Bounty hunters killed ICO?

[swiftbits]

It's the marketing failure, investors will stay longer if they have clear vision of success from a platform, Coins can be alive if it's really active and developing new projects to attract more people. Bounty hunters only got a small percentage from a project budget, they join to earn a reasonable value of the token, they won't sell in cheaper.

[1714551838]

1714551838

[1714551838]

1714551838

[1714551838]

1714551838

[o.ogurlu]

No, I don't think bounty hunters killed ICO. In my opinion, the biggest reason for the almost disappearance of ICOs is that their investors do not trust ICOs. Especially in the last two years, too many ICOs have turn into to scam or have been canceled. In this case, the reliability of the ICOs was significantly reduced. Another reason is that many ICOs are no longer profitable. As a result, many investors are joining the ICOs to make high profits. However, due to the current market situation, ICO tokens generally are not rise significantly in the short term. In this case, investors can not make high profits.

[Ss4sukE]

it's not entirely the fault of the prize hunter, because the person who holds the token is not just the prize hunter but there are still other token holders including the project team. so I don't blame prize hunters if the price of tokens when listing on the market goes down quite sharply and not all prize hunters kill ico.

[wendiar19]

I don't agree, because some projects have decreased even when the bounty hunter allocation has not been shared.
it's just an excuse because they don't have demand in the market, so the project itself is making rekt itself because it doesn't attract investors or traders.

[jerrison]

1) a project collected funds,
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.

True or False?

The above pointed points are facts that can not be denied. The honest truth is that, the bounty hunters are stil under the project team no matter the number of people that exists wihtin the bounty hunting community. The Bounty Hunters plays by the laid down rules of the team. It is the team that should therefore put in place, measure that will curtail the excessess that will arise from the bounty hunters and not to blame them for the wrecking of ICOs.

[Banrkim]

There was a project that issued two tokens. A normal one and Bonus token. All the bonuses including bounties were given in that token. Also the team distinguished bonus for buying more tokens and bounties. That was smart move imho.

[EXtremeAEX]

1) a project collected funds,
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.

True or False?

1. In essence, the PROJECT NEED a bounty campaign. It is precisely because there is a demand for bounty hunters that they exist. So it’s important not to forget this moment.
2. No one ever forces and cannot force a project to conduct a bounty campaign.
3. Thousands of BH in most cases have only 1-2% of tokens from the entire pool. So, even if all BH simultaneously sell their tokens, this will not be able to greatly affect the price of a valuable token.
These are all fables invented for you. The price of a token at the beginning of trading often falls so sharply due to the fact that tokens are sold by Pre-ICO participants who bought tokens at a very low price. As a result, when the token enters the exchange, they have the opportunity to sell them at the prices at which the ICO was conducted, while making profit from the difference in value.
4. Investors, if they see that some crap is happening with the project,  generally don't invest money in it. And holding a bounty campaign is not crap.

Now that you have the answers and counterarguments, I hope you get the answer to your question.

Don't be a victim of such fables, always think for yourself.

[dtb.agency]

There was a project that issued two tokens. A normal one and Bonus token. All the bonuses including bounties were given in that token. Also the team distinguished bonus for buying more tokens and bounties. That was smart move imho.

If we mean the same project starting on E letter, guess who's advised them that. 
Cheers

[hongus]

I think ICO problems are their type of providence. In general, this is an old topic. Now IEO and hunters can not reduce the price if the project was on a good exchange. I think that hunters just do their job so that the world knows more about projects.

[boranes]

1) a project collected funds,
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.

True or False?

The above pointed points are facts that can not be denied.

1) If there was no audit, no one knows how many funds project collected.
2) How bounty hunters killed ICO because of funds allocation?
3) Bounty hunters can make price drop on short run, in the long run, their dump shouldn't have impact on token's price.
4) Investors lost money because they invested in projects which disappeared, fail to develop or poorly operated by not experienced team and they stop investing.

[zzortyx]

ICO is done by the team, not bounty hunters. Various bounty campaigns are also planned projects. Advertising the project is just a job for bounty hunters and they should at least earn something. I wouldn't blame them.

[wxxyrqa]

It is necessary to take into account the fact that the total pool on the company's Bounty very rarely exceeded 2 or 3% and therefore these volumes of coins were not very important when pricing in the cryptocurrency market.  You should take into account the fact that most investors invested their money in new projects with a 50 percent discount just to make money on sales after listing.  No one was completely worried about the projects.  In addition, today the participants of the Bounty companies receive a dozen or hundreds of times less reward than stipulated by the terms of many Bounty companies, and many generally block the reward for hunters, But nevertheless, coin prices are still falling and the Hunters cannot be blamed for the fall  prices.  If the team was not able to realize the full potential of the project, then you need to consider the team with the highest measure of lack of professionalism, and not look for the perpetrators in the other direction.

[lucky80]

I really hate this kind of question 

Most of you already said that bounty allocation is 1 or maybe the biggest one is 5 percent from the total token. Yes, the bounty allocation does not affect the price.

Have you check the team reserve? is it locked and transparently viewable on the blockchain? 

Have you checked the total fund collected? is it really 100 Mio collected or just words.

If you aren't able to check those then you invest in the wrong company.

We do need to watch those old standards that had been gone lately.

And that is not hunters faults. Hunters are also an investor.

[surgical_duude]

I don't think so because the total amount of tokens that bounty hunters get is only a small part of the project. Because of that, it does not cause ICOs to die, but they only exchange errors for bounty hunters. Just because of the poor projects with inexperienced team, the scammers that make ICOs die from the end of 2018.

[zenhu]

-snip-

it can also be avoided when his team pays bitcoin, ETH, or coins that are popular with bounty hunters. however, the coins they hold are sometimes below 10%. Well, in this case, not all bounty hunter mistakes. I think when the team has a good strategy for avoiding dumps, the best way is to pay them another coin.

Of course, paying all bounty hunter with popular altcoin make it stable after listed on exchange, and bounty hunter can calculate their estimate earning without complain why it so cheap, so far from the ICO price, etc.
Hopefully, for upcoming campaign many ICO use this method for the best solution with promotor/marketing and for themselves.

[zabir.brutov]

The whole problem of such a question is the lack of knowledge. Everyone is blaming bounty hunters because of their 0,05 percent of total tokens that dumped the price to -x10 from the token sale price. Wake up guys, the team is responsible and not bounty hunters.

[sl8]

If not true, why there's so big buthurt of bounty hunters? 

[Romeotom]

It's not true because bounty hunter just keep promoting a project bio but i know scam project killed ico now. Of the year two more the larger investor taking more scam project and loss their funds.

[Tylev]

Bounty hunters are least involved in the current decline in ICO projects. The only thing bounty hunters are often accused of is lowering the price of new tokens when they appear on the exchange due to their massive sale. This charge is untrue for many reasons. Early investors have more chances and opportunities to collapse the price of new tokens, but for some reason they are not blamed for this.
A very large level of fraud among these projects, as well as the general condition of the cryptocurrency market, led to the current state of the ICO to a greater extent. In addition, I would not say that the ICO has died. Projects have become much smaller, but the quality, in my opinion, has become even better.

[xOdiumNostrumx]

They indeed have a big impact on the price after the listing, but only if the project fails to list on a mid to large sized exchange where the buy volume would quite easily eat up the bounty sellers. So the projects should be aware of this and its partially their fault if they are unable to provide larger volume exchanges after the listing.