Limited participants is the best option for bounty campaigns this days

[hatshepsut93]

From the point of view of ICO scams, the more participants the better, it's not like they quality of advertising would increase dramatically if you limit the number of participants. Maybe if they were legitimate businesses and could afford to pay well for advertisement, then it would make sense to make small campaigns.

Perhaps it's time to realize that bounty campaigns are a shitty way to make money, and things will only get worse because alt season will never come.

[hahay]

Bad indeed, for the bounty campaign itself but at least the project has allocated funds so basically they have their own limits on how many bounty participants can join and also, as well as they really want that because with many participants there is at least a promotion carried out will wider and can reach many sectors and of course it is their hope that popularity can be obtained to make projects grow faster.

[yazher]

I think they still limit the users of this community by joining their campaign especially in the signature campaign on altcoin section but the limit is still high if we calculate all the possible coins that the participants received that will end up divided to a small amount resulting to not worthy of participating at the campaign at all. what they need to do here is make some strict requirements that those members that have some capability of promoting the campaign well can join so that they can really get what they deserved by promoting the project professionally.

[dunfida]

It seems many new bounty hunters are joining this forum weekly or monthly, every single bounty campaign is full of thousands of participants, my claim is some bounty managers don't care how many you really are, even if it's just 5$ for each bounty participants, this is plain bad, I remember telling bubbalex to reduce Cartesi signature participants and I'm glad he listened, if not the reward would be very bad....

Its not always on managers discretion but on the project team itself because they are the ones who do set out rules and knowing that bounty managers are just workers to for the said project or just been paid up to handle out the program but in general rules or likings then the team would always have the final verdict.

Its surprising that a certain manager do hear out suggestions from its members because usually most project do aim for maximum exposure which means there no limit on participant and thats really bad thing when it comes to rewards because we know that it would go smaller as people do join.

This is just part of struggle and problems to be faced when you are a bounty hunter.

[$crypto$]

From the point of view of ICO scams, the more participants the better, it's not like they quality of advertising would increase dramatically if you limit the number of participants. Maybe if they were legitimate businesses and could afford to pay well for advertisement, then it would make sense to make small campaigns.

Perhaps it's time to realize that bounty campaigns are a shitty way to make money, and things will only get worse because alt season will never come.

But now the average participant's bounty program does not want to be limited because it is a request from the project so there is no limitation in the promotion that the hunters have done but we return to the manager who manages it so that they can manage the bounty that has been launched.

Take a look now if there is a bounty campaign there is already a price like the IQ.qash example which is so wide to join while the allocation is very small, of course this cannot be expected to pay very much for the hunter.

[StephenJH]

You are right about that, there are a lot of members, who are joining on the forum every day and it seems these numbers are getting up day by day. Maybe the task of a manager is to manage the bounty campaign but if he doesn't want to do it or doesn't care about that. That means they take only care about number of participants of the bounty campaign.

[Santri]

in my opinion limiting all participants depends on the allocation given, but limiting the participants who join is indeed very beneficial for the participants who join the project.

[TimeTeller]

in my opinion limiting all participants depends on the allocation given, but limiting the participants who join is indeed very beneficial for the participants who join the project.

And that depends on the manager holding the campaign.
Some want to have big number of participants because it will be good for the promotion of their project.
However, if the manager or the project is considering the payment to its participants, they won't accept large number of participants.

Take a look now if there is a bounty campaign there is already a price like the IQ.qash example which is so wide to join while the allocation is very small, of course this cannot be expected to pay very much for the hunter.

That's one perfect example of a bounty campaign that may give small reward to its participants because they have fixed allotment and if it is shared by many participants, one can end up very small amount.
They just kept on accepting participants without a limit. I don't think that is good for all participants.
If you are a bounty hunter, you have to weigh if that is for you even if it is very promising or jut find another one.

[DarkDays]

Most bounty participants are absolutely shocking bad, and yet they're still awarded stakes.

