Solution to too many promoters

[Genemind]

I doubt this will happen, with a limited or allotted budget for promotion without limit for participants is beneficial for the team because they will have more exposure with a certain budget. That is why altcoin bounties with a fixed bounty pool have no limit in regards to participants, unlike bitcoin bounties which pay per participants instead of counting stakes per week.

[btc78]

Yeah i think bounties currently have low reward and now you mention it, the reason could be the number of participants.
Limiting the number of bounty participants is a good thing to be done, because it will attracting more qualify promoters due the high reward.

Meaning you will not make quality promotion because you only gathering small reward?
This is why Developers and even some managers care nothing about how much
You will going to receive as reward because they know that you are just making
promotion to complete your requirements and without even concern about the quality.
Look how you guys present your post in this thread,majority of you are bounty hunters that making
1-2 lines post that tackles the same what others says over and over.
Why not try to make quality even the allocated payments are lower?so
in the future dev will consider raising your income?

[lixer]

Bounty managers do not care about the number, they are just doing their job so there is no way that this could be done thanks to bounty managers, they could only follow orders. When we are talking about the team, why would they pay a lot more money to just few people versus paying small amount for thousands of people?

In the end the result is paying the same amount for them but in one of them they are getting a lot of people while in the other they are getting only few. Sure they could consider quality over quantity but they are not the bounty manager, they don't know who will be picked and they are not sure about the quality, so instead of picking not so sure quality, they pick guaranteed quantity and that way they are making as much profit from it as they can with a lot of people promoting them.

[New_order]

Escrow and limited participants is the best two ways to get rid of too many bounty participants today, it works and few reliable bounty managers like bubbalex and bounty detective are already using this two ways in their bounty campaigns and it works

[popeye95]

I saw a fair deal of both fixed bounty allocations and unfixed bounty allocations to know which one is more popular and less a change bounty hunters dropping out because of unprofitable. Of course, fixed bounty allocations are much more popular among bounty hunters since we want something stable throughout the campaign.

[CHENIEN]

In my opinion, it depends upon the situation that bounty manager is blaming under the manipulated because not all campaign are failed to gain benefits, I think this position is hard to make perfect at all times due to climate change.

[shollyen]

I saw a fair deal of both fixed bounty allocations and unfixed bounty allocations to know which one is more popular and less a change bounty hunters dropping out because of unprofitable. Of course, fixed bounty allocations are much more popular among bounty hunters since we want something stable throughout the campaign.

It is not a good idea. Although, those with lower rank might prefer it, because theyknow they are getting something fixed. The reason stakes, which invariable translates to non-fixed bounty is better is because it brings out the result of hard work and rank. If you are hardworking and you have a lower rank, you can still earn more than when you find yourself ina fixed allocation bounty.

[bitkanu]

In my opinion, it depends upon the situation that bounty manager is blaming under the manipulated because not all campaign are failed to gain benefits, I think this position is hard to make perfect at all times due to climate change.

A good manager will always think about how to create win win solution between the team and the hunters. the position is not so hard as you think and you must aware if the same situation is always happening anytime.
This makes people will try to do the thing based on the situation that is happening.

[fosco333]

Limit on bounty campaign is good to prevent reward loss of bounty campaign.
There are some bounties that pay in fixed rate, but usually the reward is not much i think.
It is up to you about what you will choose either fixed based or stake based bounty, but the important thing is the bounty payment is guaranteed.

[MonsterV]

well for solutions for this problem is only limiting the participants on any bounty campaign, because everyday promoters keep growing and increase , no one can avoid them to join the bounty as promoter that joined twitter and facebook bounty unless campaign  manager has a rule for participants and keep the participants limited slot to avoid to much promoters on the bounty campaign.

[Kupid002]

Limit on bounty campaign is good to prevent reward loss of bounty campaign.
There are some bounties that pay in fixed rate, but usually the reward is not much i think.
It is up to you about what you will choose either fixed based or stake based bounty, but the important thing is the bounty payment is guaranteed.

but I prefer fixed rate ,mostly that currency is already available in exchange and you have all the ability to sell any time you want to.
As long as its weekly payment I don't see any problem partixipating in that kind of bounty. It can also help to reduce newly scam project that just want a free promotion using bounties as  advertisement.

