Topic: A suggestion for ICO promoters and bounty managers - page 3. (Read 1573 times)
Idenity theft is very widespread issues withing digital market and I consider that KYC and AML for every team member should be completely obligatory.
It sounds like you believe that high ranking members of BCT are not scamming too. Higher probability as the were farming many BCT accounts. BCT rankings has nothing to do with managing a bounty. So your saying that BCT should force projects to use managers just because they are from ranked members of the BCT community? You opinion sound very biased indeed. I hear a lot of make them pay!! Make these “particular” people rich, but little about how to protect bounty participants.
I am not saying that higher ranking members are all saints. But it is difficult for them to get involved in scams because they don't want to risk their reputation which was earned through hard work after so many years.
Even previously a lot of the users had proposed to put some restriction on who are able to post in the ANN section. But no steps were taken and I am at a loss to understand why the admins are ignoring this issue for so long.
I sincerely support your comments, it's wonderful, being a bounty hunter I wish the above conditions were the forum applied to the bonus campaign, to reduce the cheating issue, cheated Island and sincerely thank you, I support you.
many fraud in the crypto world, only we are not easy to believe quickly, especially in the negative news that circulates, because all will not necessarily be certainly, it is better to stick to our standAt least I think that for scammers, $1,000 is not a big obstacle.
I beg to differ!!!!
I have been a victim of many scams and now I believe that I know how the scammers think. The scammers are not guaranteed of a positive outcome. So if they invest $1,000 they don't know whether they will be getting a positive return on that investment. This can scare away more than 90% of the scammers.
I totally agree with you that promising project need to be protected as well as investors and bounty hunters,but I feel depositing 1% when you stand to make 100% does not count,you know,giving 1$ when I know I can make 10% cannot be a problem to scammer.I feel,if we van have a body that will regulate the number of project been develop and also put bounty managers at check,we might be able to create a new dawn for crypto at large.
Making the fee at 1% or 2% is a wonderful idea, but in that case the promoters may say that it is too high and may go to other forums and post their ANN there. Anyway, even a 0.1% fee can weed out 90% of the scammers, IMO.
If the softcap of an ICO project is set to $1 million, then the 0.1% fee is $1,000, which seems too low, and I think 1% is better. If the fee is 0.1%, it still can't stop most of the scammers, because many ICOs hardcap seem to be very high, but the softcap is actually very low, and the fee usually depends on the amount of softcap.
At least I think that for scammers, $1,000 is not a big obstacle.
To be honest your points is right on the spot specially the requirement to post an ANN thread in the forum since it might have the potential to weed out the scam and questionable bounties or ICOs and to potentially raise the fund raising of legit bounties and ICOs in the forum, since I have seen that in the most of the bounties and ICOs that have good potential and are legit are getting small crowdfunding due to these behavior and the ones that are suffering are the bounty hunters, though I would not say that this is a full proof resolution since that in every structure their would be loopholes and in what I am seeing here is that if the promoters get their desired profit in the crowdfunding if their so called projects then they could just move leave the held amount in the escrow account. I feel like making the fee bit higher(1-2%) would make sense since the promoter that would want to scam investors and bounty hunters would think twice before they would continue with making an ANN thread in the forum.
Making the fee at 1% or 2% is a wonderful idea, but in that case the promoters may say that it is too high and may go to other forums and post their ANN there. Anyway, even a 0.1% fee can weed out 90% of the scammers, IMO.
To be honest your points is right on the spot specially the requirement to post an ANN thread in the forum since it might have the potential to weed out the scam and questionable bounties or ICOs and to potentially raise the fund raising of legit bounties and ICOs in the forum, since I have seen that in the most of the bounties and ICOs that have good potential and are legit are getting small crowdfunding due to these behavior and the ones that are suffering are the bounty hunters, though I would not say that this is a full proof resolution since that in every structure their would be loopholes and in what I am seeing here is that if the promoters get their desired profit in the crowdfunding if their so called projects then they could just move leave the held amount in the escrow account. I feel like making the fee bit higher(1-2%) would make sense since the promoter that would want to scam investors and bounty hunters would think twice before they would continue with making an ANN thread in the forum.
I sincerely support your comments, it's wonderful, being a bounty hunter I wish the above conditions were the forum applied to the bonus campaign, to reduce the cheating issue, cheated Island and sincerely thank you, I support you.
What I'd like most is that bounties should be bought back and paid in either ETH/BTC.
There were some ICOs which paid the rewards in BTC/ETH, but such campaigns are too few and far in between. 90% of the ICO promoters want to make quick profits. So they prefer to pay in tokens than in BTC or ETH.
Very good post made. This is what we want the forum to be. They've been cheating bounty hunters for long and in the same way hunters have been cheating for long. I really wished they could take this into consideration and put it to action.
What I'd like most is that bounties should be bought back and paid in either ETH/BTC.
What I'd like most is that bounties should be bought back and paid in either ETH/BTC.
One of the most interesting post in this section! Your ideas could be very good for Bounty participants. But there is some issues that will not allow to bounty hunters to be payed well. One of them is small credibility of ICOs - the bets of it could not gain more than 1 million usd.
4. All the bounty campaign participants must be carefully screened before the payout. In order to prevent token dumping, a few steps can be taken. Since the bounty reward is 1% to 3% of the total amount, the promoters themselves can purchase this portion from the exchanges. Or they can make the bounty payments in BTC/ETH. There should also be a condition that the promoters should hold on to 90% of their tokens for at least 12 months. (Because I have noticed that it is the promoters who do dumping in the vast majority of the cases, and they blame it on the bounty hunters).
You should now better by now that this is irrational and ridicolous. First of all everyone is doing it for the money and they have the right to sell their tokens when they want.
On other hand teams shoud be takeing care of their token price and it is easiliy done, and it seems that only 1% is doing it right or semi right.They should
1) At least lock bounty tokens for a month after the listing, this would prevent the otken to be crashed in the begining in DEX exchnages. And after a month thre would be some buy orders which would prevent tokens of being dumped to the level if it was at the start.
2) Pay in ETH and avoid token drop alltogether.
5. KYC must be mandatory for ICO promoters and bounty campaign managers (unless they are on level 2 DT). If this is done, then the scammers won't be able to set up multiple fake ICOs.
This could actually make sense but it will never happen to this forum and if there was such such thing then who would stop these campaign management to be takens offf platform?
Well, most ICO-s did KYC verification at some sites like ICO Bench, Coinschedule etc... so, for example, we just recently started the campaign and even thought KYC is not possible on bitcointalk, I personally did it on Coinschedule and foundico for example and you can use it as a proof that everything is legit 
I was surprise about the evolution of the bounty campaigns too, particularly the reporting of the social media tweets and reposts which are posted in the thread. We can't discuss anything on the thread anymore because of those reports. I have seen several projects that didn't pay the bounty participants, too bad those who joined are promoting it for them only to find out they are scam.
It is quite irritating to see all the social media bounty reporting in the thread, when they can easily create a spreadsheet-based system for the same. Imagine if 10,000 participants are participating in the social media bounty (FB, Twitter.etc). There will be 10K posts in 7 days.
Overall I'm with you totally. just some remarks
500 USD is way too little for scammers. on the other hand, legit projects find it bad for their business if this downpayment system is installed.
I do like KYC requirement for bounty managers and some restrictions or suggestions how the bounties are performed. Just cant believe how so many megathreads are created just because everyone has to declare their stats. do the managers even like to waste so much time on doing this manual labor??? there are so much more efficient ways to gather info and main thing is that they are outside of forum space. i can bet it cleans up 10% (20%? 30%?) of the spamposts
OR bitcointalk can just create separate part for bounty hunters, where they can keep their stats. a place most other users never have to go
We need to list all the bad bounty managers. Let everyone not join these bounty projects.
Rather than listing the bad bounty managers, it may be easier to list the good ones. Because there are thousands of scammers out there and if someone is blacklisted then the scammers can easily find a replacement. A good idea may be to limit the qualification to DT2 or higher.
That is a good idea. Because right now, almost all of the ICO Bounty campaign bounty manager has a negative or a red trust. And we see a good ICO to participate to, but we doubt because the bounty manager in charge have a negative trust. So better to have a list, and on that way, we can find more ICO bounty campaign in a easier yet a secured way. Thank you for that.
Jump to: