Topic: Bounty hunters killed ICO? - page 8. (Read 7058 times)
little agree, but for the problem of hunter is not always caused by them, many projects that distribute tokens to hunters in a matter of months and before that applies tokens must be listed in market first and before the tokens are shared there are several tokens that have dumped due to certain things for example hacks, project scams, etc. at this time the BH allocation can also be said to have been a little compared to the past few years, so it's not always the fault of the hunter
No, bounty hunters did not kill the ICO. it'e depands on project progress and working product.
Bounty hunters didn't kill ICOs. Amounts always allocated to hunters are minute when compared to tokens sold on exchanges. Also some projects lock hunters allocation for a long period of time price dump wasn't the fault of hunters but some projects lacked marketing strategies for their projects.
How can you think of such, does the little token been given to bounty hunters okay for them, talk more of affecting ICO's. You got it all wrong cos bounty hunters are been payed poorly
Exactly, bounty hunters barely earn up to 5% of the tokens in circulation, in most cases the developers don't pay bounty hunters their due and include more rigid conditions after the bounty campaign has been completed to reduce the number of tokens to be distributed.
No, bounty hunters did not kill the ICO. Bounty hunters provide a valuable service to new projects. If anything hurts a new project it could be airdrops. Many people game airdrops and then dump them on the market.
Speaking of bounty, if you want to earn a bounty for testing a wifi sharing app (Aloha WiFi) join the Telegram community at- https://t.me/oppopenwifi and fill out the Beta tester form in the pinned message.
Speaking of bounty, if you want to earn a bounty for testing a wifi sharing app (Aloha WiFi) join the Telegram community at- https://t.me/oppopenwifi and fill out the Beta tester form in the pinned message.
How can you think of such, does the little token been given to bounty hunters okay for them, talk more of affecting ICO's. You got it all wrong cos bounty hunters are been payed poorly
The hunters are to blame for the fact that the price of the token fell upon entering the market - this is a ridiculous statement. The project management is to blame. They knew how the bounty works and should have foreseen everything. Pay ETH hunters for that matter, and the token will not fall.
only qualified projects that have money that able to pay bounty hunter using ethereum or bitcoin.usually they care about their token price so pay bounty hunter using main cryptocurrency.protecting their investors be main purpose of this.we know our profession as bounty hunter often blamed by investors when price dumped , and i think its not fair to us. Who would still develop interest in investing in ICOs when they continually turn scammers. Token sales become successful, yet, some even fail to get listed or they would even list on some bad exchanges with either low trading volumes or high withdrawal charges. The team are killing their own projects not hunters... Sometimes people think hunters are just some low life individuals who can survive on just some few dollars so they are willing to sell their tokens at any price, but that is not true
It's quite unfortunate that bounty hunters are continually been accused of what they know nothing about. The project made the decision to distribute tokens and the holders have the right to do what pleases him with the tokens. If the team were interested in reducing the number of tokens sold, they could have offered another token for a swap. I know several projects that chose to give out more valuable tokens for swapping their ICO tokens and that has lifted the burden from the hunters.
The hunters are to blame for the fact that the price of the token fell upon entering the market - this is a ridiculous statement. The project management is to blame. They knew how the bounty works and should have foreseen everything. Pay ETH hunters for that matter, and the token will not fall.
PM is to blame for not marketmaking in short term and developing project in long run. But why everyone consider a new post ICO token as something valuable? BTC price does not drop to 100$ because people consider it a value. After another ICO finishes tokensale, who cares about it much? Bounth guys sell their tokens. Then everything depend on PM.
The hunters are to blame for the fact that the price of the token fell upon entering the market - this is a ridiculous statement. The project management is to blame. They knew how the bounty works and should have foreseen everything. Pay ETH hunters for that matter, and the token will not fall.
