Topic: Bounty hunters killed ICO? - page 5. (Read 7058 times)
I don't think so because the total amount of tokens that bounty hunters get is only a small part of the project. Because of that, it does not cause ICOs to die, but they only exchange errors for bounty hunters. Just because of the poor projects with inexperienced team, the scammers that make ICOs die from the end of 2018.
I really hate this kind of question 
Most of you already said that bounty allocation is 1 or maybe the biggest one is 5 percent from the total token. Yes, the bounty allocation does not affect the price.
Have you check the team reserve? is it locked and transparently viewable on the blockchain?
Have you checked the total fund collected? is it really 100 Mio collected or just words.
If you aren't able to check those then you invest in the wrong company.
We do need to watch those old standards that had been gone lately.
And that is not hunters faults. Hunters are also an investor.
Most of you already said that bounty allocation is 1 or maybe the biggest one is 5 percent from the total token. Yes, the bounty allocation does not affect the price.
Have you check the team reserve? is it locked and transparently viewable on the blockchain?
Have you checked the total fund collected? is it really 100 Mio collected or just words.
If you aren't able to check those then you invest in the wrong company.
We do need to watch those old standards that had been gone lately.
And that is not hunters faults. Hunters are also an investor.
It is necessary to take into account the fact that the total pool on the company's Bounty very rarely exceeded 2 or 3% and therefore these volumes of coins were not very important when pricing in the cryptocurrency market. You should take into account the fact that most investors invested their money in new projects with a 50 percent discount just to make money on sales after listing. No one was completely worried about the projects. In addition, today the participants of the Bounty companies receive a dozen or hundreds of times less reward than stipulated by the terms of many Bounty companies, and many generally block the reward for hunters, But nevertheless, coin prices are still falling and the Hunters cannot be blamed for the fall prices. If the team was not able to realize the full potential of the project, then you need to consider the team with the highest measure of lack of professionalism, and not look for the perpetrators in the other direction.
ICO is done by the team, not bounty hunters. Various bounty campaigns are also planned projects. Advertising the project is just a job for bounty hunters and they should at least earn something. I wouldn't blame them.
1) a project collected funds,
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
The above pointed points are facts that can not be denied. 2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
2) How bounty hunters killed ICO because of funds allocation?
3) Bounty hunters can make price drop on short run, in the long run, their dump shouldn't have impact on token's price.
4) Investors lost money because they invested in projects which disappeared, fail to develop or poorly operated by not experienced team and they stop investing.
I think ICO problems are their type of providence. In general, this is an old topic. Now IEO and hunters can not reduce the price if the project was on a good exchange. I think that hunters just do their job so that the world knows more about projects.
There was a project that issued two tokens. A normal one and Bonus token. All the bonuses including bounties were given in that token. Also the team distinguished bonus for buying more tokens and bounties. That was smart move imho.
If we mean the same project starting on E letter, guess who's advised them that.
Cheers
1) a project collected funds,
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
1. In essence, the PROJECT NEED a bounty campaign. It is precisely because there is a demand for bounty hunters that they exist. So it’s important not to forget this moment.2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
2. No one ever forces and cannot force a project to conduct a bounty campaign.
3. Thousands of BH in most cases have only 1-2% of tokens from the entire pool. So, even if all BH simultaneously sell their tokens, this will not be able to greatly affect the price of a valuable token.
These are all fables invented for you. The price of a token at the beginning of trading often falls so sharply due to the fact that tokens are sold by Pre-ICO participants who bought tokens at a very low price. As a result, when the token enters the exchange, they have the opportunity to sell them at the prices at which the ICO was conducted, while making profit from the difference in value.
4. Investors, if they see that some crap is happening with the project, generally don't invest money in it. And holding a bounty campaign is not crap.
Now that you have the answers and counterarguments, I hope you get the answer to your question.
Don't be a victim of such fables, always think for yourself.
There was a project that issued two tokens. A normal one and Bonus token. All the bonuses including bounties were given in that token. Also the team distinguished bonus for buying more tokens and bounties. That was smart move imho.
1) a project collected funds,
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
The above pointed points are facts that can not be denied. The honest truth is that, the bounty hunters are stil under the project team no matter the number of people that exists wihtin the bounty hunting community. The Bounty Hunters plays by the laid down rules of the team. It is the team that should therefore put in place, measure that will curtail the excessess that will arise from the bounty hunters and not to blame them for the wrecking of ICOs.
