Topic: Are bounty managers to be blamed? - page 35. (Read 5980 times)
Bounty managers are not to be blame if an ico turns out to be a scam because them self may not know the project is a scam they are also working to earn money
There are such a significant number of issues that may happen in an abundance crusade time of an ICO, one of those regular issue is the issue about the circulation of prizes to the abundance members. Most abundance seekers are frantically grumbling about their prizes since it isn't conveyed to them or postponement in the date of disseminations. At the point when this happens, not everytime the abundance supervisors is the one to be faulted on the grounds that like us they are additionally abundance seekers that are wanting to acquire cash by partaking on bounties. The one to be faulted is the engineer of the ICO.
I think it's not the bounty Manager's fault that the project turned out to be a Scam.
the problem is the project team, if the bounty manager is not worth blaming. But the manager should be one step ahead of the bounty participants on the suspicious start project so that project errors can be notified to bounty participants and investors earlier.
We can't point the finger at Bounty Managers in spite of the fact that they have their weaknesses of not painstakingly picking a decent abundance crusade. They are much the same as us who accept the position of dealing with the organizations abundance crusade. I mean they didn't intentionally distribute a trick ICO even them they don't know whether the organization will trick us. The one to fault here is the group who runs their ICO. We (abundance seekers) and abundance chiefs are for the most part only casualties here.
So ones again we have been scammed by another ICO known as Uchit. Now people have started raining insults and curses on the bounty manager that he has led them to be scammed.
In ideal world, the project has to have a good support from the team and managers must always stay updated and check security. If you easily find scammers in the spreadsheets and there is no reply, how can you rely on such project, especially if you invest?
They should take more responsibility, some of the popular ones take on blatant scams.
So ones again we have been misled by another ICO known as Uchit. Presently individuals have begun drizzling abuse and reviles on the abundance supervisor that he has driven them to be defrauded. Regardless of the various expressions of remorse from the director, abundance seekers don't appear to get it. Presently my inquiry is, do you figure abundance seekers must be faulted when we are misled in light of the fact that they knew what the ICO was doing, even from the earliest starting point?
This is an intense inquiry which the appropriate response could be yes and in the meantime could be no. Right off the bat, the abundance battle director couldn't be a piece of the group at all from the begin yet only an agreement representative with them, which doesn't require meeting face to face (physically). The Team would give the abundance chief the venture data and on the off chance that he/she supposes the undertaking is alright, he would consent to deal with the abundance battle for them. For this situation, the abundance chief shouldn't be faulted yet in the event that else, he/she ought to be considered in charge of that. #justmyopinion
For dishonest reward managers. They deserve to be punished. BBS should set the table to show them publicly. Make them realize that cheating is not supposed to be done.
The project manager is a human and it is really hard to understand if a project is scam. For this, it needs to be quite experienced.
It is very hard to predict if the ICO projects will soon to become scam, and it is not bounty managers fault. bounty managers are just following all the task that the team want it to be, then announce what projects is in the future, meaning the scam all happens on the team of the projects and bounty managers are not involve, but in a rarely situation, bounty manager is from the team of the project, so obviously he/she involve on it. but not all.
I think bounty managers are not to be fully blamed because some of them don't have eye contact with the management of a project, the bounty work is just a contract for them which they accept in good faith, on the other hand, they should be blamed because they have the right to know everything about the project before embarking on the contract of the bounty manager.
Therefore, they are to be blamed partially.
They should be blamed because in the first place they are here in crypto and they know what projects are feasible, BM should decide that at the start.Therefore, they are to be blamed partially.
Quote
Therefore, they are to be blamed partially.
Fully or partially blamed but still it is a blame. 
Bounty managers can't be blamed if the project they handled is a scam. They're just a victim like us bounty hunters because they're just being paid to handle the project.
I think bounty mananger need to carry the blame also, some of them are just desparate to run a campaign before without doing a due dilligence on the project, if you want to sell a project to others one need to make sure is a real deal. Some have not real contact or video chat with any of the developers of the ICOs they are managing
You are absolutely right. Bounty managers should be hold responsible, because they can mislead the bounty hunters very easily. IMO, bounty managers should check the projects they are running as much as they can and make sure the projects are legit.
Managers bounty can also be fooled. I don't think he should be as responsible as the project team. I've had cases where the Manager did a good job and eventually the team just disappeared and that's it. The Manager himself suffered from this. Another situation, when they were in collusion from the beginning, then, of course, they are equally responsible.
Does not seem. I think the manager can not be blamed. Sometimes only certain people blame him. It's happened, and there's no need to blame it and we just have to focus on something else. And do not take too long to think of someone else's faults. That's my opinion.
Even though that is your opinion but that its not good also as a manager in bounty campaign they should see tonit that the project are professional and legit because it can create a mass victims of fake ICO, investors money is a big responsibilty because they are the one who makes the project success and hunters are spreading good news to a project to promote but in total its a scam, so better bounty manager should blame.
So ones again we have been scammed by another ICO known as Uchit. Now people have started raining insults and curses on the bounty manager that he has led them to be scammed. Despite the numerous apologies from the manager, bounty hunters do not seem to understand. Now my question is, do you think bounty hunters must be blamed when we are scammed because they knew what the ICO was up to, even from the beginning?
The bounty managers are responsible for managing only the campaign. If you as a bounty hunter thinks that the campaign is scam, don't join it. As simple as that. It will save you of aches of being scammed. Like really. The bounty managers are 20% only to be blamed especially if they are also scammed. You would organize the whole campaign and not be paid until the bounty hunters are paid. But most of the time, the bounty hunters are the ones to be blamed on being scammed. Not the bounty managers.
Does not seem. I think the manager can not be blamed. Sometimes only certain people blame him. It's happened, and there's no need to blame it and we just have to focus on something else. And do not take too long to think of someone else's faults. That's my opinion.
So ones again we have been defrauded by another ICO known as Uchit. Presently individuals have begun down-pouring put-down and reviles on the abundance administrator that he has driven them to be defrauded. Notwithstanding the various statements of regret from the chief, abundance seekers don't appear to get it. Presently my inquiry is, do you figure abundance seekers must be faulted when we are misled on the grounds that they knew what the ICO was doing, even from the earliest starting point?
Jump to: