Some managers or project team intentionally do the restriction for some reasons.
That bounty has so many participants, does not mean it will be more effective. In fact, you can have limited participants and yet, such little number can attract so many investors.
This is why some projects try to make such wise decision.
Topic: Bounties with limitations pays higher rewards - page 9. (Read 1716 times)
RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A BOUNTY CAMPAIGN = HIGHER PAYOUTS
The limitations can be done in two ways:
1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.
Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign
2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.
Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.
I am not a bounty manager or very familiar with bounties, but the reason the limitations that you mentioned don't exist is because first bounties are made to promote their projects on social media and forums where there are thousands of people, and if like they recruit just a couple hundreds all the posts and tweets that they do will just be forgotten and not seen by the sheer amount of spam on these platforms, the more people they recruit the less of that happening in order to make this bounty successful, and the more people means less payments, and you see where this is going. The limitations can be done in two ways:
1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.
Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign
2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.
Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.
Depending on the project roadmap it is reasonable to expect high bounty rewards. If there is no interest in the project, I never spend my time with the bounty requirements.
RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN A BOUNTY CAMPAIGN = HIGHER PAYOUTS
The limitations can be done in two ways:
1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.
Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign
2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.
Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.
It was depends on the demand of the project, if the project was good and hype then it has a chance to get a high reward, for now it was better to have a limitation so that they can divide the rewards equally unlike if there is no limitation you will get a low reward, or else you will get is just for gas a very small token and your effort would be wasted. The limitations can be done in two ways:
1)Quantative — when a max number of participants is set and no one is allowed to join after that.
Example: Max 1000 entrants in a facebook campaign
2)Qualitative — when the requirements are raised up by the bounty managers.
Example: Minimum 500 followers to participate in an article/blogging campaign.
It is not always, but I think that bounties with limitations is better choice. Now it is rare to meet such bounties and it would be perfect if you guys share experience with such bounties.
Now almost all the bounty of the company have any limitations. And it is correct, I consider. The fewer people, the more opportunities for earnings.
In my opinion it depends on the gift manager and the developer in carrying out campaign gifts, for distribution of prize payments can be divided equally.
Managers do not have the authority to determine allocations for bounty hunters. the team determines the number of prizes and usually 1% or more.The manager only manages the bounty and checks the work of the bounty hunter.
That might be valid for ICOs which always pay like %1 of the raised money, so when they raise millions of dollars and number of bounty participants is limited, the payment becomes huge.
Sometimes, limitations in bounties might be of great profits and hunters get very excited, sometimes it doesn't work that way, it has to be the project allocation, the price trading (if listed) all that needs a consideration.
For me, the limitation in this bounty campaign is very important for managing managerially. With the limitation of the members of the bounty campaign, the members really want to participate maximally and take responsibility. This also makes the team manager of the bounty campaign easy to control the work results of each bounty campaign. If there are many members, then it will waste time in checking bounty campaign work, especially if there are many members who are not working on a bounty campaign project. Of course this limitation makes payments from the bounty campaign even bigger. I am more pleased with this system because we feel that our work in the bounty campaign feels an important part.
In my opinion it depends on the gift manager and the developer in carrying out campaign gifts, for distribution of prize payments can be divided equally.
having limit participant on a campaign will indeed have better payment potential, because it means the project has a real budget which will certainly be good in the end, because at least they have a real budget that proves the project will be serious to improve their reputation to be better for long periods of time
I like to be interested in this method because surely the payment will definitely get a lot of rewards, but for now this method depends on the project because the last time I followed the project it turned out that the token was not as expected and could even be notified to death (it does not have volume even though the listings in the market are quite famous), but I see some time ago there have been many good projects from the IEO that did it and it seems that getting higher payments will start again
What pays higher rewards, not limitations but the quality of the project, the team members etc.
Also, the lower % the free of the bounty and pr tokens is, less change there's for sell pressure with a low price.
All these doesn't matter if the team are not going to distribute bounty tokens. The most important thing if for the team to stay loyal and keep their promises to bounty hunters. We are fed up working for projects for free.
With the maximum limit, it will certainly affect what is obtained. Because with the maximum limit, of course the distribution will be even greater. However, it seems that not all bounties do this. Because I see there are still many bounties that continue to accept new participants. Try to see there are even projects that reach 4000 participants for social media and an average of 1000 participants for blogs / media.
Not all campaign limits participants since the more their participants the more chances that their companies will reach more people, and that's how marketing works.
With the maximum limit, it will certainly affect what is obtained. Because with the maximum limit, of course the distribution will be even greater. However, it seems that not all bounties do this. Because I see there are still many bounties that continue to accept new participants. Try to see there are even projects that reach 4000 participants for social media and an average of 1000 participants for blogs / media.
Most of the bounties are doesn't care about the hunter's payment. They do only care about how many people are promoting their project. I don't think this is a good way to catch investors or to raise quality contents. They should care quality over the quantity. I do agree with you that bounty should have limitations in participation and that will be helpful for the hunter and for the projects as well!
I think this is a good solution for participants of bounty companies as the pool for rewards will be divided between a limited number of participants and the quality of the content will be improved, which will accordingly improve the marketing of this project.
Jump to: