Bounty without manager?

[nkgrigoryev]

Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.

The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.

All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?




UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.

[PsylockReborn]

Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.

The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.

What do you think about if?

Unlike blockchain, human can make errors and lots of bounty participants are newbies. Some of them using alt accounts. There will be bias and sabotage that will happen when it comes to confirmations. That is why blockchain is made due to the blunders that humans do in a centralized system. It is invented to correct fraud and increase security with pure transparency.

[tsaroz]

This is much time consuming and hence inefficient and costly.
When a manger is managing a bounty, his only job is to manage it and we expect 100% efficiency from him/her.
The same work when we try to verify from the bounty participants themselves, we need a task to be verified by more than 2 people as we cannot believe on a single response. i.e. the work that can be done in 1 hour would require more than 2 hours.
This would too consume larger amount of time of bounty participants which would make them desire for more payment for same work.

[mylove01]

A bounty without manager I don't believe in that I think I will  lead to scam there  should be a manager  for every bounty campaign and it will lead to a great and successful project

[fortunecrypto]

Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.

The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.

All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about if?




UPD: Manager still needed but work only with creation and news.

Wow it's double work for all participants and confusing because of every one of us here has different views on the guidelines set up by the company,  I prefer the one we have now it's not confusing but let's see maybe one ico will take up your idea and see if it is really effective.

[camport]

It’s very difficult to create decentralised bounties because it requires human verification to ensure participants are legitimate or not, bounty0x is the closest so far

[BruceJu]

what? No manager's bounty? I will not choose such a bounty. I think these bounty is a scam. I prefer to have manager's bounty.

[LemonF3]

Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.

The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.

All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?




UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.

A group task without a leader for me is hard. It might work but it is so hard since there is no one to manage or to collect thr consensus of each member. The same goes with a bounty. I think a bounty without a manager will not be successful.

[carlisle1]

Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.

The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.

All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?




UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.

So what youre saying here is Cheaters will rate themselves?i wonder what would be the outcome of every bounties,looks at it when there still a manager cheaters dominating the situation so what more if theres none?

Let the manager do their work and if you OP is a bounty hunter the i might say Do your homework and forget about your illusions

[Yaunfitda]

Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.

The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.

All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?




UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.

This is one of the worst idea that I have ever heard since I have been in this community. You mean a campaign with 100 members will do random task and checked its every member of the campaign . LOL. This will solely defeat the purpose of a bounty wherein everyone should do one duty, that is to promote the project they have joined.

I think you should go back and read everything in the forum dude, before making any suggestion like this because it doesn't really makes any sense at all. And who will judge who are accepted or not? For all we know, a campaign with 100 participants can be all alts with one person having the steering wheel and driving it out.

[adzino]

Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.

The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.

All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?




UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.

Create tons of alt accounts or just get a group of people who will rate each other as perfect, so wouldn't that be campaign abuse? The proposition you gave is filled with flaw. You will still need a neutral bounty manager who will manage everyone. Anyways, why would you need to make bounty campaigns decentralized? I don't see much of a benefit, but more of a chaos.

[Nexjr14]

Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.

The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.

All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?




UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.

Maybe this is one of your proposals about the bounty program, but I apologize because I would agree if the bounty program is run by a manager. I think the division of tasks on bounty campaigns is already very good, just maybe it should be more enhanced performance bounty managers to the participants. This is only for the success of a project.

[paulscathedral]

The idea is good and it has a right to exist, but is bounty Manager now the main problem? There is rather, a system of ICO needs to be changed when the token payments for investors and the bounty hunters must be guaranteed by smart contract and automatically be paid after receiving softcap.

[tamango]

Personally I choose a bounty 90% because of its well known bounty manager... if I have to do work, I want that someone with experience can verify it

[Muzika]

Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.

The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.

All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?




UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.

I dont think so if it is a good idea to do so. A bounty without a manager wont be a successful one, Cheating from participants would happen, imagine a bounty campaign with manager there is still a person trying to cheat what about the campaign without a manager?

[warwar]

Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.

The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.

All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?




UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.

Well I think it only work to some because if we are talking about here signature campaign how do they rate or how do they count the number of post by a participant like those person 7-10 to rate the post if it is valid or not ? I think it is a long.more process to.decide with them.also it is difficult to trust those person because they could cheat.

[longergou]

Well, first of all I must say that you are a very interesting proposal. This way you can make the bounty mission more standardized and of higher quality. But with this method, I am now considering two issues.
1. The community construction is not good. The number of bounty hunters cannot meet the needs of so many projects. When most people choose a project and participate in the project, other projects will find it difficult to find staff because of your suggestion. All staff members are composed of participants themselves.
2. If you encounter a flightless project, all participants will feel very, very frustrated.
I think this idea needs improvement, but on the day it is applied, I think it will be very effective.

[oxoxoxox]

No manager's bounty will inevitably be controversial when calculating bets. People always think that they are doing exactly what they are asking. Then everyone will only favor the party that is good for them. The final bounty distribution will be chaotic.

[luthvie]

i dont think so, i think everything need to be manage so it can run as planned, here on bounty campaign must need a person in charge for manage everything, so bounty manager is a must.

[troiano9]

99% of bounties are worth nothing anyway.