Solution to too many promoters

[aemma]

This is a very nice suggestion and only few bounty managers are doing it while others are not, the reason is up to them. But however, if the allocation is good enough maybe the bounty manager might remove limits which of course will still attract more participants while the good thing is, they will end up with a tangible reward. On the other hand, bounty managers that doesn't place limits only ends up making participants works less rewarding and it doesn't make sense. Also, this issue of limitations makes most participants or bounty hunters appreciate most bounty managers over others and it will remain that way.

[Dilerium90]

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??

When bounties were not yet popular, the number of participants was also not small, but payments from companies were much higher. What I mean. A pool of 3-5% of the total number of coins was allocated. Nowadays, you can often see a pool of 0.5-1%. The next factor is the value of the coin. In 2017-2018, the value of coin was greatly overestimated, so a large number of participants could earn money. Now, when the coin goes public, it costs very cheap. That's all the reasons.

[Claudio99]

It's bounty managers choice, if they do really well we will praise them and their reputation will rise up but not every bounty managers cares about reputations, they only want their payment

[Bezobraznike]

It's bounty managers choice, if they do really well we will praise them and their reputation will rise up but not every bounty managers cares about reputations, they only want their payment

   In long-term trusted managers have more work, and they will earn more money. Managers with lower reputation will not
earn in long-term, they will work for scam projects and their payout will be low, probably!
   There are good suggestions in this topic, I like some of them, but that will not change the structure, managers work for
the team members of the projects, and they will came up with their own rules, regarding what we think.

[ahmia39]

Bounty managers can also use fixed tokens for bounty hunters depending on their ranks, you will even know how many tokens you'd make before you start the bounty campaign, limited participants is good too

I think all good solutions have been implemented by most bounty managers at this time, we only follow the rules they have made, because if we as hunters continue to complain about this, then it's better to make our own project, so we can make the rules according to our desires.

[Janus101]

I think mainly because they overestimate their reward worth. Even with limited participants, just a change in terms of price could make everyone's efforts down to the drain since the price is too low and not worth it. Fixed bounty allocations and limited participants only work for projects with a stable price both at the start and at the end of the bounty.

[rahmathidayat93]

It's bounty managers choice, if they do really well we will praise them and their reputation will rise up but not every bounty managers cares about reputations, they only want their payment

I think all managers really care about their reputation, not just pay attention, because with a good reputation, they automatically can also be more flexible in looking for profits in this forum, especially in terms of their trust from the project developer.

[Iyeman]

It's bounty managers choice, if they do really well we will praise them and their reputation will rise up but not every bounty managers cares about reputations, they only want their payment

I think all managers really care about their reputation, not just pay attention, because with a good reputation, they automatically can also be more flexible in looking for profits in this forum, especially in terms of their trust from the project developer.

A good result in managing the bounty means it will increase the rating of the manager too. Some managers gave veeb getting a lot of big name caused by this. So many times the manager has been giving answer related to this question and it depends on the decision that has already taken by the team.

[Slingshot]

Is a good idea and reason why I always tell people to check bounty rules and regulations including allocations before doing because not all bounty worth the stress. I chatted with a friend regarding bounty allocation he vividly told me that 5$ worth huge in his country while some countries it's absolutely nothing. Let's always check bounty before doing to avoid issues.

[SistaFista]

Good point you have there, limiting the participants will be good for the hunters, but not for the team.
The project team usually wants hunters to join the bounty as many as possible without limitation.
Also, if there are many hunters using multiple accounts, then there will be many hunters unable to join because the spot is already full with multiple accounts.

[Kvalentine]

Sooner or later bounty managers have to accept this limited participants master plan because its very clear that many more bounty hunters are joining this forum, even from other crypto forum platforms like altcoinstalk, limiting participants is a must unless bounty budget is big enough

[killerfrost]

Sooner or later bounty managers have to accept this limited participants master plan because its very clear that many more bounty hunters are joining this forum, even from other crypto forum platforms like altcoinstalk, limiting participants is a must unless bounty budget is big enough

I think they only need to limit participants to the signature campaign. That is the best way to ensure the rights of people in this forum

[Script3d]

Sooner or later bounty managers have to accept this limited participants master plan because its very clear that many more bounty hunters are joining this forum, even from other crypto forum platforms like altcoinstalk, limiting participants is a must unless bounty budget is big enough

The developers probably wont want that, even though want hunters want a decent payment most of them dont make a good job on promoting. I dont think limiting bounty participants are gonna be a thing in the future.

[blue_hurricanger]

Its rare to find bounties with fixed bounty hunters unless they are paying in any listed crypto currency because they are not spending money from their pockets and they fixed rewards for bounty pool so no matter how many participants they are going to spend the same reward amount that is why bounties never wanted to limit the number of participants.

Yeah, fixed number of bounty hunters usually when bounty project already has a set of funds for that bounty already. I think not many projects have that kind of luxury to have an unlimited fund aka unset amount fund for the bounty.

[uneng]

It's a free market, so it's already working as it is supposed to work. If there are many bounty hunters it's because the job still worth for them, but once they stop enrolling themselves on these campaigns bounty campaigns will have to change the terms and rewards to make promoters join again.
For an example: if people stopped selling their services for dead coins these campaigns would be naturally forced to pay rewards in decent currencies which price something on the market. So even if the project's coin doesn't have a future, promoters wouldn't have a total loss for their services.

[Coin BTC]

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??

Yes, I agree with your opinion. Restrictions on participants are good. It often happens at the end of the campaign they come to join. It is unfair when participants who join from the first week of low rank are defeated by those of high rank who only joined the last week or two. But this is already our fate of low rank. Be patient and pray that rank can be equal.

[flagpara]

Is a good idea and reason why I always tell people to check bounty rules and regulations including allocations before doing because not all bounty worth the stress. I chatted with a friend regarding bounty allocation he vividly told me that 5$ worth huge in his country while some countries it's absolutely nothing. Let's always check bounty before doing to avoid issues.

That's not right, I think. How can 5 USD be worth of huge money for any country? These people could be an early dumper because they don't care about the price. Actually don't need to limit participation for any campaign because that's form of projects budget is low. A low allocation budget campaign can't offer us high rewards even for low users. I saw more than 5 percent allocation for Bounty hunters, now only see in one campaign "Koinpro Exchange".

[Crypto_lion]

I think it is this way because people don't want to miss out on the free chance to become millionaires.It was with some project which I don't remember the name where saying a simple hello in the ANN thread would have made you a millionaire.

[Westfiled]

I think limited participants with fixed allocations in bounty projects is a must as so many bounty hunters, lately. Sure with fixed allocations, everyone can expect the same reward but this is better than low or nearly none without limited participants.

The only party that can determine the total token allocation should be the team itself, the hunters can't do something with it as the manager has already stated if the manager was only running what already said by the team. I have been taking with the team so many times and they were still saying the same thing.

[Darktongue]

Its rare to find bounties with fixed bounty hunters unless they are paying in any listed crypto currency because they are not spending money from their pockets and they fixed rewards for bounty pool so no matter how many participants they are going to spend the same reward amount that is why bounties never wanted to limit the number of participants.

Yeah, fixed number of bounty hunters usually when bounty project already has a set of funds for that bounty already. I think not many projects have that kind of luxury to have an unlimited fund aka unset amount fund for the bounty.

Bounty hunters limit could be a majority rule or should follow these types of projects in the future. The best example is the DIA project. The "bubbalex" manager has filled with interest in this type of project. I really appreciate this bubbalex manager's work. Bounty allocation was increased for huge interested hunters. I'm very happy that I'm part of it. Actually now I like to participate, fixed bounty allocation.