In the best interest of investors, Bounties shouldn't be paid in Tokens

[Woodie]

I don't know who needs to hear this but after years of being a bounty hunter and keeping a close eye on how bounties are conducted, it's safe to say most projects make the biggest mistake of paying bounty hunters using their native tokens, why do I say so, well bounty hunters don't share the long term foresight as the project to the point of being a hodler to grow with the company but rather see their bounty payment as a service and will sell the tokens for less to get whatever money they can because they owe nobody anything.Of course, for the project to pay using the tokens is cost cutting but if the project is truly slated for the future, paying using non-tokens is a good signal for a strong project.

Going forward in the best interest of investors and the project itself, hope to see "more" bounties being paid with established coins in this industry.

What do you guys think?

[1714643940]

1714643940

[1714643940]

1714643940

[Piesel Alt]

Thinks of it this way, since the project team can easily mints the coins in whatever amount the wish, it will cost them nothing against paying in dollars or other stable currencies.

-If the team is serious about growing their project, and at the same time paying a reasonable amount as a reward for their promotion via bounties to the hunter, their can as will pay in their token in other to protect the market and possibly dump, they could offer some form of buy back, in that way, the team will buy back bounty allocation from biunty hunters, that way it becomes a win-win for both the hunter and the project itself.

[dothebeats]

In a way, yes, because it lessens the value of the token/coin that the investors bought. We all know that most bounty hunters would probably just drop those coins in the market after it has been live in exchanges, and that adds up to the volume that has been offloaded. While the amount might be negligible compared to the total volume of the coin, it still will be offloaded nonetheless.

But then again, those creators paying bounty hunters in the same token just means that they have huge trust on the coin to do well since they have already calculated the amount that they need to pay to the bounty hunters with dollar equivalents.

[hd49728]

I don't know who needs to hear this but after years of being a bounty hunter and keeping a close eye on how bounties are conducted, it's safe to say most projects make the biggest mistake of paying bounty hunters using their native tokens

Many reasons altcoin projects don't want to pay bounty hunters in stable coins or Bitcoin or big altcoins like Ethereum. They are unsure about success of their projects and don't want to spend money from their pockets, project treasury for advertisement campaigns that include bounty.

Bounty hunters bet that their low value works will be paid and optimistic that tokens they get from payment will have good price on market.

why do I say so, well bounty hunters don't share the long term foresight as the project to the point of being a hodler to grow with the company but rather see their bounty payment as a service and will sell the tokens for less to get whatever money they can because they owe nobody anything.

Selling from bounty hunters after token distributions create big sell pressure if the project has too small liquidity and trading volume. Bounty hunters often sell their received tokens immediately and don't have enough patience or belief to hold their tokens.

Going forward in the best interest of investors and the project itself, hope to see "more" bounties being paid with established coins in this industry.

If there are investors who love and want to bet in altcoins, there are bounty hunters with same bet style. Forum can not change their minds, how they work for bounties and how they bet on success of tokens.

[LogitechMouse]

I don't know who needs to hear this but after years of being a bounty hunter and keeping a close eye on how bounties are conducted, it's safe to say most projects make the biggest mistake of paying bounty hunters using their native tokens, why do I say so, well bounty hunters don't share the long term foresight as the project to the point of being a hodler to grow with the company but rather see their bounty payment as a service and will sell the tokens for less to get whatever money they can because they owe nobody anything.

On the other hand, project developers doesn't want to use their own money to pay these bounty hunters.
Yes bounty hunters doesn't care about the tokens of these project developers, but look on the other side.

If you're the owner of the project for example, are you willing to use your own money just to pay these bounty hunters? Launching a bounty campaign isn't a guaranteed success for the project, and they can't afford to lose huge amounts of money if they know that the chances of the project becoming successful is low. I know how you're feeling because I already taught of that many years ago back when I'm still participating in these bounty campaigns.

Going forward in the best interest of investors and the project itself, hope to see "more" bounties being paid with established coins in this industry.

What do you guys think?

Some might do it, but most will not do it.

The uncertainty of a new project is the reason why they can't afford to pay bounty hunters with established coins like BTC, ETH, USDT etc. If project developers will do, it will favor the bounty hunters, and what if the project fails? The project owners will lose money, and they don't like that. Instead of the owners risking their money, they will pass that risk to the hunters giving them some worthless tokens.

[Luffygroove]

After considering different perspectives, it is clear that there are pros and cons to paying bounty hunters using native tokens. While it is cost-effective for the project to pay with tokens, bounty hunters may not have the same long-term vision for the project and may be more inclined to sell their tokens for a quick profit. On the other hand, giving tokens as rewards can also serve as a distribution strategy, allowing bounty hunters to experience the benefits of the tokens firsthand.

In the end, the decision on whether to pay with tokens or established coins should depend on the project's overall goals and vision. If the project is focused on long-term growth and aims to signal strength to investors, paying with non-tokens may be a better choice. However, if the project wants to build a strong community and distribute their tokens more widely, paying with tokens may be a better option. Ultimately, it is important for projects to consider the trade-offs and make informed decisions on how to reward bounty hunters.

[Dr.Osh]

well, that is the view of the bounty hunter. If we give our personal opinion, then many people want to use stable coins or use popular altcoins as a means of payment for bounty hunters. It brings a lot of positive things. however, once again that is in the bounty hunter's view.
We know that new projects pay using the coins that they have not only paid, but they are also looking for users, and in that way, there will be lots of people holding the coins or tokens that they created even though most of them will sell them. plus, it saves them any advertising dollars they could spend. even though the potential for their coin price after being listed on the market can fall, personally I think that they can easily increase the price of their coin if they want, because the token allocation for bounty hunters is usually very small. besides that, the fall in price will also make bounty hunters and other coin holders hold the coins they have temporarily, and it will create a natural barrier.
Well, actually there are still very many reasons for that. however, I think each project will have a different strategy.

[Apocollapse]

You shouldn't only look from the bounty hunter's perspective where they're only earn worthless token, but you should look from the project's perspective too because 99% of bounty hunters are spammers, using multiple accounts and have very low quality. What you can expect from the bounty hunters who are only like and share the project post and write one liner post without any point? it will not make the project become successful.

The bounties can offer payout with top 10 altcoins, but the bounty hunters must have a good quality like participants who are joining signature campaign paid with Bitcoin.

[Wexnident]

I guess at this point paying with tokens just screams their ineligibility to hire proper ways/methods to actually create a proper bounty program. Or, they just follow the usual standards, which should've been rather noticeable and isn't really that effective anymore. And to be fair, project teams/devs would much rather pay their own token instead of real money since it opens up the idea that they aren't really giving up anything in exchange for the service people provide until further time, and in most cases members are just people who spam create accounts with a few people actually just being behind those accounts instead of the intended goal of having multiple people spread it out.

At this point, both managers and participants just try to outwit each other where managers don't want to pay more if they can, and participants trying to hog the rewards for themselves.

[ethereumhunter]

It's a strategy of each project to pay participants with their original token so that if something happens to their project, developers still have support in other coins like BTC, ETH, or BNB. But I don't know, we can only guess why they pay their participants with real tokens instead of using BTC, ETH, BNB or even USDT.

This self-preservation is what the developers think about, especially if the project is not successful while they have to pay the participants. Many developers have paid participants with their original tokens but it turns out that the original tokens cannot enter exchanges and instead become fraudulent.

[cryptoaddictchie]

I don't know who needs to hear this but after years of being a bounty hunter and keeping a close eye on how bounties are conducted, it's safe to say most projects make the biggest mistake of paying bounty hunters using their native tokens,~snipped

I think thats quite normal. They did bounty campaign for a reason to let their project known or be spread to community. They paid in tokens to make it more valuable. The problem with different hunters are they are demanding of the tokens that either become worthless. Expect some to dump their tokens cause you cant forxe someone to hold especially when they think they deserve to sell the money from it. Its up to anyone whether he believe on the project he promoted for or simply pocketed whatever amount it could give.

[Yatsan]

Depends; if you are not new in this industry, you'd appreciate token rewards from bounties. Way back 2017 many people earned huge money from token rewards. But I won't say things would be the same as with the present. Most of the projects before are succeeding with their token sales which results to bigger profit for the investors. At this moment, most of the projects being promoted are failing on its start which somehow changed the market. So for now, I guess it is just a good thing to pay on other chain such as Bitcoin than to be patient of the rewards and eventually earning less than expected. Simply because it generates a more stable payout from projects.

[Jating]

I don't know who needs to hear this but after years of being a bounty hunter and keeping a close eye on how bounties are conducted, it's safe to say most projects make the biggest mistake of paying bounty hunters using their native tokens, why do I say so, well bounty hunters don't share the long term foresight as the project to the point of being a hodler to grow with the company but rather see their bounty payment as a service and will sell the tokens for less to get whatever money they can because they owe nobody anything.Of course, for the project to pay using the tokens is cost cutting but if the project is truly slated for the future, paying using non-tokens is a good signal for a strong project.

Going forward in the best interest of investors and the project itself, hope to see "more" bounties being paid with established coins in this industry.

What do you guys think?

And how are bounty hunters going to be paid? in BTC or ETH?

Doesn't make sense for a project to pay with that crypto since obviously, they are in the beginning stage and trying to win the money of investors, so in the beginning they don't have any and what they can offer is their native token.

So it's not a signal for a good project to pay for non-token, in my opinion.

[VanDeinsberg12]

I can mint new token with a few dollars and then i used my token to pay advertisements to increase engagement for my project. I got money when my project gets popular. Does it sound non sense to you? It's a choice already picked by the developers to pay bounty in their own token rather than use a native coin. The developers agreed to pay the hunters with its own token and hunters that already joined have agreed with it. It's not a problem for both of parties.

[AakZaki]

It's a strategy of each project to pay participants with their original token so that if something happens to their project, developers still have support in other coins like BTC, ETH, or BNB. But I don't know, we can only guess why they pay their participants with real tokens instead of using BTC, ETH, BNB or even USDT.

