Solution to too many promoters

[danielchris]

My opinion is that followed bounties limits. But it's depend upon the hard working staff and managers Who have big experiences to handle any project & give the best performance to running successfully in the market. I think so

[Avirunes]

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

I don't think that's the problem. Its all about the intent. Contrary to above, I can give you many examples where the bounty campaigns with low participants failed to provide a stage for the project to attract investors.

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?

That will be fair for the bounty hunters but will it for the project? Why would they choose to limit participants when they can get more hunters into room to participate? We could but they also need to promotion to work properly and with higher no. of participants they can get some good marketing and buzz.

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

Fixed bounty rewards are good if the project is willing to spend some extra or are willing to pour some good money into marketing. Fixed bounty is little risky for the projects since there is possibility that the expense could go out of hand if no of. participants go higher. In this case, I would say limiting participants along with fixed bounty could do the work.

[Balladtony77]

Project teams want unlimited promotion, they don't care about how many participants promote their project, I think it's bounty manager's call to set things right here even if the team said no, it will really be good if this is considered, we have too many bounty hunters wanting to share out of a bounty pool

[bluebit25]

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??

It would be good if the campaign limited the participants, everyone involved will ensure a stable source of income from that campaign. But projects don't care about this, they just want to get as many people involved as possible to promote their projects and make more people aware.

[Krislaw]

 bounty hunters should know that they are the only medium that could get them more audiences/investors. That's why most bounties doesn't have limited slot because they know they can get unlimited outreach to more audiences instead of paying popular social media for ads.

So next time you come across any bounty with an unfavourable allocation with no limited slot, just skip it because it may get over crowded.

[sangjoewara]

Project teams want unlimited promotion, they don't care about how many participants promote their project, I think it's bounty manager's call to set things right here even if the team said no, it will really be good if this is considered, we have too many bounty hunters wanting to share out of a bounty pool

Yes, and it is very natural that the project team wants unlimited promotion, because they also want to attract more investors for their project, so the project team will also be more helpful in terms of running the project, only the other time the bounty participants become victims, because hunters will get fewer rewards.

[tycsols]

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??

Recently i have started to like the idea of fixed weekly rewards for example, for signature campaign weekly 50 dollars worth tokens for member rank, 80 for full member and so on, although after market price of the token is unpredictible in these market  conditions and is usually down but still such fixed rewards do give a psychological satisfaction as we know for what we are working for.

[killerfrost]

I know a few bounty limits of participants, and they end up in great success. And the participants are happy with the money they make from those campaigns. Hopefully from now on we can see such good campaigns, which is the best solution right now to help the participants get the right amount of money after months of work.

[pandanaran]

I honestly agree with your point, besides the problem of project fraud is about fixed allocations, limited participants and commensurate rewards. as we have seen today there are many good projects that have appeared in the crypto room and there are always many participants joining. maybe the prize manager can hear this and reconsider, at least for the good of the ico project in the future.

[filterMX]

the idea is good enough to be applied by prizes because by limiting bounty hunters who want to join a project, the results obtained will also feel a lot later.
but it all depends on the bounty manager, where the rules can be applied or not while we can only follow the rules that are applied.

[BitcoinTurk]

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? What do you think??

Yes, campaign managers will both facilitate their own business by setting the participant limit and prevent many users from accumulating in a single campaign. But there is one point I will object to here is that the prize pool is distributed to everyone equally. If such a thing is going to happen, why do we try to reach high ranks? If the rank system will be of no use, everyone should participate in campaigns with their new accounts and receive equal pay in this way. So, as long as the rank system exists, each participant should never win an equal amount of rewards. In addition, since there are differences between the signature of the users who have reached the top ranks and the signature of the accounts with low rank, this affects the equality significantly. Therefore, a limited number of participants should be included in the campaigns, but not everybody should be given an equal amount of reward. Everyone should win awards according to their rank.

[bayudndy]

the idea is good enough to be applied by prizes because by limiting bounty hunters who want to join a project, the results obtained will also feel a lot later.
but it all depends on the bounty manager, where the rules can be applied or not while we can only follow the rules that are applied.

It will be very difficult to happen, because managers and projects just want as many people involved as possible. The more people participate, the more their project will become known and the easier it will be for an ICO or IEO to succeed.

[bussybuddy]

the idea is good enough to be applied by prizes because by limiting bounty hunters who want to join a project, the results obtained will also feel a lot later.
but it all depends on the bounty manager, where the rules can be applied or not while we can only follow the rules that are applied.

It will be very difficult to happen, because managers and projects just want as many people involved as possible. The more people participate, the more their project will become known and the easier it will be for an ICO or IEO to succeed.

Yep, it is difficult for us to find such campaigns because the projects are not interested in bounty hunters, they are only interested in their projects and only want more people to join their bounty. Take a look at bounty Cartesi, which is a great campaign as they limit participants. And now each one receives a lot of money from that campaign

[Rubick99]

I think bounty manager must to set the limit of participant and choose only promotor with high potential only. It can be review their social media accounts first, manager must eliminate participant who promoting many projects in their social media account.

[bL4nkcode]

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?

That's a relief to bounty manager to limit their works as, the only a disadvantage to this is to participants but to the project having more participants to promote is a win-win situation.
If you think the reward is too low then you need to decide whether you want to continue or not.

[litepool.ru]

I think bounty manager must to set the limit of participant and choose only promotor with high potential only. It can be review their social media accounts first, manager must eliminate participant who promoting many projects in their social media account.

Agree, if the participant is promoting too many projects in their account. Then they should refuse and not let him join the bounty, I have seen krypital did the same before and they were completely successful

[StephenJH]

It is really great idea to limit participants, but that is the question if the manager wants to do it, l mean we can realize that they don't care about that, it seems they are only interested in numbers of participants. But if it happens, we can see that limiting participants of campaigns can be more valuable, and maybe there will be fewer spams. Experimenting the ideas is the right way to know which arguments cover the problems while others are nonsense.

[suryapro]

I see this as a natural thing for project owners, because for project owners,more people who participate in their projects, the greater chance to get a lot of investors. but for the prize hunters the more participating in project, the smaller we will get prize at the end of campaign
 

[Anonylz]

From my point of view, it is better to have fixed reward or limited participants in a campaign to ensure that participants actually get rewarded, this is also important in bounty pool, some projects gives unrealistic reward and later they are finding it hard to keep to their promise, better to have a realistic reward pool and fixed payment to protect both hunters and project.
But I guess having too many unlimited participants favors the team more than the hunters.

[Doranile432]

The answer to too low bounty rewards is limiting the bounty campaign participants, only the bounty manager can make this happen, even if the team said no then the bounty manager have to convince the team or if every bounty managers can come to this one agreement then the project team won't have a choice