If bounty managers actually did their job correctly and only offered stakes to those that have produced meaningful results for the client project, then that would also improve the rewards for all those that deserve them. Anybody producing absolute gutteral spam shouldn't get any reward for their efforts whatsoever.

Maybe one of the main things would be to message the bounty manager right when the bounty starts, and work with them to clarify the rules to ensure this is the case. I guarantee 90% of most bounty tokens are snagged by spamming mult-accounters, rather than those that really helped to market the project—simply due to lazy or overburdened bounty managers.

If you want it fixed, it's best that this occurs right at the start of the bounty.

[btcholder]

It seems many new bounty hunters are joining this forum weekly or monthly, every single bounty campaign is full of thousands of participants, my claim is some bounty managers don't care how many you really are, even if it's just 5$ for each bounty participants, this is plain bad, I remember telling bubbalex to reduce Cartesi signature participants and I'm glad he listened, if not the reward would be very bad....

If bounty reward are really low then in that case it's rally a best option. Cause everyday bounty participate are increasing in this forum. I remember when i first stared bounty hunting only few people participated in signature campaign and maximum 200/300 participated for social media campaign. Now sometimes i see 1500/2000 people participate in social media campaign. Not just social media but also signature, video, article, telegram etc campaign have huge participants. So it's better to limited participants those bounty projects which have really low budget otherwise no one will benefit from bounty.

[suryapro]

if you see an increase in bounty participants every week, it shows that this forum, there are already many fans, and this is a good thing of course. even though it will actually have a negative impact on the acquisition of prizes in the campaigns that our participate in.

[NS-Soul]

It seems many new bounty hunters are joining this forum weekly or monthly, every single bounty campaign is full of thousands of participants, my claim is some bounty managers don't care how many you really are, even if it's just 5$ for each bounty participants, this is plain bad, I remember telling bubbalex to reduce Cartesi signature participants and I'm glad he listened, if not the reward would be very bad....

Some of bounty manager they limit participants on 100 so they will have an equal rewards for bounty hunter, it was a good idea so that the value of each bounty reward is right and not just props on their wallet as of now the reward for bounty hunter is always reduced everytime I don't understand why they always think that the value of coin drop because of bounty hunter.

[Rengga Jati]

...

The best bounty is those paid on BT. And of course, they are limited participants. This is true, to reach this, we must try and do more efforts, more than usual in order to compete with many members in this forum, to be the most suitable member to be chosen by the BM.

However if it is about the usual bounty paid with their new coin or token. I personally agree that the participants should be limited. However, the team may choose not to limit the participants because they think that more participants, more promotions to be spread. And then, giving the next task after the bounty end can decrease the number of participants. One of them is doing KYC, fulfilling more forms, and others. When there are some participants that miss the ways to do KYC or fulfill the task, they will get no payment. Is this a good idea? And I really hate this way when I still did bounties with new token payment.

Actually, a bounty manager should be fair to the participants. Limiting participants is a good idea in order to make it fairer to the members. It will also reduce the spamming (although very little chance). You may need only 200 participants in the maximum numbers, however, of course, the rules and regulations should be more strick.

[pikkie]

It seems many new bounty hunters are joining this forum weekly or monthly, every single bounty campaign is full of thousands of participants, my claim is some bounty managers don't care how many you really are, even if it's just 5$ for each bounty participants, this is plain bad, I remember telling bubbalex to reduce Cartesi signature participants and I'm glad he listened, if not the reward would be very bad....

Some of bounty manager they limit participants on 100 so they will have an equal rewards for bounty hunter, it was a good idea so that the value of each bounty reward is right and not just props on their wallet as of now the reward for bounty hunter is always reduced everytime I don't understand why they always think that the value of coin drop because of bounty hunter.

I think not all of it is due to the influence of the bounty campaign participants because when a project is developed that has a function and usability by many people it will provide a price that will be stable while if the project does not have a useful development then it is certain the price will collapse.

