Is there any minimum amount of budget which should be paid in btc campaigns ?

[Welsh]

This. Bitcoin is basically unusable for small value transactions during times like now. It’s sad, but this is where our leaders have led us. You can use the Lightning network *if you can find someone else who uses it, but perhaps a better idea would be to pay the BTC out on your own platform so it can be converted and withdrawn using an altcoin that is still functional as a p2p currency (if your platform can offer that). That’s the only way to get around the BTC only payment rules on this forum while not completely destroying any incentive for participants.

Campaigns that pay less per post, could simply start paying in monthly installments instead of weekly. Most jobs pay on a monthly basis, so I've always found it a little weird that campaign managers that have been running a long term campaign continue to pay on a weekly basis as I would have thought it would be more conveniently, and slightly less time consuming to simply pay on a monthly basis. 

[ShowOff]

Campaigns that pay less per post, could simply start paying in monthly installments instead of weekly. Most jobs pay on a monthly basis,

Most of the bounty campaign can even pay their participant after a few months of the campaign is over and there are not many complaint coming from the participant if the payment they receive in the form of token can be traded as soon as they get them.

so I've always found it a little weird that campaign managers that have been running a long term campaign continue to pay on a weekly basis as I would have thought it would be more conveniently, and slightly less time consuming to simply pay on a monthly basis. 

I feel like this option can be considered by campaign manager as long as bitcoin transaction fee increase or whenever they want. I have no problem if the manager decide to pay participant every 2 or 4 weeks to save transaction fee, especially if the manager has received the campaign fund in advance which are stored in Escrow. But so far even long-term campaign like Chipmixer continue to pay participant weekly.

[mersal]

If there is no minimum budget, the campaigns can offer very little incentive in bitcoin and publish their campaign in bitcoin services section to get more exposure.

If there are people ready to wear signature for such payments then there is nothing wrong with it, and some twitter bitcoin payments made payments in cents too in the past so why you need to worry.

If you are not happy with low payment then don't join because being a participant of signature campaign is not important to the bitcointalk community.

[Hhampuz]

I feel like this option can be considered by campaign manager as long as bitcoin transaction fee increase or whenever they want. I have no problem if the manager decide to pay participant every 2 or 4 weeks to save transaction fee, especially if the manager has received the campaign fund in advance which are stored in Escrow. But so far even long-term campaign like Chipmixer continue to pay participant weekly.

I cover transaction fees from my payment when I do campaign payouts and so far I'd prefer to keep it going weekly. There are several reasons as to why I'd prefer to do it but as of now I do not think I'll make any changes.

As for paying out on platform (for casinos, as an example), each participant would have to pay the withdraw fee out of their weekly payment which then asks the question if we should increase everyones payment by $20 which then takes us back to the start with it being no different than paying direct on a weekly basis.

[ShowOff]

I cover transaction fees from my payment when I do campaign payouts and so far I'd prefer to keep it going weekly. There are several reasons as to why I'd prefer to do it but as of now I do not think I'll make any changes.

Thank you for wanting to provide clarification about the post. I know that ultimately you as campaign manager and owner can make changes when needed. In my opinion, some other manager also have the same view as to why they pay campaign participant every week or maybe there are other reason. But if this can be a solution to low payrate per post, managers may consider paying participant every 2 week period or more. Just my assumption

[Oilacris]

Sure you can pay tiny but you have to compete with others.

I know that if anyone pays less , they can't compete with the other bitcoin paying campaigns and quality posters will not join the campaign but one can capture the whole altcoin campaign market participants as there will still many people who will join the low paying bitcoin campaign , instead of joining the altcoin campaign where there is no assurance of tokens being listed on exchanges.

If you are the one who would tend to launch up some campaign which do connects out into your own project or site then its up to your choice when it comes to payrates since
you are the ones will really be allocating those depending on your project.