This self-preservation is what the developers think about, especially if the project is not successful while they have to pay the participants. Many developers have paid participants with their original tokens but it turns out that the original tokens cannot enter exchanges and instead become fraudulent.

Paying using their original tokens is also a form of promotion so that their tokens are used and get enough volume when listing on exchanges. Another reason may also be that paying with coins like BTC and ETH will cost a lot of funds and it is quite certain to spend on payments. If you only pay using tokens, then when unwanted events such as projects not running, developers will not lose valuable coins like BTC or stablecoins, they will only leave tokens that are no longer valuable. new projects almost all implement payment by token. and the strategy so that there are no crash dumps when tokens are distributed is by scheduling the token bounty distribution when the main investor receives all of their tokens.

[mdzahed134]

I think all of those new project owners aren’t rich or they haven’t enough money to pay bounty hunters in stable coins, because they want to raise money to investors by selling their tokens. So, mostly new projects offers their own native token in their promotional campaign. So, i think hunters shouldn’t expect to get payment in stable coins in every single project.

[South Park]

I don't know who needs to hear this but after years of being a bounty hunter and keeping a close eye on how bounties are conducted, it's safe to say most projects make the biggest mistake of paying bounty hunters using their native tokens, why do I say so, well bounty hunters don't share the long term foresight as the project to the point of being a hodler to grow with the company but rather see their bounty payment as a service and will sell the tokens for less to get whatever money they can because they owe nobody anything.Of course, for the project to pay using the tokens is cost cutting but if the project is truly slated for the future, paying using non-tokens is a good signal for a strong project.

Going forward in the best interest of investors and the project itself, hope to see "more" bounties being paid with established coins in this industry.

What do you guys think?

What you are saying makes sense as this will diminish the chances of a crash for a project as bounty hunters get paid in bitcoin or ethereum instead and this benefits the ones which invested in that coin, and this also benefits the bounty hunters as they will know in advance how much money they are going to get out of their efforts, but the ones that will obtain no benefit from this are the developers, they love to pay using their tokens as at the time they have almost no value and they can create as many as they want while their reserves of bitcoin and ethereum are limited, and this makes your proposal unlikely to be widely implemented.

[Jackl87]

I don't know who needs to hear this but after years of being a bounty hunter and keeping a close eye on how bounties are conducted, it's safe to say most projects make the biggest mistake of paying bounty hunters using their native tokens, why do I say so, well bounty hunters don't share the long term foresight as the project to the point of being a hodler to grow with the company but rather see their bounty payment as a service and will sell the tokens for less to get whatever money they can because they owe nobody anything.Of course, for the project to pay using the tokens is cost cutting but if the project is truly slated for the future, paying using non-tokens is a good signal for a strong project.
Going forward in the best interest of investors and the project itself, hope to see "more" bounties being paid with established coins in this industry.
What do you guys think?

Well i personally am part of a bounty for many weeks now that is paying every week in BTC, which is of course a nice thing for the participants because BTC is probably the most stable currency in the crypto space, except stable coins of course. You are right that most bounty hunters don't really care about the long term vision of the project bounty that they are part of. So as soon as the tokens are paid they will dump them which can really threaten a new project.
I still think though that a bounty that pays in native tokens can definitely work. First of all the amount of tokens that is paid for the bounty should not be to high. If a bounty is offering 1 Million $ worth of tokens for bounty participants, then you should stay away from that project and from that bounty.

[so98nn]

I get your grudge but bounties are meant to market their own products and in fact they pay in tokens because they can safeguard their real money which was /is invested by investors. If they start paying in other tokens then they will have to buy them for real money which they raised from the investor token sales. It will turn around on them if project failed eventually. In addition to this, giving their own tokens will start publishing about it right away. Peeps keep talking about I have this coin that coin and thus it gets marketed that way as well. I hardly think there are any projects who experimented like this and got success at it.

[Huppercase]

I don't know who needs to hear this but after years of being a bounty hunter and keeping a close eye on how bounties are conducted, it's safe to say most projects make the biggest mistake of paying bounty hunters using their native tokens, why do I say so, well bounty hunters don't share the long term foresight as the project to the point of being a hodler to grow with the company but rather see their bounty payment as a service and will sell the tokens for less to get whatever money they can because they owe nobody anything.Of course, for the project to pay using the tokens is cost cutting but if the project is truly slated for the future, paying using non-tokens is a good signal for a strong project.

Going forward in the best interest of investors and the project itself, hope to see "more" bounties being paid with established coins in this industry.

What do you guys think?

Most new projects don't have money for marketing, so they have no alternative but to offer tokens as a reward for participants who help them advertise their project, which I don't see as a problem. The only issue I have with bounty programs is the mechanism they use to distribute these tokens. In the beginning, the teams promise a large number of tokens to attract hunters, but if the project does not have good investors, it becomes difficult to pay without the price crashing, leaving the teams with no choice but to distribute the agreed-upon tokens, and the price does crash or even die in the end.