First let me apologise for any mistakes in technical details or language. I'm still new at the forum, but I would like to share my thoughts anyway with those who know the field better. Critics are welcome!
I think it's sad and ironic that on the verge of smart contract implementation in every field, we are facing payment isuues and exploitation by companies, who are supposed to improve the economic state and business in general.
Is there no solution to prevent such things from happening?
Is it not feasible, for a project who runs the campaign, to make a smart contract, which obligates them to to carry out payments, as soon as they reach hard-cap?
I know they can’t predict the number of participants, but they know the the volume of tokens allocation for the bounty. Perhaps they could obligate independent bounty manager, who would update smart contracts regularly in parallel with participants reports managing.
This would be the solution for projects that meet hard-cap but still don’t pay the bounty participants. If the hard-cap isn't met, the problem remains.
What do you think of the idea? Are there any other suggestions?
You can do all that, but you cannot automate real-world information, for example, whether you're spamming or whether you're producing extremely low quality stuff. That's usually why these things are still centralized. Otherwise, the system becomes easy to game.