Low payment would only be good if;

-5 to 10 post per week (talking about lesser $10 week pay)

Dont expect that you would really be getting lots since there are much more better campaigns out there and also dont ever set out
small pay with lots of post required because you would only just generate spam to those desperate members that would really be
trying to sip out that 10 bucks per week.

[Darker45]

I don't think there is a minimum. I have not encountered any specific forum rule about it.

However, there are certainly a lot of factors involved. If you pay $5-$10 a week, the participants would expect that the minimum requirement in order to get paid is very low. If it requires like 25 posts at least, then expect less interest, especially from the higher ranks.

It is possible that the slots would be filled but [1] with less quality posters, users who find it hard to get accepted in higher paying campaigns, or [2] if there are no other open campaigns that users would take it rather than make unpaid posts, but expect an exodus of participants ones a higher paying campaign arrives.

[actmyname]

You'd think that bounty owners, and campaigns owners would prefer paying in Bitcoin to try, and get into a new market. It rarely happens though.

Any cost > 0.

Why would you bother paying the cost of a campaign via fees and the currency itself when you could just mint your own tokens to accomplish the same objective? Infinitely more efficient.

[Taskford]

I don't think there is a minimum. I have not encountered any specific forum rule about it.

However, there are certainly a lot of factors involved. If you pay $5-$10 a week, the participants would expect that the minimum requirement in order to get paid is very low. If it requires like 25 posts at least, then expect less interest, especially from the higher ranks.

It is possible that the slots would be filled but [1] with less quality posters, users who find it hard to get accepted in higher paying campaigns, or [2] if there are no other open campaigns that users would take it rather than make unpaid posts, but expect an exodus of participants ones a higher paying campaign arrives.

Yeah all that should be consider but what makes me worry about accepting those low ball campaigns are scamming since for this it will be more affordable for scammers to advertise on thos forum so maybe managers should set some standards about those and they should not accept a campaign management job just for the sake of their own gains.

[The Cryptovator]

As a campaign manager, I have experienced that the team always tries to reduce the weekly payments. Not all companies, but most of them do that. Some companies that are familiar with the forum and quality know the standard pay rates. But some companies want to convince regarding pay rate. So there is no limit for me, companies would offer $5 as well. But I simply tell them, I can't manage with such as pay rates since there will be no participants except spammers. I think sometimes even you will not fund spammer for $5 or $10. As much as companies reduce the pay rate I inform them they will get the same quality users. For $30 you can't expect high-quality and trusted users from the forum. For me, I always try to increase pay rates for the participants. But sometimes being hopeless due to companies budget.

[noormcs5]

As a campaign manager, I have experienced that the team always tries to reduce the weekly payments. Not all companies, but most of them do that. Some companies that are familiar with the forum and quality know the standard pay rates. But some companies want to convince regarding pay rate. So there is no limit for me, companies would offer $5 as well. But I simply tell them, I can't manage with such as pay rates since there will be no participants except spammers. I think sometimes even you will not fund spammer for $5 or $10. As much as companies reduce the pay rate I inform them they will get the same quality users. For $30 you can't expect high-quality and trusted users from the forum. For me, I always try to increase pay rates for the participants. But sometimes being hopeless due to companies budget.

The companies will always want to get the job done in minimal amount of budget. I have never seen any very low paying campaign started by you or the few trusted campaign managers because you know what should be the minimum cost and below that it will only encourage the spammers to join. However, sometimes the campaign does not hire the manager (to save the managing cost or do not have the budget) and offer very less payouts. They still manage to get the participants to join their campaign. For such companies, it does not matter the quality of the posts, but they only care about the signature/advertisements which are flooded by spammers on the forum.

[Quidat]

As a campaign manager, I have experienced that the team always tries to reduce the weekly payments. Not all companies, but most of them do that. Some companies that are familiar with the forum and quality know the standard pay rates. But some companies want to convince regarding pay rate. So there is no limit for me, companies would offer $5 as well. But I simply tell them, I can't manage with such as pay rates since there will be no participants except spammers. I think sometimes even you will not fund spammer for $5 or $10. As much as companies reduce the pay rate I inform them they will get the same quality users. For $30 you can't expect high-quality and trusted users from the forum. For me, I always try to increase pay rates for the participants. But sometimes being hopeless due to companies budget.

