Topic: Bounty without manager? (Read 438 times)
In my opinion, it will all be expensive and not effective, but because it is too expensive!
can also like that but the problem here.
if only one other participant lies, then to the ready we will complain the lie if the participant is using faek account. and we try to appeal to who has a bounty manager.
when the bounty manager encounters an error, then we can ask in the telegram group and ask in this forum that the manager is having an error, so there is a central point for the in question.
if only one other participant lies, then to the ready we will complain the lie if the participant is using faek account. and we try to appeal to who has a bounty manager.
when the bounty manager encounters an error, then we can ask in the telegram group and ask in this forum that the manager is having an error, so there is a central point for the in question.
Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.
The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.
All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?
UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.
The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.
All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?
UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.
I dont think bounty hunterd would like to do that.
They cannot even finish the work for a week and giving them more task will just make it worse.
It is the bounty managers job. Although it will be a hard work they were paid quite good than what will bounty hunters get.
Maybe you should try to be a manager and do that kind of thing. I bet there will just little applicants that will want that kind of work.
pretty confusing scheme , but got to admit there is some out-of-the-box thinking so I wouldnt totally forget about this idea, may find application somehow
these provisions are already made available by the bounty Manager, the work with the help of people whom the bounty manager employs.. so I don't think there should be a good reason to stop bounty Manager's coordinating campaigns.
This thing can not happen. With such public work force things may get worse over the time. People are already taking advantages of having bounties with multiple sign ups and do you think such people will let this system work properly. I don't think so! If you give management in the hands of such people then how do you expect it to run in proper ways or what can I say in systemic ways? Bounties are filled with huge number of application and it will create chaos in terms of who will vote who and who will assess whose work kind of stuff!
Yes, I think it's quite possible! it's not so difficult to understand the structure of the project and understand how best to participate in the campaign, independently tracking the accrual of awards and all that. it just takes time, the managers of the us it saves
That will make the work of the bounty participants more, but if the payments are done bigger and better, maybe that will not be a problem. But if the payment is the same, I guess the bounty participants will not be able to do that
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good.
This is too expensive to pay salary to 5-30 people. Better to make automatical program that can check posts or reposts. Hard tasks leave to humans. Less work - less salary.
The bounty manager is critical for the success of the campaign. It must be someone reputable because we put lots of effort into promoting and we need a good referee.
You have a good idea but it is still useless imo. Because there are many bounty participants who has an army of alts that can vote. Unless we sign-up for KYC first before joining the bounty to filter those alts.
That again is a horrible idea.It definitely doesn't fix the problems OP mentioned but makes the bounty process over complicated.Bounty manager or the ICO is not a legit entity to be trusted with someone's confidential information.That would just make participants go away. 
Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.
The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.
All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?
UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.
You have a good idea but it is still useless imo. Because there are many bounty participants who has an army of alts that can vote. Unless we sign-up for KYC first before joining the bounty to filter those alts. The scheme is very simple.
1. A part of the bounty is allocated to moderation. For example, 10%.
2. Every day, bounty members receive random tasks for moderation the work of other participants. Tasks are randomly distributed.
Example of task. A member of the bounty wrote a tweet about bounty company. You need to read the tweet and rate it. You can rate tweet as good or scam. If tweet is scam you must write why
3. Every task checked by 5 - 30 peoples. Task marked as "well done" only if 70% peoples mark it as good. This mechanism is similar to the transaction confirmation mechanism in blockchain. The difference is that blockchain use 51% rule.
4. For every task members get stack. At the end of bounty stacks calculated and members receive tokens for moderation.
5. Accounts whose ratings differ from most people will very often will be banned. This is mechanism from blockchain too. This will remove members who want to reduce the number of stacks and get more reward.
All system must be transparent for all and based on bitcointalk accounts. What do you think about it?
UPD: Manager still needed but work only on content creation and news.
I think choosing bounty depending upon the reputed manager is craze these days and I also follow the same method of choosing the bounties. How can I trust a bounty without manager, and who will pay me at the end of the bounty campaign and who will rightfully tell that I did my work and some other person did not? Who will tell the truth? What if someone try to mislead my stakes and tokens for their benefit of share? Who will responsible for that and who will judge such cold wars that will arise in the process. I think its definitely manager who does all these with complete attention, thats why everything works smoothly. I think its not possible to have bounty without manager.
bounty manager managing the bounty is still better because he/she can focus on his work. as a bounty participant it is best if we focus our work in advertising the ICO.
The problem in your scenario is the system to do those things. For instance the randomization of the tasks if it is in a system it should be backed by a good developer as to not scam members or a manager will still do those things. Also the more people who will handle the bounty the more complicated it would be as many people will change things to their liking.
Not a good idea, I want a person, someone behind the bounty that can answer for the legitimacy and that stakes his or her reputation for the project.
You know, I was just thinking how awesome it would be for bounties to use smart contracts. I am happy to see idea talked on the forum. Now make an ico so I can sign up for current bounty system helping next.
It there is no management, than there is no control and ability to prove one's actions and bounty effectiveness for the project. So I do believe we need bounty managers and should appreciate them.
Personally I choose a bounty 90% because of its well known bounty manager... if I have to do work, I want that someone with experience can verify it
Definitely right! Bounty without managers is really hard and its difficult to work with other bounty hunters because we all have diffrent standards. The idea is great but it will not work well in the long run, there might be a manipulation with some other bounty managers but we cannot do anything about it, just work with great managers here in this forum and you will be fine.
Its not any ecosystem or tokenomy we are talking here, its about managing the people itself. If people were so honest here then there could have been no need of such thing like manager. But have management for a cause! The name itself tells us why we need it, there is no sincerity amongst every person on the earth and neither there is honesty upto 100% in each of us. At some point few things can literally change the fate of what we are doing. So I dont think your model will really work in the first place. No matter what, we do need a manager for sure and that too all the time.
Jump to: