Bounty Campaigns now trial and error method

[forexandcryptoauditor]

Hi All,

This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?

[1714847242]

1714847242

[1714847242]

1714847242

[1714847242]

1714847242

[patz22]

There are a lot of indicators that we can look for a project to ensure the success of project, from team members, project itself, whitepaper, roadmap etc. but still we can only identify if the project will run or not until the end of sale even with a working project before raising funds is still not an assurance for success. So with the title of this thread, Bounty and ICO/IEO or whatever it is, it is still a trial and error.

[Raflesia]

It is very difficult if the project does not get the expected funding because the project also needs funds to build their products so they often make sales through IEO or ICO.
From my point of view it is looking at the whole project in order to know which one should be invested whether the project is good or not, the important thing is that investors already understand it because the project does not have funds will surely die.

[jakelyson]

This is true especially late 2018 and 2019 when there is totally lack of trust in new projects. New projects cannot even get enough funding to cover soft cap. But since this has been a problem for so long, bounty hunters should be wiser by now. If they want a secure payment, then they should demand that they get paid weekly with ETH or BTC or other cryptos that is already in the market. Otherwise, it will always be a risk promoting startups.

[jossiel]

Every time I read the terms of some bounties, they always say that allocation will happen at the end of ICO. And that means, if then project sale fails, there is no more payment to be expected.

Projects should be serious with the thing they have started whether it will not reach the target cap, they will continue it.

[btcdie]

When viewed from current market conditions, projects that have the potential to choose not to launch beforehand and wait for conditions to improve. That's why too many projects are failing at the moment, especially investors' fear of scam projects, and for now most of them are just crap. Solution, innovation, and team activity are one of the factors in project success. We can see from the objectives of the project and how important it is for the public, especially in terms of usage. Bounty hunter is currently only paid for, as we often call sh*tcoin, promoting projects for several weeks at a pay of only $2-7.

[electronicash]

we shouldn't be joining a campaign of projects that isn't really doable and i think its best to accept only BTC from these teams to see how serious they are with their projects. it would appear these teams are just doing trial and error and if they didn't get the softcap they can just abandoned the project. bounty hunters wasted time without gain. escrow the BTC for the marketing/promotion campaign and NOT the tokens.

[Palider]

Joining in Altcoins Bounty now are very risky because we don't have any assurance that they will pay us,  even the coin that with no real market value are escrow.  Because campaign organizer can easly scam the collected funds for developing the coins or tokens. That's why we need now new bounty reward distribution.

MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?

This is good idea to find legit ico or ieo because we know that even the funds are not raised campaign will have a backup funds to support that coins.

[iconoclast]

Lately I have been doing Bounties on KuCoinPlay. They have the advantage of not only having an automated reporting system but also you know every Bounty you get you will be able to monetise since every coin they do is already trading on KuCoin Exchange. It is nice to know that your efforts will produce a reward.

[nicster551]

Not really a trial and error method but I must say that we should always pick the best quality of a project. Most bounty hunter prefers quantity over quality because they didnt knew what project will succeed or give them profit. I do the opposite, I prefer quality over quantity. Even I only do one bounties, it doesnt matter as long as that I believe in that project will succeed.

[DaMut]

even with mvp nobody can guarantee us the project will keep moving because the development requires a lot of money and time, from the start before participating or investing our money into something. we need to know what will they do and what they can do if they can not get their desired level of funding, we also need to know their source of income outside of the sales event if they want to build something that will require a lot of time to fulfill. lastly but not least, we need to know the demand.

[tsaroz]

Not reaching the hard cap is so much wide spread these days that I have stopped promoting for ICOs. The last one I promoted Bitbond is a popular name in crypto industry, one of th oldest and reputable P2P lending site based on Germany and issuing a fixed rate STO with a license from german authorities. There's nothing I thought could go wrong. But the project was short of it's cap on the end date. Though they distributed some tokens, they were dust compared to how much users gave their effort to.

[Chainsmokers]

we shouldn't be joining a campaign of projects that isn't really doable and i think its best to accept only BTC from these teams to see how serious they are with their projects. it would appear these teams are just doing trial and error and if they didn't get the softcap they can just abandoned the project. bounty hunters wasted time without gain. escrow the BTC for the marketing/promotion campaign and NOT the tokens.

Many projects eventually fail and the softcap is not achieved, then the developer leaves the project and for bounty hunters they only waste time to promote the project and get nothing. Indeed, for the time being, maybe a project that dares to take the step of paying eth or btc will show that the project is really serious about developing the project they are bringing in and I think many investors will join.

[rosezionjohn]

Bounty and other marketing campaigns are all trial and error in my opinion since there are no sure fire strategy that can guarantee a successful ICO. From what I know, most serious projects now have their private funding already for the initial development of the project and  some of them even have their MVP ready before they even launch their bounty campaign and public token sale.

From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?

The points to look for has been answered many times already but the way most people look at new projects now, the only way they would invest is when new projects will be listed on bigger exchanges (IEO).

[VDraci]

Hi All,

This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?

The project teams are to be blame for their failure, many of them failed to do their own research about why many projects are failing and they end up listing on bad exchanges even after bounty hunters warned them not to use a particular exchange

[cryp24x]

I think we can consider that also a scam project. Why? In the first place, before you create a project, you have to know all the aspects  of the project. You will put up a team that is credible and reliable enough to push through the project under any circumstances. A project that will really solve a problem. Being unprepared is an indication of a scam project which focus on funds and profits. They don't really have a plan. They have the roadmap and every part of that should be planned and executed carefully.

[Thomas-s]

the only thing that interests investors is profit. so now investors do not invest in new projects, because they know that now in 90 percent of cases new projects will bring only losses and no one can give any guarantees that the project will be successful or profitable. Now investors are waiting for the most secure way to invest in new projects.

[makolz26]

the only thing that interests investors is profit. so now investors do not invest in new projects, because they know that now in 90 percent of cases new projects will bring only losses and no one can give any guarantees that the project will be successful or profitable. Now investors are waiting for the most secure way to invest in new projects.

How they will invest for such things that doesn't give them ROI, so it's really becoming hard nowadays to run a legit project as it's hard to attract users now due to the trauma from the past projects, scam projects, shitcoins, no ROI at all and the project's team doesn't care about investors.

[Lagduf]

Hi All,

This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?

They should but if you are thinking about funding is the main point in the crypto development and it's a big wrong. When you are skilful and you can create a new idea, consensus, design or something else without needing a lot of money. Byteball has created DAG consensus which has already used by major coins like NANO and IOTA without need fundings from the investors. It has even created by a single developer. MVP is a very important thing. MVP will represent how much experience that already had by the developer and how good he was in developing the MVP and make it becomes useful.

[qomariah95]

All projects go on like this now. It's enough to just capitalize on ideas, raise funds, not reach targets, bounty hunters aren't paid for failing to raise funds. Things like this have often happened, even good projects that will be difficult to pay bounty hunter. If they don't get investors who invest in their projects.