think, thanks for your understanding.
But I know other members also has individual opinion and experience so I create this topic with expect more and more sharing. That sharing will be useful for me and everybody. I think sharing for better future.

Thanks

[Mrjenong]

I think it's a very good idea .. but back to the bounty manager if he wants to limit the participants? because the more participants will be more and more who knows their campaign project. the more participants will be more profitable for the project, so it all depends on the project maker.

[TorbjornE]

The more the number of participants the less is their reward. But it should be borne in mind that the probability of a successful ISO depends, among other things, on a large number of participants. Observance of the necessary balance - this is the skill of the manager of the company's bounty.

[mimienamphine]

It is true that the more the participants of a bounty program ,the less the reward but to me it is one of the factors for a successful program.This is because most investors are reached through the various media which makes the project get more investors.Limiting will be very suicidal for most bounty programs hence more people as willing should participate in a bounty program.

[yojodojo21]

as long as the bounty campaign is looking for participants in order for the project be advertise through the entire forum and investors then bounty campaign managers the more participants as long as it is possible but the more the participant the lesser stake you'll get. this is one part of the strategy, but time consuming, and alt accounts are always there, if the campaign is not handled well.

[Mahanton]

as long as the bounty campaign is looking for participants in order for the project be advertise through the entire forum and investors then bounty campaign managers the more participants as long as it is possible but the more the participant the lesser stake you'll get. this is one part of the strategy, but time consuming, and alt accounts are always there, if the campaign is not handled well.

They wont really make any limit because they will accept as many as they can as long there would people who would join they wont make any limit because the more people the more broad they can able to market such project.If you are lucky did able to join a campaign with less participants then stakes would really be more but yet it would still depend on how much being allocated on bounty program.