The more there is limit on bounties the fewer the dumper

[Viscore]

Give very strict rules and limit the number of participants who join the Bounty. Is a good way to anticipate if later the coin enters the stock market then the price decreases. Now there are many Bounty regulations that use KYC, it can also reduce participants who will commit fraud.

Not totally it could lessen the fraud cause people will find ways in order to be verified with the KYC as they used other identity. Actually, bounty tokens are just small percentage which couldn't fully affect the price even the participants will dump their token. It is on the investors hands who are handed a huge amount of tokens.

[xianbits]

Bounty restrictions can fix few problems facing project price drop after listed on exchange,

1) if any dev want to avoid dumpers then they must limit bounty participants, the limit the participants they better ,if a bounty only request 300 participants at highest and the 300 became a dumper it won't hurt ,unlike 2000+ participants

2) devs should forget bounty when still on ICO ,allow bounties after your project finished ICO successfully and make your project is doing great before allowing bounty
This are just ideas ,if you have anything better please drop on here and let's share.

For number one, it doesn't make sense. It's still the same. Whether 300 or 1000, same thing will happen. Example, the budget is 1,500,000 tokens. 300 participants will get 5000 tokens each (not considering the rank or number of followers). 1000 participants will get 1500 tokens each but still would sum up to 1,500,000 token potential for dumping. It is still best to pay bounty hunters in fiat or eth.

[reza7777]

limit number of participants, the promotion of the project will be less and for no bounty manager that limits participants joining because more participants who join will open up huge opportunities ico will succeed

[coinsycrip09]

Bounty restrictions can fix few problems facing project price drop after listed on exchange,

1) if any dev want to avoid dumpers then they must limit bounty participants, the limit the participants they better ,if a bounty only request 300 participants at highest and the 300 became a dumper it won't hurt ,unlike 2000+ participants

2) devs should forget bounty when still on ICO ,allow bounties after your project finished ICO successfully and make your project is doing great before allowing bounty
This are just ideas ,if you have anything better please drop on here and let's share.

For number one, it doesn't make sense. It's still the same. Whether 300 or 1000, same thing will happen. Example, the budget is 1,500,000 tokens. 300 participants will get 5000 tokens each (not considering the rank or number of followers). 1000 participants will get 1500 tokens each but still would sum up to 1,500,000 token potential for dumping. It is still best to pay bounty hunters in fiat or eth.

well, i'm happy if the bounty hunter participant gets paid with fiat or eth.

but it will not be fair to some people, especially to investors, they will feel it will not be good. i also don't really agree with this, because the price of tokens that we will get will probably be greater than eth or fiat that is given to us.

[karagun125]

I think this is beneficial. It's true that bounty campaign should limit their participants as there are many other bounties to be participated. It can fix problems and also the stakes can be distributed to participants and happy about it.

[ansarose1]

Making this type of idea is a good benefit to all. For example, if the participants are limited to a certain number of bounty hunters, there is no hustle for the project staff and project manager to manage the bounty campaign.

[Rrtt]

Bounty restrictions can fix few problems facing project price drop after listed on exchange,

1) if any dev want to avoid dumpers then they must limit bounty participants, the limit the participants they better ,if a bounty only request 300 participants at highest and the 300 became a dumper it won't hurt ,unlike 2000+ participants

I think this is not favorable to a project since only a few people would promote the project and the probability of it to be successful will also be low. Locking the tokens for bounty hunters would be a good idea if dumping is the problem here but it is not in all cases that bounty hunters were the one dumping.

[grifinmch]

limitation of participants can be a good solution. even this would be giving profit also for the bounty hunter because their competitors are reduced and the results they get big enough. It's just that it will probably affect the amount of marketing becomes more narrow than have many participants in the bounty. But if you can anticipate price reductions then this can be applied and some of the bounties already run it.

[TWW]

we can see a number of campaigns which limit the number of bounty participants with fairly strict regulations. many of the results obtained by the bounty hunter from the campaign bear fruit, with greater rewards because participants are restricted.

[guffie]

In my opinion, limiting the number of campaign participants is also good because it will increase competition. And some Bounty projects have implemented these regulations. And I see that the exchange of coin prices also continues to decline. And we must know that this is not only influenced by the coin-throwing bounty hunter but a large investor who holds a lot of coins.

[senin]

For the first point it actually really agrees, Maybe with that applied, surely bounty participants will get a lot of payments as well as what they do. But if limiting the number of participants to a certain ICO project will not be spread out to everyone. So if limiting is what will happen.

