Topic: Bounty Rewards- Stakes based or fixed tokens allocation based (Read 19623 times)

Well, "didn't even reach eve half of it's ICO value" - if all the tokens I receive would have half the price - I would be happy. Half the price is actually fantastic, now the best indicator is 10% of the ICO price. In General, I agree with @publicjud, both systems have rights to exist.

For seeing the market situation, I doubt fix token rewards will be worth since we don't know if the price of the token rewards will go to it's ICO price and it will be a huge burden nor a waste of time if the one we collected in fix rewards will be so low and didn't even reach eve half of it's ICO value, so much really better if we can get a stake based since a huge possibilities that we can earn more from it.

The betting system is more interesting for bounty hunters, but so far there is no special profit from bounty companies in whatever form they pass.

In my opinion both of them could be good and bad. It depends on many factors and, for example, if some campaign has a lot of participants fixed token reward will not be so bad option. I think that both types are fair enough.

  Using fix token method in my opinion is usually a way of cheating on bounty hunters, stake base is good and somehow transparent , and with stake base if the number of participants are not much then the few who did the tasks earn a good number of tokens each. i will always prefer stake base allocation  for bounty tasks.

I also agree with you, but the main thing that in the end it all did not have a new type of fraud. The idea is interesting and I think that soon I will also join you.

Yes, completely agree with your opinion on this topic. Campaign with fixed allocation has not fulfilled the hunter's needs of tokens. And in stakes based system we will get a good amount of reward while the participants are less.

Stakes based bounties are much better, because in my opinion you will get a much better rewards, because it is pretty usual that fixed rewards are pretty silly and worth almost nothing. In such campaigns a facebook bounty participant gets better rewards as a signature member.

I don't like fixed tokens allocation for once ,its always feel like not enough for your hardworking ,I prefer stakes because your reward depends entirely on how many participants joined the bounty apart from how many campaigns you joined

Previously there was a thread regarding stakes or fixed token allocation and i think maybe more people prefer to get fixed instead of stakes and ICO change their way of distribution. I will prefer fixed although i know that your concern is we are not able to get more tokens even when there is lesser hunters but if there is more hunters our profit is lesser.

The system is very good because bounty hunters will be sure that they will receive their reward and they will not have to conduct discussions for their tokens.

I don't mind to have fixed reward rate, but in BTC)) Current rewards worth almost nothing once they're getting listed to an exchange, so it doesn't matter if campaign has fixed reward rate or old kind stakes reward system. Unfortunately until the bulls come bounty campaigns won't bring any good reward...

Then I guess we need to imagine like we are participating in a campaign where more people are also competing with us. This way you never need to worry on fixed token allocation on weekly basis.

I guess every managers are having some unique idea to save better for their clients and this sounds like a latest innovations for not paying small group of bounty participants too the same allocated tokens. Seems a good idea as this may help heavy dumps from few investors.

Several conditions for different ICOs like wemark token didn't reached hardcap so bounty reward is low but bidooh ready to release their 2nd bounty.

I think the token allocation system for bounty campaigns isn't a bad idea... it's help limit the amount of tokens given to hunters... and same way.. if the token allocated to a daily task is worth a good amount of dollar... then I'm good with the project

It's not that bad in comparison with the stakes policy, when bounty hunter can't get more than some max limit. I understand devs want to prevent token centralization, but it's not fair enough in my view.

Fixed allocation is better in my opinion, you should have a reward for finding the ICO and the bounty earlier than someone else and your advantage is much worse with stakes based bounties.

I don`t know what is better, to know what would be reward for your work or not and get surprised, pleasant or unpleasant. Personally, I love to know what would be amount that I deserved for my participation in some work or project than to think about it constantly what will be the result, how much I will receive. That way I could manage the potential profit. On the other hand, it`s always better to get more than less xexe, but the uncertainty really goes on my nerve 

I don't like that kind of rewarding system because it looks like bounty participants will receive less tokens than in system with shared pool.
I have seen one bounty with ridiculous low rewards and i don't know what is the reason for low rewards it's not like they have to pay money to bounty participants.

         When choosing a project that offers fixed stakes every week, choose the safe option. In a market where there are many SCAM projects, it is preferable during this period to choose the projects that offer such a payment distribution method. Thus, we will be sure that our work will be rewarded. Even if small amounts are offered, at least we have the guarantee that we will get something.

Well, for the hunter's point of view, it will be more profitable to gaining with stake based than fixed token.
From my opinion, it is better to running with the stake based reward because it means the reward pool is fixed.
If it running with fix token reward based, you won't know how much they allocate their token for bounty pool.

If the rewards are high, fixed reward will be fine. But if the prizes are low, they are not very attractive for bounty hunters and this will affect the promotion of the project. I think the stake system makes more sense.

I prefer stakes based I have not yet worked on fixed token allocation I saw some campaign that is fixed token allocation and the allocation is not that big, not attractive especially in a signature campaign for low-rank members but if the project is really that good then why not.

I think this system is more fair. Usually we get more bets for high rank on the forum, but people with lower ranks perform exactly the same actions. Is that fair? When you get fixed rates, you can calculate the possible profit in advance and decide whether to spend time participating in this campaign.

It depends on more than this. Sometimes unfixed is better, even if it based on a stakes system. At least with that system its fair for everyone because the bounties are allocated on a proportional method.

the reward system  fixed is good only if we are paid in btc or eth, instead for the various token the stakes system are preferable

Instead of making an issue of the bounty rules, why not just work with the reward system? Just increase your social media followings to as many as you can to receive maximum possible reward whether it's fixed or stake system.

The stake based system is good only for bounty campaigns in which a small number of hunters took part, in fact, we get sometimes a super uneven distribution of tokens, and this is not good. There is another aspect. When the bounty is extremely long and without limiting the number of participants. The stake based system becomes hell, and the size of rewards tends to zero.
p.s. I prefer a fixed tokens allocation per action.

Thanks for heads up, I don't think have met so familiar bounty before. But if I do, I don't think am gonna participate why because I think it's a way to cheat on bounty hunters because a particular campaign should be percentage token fixed and not weekly token fixed.

I do like stake system as this way total reward tokens alloted for the campaign are distributed among the participants while in fixed allocation system hardly 10 to 20 percent of tokens are given away because generally allocation is very small for each task so a big no to fixed tokens.

I think that stakes bounties could bring you much more tokens for the done work. Almost all bounties with a fixed token allocation are offering maximum 10 bucks per week for a legendary member in signature campaign and it is simply silly.

Participation in the bounty program has changed a lot. Projects have become much more demanding and very often do not go to the listing on the stock exchange. Yes, the developers are trying to popularize the bounty program but it has degraded.

i personaly didn't like fixed token allocation for bounty because in fact this will encourage hunter using multi account to gain more reward. because task was mostly simple and easy to do.
not that bounty using stakes would have less cheater but at least the reward would be better to split using stakes.
if token fixed allocation used in bounty they should limit their participant so the reward will most likely raised and also people who caught using multi account will get their entry removed.
i would agree if KYC was at the end of bounty so those that cheat using multi account will have their work gone in vain.

for the fair, stake based for a lot of participant. And token based for less participant.
So, bounty hunter will be more appreciated.

Most of the times, fixed token allocations tend to become super low so joining them is not profitable like stake based ones.

for that problem, in my opinion, it doesn't have to be overly fussed, because it gives a choice to hunters, if I personally prefer those based on stakes, although sometimes at risk (the allocations are drastically reduced), the results obtained are satisfactory. following that it turned out that the token received was far from expectations (down from the rate)

You earn less with campaigns that give fixed token rewards for a certain task. Stake based rewards are more profitable since most of the time, there is a large bounty pool involved. If by chance, less participants joined the campaign and the sale has been a success, the reward would be split to less people.

I don't join the bounty campaign which is fix token rewards, based on their ICO price and we just earn a few bucks in single campaign per week, I'm prefer stake based rewards because we able to earn more token with high stakes.

I like such bounty campaigns even more, because I know exactly how many tokens I will get for my work. With the stakes are not so simple, it all depends on the number of bounty hunters. The more participants, the less reward.

I think that the bets look more interesting, if only for the very reason that if there are few participants in some kind of campaign, the profit will be correspondingly higher!

