Topic: Bounty hunters killed ICO? - page 7. (Read 7058 times)

Strong projects are able to survive on the market even when hunters dump their tokens. Some of them claim they ve had a successful token sale and has made enough funds, yet their claim their projects are dying because of few dumps from bounty hunters. Those projects are simply not serious

False. Not even an inch. People really think bounty hunters didn't work for thier tokens or begged because most of these funds are not escrowed of payments in btc or stable coin rather than the project native coin. Bounty hunters are like marketers and every provision should be adequately made by the platform to see that they are handsomely paid and not vilified for dumps. Large scale project dumps should rather be traced to the huge bonuses that the private and presale investors get from the project as well

I spoke privately with the CEO of one project, the cost of which tokens fell several dozen times on the first day of trading on the exchange. Tokens to the bounty participants at that time were not distributed, and the bounty hunters could not influence this in any way. So this CEO hinted to me that this was done to pick up tokens from the 'weak hands' of some investors.

Lol, ICO died because they did not have to live. Think why they are needed? So that someone just collects money? How many worthy projects do you see today?

Hmm, even though the topic is old but this thread is right for giving opinion.

For this point, almost all projects that I have participated in, the bounty allocation is only around 1% -7% of the total supply of tokens (Values above 5% are very rarely found), So I don't think it should have much effect on the cycle right?

Returning to point 2, the allocation to the bounty barely touches the value of 10%. But I agree a little, Indeed, distributing all tokens at the same time will affect the price of the token when the token listed first day the exchange, but it does not last long (usually only about 1-2 weeks after entering the exchange or distribution)

Logically the circulation of tokens for bounties is very small right (Point 2)? So this cannot be entirely blamed on bounty hunters but project development & marketing also matters (Market factors also affect). The point is in my opinion, the Bounty hunter does affect when tokens are distributed and the tokens will list on an exchange or vice versa, but after that it depends on the project team whether they can do recovery and also development & marketing that can attract various people into their projects. So i think both of them need each other, the Project gets an active token circulation & volume and also a promotion as well as bounty hunters who get paid. That is my opinion and ask me everyone has a different opinion, Cheers! 

The team dumping tokens is more like it. Bounty hunters are blamed time and again for price dumps when we're all aware that most projects allocate only a small fraction of their token supply to promotional campaigns which in most cases are not enough to affect prices to the extent to which bounty hunters are blamed for. A good example of such a project would be Sparkster. No one can say bounty hunters dumped the price, investors wouldn't sell at a loss, so who dumped it?

I want to ask if ico really died because of the hunters of gifts, I don't think so with a hadia hunter who wants to promote an ico,then ico will quickly be infected only there are some ico that stop in the middle of the road it is not the hunter's fault, but from the manager and his own team that is not solidarity

Sometimes it works like that, that's true, but not always. If the team promotes their project in a right way, bounty hunters and advisors might not want to sell their tokens fast.

No, it is surely the investors and speculators who killed ICO. Because they immediately sell their coins if they have a little profits or if they are afraid that the token lose more value against bitcoin or usdt. That's why all alcoins are falling. It is not just a problem of ICO.
And sometimes maybe because the ICO team sold a big part of their tokens for usdt or bitcoin. Bounty hunters have very little power to make an ICO fail.

Personally, my opinion is that it wasn't the bounty hunters who killed ICO, but a lot of crooks in these ICO projects.

Bounty hunter is always the reason for the failure of a project because it has decreased prices, even though the allocation for bounty hunter is very little and of course it has been calculated so that it can overcome the price reduction by bounty hunter. Several projects have failed even though they have distributed allocations to the latest bounty hunters or on a regular basis.

Bounty hunters barely had a thing to do with the dealth of icos. The ico market died down as a result of most project having nothing to show off for what they raised funds for coupled with the fact that developers grows more greedy dumping tokens after listing on exchanges.

Bounty hunters are paid just few percent of the token pool, mostly only 1% of the token pool. Whereas early investors and whale that do buy during discounted sales do receive lots of bonuses worth almost x2 of their purchases, selling all their holdings cheaply on exchange because the huge bonuses will always give them a win. They have nothing to lose.

I agree with what you say here.
Most projects do not have a strategy/planning going forward after the seller is finished.
Therefore also most projects do not last long, after that one by one will die.
And one more thing, they don't have new innovations to be able to compete with previous projects.

as a bounty hunter I object to the opinion that bounty hunters kill ICO, the allocation given to bounty hunters is very small compared to the number of tokens in circulation, if ICO fails and the price of the token decreases then it is not entirely the fault of bounty hunters but it is also because the project has no strategy and good marketing planning

Your words are correct. Most bounty hunters get paid much later.Not only who will be responsible for them. There are many investor scammers who buy many bonuses and destroy the market with little profit. So it's not just Hunter's fraud. Many scammers are involved. 10% of the total supply coins are spent on Hunter's.

only unresponbility developers team that will sold their token after getting in exchanges.they have to locked their token reserved for several years, to give certainity that price will not dumped by them.but in fact some developers team be main reason why price crashing, but unfortunately bounty hunter blamed in this case.

At some points, I think yes they have contributed with this problem but it is not the main problem why some ICO are becoming scam or should I said "killed".

One reason are the investors. A huge percentage of the total token supply is for the token sale. If the project will become successfully sold all of their tokens, then the chances of the price of token to plummet will increase. The developers too are the reason sometimes. They sold their token immediately after they are getting listed on an exchange and some of them are simply abandoning the coin as it gets listed.

Paying bounty hunters with ETH in order to preserve the tokens is a good strategy yet the project management will not adopt it because the team wants to grow the community support for the tokens. Bounty hunters are not responsible for dumping because some hunters are also investors. Again, the allocation for bounty programs are sometimes way too small to bring the fall of the entire supply of a certain token.

The drop in the price of new tokens is now happening for many reasons. First of all, this is the poor state of the altcoin market. This year they almost did not grow in price, despite a good, almost four-fold price increase in bitcoin from the beginning of April to the end of June this year. Now, only a few new tokens show growth when they appear on the exchange, and even then inexhaustibly. Basically, they immediately fall in price. Bounty hunters play an insignificant role in this, since they own only a few percent of the total number of issued tokens, and even then, as a rule, they are received in their wallets when the token has already collapsed in the price of the exchange. The early investors themselves significantly affect the price of the token, who try to consolidate their profits by selling tokens at the ICO price. Here you need to generally change the approach to cryptocurrency and provide for the presence of passive income in it. Toda will be interested in holding cryptocurrency, rather than selling it.

You are right, but I as a bounty do not feel that bounty hunters kill ICO, try to do the calculation of the allocation they spend on bounty hunters compared to investors, only a few percent, far compared to the number of sales they made at the time of the ICO, should if they are serious about the project, they can do buybacks.