Solution to too many promoters

[angrybirdy]

If bounties were restricted to few persons, the reward would have been more substantial than what we have now, some projects are so conscious of giving hunters peanut, so when a campaign doesn't get a certain amount of participation, they slash the reward to ensure that the hunters gets a small amount of tokens after the participation and that's unfair.

Can you provide the list of some projects that did this? As far as I know, the project will only cut their bounty allocation if ever that they don't raise their maximum target or if the allocation is fixed, it is the bounty managers job to make sure that it will be fixed even if there is a few bounty hunters will participate.

[Galley]

Limiting the number of participants allows you to receive at least some decent reward, although few projects take such a step. Many consider it best to attract an unlimited number of participants, neglecting the quality of their work. At the same time, bounty hunters who respect their work always plan ahead for opportunities to receive rewards and do not go into the crowd.

[gabbie2010]

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

The fact is that  hunters are always advisable or expected to hodl their tokens perhaps that coin might be a good project, using DIA as a case study hodlers of those token who had waited patiently  enough earned a massive reward, who among those numerous hunters can exercise such a patience? only few a lot of them, once rewarded dumped and move on thus the cycle continues above all a clear study and research is all that is required to participate in a project with a good prospect.

[Pamadar]

Limiting the number of participants allows you to receive at least some decent reward, although few projects take such a step. Many consider it best to attract an unlimited number of participants, neglecting the quality of their work. At the same time, bounty hunters who respect their work always plan ahead for opportunities to receive rewards and do not go into the crowd.

That's the beauty of doing that, the chance for bounty hunters to receive decent amounts of rewards by limiting participants is
a good step from the team and the bounty managers. With the same concepts BM can hire hunters who have good posting qualities
in returned of advertising the project in the right places where target audiences will be triggered.

[velive08]

it is ineffective, bounty participants should be limited to only 1% of the total allocation, and that is so that bounty participants still get decent rewars. but there are still managers who do not limit the number of bounty participants and result in unfair rewards for bounty participants

[bgaf]

Actually its on their prerogative to give you rewards so if the project really wanted to have more promoters, why would they limit it. In fact they wanted a more expand marleting. We can only be lucky to some campaign managers who are concern to the hunters and implementing some limits like bubblealex. But indeed, this will be helpful but we should not complained in the first place.

[Divinespark]

this solution is very precise i think but look to allocations if the allocation is low it is better to limit the participants but if the allocation is large there is no harm many joined

Obviously, for low budget projects they need to limit their participation. This will keep the project secure and the bounty hunter will receive a small sum from the bounty. Without limiting it, I think people will get 1-2 $ for 2-3 months of work

[kensaii]

Limiting the number of participants allows you to receive at least some decent reward, although few projects take such a step. Many consider it best to attract an unlimited number of participants, neglecting the quality of their work. At the same time, bounty hunters who respect their work always plan ahead for opportunities to receive rewards and do not go into the crowd.

Yes, some project really doesn't care about quality by using unlimited number of participants in their bounty campaign. This is why they don't want to limited participants and just want to spread about their work as much as they can.

[CHENIEN]

maybe even small rewards it's enough for me because eventually if we are still participate more legitimate campaign I think it becomes double because in particular way for being a promoters is to accept from losing so that,there is no legal job that is easy to do better in one time.I guess we are all living with lack of financial so, we need to wait and encourage to do the right as promoters.

[yulchatar]

The conditions in the crypto market for new projects have changed a lot over the past 3 years.
If earlier a project, even with a weak marketing company, could easily carry out a successful fundraising, today it is necessary to make truly titanic efforts so that investors look at your project and decide on an investment.

I think this is for the best, because now it’s extremely difficult for any garbage to get to the top, but for good projects the conditions have become more complicated.
Therefore, the more hunters participating in the project, the higher the chances that he will succeed.

An alternative would be bounty companies that accept only really effective hunters, this would create a natural precedent for improving the overall quality of work among bounty hunters due to the increasing complexity of the conditions.

How do you think a bounty manager can define an effective hunter? For example, in a signature campaign there are usually few participants and, in principle, they can be examined. But if it's a social media campaign? There can be 200 or 500 participants. Even with a limited number. It's very difficult and time consuming. I don’t think that someone will do this, because projects need advertising and as extensive as possible.

[Zionatin]

You all so worried about what you will get paid you don't even care about the actual project and then you want to cry when you don't get paid. Getting $100000000 worth of tokens doesnt mean anything if there is no use for them or no demand. You need to support good projects you believe in. Only good projects will have tokens worth something.

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.

How about you just use your brain and work out the possible payment vs the risk instead of blaming the bounty? If you don't like 500 hunters working for a mere $3000 then why the hell are you supporting it. You don't care about the project only the money and thats why you never make any.

[saint_casanova]

The conditions in the crypto market for new projects have changed a lot over the past 3 years.
If earlier a project, even with a weak marketing company, could easily carry out a successful fundraising, today it is necessary to make truly titanic efforts so that investors look at your project and decide on an investment.

I think this is for the best, because now it’s extremely difficult for any garbage to get to the top, but for good projects the conditions have become more complicated.
Therefore, the more hunters participating in the project, the higher the chances that he will succeed.

An alternative would be bounty companies that accept only really effective hunters, this would create a natural precedent for improving the overall quality of work among bounty hunters due to the increasing complexity of the conditions.

How do you think a bounty manager can define an effective hunter? For example, in a signature campaign there are usually few participants and, in principle, they can be examined. But if it's a social media campaign? There can be 200 or 500 participants. Even with a limited number. It's very difficult and time consuming. I don’t think that someone will do this, because projects need advertising and as extensive as possible.

The social media campaign has a lot of tools and api to ease the management so it wasn't that hard to check for their quality. But yes, some project doesn't really care about quality in their bounty and only want to reach as many people as possible. Hence, unlimited participants allow joining before it becomes unprofitable for everyone.

[Mealea]

I personally like the way Bubbalex is handling his campaigns, it is very encouraging and many are always looking forward to it including myself. It is important for bounty managers to care about the reward of participants instead of loading up a campaign with too many people why not set maximum cap.

[ameliana]

Each project has different rules from one another and I rarely see projects with fixed allocations for participants. I also agree about limiting project participants, this rule will at least be worth our efforts when promoting the project, only if the project is really successful and the team pays the participants.

[inoes]

the restriction will make the bounty better, as it triggers healthy competition.
1. registration speed
2. Participant consistency level
3. Maximum prizes
No matter how good the project is, if there are many who promote the biggest beneficiary is the project team, because the product is getting famous, while the bouty participants only get a few benefits.

[ChronoLite]

the restriction will make the bounty better, as it triggers healthy competition.
1. registration speed
2. Participant consistency level
3. Maximum prizes
No matter how good the project is, if there are many who promote the biggest beneficiary is the project team, because the product is getting famous, while the bouty participants only get a few benefits.

by limiting the participants, i also think that the manager should do the participants check before allowing them to register the campaigns. if it is a signature campaign, manager should check the post quality, accusations against those users, date when the account created. it does not matter who is faster at register but at least you can have the participants who have good quality post, that is better in my eyes

[Google+]

Each project has different rules from one another and I rarely see projects with fixed allocations for participants. I also agree about limiting project participants, this rule will at least be worth our efforts when promoting the project, only if the project is really successful and the team pays the participants.

I think that is the only way to limit the participants who can participate in a project, but when giving limits, you must be able to choose participants who have a lot of money, because if only people with little money will make the project unable to develop and certainly not. will be able to make the price go up.

[lienfaye]

Each project has different rules from one another and I rarely see projects with fixed allocations for participants. I also agree about limiting project participants, this rule will at least be worth our efforts when promoting the project, only if the project is really successful and the team pays the participants.

I think that is the only way to limit the participants who can participate in a project, but when giving limits, you must be able to choose participants who have a lot of money, because if only people with little money will make the project unable to develop and certainly not. will be able to make the price go up.

Thats why we need to look for a legit team with background of previous successful project, they should be transparent about it. In this way we have an idea if they can create a successful project because it wont be easy, they need a concrete plan and budget to execute it without getting any problem.

Lowering the participants are fair for hunters because we can get a deserving amount by promoting, but its not an advantage to the dev because we know as much as possible they are looking for more promoters to spread awareness.

[GatotKaca]

It does not matter to me if many promoters promote the project because I have noticed more and more projects or bounties are popping up every day
not all bounties can get maximum results if the promoter can't judge or be more careful before joining, then only got a loss

[codpku]

Im agree with you make a limit to participant bounty was the only way to make the pay was fair and worthed project to do
But i believe the company who make the bounty campaign ofcourse already counted all of it
And the company make bounty campaign ofcourse have a target to reach to
The main purpose to make bounty campaign in all of social media was to reach people, to make people know the company was exist and have a good project and if the participant was limited maybe they dont get the target they must achieve