[shoreno]

Limit on bounty campaign is good to prevent reward loss of bounty campaign.
There are some bounties that pay in fixed rate, but usually the reward is not much i think.
It is up to you about what you will choose either fixed based or stake based bounty, but the important thing is the bounty payment is guaranteed.

but I prefer fixed rate ,mostly that currency is already available in exchange and you have all the ability to sell any time you want to.
As long as its weekly payment I don't see any problem partixipating in that kind of bounty. It can also help to reduce newly scam project that just want a free promotion using bounties as  advertisement.

you already participated on a campaign that pays in weekly payment  .you dont need a bounty because they dont pay weekly  . you said you want fix rate on crypto  ?  but crypto itself doesnt have a fixed value   . your only assurance that you can get your expected payout is when the market is in stable times  . campaigns that pays in top coins per week wont mean that they arent scam but there are paying only for their first few weeks and then scam happens the next time or scam happens on thier site  .

[husencoe]

I also agree with your opinion, as many bounty hunters complain that they are getting very few tokens, but they all have their own policies regarding the bounty manager.

[ohyeahhaha122]

Limiting the bounty campaign participants is usually not good for the project, because against their purpose of promoting to as many people as possible, I think it is best to increase the conditions for the participants. to avoid spam and cheater

[Nhor1011]

I know that scam bounty projects still shows up on this forum from time to time but after managing to promote the bounty that's not a scam you end up with very low bounty reward, why ? I think the problem about bounties is we have too few bounty campaigns and too many bounty hunters

JUST IF

Just if bounty managers and project teams can start limiting bounty hunters the reward will still be fair enough, how can 500 participants share 3000$ bounty allocation?

Where are the bounties with fixed bounty allocations? After doing some digging on past bounty campaigns I noticed many of them have fixed rewards, this is good or limited participants

What do you think??

You know ,i agree with you but i think the project team doesn't like this idea because their aim is to promote their project and they need a lot of promoter to do this job as part of their marketing strategy. I think giving a fixed reward and having a limited participants are the same strategy because if the well give a fixed reward of course they will limit the number of participants to join.

[0verseer]

Yes, I saw many bounty projects just want as many people to participate in their bounty as possible without thinking about more people = less reward. That's why I agree with you about new bounty projects today have to limited participants or fixed allocations for each participant or both. This actually helps them to have a better bounty since everything already in place with the reward has set. No more complain about low pay, quitting bounty midway, call it a bad bounty,...

[ned.ryerson]

I also agree with your opinion, as many bounty hunters complain that they are getting very few tokens, but they all have their own policies regarding the bounty manager.

it is better to receive less reward, but the tokens must have value and then can bring profit to their holders. very often bounty hunters receive a large amount of tokens but they do not cost any dollar

[Zackgeno96]

Bounty managers do not care about the number, they are just doing their job so there is no way that this could be done thanks to bounty managers, they could only follow orders. When we are talking about the team, why would they pay a lot more money to just few people versus paying small amount for thousands of people?

In the end the result is paying the same amount for them but in one of them they are getting a lot of people while in the other they are getting only few. Sure they could consider quality over quantity but they are not the bounty manager, they don't know who will be picked and they are not sure about the quality, so instead of picking not so sure quality, they pick guaranteed quantity and that way they are making as much profit from it as they can with a lot of people promoting them.

The team would definitely be happy with more number of participants in the same budget as compared to less number of participants under that same budget. The main purpose of the team is to have more number of social shares and more exposure of their project on the social media platforms so as to reach more number of people and increase their chances of a successful project launch. But it is the choice of the manager to have a hard cap on the number of participants so as to have better post quality of the participants because they will be getting more money for promoting that project and thus they will do a proper job.

[Pasutinmeur]

In my opinion, it depends upon the situation that bounty manager is blaming under the manipulated because not all campaign are failed to gain benefits, I think this position is hard to make perfect at all times due to climate change.

I have the same thought with you too. In this case, the manager should see the situation before trying to decide to give limitation for the campaign. The manager also needs to ask the developers for that as all the decision will have decided by the team.

[umbara ardian]

I also agree with your opinion, as many bounty hunters complain that they are getting very few tokens, but they all have their own policies regarding the bounty manager.

it is better to receive less reward, but the tokens must have value and then can bring profit to their holders. very often bounty hunters receive a large amount of tokens but they do not cost any dollar

Like the DIA project bounty, the initial project budget is only $ 5000 for the bounty. But after being listed on exchanges the price went up to 3 $ 1 token and now bounty's budget is 300k $. It was really crazy growth