I don't agree, because some projects have decreased even when the bounty hunter allocation has not been shared.
it's just an excuse because they don't have demand in the market, so the project itself is making rekt itself because it doesn't attract investors or traders.
it's just an excuse because they don't have demand in the market, so the project itself is making rekt itself because it doesn't attract investors or traders.
it's not entirely the fault of the prize hunter, because the person who holds the token is not just the prize hunter but there are still other token holders including the project team. so I don't blame prize hunters if the price of tokens when listing on the market goes down quite sharply and not all prize hunters kill ico.
No, I don't think bounty hunters killed ICO. In my opinion, the biggest reason for the almost disappearance of ICOs is that their investors do not trust ICOs. Especially in the last two years, too many ICOs have turn into to scam or have been canceled. In this case, the reliability of the ICOs was significantly reduced. Another reason is that many ICOs are no longer profitable. As a result, many investors are joining the ICOs to make high profits. However, due to the current market situation, ICO tokens generally are not rise significantly in the short term. In this case, investors can not make high profits.
It's the marketing failure, investors will stay longer if they have clear vision of success from a platform, Coins can be alive if it's really active and developing new projects to attract more people. Bounty hunters only got a small percentage from a project budget, they join to earn a reasonable value of the token, they won't sell in cheaper.
1) a project collected funds,
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
I would not say that bounty hunters are always to blame for the price drop of any token, of course, sometimes bounty hunters kill the price and after that the price either stays in the same place forever or then starts to rise after some time, but I also constantly saw and I constantly see how investors who buy tokens for incredible bonuses kill the price of the token they bought, so do not forget that the creators of any project also constantly sell their tokens at an early stage due to various reasons. 2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
Yeah, that's true fact about the ICO that have lot of bounty hunter to promote it. They just think about their token must be sent into their wallet without give impact for selling. Spreading fud and give negative comments in telegram global group to make the ICO will be trash for investor.
I think this problem can be solve if the team distribute token for bounty hunter payment each month to decrease chance to get dump by hunter.
it can also be avoided when his team pays bitcoin, ETH, or coins that are popular with bounty hunters. however, the coins they hold are sometimes below 10%. Well, in this case, not all bounty hunter mistakes. I think when the team has a good strategy for avoiding dumps, the best way is to pay them another coin.I think this problem can be solve if the team distribute token for bounty hunter payment each month to decrease chance to get dump by hunter.
And the team must also be ready to have funds if they want to launch a bounty to promote it, if the payment is to use the same token, it makes the tokens cheap because the hunters now get tokens from the results directly sold.
Yeah, that's true fact about the ICO that have lot of bounty hunter to promote it. They just think about their token must be sent into their wallet without give impact for selling. Spreading fud and give negative comments in telegram global group to make the ICO will be trash for investor.
I think this problem can be solve if the team distribute token for bounty hunter payment each month to decrease chance to get dump by hunter.
it can also be avoided when his team pays bitcoin, ETH, or coins that are popular with bounty hunters. however, the coins they hold are sometimes below 10%. Well, in this case, not all bounty hunter mistakes. I think when the team has a good strategy for avoiding dumps, the best way is to pay them another coin. I think this problem can be solve if the team distribute token for bounty hunter payment each month to decrease chance to get dump by hunter.
1) a project collected funds,
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
False, I think. If you compare the Bounty Budget allocation to the ICO's total hardcap or softcap or percentage of raised fund, it's actually a small budget, usually less than 2%. And the project can be distribute follow a vetting schedule or paid all of that, but if they have money, the purchase of the entire bounty tokens which will not affect the token price. Those projects failed, they failed at the beginning, rather than having to wait until BH dump their tokens. 2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
Yeah, that's true fact about the ICO that have lot of bounty hunter to promote it. They just think about their token must be sent into their wallet without give impact for selling. Spreading fud and give negative comments in telegram global group to make the ICO will be trash for investor.
I think this problem can be solve if the team distribute token for bounty hunter payment each month to decrease chance to get dump by hunter.
I think this problem can be solve if the team distribute token for bounty hunter payment each month to decrease chance to get dump by hunter.
1) a project collected funds,
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
2) Funds allocation (among advisors, bla bla bla and bounty hunters)
3) Considering there are thousands of BH, the price of a token dropped dramatically
4) Investors bought token on ICO see this crap and less people invest in ICOs.
True or False?
Bounty hunters get only 2-5% of the total token allocation. And not all of them instantly sell all their bounty as soon as they get token but contrarily some of them hold the coin longer than the usual investor. As a normal investor invest money they have a limit which they can't afford to lose but some bounty hunters can afford to hold it for longer. So it's a complete false alligation.
Jump to: