Topic: Bounty Campaigns now trial and error method - page 2. (Read 839 times)
yes, I also agree with this, that the team must confirm in advance that they at least have the funds to run the project. it will be even greater if the team does not depend on investors. so whether you can get investors or not, the project is still running. in my opinion there is no need to pursue a large total supply, but the liquidity of the token is the most important one after the token is released to the public.
Indeed many of us find such projects, should they extend the ICO time so that hardcap can be achieved instead of eliminating the trace until many parties feel disappointed because of the time spent so long, if I think this including scam projects as well as they are lost at the time the payout of the prize occurs, projects like this should be destroyed.
Project must have realistic target and release it at the right moment, those thing are crucial for developer. In investor side or our ( bounty hunter ) get the real information about developer ( road map, team, white paper ) is really important, from there we can make objective review about the project. Now project using popular coin as payment ( btc/ eth ) is more acceptable than new coin, I think developer should see it as opportunity to keep going ( adaptation ).
Hi All,
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
If me act like investor, for now i am not really rely on ICO project anymore. Maybe project which not raise enough funds or not reach softcap is better because sometime they refund investor's money. And it is better than project that get minimal funds or their softcap and then not develop it well, it can make investor lose time and money. This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
Seems you know how to detect good bounties but why promoting ridenode then? As slacking as i am i can never promote such project because the idea and use case is way off and won't help crypto space at all, there are few things to consider in bounty projects before joining
Why not? I consider joining this project as I can see the use case the may help the community not just the crypto space. That is what crypto for as well right? Adaption would one. But can you tell me, what are those things to consider?
Hi All,
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
It is sad but we have to accept it because we all know that most of them are fail, so we have to choose the bounty more carefully. If teams have enough fundings before they look for investors, the bounty reward might be much lower and will you accpet it?This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
Hi All,
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
This is the risk you take once you join a bounty campaign. It had always been since the beginning. This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
But unlike before, they could really raise large funds because of the small competition.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
Yes, they do have enough funds. But that is just for the initiation of the project and the ICO. Payment for the team and employees and other stuffs.
Bounties are not included with it. They will get it from the contribution.
That is how it is, swallow it if the campaign fails to reach even a small cap.
It will feel better that way.
Hi All,
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
It is sad but we have to accept it because we all know that most of them are fail, so we have to choose the bounty more carefully. If teams have enough fundings before they look for investors, the bounty reward might be much lower and will you accpet it?This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
Hi All,
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
It is sad but we have to accept it because we all know that most of them are fail, so we have to choose the bounty more carefully. If teams have enough fundings before they look for investors, the bounty reward might be much lower and will you accpet it? This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
Hi All,
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
Usually a good projects is not really have to raised too much funds because they are already built a solid professional teams that could build a really good products. If the projects have to raise so much fund to develop their projects as their reason is for paying salary of their teams, that means the teams is just working on money oriented and don't have a spirit for the project.
Hi All,
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
Some of the new ICO that comes here, has zero funding and they rely on the funding that they will generate to set up the platform, it works in the past, but not on our present time anymore, people are more careful and they want to see initial stage of the platform before they proceed to invest, they want to make sure this time, that they are investing in a serious project.
Hi All,
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
This has happened to me quite a few times and it is very frustrating after all the effort and time we put in. But we bounty hunters also need to introspect. Why we are joining bounty campaigns, where there is no guarantee of payment? There are too many bounty hunters and too few bounty campaigns out there. So obviously there will be enough people willing to work for whatever exploitative terms they put in. Bounty hunters need to organize and demand better terms from the campaigns. We should make sure that no one goes unpaid.
It is very difficult if the project does not get the expected funding because the project also needs funds to build their products so they often make sales through IEO or ICO.
From my point of view it is looking at the whole project in order to know which one should be invested whether the project is good or not, the important thing is that investors already understand it because the project does not have funds will surely die.
If they insist on running a project with a small amount of funds, I think it will be useless because one day their project will surely die and need money for all their project needs. Research before investment is important in order to avoid dead projects. From my point of view it is looking at the whole project in order to know which one should be invested whether the project is good or not, the important thing is that investors already understand it because the project does not have funds will surely die.
Hi All,
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
Your post is kind of self contradictory.