Now the activity of bounty hunters has plummeted. Many campaigns have signatures of up to ten or several dozen participants. I do not think that a small number of participants will make the ICO project a success. A few percent of tokens are allocated for generosity. That is, the number of allocated tokens will be the same for a hundred or for thousands of participants. However, one thousand participants will cope with the task of advertising the ICO project much better than one hundred. Therefore, limiting the number of participants in an ICO signature campaign is not beneficial for the ICO teams themselves.

[lrvjvt]

This is just an excuse. I believe that even if there are no bounty hunters, these junk projects will also fail. The root cause of their failure is their own. They promote their ICO with a scam mentality, in order to cover their darkness, they The responsibility for ICO failure was all shirked to the bounty hunter.

[sieemma]

No one knows who the dumpers are. For all you know, the dumpers are the successful bounty hunters that will qualify for any bounty campaign no matter how hard they make the bounty to limit participants. If few people are to share the same amount of tokens and they decide to dump, the effect will be more dangerous than more people sharing the same amount of tokens and few deciding to dump the coins.

[Rob768]

I think that it would be better if the number of participants will be fixed. Also the tokens of bountyhunters should be locked for some months after listing on exchanges. After that there shouldn't be any dumps

[el_lobo]

A limit does not want an ico operator if they operate a bounty campaign.
But to prevent a dump of the bounty participants, at least 80-90% of the bounty should be paid out in eth or btc.
For me, this is the only way to prevent a dump from hunters.

[gohan21]

It's normal to dump participants on bounties Because they need money on their project they promote they want to paid after promoting their business. If they pay btc or eth on every ico on project they will not dumped tokens they giving.

[xianbits]

Bounty restrictions can fix few problems facing project price drop after listed on exchange,

1) if any dev want to avoid dumpers then they must limit bounty participants, the limit the participants they better ,if a bounty only request 300 participants at highest and the 300 became a dumper it won't hurt ,unlike 2000+ participants

2) devs should forget bounty when still on ICO ,allow bounties after your project finished ICO successfully and make your project is doing great before allowing bounty
This are just ideas ,if you have anything better please drop on here and let's share.

For number one, it doesn't make sense. It's still the same. Whether 300 or 1000, same thing will happen. Example, the budget is 1,500,000 tokens. 300 participants will get 5000 tokens each (not considering the rank or number of followers). 1000 participants will get 1500 tokens each but still would sum up to 1,500,000 token potential for dumping. It is still best to pay bounty hunters in fiat or eth.

well, i'm happy if the bounty hunter participant gets paid with fiat or eth.

but it will not be fair to some people, especially to investors, they will feel it will not be good. i also don't really agree with this, because the price of tokens that we will get will probably be greater than eth or fiat that is given to us.

I think it is just your opinion that investors won't be comfortable that bounty participants will be paid with ETH or fiat. I don't think it is the case. I understand that our reward could be greater if we are to be paid with the token we are promoting but looking at the trend, it is also not the case. But if you may, you can use the ETH paid to you to buy for the token you are promoting and hold. That way, we can be more confident that the price of the token can't be dumped so hard.

[jebul2]

Bounty restrictions can fix few problems facing project price drop after listed on exchange,

1) if any dev want to avoid dumpers then they must limit bounty participants, the limit the participants they better ,if a bounty only request 300 participants at highest and the 300 became a dumper it won't hurt ,unlike 2000+ participants

2) devs should forget bounty when still on ICO ,allow bounties after your project finished ICO successfully and make your project is doing great before allowing bounty
This are just ideas ,if you have anything better please drop on here and let's share.

For number one, it doesn't make sense. It's still the same. Whether 300 or 1000, same thing will happen. Example, the budget is 1,500,000 tokens. 300 participants will get 5000 tokens each (not considering the rank or number of followers). 1000 participants will get 1500 tokens each but still would sum up to 1,500,000 token potential for dumping. It is still best to pay bounty hunters in fiat or eth.

well, i'm happy if the bounty hunter participant gets paid with fiat or eth.

but it will not be fair to some people, especially to investors, they will feel it will not be good. i also don't really agree with this, because the price of tokens that we will get will probably be greater than eth or fiat that is given to us.

I think it is just your opinion that investors won't be comfortable that bounty participants will be paid with ETH or fiat. I don't think it is the case. I understand that our reward could be greater if we are to be paid with the token we are promoting but looking at the trend, it is also not the case. But if you may, you can use the ETH paid to you to buy for the token you are promoting and hold. That way, we can be more confident that the price of the token can't be dumped so hard.

yes, very agree bro with your opinion because it is paid by using ETH or BTC if in my opinion it is very detrimental, it's better to pay with the tokens they promote and see further developments in the trade and we hold first.