Topic: Bounty projects need to change approach to bounty allocations - page 3. (Read 647 times)
November 13, 2018, 02:06:20 PM
You have a point. Unfortunately, this may never happen. The only way to ensure this works is by bounty managers developing smart contract addresses to hold bounty allocations in a form of escrow contract address even before the bounty commences. By doing this, there is a guarantee that tokens allocated to the bounty will be completely distributed to qualified hunters accordingly. I know of some organised bounty platforms that are already doing this and its been working out effectively. Hunters should be paid their due for job done and it is completely irresponsible from project developers to try and shortchange Bounty hunters.
November 13, 2018, 01:56:52 PM
Of course by nature man is greedy. Whether the concern are the bounty hunters or the ICO admins there is no exemption for both parties. Yet individually there are still good people who acts and thinks with justice. We all know how hard life is and this can always be expected. So I agree with your idea that even when the project is only a little above or equal to softcap a just compensation should be given to bounty hunters.
November 13, 2018, 01:45:03 PM
This is a trend that happens a lot with bounty campaigns this days for blockchain projects, the truth is if a project doesn't meet its hardcap it is almost impossible to pay out the entirety of the bounty budget.
I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
Of course, it would be much better for us if the project had an obligation to pay the reward to all participants of the campaign bounty in any case, but unfortunately there is always a risk to remain without any reward if the project fails. You should always carefully read the terms and conditions of the campaign so that there are no surprises for you at the end of the campaign. I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
November 13, 2018, 01:42:17 PM
I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This has always been the case I believe. I have yet to see a campaign that does not pay its bounty participants even after reaching soft cap. So I do not really know what the OP is suggesting to change. November 13, 2018, 01:42:03 PM
This is a trend that happens a lot with bounty campaigns this days for blockchain projects, the truth is if a project doesn't meet its hardcap it is almost impossible to pay out the entirety of the bounty budget.
I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
You have not set forth your position in detail. What does it mean that ICO teams should have their own budget? In what currency and in what amount should it be? The ICO team pays for the participants in the ICO generosity campaign with their new tokens. Payment in anything else is unprofitable for them. We can still talk about payment at will in ethereum. In general, the existing payment system seems to me the most optimal. I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
November 13, 2018, 11:38:42 AM
This is a trend that happens a lot with bounty campaigns this days for blockchain projects, the truth is if a project doesn't meet its hardcap it is almost impossible to pay out the entirety of the bounty budget.
I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
The only thing that can make an assurance for the bounty campaign to pay people is the government to enter the legality of the project. The team should register their project to the government agency who will handle the requirements for the project and the team should put initial fund for the payment for the participants.
November 13, 2018, 11:22:14 AM
they have already a specified allocation on the supply for the bounty hunters, so there is no need to change anything, it's just the bounty manager and the project team themselves that are not trustworthy to give the shares that their workers deserve.
yes, I see a lot of bounty managers and teams reducing bounty hunter allocations to get a lot of profits, they do it for a number of reasons that are very unreasonable 
November 13, 2018, 11:02:02 AM
I think we should set up a hosting platform. The bounty budget is placed on the platform's address for supervision. Whether the project reaches Softcap or hardcaps. The bounty hunter is paid by the platform.
November 13, 2018, 11:00:05 AM
Bounty companies are dying. Bots and multi accounts everywhere. Due to the fact that 2,000 to 3,000 people participate in companies, for the entire period companies pay 20-50 dollars. I think this is the main reason why bounty programs are no longer profitable. Previously, there were no such number of participants (bot, multi-accounts).
What you are telling is also the one reason, that bounty hunters are not getting much profit due to this problem. Their should be some rules like signature campaign, so that we can keep spammers away from exploiting the bounty campaign.
November 13, 2018, 10:54:36 AM
Bounty companies are dying. Bots and multi accounts everywhere. Due to the fact that 2,000 to 3,000 people participate in companies, for the entire period companies pay 20-50 dollars. I think this is the main reason why bounty programs are no longer profitable. Previously, there were no such number of participants (bot, multi-accounts).
November 13, 2018, 10:50:18 AM
It depends on project, most projects pay out the allocations once they reach their soft-cap while other don't pay out the full allocation, normally it is always stated on the bounty rules. It is good to always read bounty rules and ask questions if possible before joining the bounty.
November 13, 2018, 10:47:37 AM
This is a trend that happens a lot with bounty campaigns this days for blockchain projects, the truth is if a project doesn't meet its hardcap it is almost impossible to pay out the entirety of the bounty budget.
I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
I think you've got a little confused here. Projects that offer 30% more marketing dollars than softcap are definitely bad projects. because they can not anticipate market risks. When you encounter such projects, you should avoid them. At present there are many good softcap projects and they still have enough money to pay for bounty hunters. I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
Maybe the bounty project needs a change and there will be many ideas for the progress of the project, in my opinion, the project must be able to change the model and structure with various models in the introduction and in the implementation carried out. New innovations must be able to attract investors.
This is a trend that happens a lot with bounty campaigns this days for blockchain projects, the truth is if a project doesn't meet its hardcap it is almost impossible to pay out the entirety of the bounty budget.
I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
If they do that, the budget for the ICO will be very low. It could be under $ 100k and they will not be able to attract many bounty hunters to participate in their project. They need more bounty hunters so their projects can be more successfulI think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
they have already a specified allocation on the supply for the bounty hunters, so there is no need to change anything, it's just the bounty manager and the project team themselves that are not trustworthy to give the shares that their workers deserve.
I agree that changing bounty allocations will not make a campaign better, I think the thing to do is how they can manage a good campaign and be free of any cheating that we often encounter today. 
but as long as the soft cap has been reached, the project is not necessarily able to pay the participants because of the lack of funds they get. what needs to be changed again is the model of the project. if previously there were a lot of them that were ico that supported technology, now it could be changed to support in other investment fields, such as automotive or most investment assets that could be mutually beneficial so that the hard cap could also be achieved with a lot of support.
I think bounty projects are more straight forward. They use softcap as a springboard to bounty payments and this is because softcap highlights that the project has enough funds to create a good platform and be successful.
It also means that bounty hunters did their job beautifully and made the project successful on all grounds and its a good recognition too.
Just go for valuable projects with good products.
It also means that bounty hunters did their job beautifully and made the project successful on all grounds and its a good recognition too.
Just go for valuable projects with good products.
Most ICOs clearly specify that there will be a payment if the Softcap is reached, particularly today because most icos put stupidly high hard caps that are impossible to reach.
If you are rich, will you decline a next big profit? Greed is a nature of human. And the excessive hardcaps are seen commonly in current ICOs.
they have already a specified allocation on the supply for the bounty hunters, so there is no need to change anything, it's just the bounty manager and the project team themselves that are not trustworthy to give the shares that their workers deserve.
This is a trend that happens a lot with bounty campaigns this days for blockchain projects, the truth is if a project doesn't meet its hardcap it is almost impossible to pay out the entirety of the bounty budget.
I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
I think a change of approach should be adopted, projects should have a bounty budget that they will be capable of paying as long as the soft cap is reached.
This may mean a smaller budget but it also ensures hunters don't just join out of greed and spam repeatedly.
At the end everyone is happy
Most ICOs clearly specify that there will be a payment if the Softcap is reached, particularly today because most icos put stupidly high hard caps that are impossible to reach.
Jump to: