Should Bounty Participants Be Capped ?

[badykvik]

Some bounties have more than 5000 people participating in their Telegram campaign bounty (My case study) with total $20,000 in token to be shared.
Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?

[1713573787]

1713573787

[1713573787]

1713573787

[1713573787]

1713573787

[1713573787]

1713573787

[1713573787]

1713573787

[dodziu]

Capping bounty participants will surely help the bounty hunters to earn more however, the issue of large participants only affect the signature bounty hunters more than any other campaign because they can promote as many project as possible but the signature campaign can only promote one project at a time.

[fourpiece]

Then they should increase the bounty on telegram limit the participants to 1000. So everyone would get fair rewards.
We cant deny that some participants have multi accounts on telegram.

[VanDeinsberg12]

Then they should increase the bounty on telegram limit the participants to 1000. So everyone would get fair rewards.
We cant deny that some participants have multi accounts on telegram.

if you watching a lot of tg groups in some icos and there were thousands of bot. I can say only some accounts are not erased by the system.

But the bounty participants should be capped to ensure there will be much good quality participants.
Just like when signature gets capped and it will be so easy to monitor the participant.
OP, i think there must be a maximum cap for participant.

[feryjhie]

Some bounties have more than 5000 people participating in their Telegram campaign bounty (My case study) with total $20,000 in token to be shared.
Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?

if the bounty participant capped then it just good for the bounties hunter while it's not too good for the ico company.
because if the participants are not restricted it means the project will be more famous than with a small number of participants

[badykvik]

Well said by everyone but i think the signature campaign bounties are the ones that suffers that effect most whereby 1500 participant will need to share $30,000 for 8 weeks programs.
Some might conclude that people should leave the bounty if the pay is not good but such conclusion is an error because bounty hunters are party of the system and we should be considered and treated as important persons.
I think signature campaign bounties participants deserves a better pay and such might not take effect if not capped.

[batang_bitcoin]

This will be the verdict of the bounty manager and the project management. I've already seen some that has cap for their participants and others are conducting a first come-first serve basis. If you are worried with the limitation of a bounty and you see it's unlikely to cap their participants, you shouldn't join that in the first place. They want to expand and add more participants because for them, it's somehow effective to reach out more potential investors.

[joniboini]

In general, participants would want as many rewards as possible, while the ICO/IEO/projects marketing team would want as much good exposure as possible. They don't need to hire spammers or low-quality marketers. In the end, I think there's no need to put a cap as most bounty hunters won't be able to produce a good exposure. For example, a bounty hunter with 30k followers that he got from follow to follow won't bring any marketing impact to the ICO as most of the time his tweet/rt would be exposed to other hunters, and not potential investors. Not saying that there are no bounty hunters that want to invest in ICO/IEO, but the possibility is small.

I think, instead of putting a cap, they should only choose to run a good bounty, such as content creation, signature, community engagement like what LTO or Elrond does, or platform advertising (that needs to be moderate heavily). Based on my own experience of managing a bounty, there's probably under 50 accounts that could produce good advertising and the rest of them are spamming. So, if they want to be really strict, they only need to deny those low-quality accounts. However, those bounty hunters won't like it and start slandering them.

[diazepam666]

None of the campaign campaign managers for bounties have some limits for paying tokens. To manage the signature campaigns and bounties paying in Ethereum or any listed big tokens will alone have the limits for sure.
May be forum DT1 can be enforce some rules to open the campaigns. It will reduce the spams and increase the quality campaigns to attain this forum's marketplace and many things.

[shoreno]

I dont think its about the participant .  In sig campaigns that pays in btc ,there are campaigns that only 3 to 5 participants but the pay rate is not really impressive  . There are also campaign that have a participant of over 40 to 60 but the payrate is still higher than any common campaigns .  I think that is the same as on bounty campaigns .  The campaign  can hire huge number of users but they still can pay descent if they want to

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

The problem is the bounty participants aren't encouraging the projects to capped down on the numbers of participants they should employed. For a retweet/share campaign which involves writing of original post or tweets when there isn't a post to share or retweet instead of participants to create original post about the project, they engage in copy & paste of past post by projects or plagiarism of other participants works. Same problem can be found in signature, translation, article campaigns etc.

Also most bounty participants don't have real friends, all the numbers we see are bought followers or subscribers that's why must campaign prefer quantity over quality so at least they get more exposure even though it means paying pennies.

[CryptoBry]

Some bounties have more than 5000 people participating in their Telegram campaign bounty (My case study) with total $20,000 in token to be shared. Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more. This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties. Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?

I have no problem with the Telegram bounty not being capped but it is the social media that I am concerned about because this is where almost everyday tasks are required and if unlimited participants can be allowed then we can end with little for our hard work in sharing the project. This is one area that calls for balancing...and it is the job of the bounty manager to determine how many hunters should be allowed. At any rate, we can choose the project that we wanted to promote in the first place so we are partly in control.

[bering]

If talking about telegram bounty campaign indeed this usually have plenty of members even if supposse can they want unlimited members joining their telegram channel because they might be consider more people to joining then they can increase their popularity projects through that apps

[perla]

Some bounties have more than 5000 people participating in their Telegram campaign bounty (My case study) with total $20,000 in token to be shared.
Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?

Yes for me. because if manager not limit participants, sometime it will give very low rewards for others. So i always see first how many participants that already join in campaign because i only do signature campaign.

[joniboini]

If talking about telegram bounty campaign indeed this usually have plenty of members even if supposse can they want unlimited members joining their telegram channel because they might be consider more people to joining then they can increase their popularity projects through that apps

To be honest, I think most investors won't care about how many members joined their ICO/channel. Most of the time bounty requires participants to wear a tag and then post on other groups as a form of marketing, which in turn could lead to a ban or something similar from the owner of that group if you're doing it too aggressively. If you hire 5 thousand hunters to do that, your project image would likely turn into a negative one as it would certainly feel spammy.

Yes for me. because if manager not limit participants, sometime it will give very low rewards for others. So i always see first how many participants that already join in campaign because i only do signature campaign.

Most of the time, the signature campaign got around 25% from the pool. If there are 200 participants (some manager capped it at this number), each of them will get around 0.01225% (assuming they have the same rank). That's good enough for you?

[dodziu]

I am now seeing this topic as important since it affects almost every member of this forum in one way or the other.
Signature bounty participants should be capped to either 50 or 100 at most.
We are all here to make suggestion and it is likely the bounty managers might come across this thread and make this forum signature bounty hunters happier.
There is a bounty on going that is paying out monthly based on stakes, it already has over 1000 members, each legendary members would earn $12.5 per month based on the current market exchange of that coin.
I think there is need to actually review the bounty system

[gullu]

yeah of course, it should be capped. Mostly bounty hunters won't earn anything in participating campaigns like telegram bounty. Because they  receive only very few tokens and more over when its taken to exchange and converted into btc or eth , hunters wont earn anything because of transfer fee. So I generally dont participate in such type of stupid bounties.

[Ridwan Fauzi]

Agree they should, the distribution of tokens after the bounty campaign ended was a bit complicated. Especially for those bounty hunters who didn't know how to share it or how to count the stakes and etc. At least for those people who didn't know it, they will assume that the bounty manager is not fair because their work is not balanced with the income they get.

[milewilda]

Some bounties have more than 5000 people participating in their Telegram campaign bounty (My case study) with total $20,000 in token to be shared.
Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?

The entire decision would depend on the project owner itself if he would decide to cut-off participants when it comes to bounty yet we know that
owners will always aim for maximum exposure which means they dont really care on how many bounty hunters would able to join up on any program task.
Therefore, this is already a common result which it do floods out where it do normally results on lesser bounty.

[superving]

Signature campaign should be capped or there should be limit on how many participants are allowed to join, and lastly the only full members are allowed because of signature they are carrying and avatart, but still it depends on management on what kind of rules they will implement.