I prefer stakes of course.
Pros: When there are less participants , participant will get large sum of tokens.
Cons: Usual end result will not be good for the team. Cause some people will have enough tokens to hit the market (temporary though)

But if there are too many participants, then Fixed Reward is better. No matter how many people are joining, you will get your reward.

So if you want to get higher profit, try to join into a campaign with lower number of participants and pay by stakes. But never join into campaign which is not acceptable by mass people.

Everything depends on the value of the coin after it get listed or when you get bounty coins, because what ever volume of coin/token you receive if it did not get decent price when we receive the bounty reward then it is worthless. Long back it was fixed bounty reward but the listing price of coin was good so the reward is also good. Today we care receiving in stakes but when we receive the bounty till then the price is very low that the value of the bounty is useless.

Betting is best, because if there are not enough participants and the bounty pool is not cut, then the payout will not be small!

All the bounty campaign that I have participated in are stakes based I hate fixed token allocation one of my friends participate on token allocation campaign and only got $50 worth of token from their ICO price in 4 months campaign I rather get my signature blank than participate on that kind of rewards.

At this moment bounty hunters is increasing day by day. For that bounty hunters will not get high rewards if allocation  is stake based. If allocation will fixed then people will get a exact amount for each week. Here the amount of hunters don't affect the bounty rewards. So I want to say fixed and stake based those methods are good if the main bounty pull is huge. Thanks

I think we dont need to take part in that campaign, we don't need a project that doesn't even respect people who help them pay hunters with small feeit cant be forgiven. but maybe if we can negotiate with the bounty manager to turn it into stake based.

It will default your token every week and you don't care how many people are participating in that campaign. But I like bounty campaigns that are measured by stake per week, we will have a better chance of getting more tokens if there are fewer participants

There's no other options but to accept the rules, with what is happening right now inside the ico market, bounty managers and the team behind the project are looking for new ways allocating their reserved funds for bounty hunters, I agree with stake based is much better as it can surprise you when the participants is not that much and the project succeed, the value can give you huge profits, while fixed rates upon joining and accepting the rules won't surprise you not unless the value pumped up or fall very deep.

Still bounty hunters freedom to choose between as there's a lots of available project around,  choose whatever you think that will benefits you after.    

I think the best solution would be a system of stakes with a limited number of participants in bounty programs. This will allow bounty hunters to receive higher paying rewards. Sometimes the program lasts about a year and during this time several thousand participants join it. As a result, the reward is only a few dollars.

I also began to observe such rewards more often, but I still prefer to participate in the bounty where the calculation goes in rates!

yes it is usually calculated from the total post or weekly. it is indeed less interesting because the number of prizes has been determined and is very influential on the participants. but that was their decision

stake based allocation is better than fixed. It is maximize your reward since the stake can provide you a good amount of tokens compared to fixed stake based whch you already know the amount of tokens you will receive. Plus there is thrill in stake based since you can be surprised with your rewards later on.

Not all bounty programs provide prizes based on fixed token allocation. In fact, I see now that the bounty program gives prizes based on the stake gained. But yes, I do not agree with the bounty program that gives prizes based on fixed token allocations, because that will create injustice for bounty hunters who work harder.

Some times allocation don't given exactly if hardcap or softcap not reach and they giving it less that you expect for, so allocation not follow sometimes with rules.

Both methods have plus and minus in my opinion. It depends on some conditions to determine them, for example, how long the campaign will last, the total allocation of the bounty, the number of participants.

I think better to be fair once the allocation of the token they need to have quota like the signature campaign once they filled all the rank they will be close and once they leave or removed they will open. Because sometimes why the bounty hunters get less token even the allocation is very high or a lot of amount of token because the participants is more than hundreds parrixioants sometimes like 500 and they will divided according how long and the stake total.

I believe in the stake based system But this Project managers always have all the rules even if they were new participants before they would calculate and people would get normal stake But now Most bounty  managers Do whatever they want and even deny payment in general if there are low participants in the project which should not be so

in fact there are more bounty campaigns that provide stake-based than directly in the number of tokens or rewards that exist. some also provide weekly rewards and various forms of payment, some use usdt, some use btc or other coin assets.