The companies will always want to get the job done in minimal amount of budget. I have never seen any very low paying campaign started by you or the few trusted campaign managers because you know what should be the minimum cost and below that it will only encourage the spammers to join. However, sometimes the campaign does not hire the manager (to save the managing cost or do not have the budget) and offer very less payouts. They still manage to get the participants to join their campaign. For such companies, it does not matter the quality of the posts, but they only care about the signature/advertisements which are flooded by spammers on the forum.

There's no such thing about minimal amount for you to base up on what are the minimum payment or budget because it will all vary from the owner itself but just like
on what others been saying that it would really be just encouraging for spammers to join or who do only comes after with the payment and doesnt mind about
their post quality which it isnt surprising but if you do want for some quality advertising and been handling out with those known managers in the forum
then you should at least consider on putting up some budget if you do come after with some decent handling of said campaign.

[shield132]

No, there isn't any minimum amount of budget, there are no rules on the pay rates of signature campaigns on bitcointalk, this forum just allows you to advertise things by running a signature campaign.

But... Life is just a great example... You can't pay low and get high-quality service, don't you believe? Then check yourself. Bitsler, FortuneJack, Qtum and other companies weren't silly and stupids to pay a decent amount of money to their campaign participants. Have a look at these companies (also chipmixer), check how much they were paying and where are these companies right now. Then have a look at low-paying signature campaigns and check where are those companies diving.

Also, one warning: High-quality poster won't apply for low paying signature campaign, so, if you offer some bucks, you'll get a collection of spammers. People here hate spammers and this, in turn, will damage the reputation of the signature campaign manager and the company.

Good luck

[Slow death]

If there is no minimum budget, the campaigns can offer very little incentive in bitcoin and publish their campaign in bitcoin services section to get more exposure.

when you have many signature campaigns a year, years go by and the market itself begins to define a certain pattern where below that pattern people do not accept it. for example if the campaigns pay $25 for the low ranking, any campaign that introduces $10 for the lowest ranking people will enter this campaign because there is no alternative and when another campaign arrives they will move to the campaign to pay more money, leaving the low-budget campaign manager without valuable members. this is a cycle that can be changed if the low budget campaign is very solid and is going to stay long, in this case even members who have good post quality may prefer to stay in the low budget campaign that will be staying for a long time

[Darker45]

I don't think there is a minimum. I have not encountered any specific forum rule about it.

However, there are certainly a lot of factors involved. If you pay $5-$10 a week, the participants would expect that the minimum requirement in order to get paid is very low. If it requires like 25 posts at least, then expect less interest, especially from the higher ranks.

It is possible that the slots would be filled but [1] with less quality posters, users who find it hard to get accepted in higher paying campaigns, or [2] if there are no other open campaigns that users would take it rather than make unpaid posts, but expect an exodus of participants ones a higher paying campaign arrives.

Yeah all that should be consider but what makes me worry about accepting those low ball campaigns are scamming since for this it will be more affordable for scammers to advertise on thos forum so maybe managers should set some standards about those and they should not accept a campaign management job just for the sake of their own gains.

You shouldn't be worrying much about scam Bitcoin-paid campaigns. In addition to having responsible managers, the forum has enough users who bring to the attention of DT members any signature campaign in the services section which looks like a scam. Take notice that users are even very quick calling up the attention of newbie managers who are not escrowing campaign funds, fellow users applying even if slots are not available, and so forth. I guess a scam signature campaign will be nipped in the bud even before it takes launch. Or, if it proceeds nevertheless, both the managers and the participants will have to bear red tags on their profile.