The whole point of an ICO is to raise funding for development. There is no surebet on whether or not an ICO can raise enough funds for their development, and if they had funding to begin with then theoretically, they would never have to go public with their tokens anyhow.
But yes, I agree with the bounty statement. I think that teams have the obligation to compensate the bounty hunters fairly, even if their projects may fail.
Hi All,
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
This is not about scam projects. This is about the projects which fail to raise enough funds due to what so ever reasons. When bounty hunters work for weeks and at the last moment project announces that they can no longer run it due to insufficient funds raised, its nothing but a waste of time and energy for us.
In my opinion, should project teams have enough fundings before they look for investors? What is called MVP is very important for the users to check for before investing.
MVP will ensure that even if funds are not raised as expected, it can be delayed but not dead.
From your point of view, what other points are there which projects and investors both look for?
This is the current crowdfunding scenario now, and it's not recommended for small investors to invest in any project now because of the uncertainty, it seems the market does not want new crowdfunding, they can look for private investors but public crowdfunding is not attractive anymore.
I think one should look for project that are already on exchanges and are offering bounties or look for a project that is outstanding. So far the only bounty that scammed me was Temtum.
Lately I have been doing Bounties on KuCoinPlay. They have the advantage of not only having an automated reporting system but also you know every Bounty you get you will be able to monetise since every coin they do is already trading on KuCoin Exchange. It is nice to know that your efforts will produce a reward.
Interesting didn't know about this, Thanks for sharing. Although competition to be in top 550 will be tough. Does it requires users to go through KYC to participate? 
Problem of new project team is they are treating projects like do or die matter, it's not a force to launch projects when you can't afford to list on better exchanges, the truth is the greatest enemy of new projects is exchanges
They actually become greedy and they do not want to spend their money and just want to collect money from the investors and not care for the future of these investors. In the start they just launch their project and bounty campaign and do not try to spend any penny to do further marketing and after they collect the money from investors they become more greedy and start to list their coins on only free listing exchanges which do not have any trade volume but the fake.
I think for all projects it should be made compulsory that they raise private/seed funding from private/angel investors first before opening ico, this will be win win situation for all and will have following positive outcomes.
1) It will make sure that only quality and practical projects will continue.
2) It will become an automatic and organic project filtration process and will gain the trust of investors and they will be back to icos.
3) Teams behind the project will also know from the start that their project is worthwhile or not that will save further time and energy.
4) Bounty hunters will also be sure of the continuation of the projeft and this way bounty industry will revive too.
This will definitely be win win for all as i explained i hope industry will find a way to follow this simple process.
1) It will make sure that only quality and practical projects will continue.
2) It will become an automatic and organic project filtration process and will gain the trust of investors and they will be back to icos.
3) Teams behind the project will also know from the start that their project is worthwhile or not that will save further time and energy.
4) Bounty hunters will also be sure of the continuation of the projeft and this way bounty industry will revive too.
This will definitely be win win for all as i explained i hope industry will find a way to follow this simple process.
I think there should be some sort of remedy to hunters for their time spent on project promotion even if such project fails to raise anything during ICOs or IEOs. Or payment should be made in stable coins to escrow accounts to stop hunters from wasting their time promoting campaigns. Some projects raise funds yet don't pay hunters.
For all the time I have been working in the cryptocurrency market, I have already come across many different types of problems for bounty hunters. Today, Bounty Hunters not only do not receive the earned remuneration, but also face such problems when a team of a certain project comes up with various tricks in order to pay as little percentage of the remuneration as possible, fewer participants or to aggravate the reward by some new conditions, already a long perfect bounty company. Of course, such cases can be safely called fraudulent actions on the part of the team, but the fact is that the activities of the Bounty Hunters are nowhere protected by law and therefore not one Bounty Hunter will be able to protect their rights. There are a lot of indicators that we can look for a project to ensure the success of project, from team members, project itself, whitepaper, roadmap etc. but still we can only identify if the project will run or not until the end of sale even with a working project before raising funds is still not an assurance for success. So with the title of this thread, Bounty and ICO/IEO or whatever it is, it is still a trial and error.
Seems you know how to detect good bounties but why promoting ridenode then? As slacking as i am i can never promote such project because the idea and use case is way off and won't help crypto space at all, there are few things to consider in bounty projects before joining Jump to: