If the project is good, it will get good reviews from ICO trackers.
ICO trackers may ask for a fee in order to review an ICO. And in some cases the how good the reviewed ICO is shown depends on the paid fee.
No people will ever invest serious money in anything shilled in signature campaigns.
As shown, what ICO trackers actually do is also shilling, so it's no difference.
Many people want desperately to diversify and many don't care if they throw 100$ into a project just to see what happens.
And many enough small investors can fill the bucket, no need for serious/big investors.
Also the usual 2% bounties distribution is actually often a lot of money.. would cost much less to pay some popular bloggers to write some review.
I think that most do bounty campaigns and also blogging reviews. Many retweets just spread the word about those reviews.
Bounty campaigns give NO VALUE, at the expenses of ICO participants.
I do bounties now and then and I sometimes even invested into projects I've advertised because I considered them good. I think that this defeats your logic.
Also, while I know that I am one of the few, I don't just sell immediately the bounty incomes. I consider myself investing my time in the same way the other ICO participants invest money.
I now hate ICOs as I said in my thread, but even if I had to ever consider investing in one, I would not put a penny in it if the word "bounties" is in any chart.
Everybody has the right to have an opinion.
I suggest you research carefully which projects are good indeed (since most aren't) and invest in them whether they have bounty or not. Of course, it's up to you.