Both have advantages and disadvantages. Stake-based reward will give you bigger reward but it can also give you lesser reward if the number of participant is huge while with fixed tokens, you can get the exact rewards regardless of participant's number. Based on my experience, the amount of reward i got from stake-based system is bigger than the fixed one.

Neither stake base or fixed token weekly payment base are the same part of market strategy of the project. Sometimes stake base is more  recommendable than token weekly base because stake is much better counting when the participants are few. However stake base is unrecommendable with regards to hundreds or thousands of participants much better the weekly token payment. Both have advantage and disadvantage. It is our choice what we participated

Depending on the allocation of each campaign, sometimes some projects that use a system based on tokens if the allocation for social media campaigns is greater than the signature, I will choose this system because we can get more or equal to those who follow the signatures.

Well depending the bounty host I can determine that. But I mostly prefer stake base because in some bounties like in Bounty0x fixed token allocation is a pain that you wouldn't love to have.

If me i will just make it simple, if i see it is not good or not agree with rules, i am not join it. Anything we do wouldn't make bounty manager change their rules and there are still a lot of bounties to pick if we not agree with 1 bounty.

I do not think that with a fixed distribution of tokens per week to bounty hunters, they therefore receive fewer tokens. Here, many people write that bounty hunters use multiple accounts, and therefore you need to use the KYC check to filter them. This payment system makes it so that regardless of the number of accounts with other people, everyone will receive a guaranteed number of tokens per week. In fact, also with this form of payment, bounty hunters do not receive generally less tokens than they would receive if they were paid by rates. Firstly, payment by tokens is also calculated by the ICO team to pay a few percent of tokens from the total pool, as well as when paying by bids. Secondly, if a smaller number of participants joins the ICO bounty campaign, as a rule, the ICO team vseravno reduces the payment of tokens by reducing the total number of tokens to be paid in this case. To this end, the ICO team provides almost everywhere the possibility of reducing the number of tokens paid out in case there are very few campaign participants who have joined. Therefore, I still prefer to pay a fixed number of tokens per week, so we definitely will always be confident in the payment of a certain number of tokens. Of course, if the team at the same time collects the required amount.

Fixed reward per week isn't worth it I would prefer fixed amount of tokens for the bounty exercise not just for the weekly activities. Bounties are gone the old good days when peojects are generous to give a huge sum as 3m USD 2m but now projects hardly pay upto 500k.

if I have to choose I will prefer stake base allocation. because it depend on how many token sold, we can get more token if the token sell reach the hardcap )

But at the same time, in this system, if the particular project has many participants it won't affect your reward. So it's good thing too.

They are doing this because with this, they don't have to give much tokens and if there are less participants then the tokens they have to give to the bounty hunters is pretty low. So its kind of a new way of not giving much tokens to bounty hunters.

Yes, the bounty hunter received the token very little and not as promised. Some projects that I met like that and this is like we were cheated. But this project is still running and can even be included in the exchange market. Finding a project that truly benefits the bounty hunter, for now, is indeed difficult.

Whether if it's stake based or fixed allocation it depends on the bounty hunter if he/she wants to participate on that bounty campaign. Well most bounties now are scam and others are failed due to lack of investors so usually no payment for bounty hunters.

I'm much agree on stake-base bounty program because we can enjoy our most token rewards on what we have worked for especially when there are limited participants allowed and this could give good profit when it's out in the market.

Fixed allocation also brings many benefits to bounty hunter if the campaign has too many participants.

My opinion there are good and bad things, there is a bounty manager that limits the participants of each campaign but there are also those that are not restrictive. If participants are limited, I think it is indeed more profitable for stakes based systems. But if participants are not restricted, fixed tokens allocation based is the best

I think it is better if the rewards per week would be base on stakes. Because if its in tokens, it is fixed and no one knows its price on the exchange and in the long run it could just give a very low value on the exchange.

This is a technique to reducing the bounty pool i think my thinking is absolutely right. Because suppose which campaign budget is 2 million worth token but some few people’s enrolls that's means weekly basis token count is bullshit for hunters. But after finish ico and when listing in exchange you guys never will be get nothing. Stakes based token allocation fine.                 

of course they cut the allocation because some reasons such as hardcap were not achieved because they did't want coins for bounties to be bigger or equivalent to the coins that investors get

I doesn't mean that those bounty campaign which are not run on stakes bases but with fixed allocated tokens are not always bad or cheat bounty hunters by any chance and what bounty hunters have to do in such occasion is knowing the worth of the allocated token in USD and do research about the project which will guarantee if the rewards will worth joining the campaign.

The problem : they cut the amount of allocation and give lower than what they promise. It is the problem in stake based reward that I ever found currently. I saw some bounties did it suddenly after the program ended. It is absolutely unfair. So, for me, it is a better stride if there are many new bounties running their program with fixed amount of tokens nowadays.   

Some projects team or managers intentionally do this,knowing fully week that there will still be more than enough tokens left. To campaigns of this nature, they usually allocate huge amount to attract bounty hunters,but at the end, the amount the bounty participant will get will be fixed.
Sometimes,i t could've advantage to lower rank members, such as Jr. Member, because when using stakes based reward, the higher rank members, usually get most part of the allocation.

but most of platforms are using fixed tokens allocation this time. There was a lot of change in the bounty allocation and anytime it will remain the same. In this time some platforms were offering big allocation for bounty to create noise in the community

I've  also experience  this that the promise token and for the exchange was different  it is triple lower that the promise exchange so we don't  know what are their bases on the stakes calculation that converted on tokens. In your opinion instead of token that display on the spreadsheets why they choose stakes and converted at the end.

Fixed salary gives you an opportunity to know how much you will receive
So you decide to participate or not
But there is a negative side of low salaries and loss of big opportunities if the number of participants is lower

I always wanted to participate in the project with stake-based distribution, and I think this is one of the great calculations. But for projects with a large number of participants sometimes I hope that the token can pay me.

Having fixed reward is much better than to have stakes allocation. But what's important with this rewarding system, are they really going to pay? Bounty hunters doesn't really care anymore with the amount of stake or fixed token they are about to receive after the ICO but they even care more about the distribution process.

Firstly, you should understand that both have their advantages and disadvantages. Once you consider this, you can then chose if you should pick one over the other. Stake based bounties could be highly profitable if lesser participants enrol for the said bounty but could be highly disastrous if there are too many hunters involved. In this case, fixed token bounties could be the key because, irrespective of the number of hunters, the tokens are fixed.

Fixed amount is better than unfixed. At first this helps you decide on participation. In others, a new revolution began to reduce the bounty reward. I know that the fixed amount is often small, but better than unknown and changeable reward.

Either stake based or fixed tokens  format, it doesn’t mean low income or high income
What wins more stakes or tokens weekly is the level of participation

Social media always earn little, atleast 80% of projects
Tey content  and observe the increase in stakes for you

But if duration of the bounty is only brief, then we will only get a few tokens, but if duration of the bounty is very long, sometimes I think it's more profitable, but here I prefer calculation every week using stake.

Honestly applying other methods never worked in bounty industry and giving fixed reward doesn't look like good idea. Stake based distribution will be more fair and affordable than solving problems which created by crying bounty hunters who look for justice. Bounty programs are not profitable as in old years,so theme dies slowly.

I think it is better to go on to stake based, because stakes base is pair on the bounty company, because we don't know how much token sold in the token sale so i think ifbit is stakes based the token will formally divided by its respected allocation. While in token base we don't know if it will be formally decided by allocation due to the unpredictable market condition.

I think the fixed amount system is good because you know how much you are getting and they are more likely to pay out. Often if there aren't enough participants they will change the amount anyway or refuse payment

You are absolutely right i have also noted this, fixed reward per task or campaign is usually very low so that is generally not worth it while in stakes system we can receive decent rewards especially when we have low number of participants in a campaign.

Hallo everyone,

Now a days I am seeing many projects are running their bounty program not with stakes based but with fixed tokens allocation for each campaign per week.
I see, from bounty Hunter's perspective not good reward system as we receive less tokens. Even though the number of participants are less, there is no chance to get higher rewards, which is possible with stakes based allocation.
What are your views on this?
Thanks.