Who would still develop interest in investing in ICOs when they continually turn scammers. Token sales become successful, yet, some even fail to get listed or they would even list on some bad exchanges with either low trading volumes or high withdrawal charges. The team are killing their own projects not hunters... Sometimes people think hunters are just some low life individuals who can survive on just some few dollars so they are willing to sell their tokens at any price, but that is not true
Bounty hunters exchange their time for coins, while investors exchange their money, which means they certainly don’t want to sell a coin even at the purchase price, but what stops this bounty hunter from doing so? Nothing. So there is a price dump, which can lead to unpleasant consequences if the coin capitalization is not high.
your argument is true, but bounty hunters didn't kill ICO.
let's see how much allocation for bounty, usually its not above 10% of total token issued, so this is not the problem.
driving price of coin is hard, sometimes investor dump their token after ICO at market price and make a coin price down. if only token from bounty hunters, pumping will be easy. thats my opinion
EARLY INVESTOR who killed ICO, not Bounty Hunterlet's see how much allocation for bounty, usually its not above 10% of total token issued, so this is not the problem.
driving price of coin is hard, sometimes investor dump their token after ICO at market price and make a coin price down. if only token from bounty hunters, pumping will be easy. thats my opinion
I have observed various ICOs and when they held a listing on one of the exchanges, the level of ICO coin selling was very large and even exceeded the allocation given to Bounty Hunter, just imagine how much EARLY INVESTOR can get because they get a huge purchase bonus from the initial sale of ICO
so stop blaming BOUNTY HUNTER
False.
I think you are overestimating the influence bounty hunters have.
First off, take a look at the percentage allocated to bounty hunters.
In a typical ICO, it is only like 1% to 2% of the coins available.
Some ICOs will go as high as 5%, but that is still a tiny fraction of the overall supply.
It just isn't enough to totally crash a project even if every bounty hunter completely dumps their coin.
(and not all bounty hunters do).
The biggest factor in an ICO getting killed is one that people seem to overlook:
It was a crappy business to begin with.
People like to blame bounty hunters, market situations, scammy practices when really, the business had no hope to begin with because it was just a bad startup.
But that's because of hunters selling their coins instantly when it releases on the market. That's why makes the prices instantly dump. They don't care about the price actually and will sell whenever it's already released on exchange. This is a typical bounty hunter that we see, they always say "when distri sir? when exchange?" Like they don't care about the project anymore.I think you are overestimating the influence bounty hunters have.
First off, take a look at the percentage allocated to bounty hunters.
In a typical ICO, it is only like 1% to 2% of the coins available.
Some ICOs will go as high as 5%, but that is still a tiny fraction of the overall supply.
It just isn't enough to totally crash a project even if every bounty hunter completely dumps their coin.
(and not all bounty hunters do).
The biggest factor in an ICO getting killed is one that people seem to overlook:
It was a crappy business to begin with.
People like to blame bounty hunters, market situations, scammy practices when really, the business had no hope to begin with because it was just a bad startup.
False.
I think you are overestimating the influence bounty hunters have.
First off, take a look at the percentage allocated to bounty hunters.
In a typical ICO, it is only like 1% to 2% of the coins available.
Some ICOs will go as high as 5%, but that is still a tiny fraction of the overall supply.
It just isn't enough to totally crash a project even if every bounty hunter completely dumps their coin.
(and not all bounty hunters do).
The biggest factor in an ICO getting killed is one that people seem to overlook:
It was a crappy business to begin with.
People like to blame bounty hunters, market situations, scammy practices when really, the business had no hope to begin with because it was just a bad startup.
The bounty rewards can be the 6% of the total coin circulation but not all bounty hunters dump the distributed tokens. Teams don't like to see the real problems caused by their ineffective management, that's why we see such coincidence. I think you are overestimating the influence bounty hunters have.
First off, take a look at the percentage allocated to bounty hunters.
In a typical ICO, it is only like 1% to 2% of the coins available.
Some ICOs will go as high as 5%, but that is still a tiny fraction of the overall supply.
It just isn't enough to totally crash a project even if every bounty hunter completely dumps their coin.
(and not all bounty hunters do).
The biggest factor in an ICO getting killed is one that people seem to overlook:
It was a crappy business to begin with.
People like to blame bounty hunters, market situations, scammy practices when really, the business had no hope to begin with because it was just a bad startup.
False.
I think you are overestimating the influence bounty hunters have.
First off, take a look at the percentage allocated to bounty hunters.
In a typical ICO, it is only like 1% to 2% of the coins available.
Some ICOs will go as high as 5%, but that is still a tiny fraction of the overall supply.
It just isn't enough to totally crash a project even if every bounty hunter completely dumps their coin.
(and not all bounty hunters do).
The biggest factor in an ICO getting killed is one that people seem to overlook:
It was a crappy business to begin with.
People like to blame bounty hunters, market situations, scammy practices when really, the business had no hope to begin with because it was just a bad startup.
But that's because of hunters selling their coins instantly when it releases on the market. That's why makes the prices instantly dump. They don't care about the price actually and will sell whenever it's already released on exchange. This is a typical bounty hunter that we see, they always say "when distri sir? when exchange?" Like they don't care about the project anymore. I think you are overestimating the influence bounty hunters have.
First off, take a look at the percentage allocated to bounty hunters.
In a typical ICO, it is only like 1% to 2% of the coins available.
Some ICOs will go as high as 5%, but that is still a tiny fraction of the overall supply.
It just isn't enough to totally crash a project even if every bounty hunter completely dumps their coin.
(and not all bounty hunters do).
The biggest factor in an ICO getting killed is one that people seem to overlook:
It was a crappy business to begin with.
People like to blame bounty hunters, market situations, scammy practices when really, the business had no hope to begin with because it was just a bad startup.
This is completely false. Even without bounty hunters and bounties, projects have gone on to fail woefully. A poorly developed or marketed project will fail and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Most projects have in the past employed several strategies against bounty hunters such as locking their rewards or tokens, yet they have mostly gone to fail exponentially with several dwindling prices and value in the open market. Bounty hunters aren't responsible but the projects developers surely have the blame.
In the event that they need to make the project remain fruitful they have to secured the tokens couple of month just to ensure that the price is as yet stable when the dumpers came up.
The greater part of the faults should not lie with the bounty hunters since when the circulation is complete the hunters only have a small portion of the total allocation of tokens.
Projects need to adopt better marketing and strategical means to keep the projects afloat
The greater part of the faults should not lie with the bounty hunters since when the circulation is complete the hunters only have a small portion of the total allocation of tokens.
Projects need to adopt better marketing and strategical means to keep the projects afloat
False.
I think you are overestimating the influence bounty hunters have.
First off, take a look at the percentage allocated to bounty hunters.
In a typical ICO, it is only like 1% to 2% of the coins available.
Some ICOs will go as high as 5%, but that is still a tiny fraction of the overall supply.
It just isn't enough to totally crash a project even if every bounty hunter completely dumps their coin.
(and not all bounty hunters do).
The biggest factor in an ICO getting killed is one that people seem to overlook:
It was a crappy business to begin with.
People like to blame bounty hunters, market situations, scammy practices when really, the business had no hope to begin with because it was just a bad startup.
I think you are overestimating the influence bounty hunters have.
First off, take a look at the percentage allocated to bounty hunters.
In a typical ICO, it is only like 1% to 2% of the coins available.
Some ICOs will go as high as 5%, but that is still a tiny fraction of the overall supply.
It just isn't enough to totally crash a project even if every bounty hunter completely dumps their coin.
(and not all bounty hunters do).
The biggest factor in an ICO getting killed is one that people seem to overlook:
It was a crappy business to begin with.
People like to blame bounty hunters, market situations, scammy practices when really, the business had no hope to begin with because it was just a bad startup.
There is no way that bounty hunters can kill ICO, because many ICO projects allocate very small funds to bounty hunters, and it is also impossible to blame investors for this, because investors are financier in a project, but in this case at least the team requires the right steps so that their tokens do not die when they are released on the market and in my opinion, it is better to supply fewer tokens and give fewer bonuses so that the price of tokens on the market will be more stable.
How can ICO kill bounty hunters who receive only 1% at the best 2% of the total bullet. How can 2% affect the price of a good project that has good volumes on the exchange?
ICO killed the scam and not the bounty hunters.
ICO killed the scam and not the bounty hunters.
I agree with you, there are many bounty hunters who have enough money to participate in ICO and become Investors, the developers need a lot of time to keep prices stable from the products they have and I see a lot of scams like big pumps when tokens are registered on the exchange then the developers don't run the Road Map that we expect.
Many ICOs have almost the same ideas, then investors will sell their tokens if the product of a new project running ICO does not have a good future because there is no update on the information of the project they are building.
Jump to: