Bounties with limitations pays higher rewards

[guoyu78]

I think most bounties don't do it this way because more participants means more exposure of the project. Your suggestions are good but i think if a certain bounty doesn't limit the participants to increase each and everyone's rewards then at least increase the bounty allocation to make it fair.

I have actually participated in some bounties that operated that way, just the way most bounty campaigns limit thenumber of signature campaign participants is the same way they limit the number of bounty hunters, but I think most companies that does that are projects that already has funds to run their company.

They just need little more to make it a success, so they don’t really need too much campaign, these projects usually ends in like 2 to 4 weeks, unlike those other ones that are raising funds from zero and extends the time of campaign o almost 9 months before they finish their ICO.

[dragonvslinux]

I think this is also true for KYC bounties, as it's a form of limitation in itself. I've noticed enough KYC bounties that are more rewarding, no doubt due to it's restrictions.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, in fact I disagree with KYC for bounties, but the average KYC bounty value is notably higher than the average bounty value.

[Saisher]

RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A BOUNTY CAMPAIGN = HIGHER PAYOUTS

The limitations can be done in two ways:

1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.

Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign

2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.

Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.

We really should have limitations on the participants, I've participated in a bounty campaign where there are no restrictions people are joining and admin keeps them as long as they can report, I end up getting $8 worth of the stakes because of the so many participants and that's over two months of campaign, can you imagine that.

[der_troll]

It is true, because the big projects know exactly what they want from participants and are doing harder limitations to protect the whole bounty from fraud participants. I also mentioned that really big projects do not have huge bounty funds, but they always pay and you can trade those coins.

[jouns]

What benefits will the project have if the bounty manager limits the number of participants in the bounty campaign? None benefits. They pursue only one goal - more advertising for the same money.

[maculeth]

you can see in a good bounty they will certainly give a limit, and also for a bounty signature. if you see the bounty in bountyhive.io, there are usually often limited bounties and the quota of participants is always very quickly fulfilled because the project is really good.

[CAPT.DEADPOOL]

I think there are not enough bounties that pay big rewards so there is also a risky opportunity in the bounty bounty because many bounty scams are showing up and the low price of bitcoin or higher is high other new projects will be affected by the price to tell if the market collapsed and the holders and investors are losing money so others are so lazy to join the bounty because the rewards are small with the encounters just like it's been too late bounty and ultimately scam the bounty or so their project is not successful and other reasons do not reach hardcap so risky bounty is great.

[TWW]

What benefits will the project have if the bounty manager limits the number of participants in the bounty campaign? None benefits. They pursue only one goal - more advertising for the same money.

you are wrong, when the manager limits the number of participants then it will make each participant's reward big. and the benefits for the manager can support the big names of the managers, the better. it becomes important for managers to still get the trust of the community that has been built.

[Xclusive5]

RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A BOUNTY CAMPAIGN = HIGHER PAYOUTS

The limitations can be done in two ways:

1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.

Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign

2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.

Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.

Often times, bounties with limitation do bring higher reward and at the same time, there has been some bounties with limitation that doesn't bring higher reward because of infinitesimal bounty pool. Higher reward in bounty depends largely on the bounty pool of a particular project and the quality of the project itself.

[Vishnu.Reang]

I agree with you on the first part (Quantative ), but not on the second (Qualitative ). But even if they limit the number of participants, there is no guarantee that they will get high quality participants. There are a number of scammers here, who will enroll in to the social media bounty using their dozens of FB and Twitter accounts. And now coming to the second part, if they set a threshold, there is no guarantee that those accounts which are able to satisfy those requirement will be having high quality. What if the bounty hunter had just purchased those accounts, from someone else.

But I agree that it will be good for the bounty hunters. The payouts per participants will rise, although still there is no surety that one user will register with only one account.

[Aniwura]

Some projects want large number of participants in order to create more audience and attract potential investors towards their project, which is why they do not get bothered even if they have hundreds of thousands of participants.
Well, there are quite good number of such bounty that succeeded, but also know that some of them did not succeed. So it is a game of chance.

[Metall303]

There are many such companies with limits, but they put too big limits. if they put a limit of 200 participants on facebook or twitter, it would be much more interesting than the companies that exist now. I have not seen a single company in which the established limit of participants was reached

[Mahanton]

There are many such companies with limits, but they put too big limits. if they put a limit of 200 participants on facebook or twitter, it would be much more interesting than the companies that exist now. I have not seen a single company in which the established limit of participants was reached

They dont limit because they do need maximum exposure of their project thats why most of them doesnt really implement such rule.
This is why its being flooded by lots of members on each bounty program and make the rewards even more lesser as the member counts
rises up so its not a surprising thing.

[soramon]

Maybe it depens on what bounties is running. I think social media campaign doesnot need limitation because bigger participants means bigger attraction. Higher reward achieve from less participants like signature, content creator, etc.

[coin-investor]

RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A BOUNTY CAMPAIGN = HIGHER PAYOUTS

The limitations can be done in two ways:

1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.

Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign

2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.

Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.

I'll pick the first one it guarantees that all participants will get high rewards to compare to number two because so many bounty hunters had a lot of followers and connections in their social media account, I experienced participating in a campaign with a limited number of participants and it's really profitable for bounty hunters.

[awakpane]

In my opinion, if a project bounties limits participants, it is most likely that the project pays a higher prize. other than that the price of the token is also worth quite high.

[fullhdpixel]

absolutelly right, few participant mean more rewards will we get, because divide by few people, not divide over 1k people.

This was only working for campaigns when ICO had not become rampant then and they were meeting their target easily even with very few participants most especially from participants that have very large friends database on their social media handle but this method has now become unproductive to ICO has few participants could no longer get them their softcap again and not to talk of hardcap, so they have to extend it to as much as participants as possible, which is why many of us participating in ICO now get little token for doing a job for so long, no ico can ever go through this method again.

[maldini]

This regulation already exists, but not all bounty managers implement it and in my opinion it is quite effective in reducing spammers in several bounties.
I am also very pleased that all bounty managers will implement it, especially well-known bounty managers like Sylon, yahoo, etc.

[roosbit]

For bounty hunters this limitation is a good thing as you can easily calculate how much you can possibly be paid and gets better if bounty manager goes through all submissions to reward participants according to effort and content exposure.

On second thought if the majority of these bounty hunters have shitty content it denies the project the advertisement it needed, so quantity is not always better than quality!

[Gabmot]

Well, this may be true to some extent. But, it's isn't all about it. Know it, even some bounties that have done this or even more have also failed to fulfill their own end of the deal. Why because,  bounty payment lies so much on the team responsible for a project. So the team is more important for me.