[numpadxx5]

It seems many new bounty hunters are joining this forum weekly or monthly, every single bounty campaign is full of thousands of participants, my claim is some bounty managers don't care how many you really are, even if it's just 5$ for each bounty participants, this is plain bad, I remember telling bubbalex to reduce Cartesi signature participants and I'm glad he listened, if not the reward would be very bad....

i agree, there should be a limit for every bounty campaign participants to make fair with their effort on working for months , like example for social media campaign with the small amount of allocation and thousand of participants they will just earn small amount. But we cannot blame them, it still better for the project to be advertise more.

[Samayuki]

It should be like that, with limited participants the prize hunter will get a big prize if the project is truly successful in the market. especially in the signature campaign section, for example like the project that I participated in was a good project, even in a few weeks this project could attract hundreds of participants in the signature slot section.

You talking about ARCS bounty right? Well I'm thinking about joining after Relictum Pro ends but yesterday I checked the spreadsheet of ARCS bounty out and I was shocked that over 140 bounty hunters already joined this campaign, a bounty with 30k worth allocation with that much participants is way out of my league

[jossiel]

The bounty manager's task is to manage the bounty and if the project developers have their own rules, the manager have to implement it together with his rules so, if the devs don't care about the number of participants and they want as many as they can.

They will accept participants as much as they can. They will not care about the participants cut if you'll get $5-$10 until the end of the bounty. What's important to them is to maximize their exposure in the forum.

Exactly like that. They don't care about the amount of money each bounty hunter receives, they only care about the number of participants in their bounty and make their project more popular. Today the budget of bounty is only about $ 10k but there are thousands of participants, after that the price of the token is reduced many times and each person receives only $ 1-2. Really funny with the bounty now

And the actual budget that use is coming from the token they made so it's like nothing to them, they will pay a free token from their pockets and the bounty hunters will come and go no matter how much the cut will be.

Bounties didn't evolved for the projects, they became cheaper and might become the cheapest if there will still be some projects in the future. 2016-2017 the budget were likely hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

[rahmatullah9305]

Having many of participants can promote the site or project is an advantage for the site or project owner but this is not what many bounty hunters want. The main reason is the small amount of token or coin each participant get because the allocation must be distributed to thousand of participants, especially on social media campaign.

In this case I strongly agree with the phrase you say, because I myself have also felt a small reward on a campaign just because of the large number of participants, so obviously this is not desired by any hunter.

As experience, I have seen a number of valid bounty programs that have a limited number of participants and are usually managed by experienced and professional managers. The bounty program was carried out to increase their popularity because basically their products could be traded. But you will find many bounty programs that dont limit participants because they want to get a lot of investor interest in the product because they realize that the chances of success are very small.

Yes, and in the case of products we also have to see whether the products of the project have started to become famous or not, if for example the products of the project have become famous, the chances of success for the project will look very large so that the manager holding the project can limit the number of new participants to enter , and vice versa, if a project realizes the chances of success are very small because the product is not yet well known, then the manager will also not make a limit to the number of campaign participants.

[fuer44]

I think it's a good option, because the team has actually set a bounty pool, and maybe that hasn't changed. if the participants are too many and not limited, then the rewards that will be received by participants will be few and many will say that the project is scam because there is little reward.

[bakasabo]

Most bounty participants are absolutely shocking bad, and yet they're still awarded stakes.

Anybody producing absolute gutteral spam shouldn't get any reward for their efforts whatsoever.

But what if this "gutteral spam" is a just an "informational noise". What if this spam is only needed to create project more recognizable for web search engines like Google/Yahoo/Bing/etc ?

I remember such scam project as TokenGo. They give rewards for everything what has connection to their projects name. You could even write articles likes "shfsdlflsdjf #TokenGo sfjsdf" and still get reward. That time, they spammed everything, every (at least Russian) social media community and etc. I believe that lots of naive people sent their money in exchange for tokens.