[UserU]

when you have many signature campaigns a year, years go by and the market itself begins to define a certain pattern where below that pattern people do not accept it. for example if the campaigns pay $25 for the low ranking, any campaign that introduces $10 for the lowest ranking people will enter this campaign because there is no alternative and when another campaign arrives they will move to the campaign to pay more money, leaving the low-budget campaign manager without valuable members. this is a cycle that can be changed if the low budget campaign is very solid and is going to stay long, in this case even members who have good post quality may prefer to stay in the low budget campaign that will be staying for a long time

That's true, especially with the lower-tiered ranks. But hey, that applies to real life jobs too. If someone has no choice but to take a low paying job, the job satisfaction is pretty low and surely he/ she would jump ship once a better opportunity comes along. Human nature.

[dark1234]

when you have many signature campaigns a year, years go by and the market itself begins to define a certain pattern where below that pattern people do not accept it. for example if the campaigns pay $25 for the low ranking, any campaign that introduces $10 for the lowest ranking people will enter this campaign because there is no alternative and when another campaign arrives they will move to the campaign to pay more money, leaving the low-budget campaign manager without valuable members. this is a cycle that can be changed if the low budget campaign is very solid and is going to stay long, in this case even members who have good post quality may prefer to stay in the low budget campaign that will be staying for a long time

That's true, especially with the lower-tiered ranks. But hey, that applies to real life jobs too. If someone has no choice but to take a low paying job, the job satisfaction is pretty low and surely he/ she would jump ship once a better opportunity comes along. Human nature.

ha ha ha .... 
This is the fact that the old law has become our character as humans seek the greater and make us tempted, although of course the bigger one has more rules. maybe.....!!!!

[Welsh]

I cover transaction fees from my payment when I do campaign payouts and so far I'd prefer to keep it going weekly. There are several reasons as to why I'd prefer to do it but as of now I do not think I'll make any changes.

I'm guessing a contributing factor to paying weekly as opposed to monthly is you can do the work gradually rather than having to pretty much dedicate a day to sending out payments, which could become a little confusing if you are counting the posts on a weekly basis, and then waiting a little longer to actually do the payout. There's also the complexity of posts being deleted, and whether they should/shouldn't count i.e first week passes, the post still exists, but before you make the payment the post has now been deleted 2 weeks later.

Each to their own of course, I just thought it would be easier to do monthly. Depending on how you like to work I suppose. Do the companies behind the campaigns also specify whether it should be weekly, bi-weekly or monthly?

[stomachgrowls]

I cover transaction fees from my payment when I do campaign payouts and so far I'd prefer to keep it going weekly. There are several reasons as to why I'd prefer to do it but as of now I do not think I'll make any changes.

I'm guessing a contributing factor to paying weekly as opposed to monthly is you can do the work gradually rather than having to pretty much dedicate a day to sending out payments, which could become a little confusing if you are counting the posts on a weekly basis, and then waiting a little longer to actually do the payout. There's also the complexity of posts being deleted, and whether they should/shouldn't count i.e first week passes, the post still exists, but before you make the payment the post has now been deleted 2 weeks later.

Each to their own of course, I just thought it would be easier to do monthly. Depending on how you like to work I suppose. Do the companies behind the campaigns also specify whether it should be weekly, bi-weekly or monthly?

Im aint a manager but basing on my understanding,people would less likely to join up campaigns on having a monthly basis in terms of payment and its already a bit part of the forum or the casual thing where payments should be sent out on weekly basis.Dont know on who do set out the standard duration to be like that but its the most suitable or much preferred by most posters of this forum.

Having on monthly basis would really save up some workload time and also with the fees.If rules would turn out to be like that but the payments are still the same on the standard level
then its up to someone neither he decide to deal with monthly payments or would just simply skip out and find for another weekly paying campaign.

[Sihab76]

Very interesting question, hi guys there have no minimum budgets to pay into Bitcoin payments in any campaign but it should be higher than zero value. Its an another important thing that sometimes lower value campaigns annoying the hunters.