Topic: Bounty without manager? (Read 418 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.
Why is the bounty still centralized? I think that it would be cool if the participants themselves moderated other participants.
Without even seeing rest of the post, I disagree with you. The bounty if managed that way would end up having 10 real accounts and every other account would be an alt of each-other.-snip
You have mentioned everything but how the bounty participants will be recruited which is the most important part of any bounty.If you cannot decentralise that, there is no point of decentralising anything else.
99% of bounties are worth nothing anyway.
i dont think so, i think everything need to be manage so it can run as planned, here on bounty campaign must need a person in charge for manage everything, so bounty manager is a must.
No manager's bounty will inevitably be controversial when calculating bets. People always think that they are doing exactly what they are asking. Then everyone will only favor the party that is good for them. The final bounty distribution will be chaotic.
Well, first of all I must say that you are a very interesting proposal. This way you can make the bounty mission more standardized and of higher quality. But with this method, I am now considering two issues.
1. The community construction is not good. The number of bounty hunters cannot meet the needs of so many projects. When most people choose a project and participate in the project, other projects will find it difficult to find staff because of your suggestion. All staff members are composed of participants themselves.
2. If you encounter a flightless project, all participants will feel very, very frustrated.
I think this idea needs improvement, but on the day it is applied, I think it will be very effective.
1. The community construction is not good. The number of bounty hunters cannot meet the needs of so many projects. When most people choose a project and participate in the project, other projects will find it difficult to find staff because of your suggestion. All staff members are composed of participants themselves.
2. If you encounter a flightless project, all participants will feel very, very frustrated.
I think this idea needs improvement, but on the day it is applied, I think it will be very effective.
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.
Well I think it only work to some because if we are talking about here signature campaign how do they rate or how do they count the number of post by a participant like those person 7-10 to rate the post if it is valid or not ? I think it is a long.more process to.decide with them.also it is difficult to trust those person because they could cheat.
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 so if it is a good idea to do so. A bounty without a manager wont be a successful one, Cheating from participants would happen, imagine a bounty campaign with manager there is still a person trying to cheat what about the campaign without a manager?
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
The idea is good and it has a right to exist, but is bounty Manager now the main problem? There is rather, a system of ICO needs to be changed when the token payments for investors and the bounty hunters must be guaranteed by smart contract and automatically be paid after receiving softcap.
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.
Maybe this is one of your proposals about the bounty program, but I apologize because I would agree if the bounty program is run by a manager. I think the division of tasks on bounty campaigns is already very good, just maybe it should be more enhanced performance bounty managers to the participants. This is only for the success of a project. 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.
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.
Create tons of alt accounts or just get a group of people who will rate each other as perfect, so wouldn't that be campaign abuse? The proposition you gave is filled with flaw. You will still need a neutral bounty manager who will manage everyone. Anyways, why would you need to make bounty campaigns decentralized? I don't see much of a benefit, but more of a chaos. 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.
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.
This is one of the worst idea that I have ever heard since I have been in this community. You mean a campaign with 100 members will do random task and checked its every member of the campaign . LOL. This will solely defeat the purpose of a bounty wherein everyone should do one duty, that is to promote the project they have joined.
I think you should go back and read everything in the forum dude, before making any suggestion like this because it doesn't really makes any sense at all. And who will judge who are accepted or not? For all we know, a campaign with 100 participants can be all alts with one person having the steering wheel and driving it out.
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.
So what youre saying here is Cheaters will rate themselves?i wonder what would be the outcome of every bounties,looks at it when there still a manager cheaters dominating the situation so what more if theres none?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.
Let the manager do their work and if you OP is a bounty hunter the i might say Do your homework and forget about your illusions
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.
A group task without a leader for me is hard. It might work but it is so hard since there is no one to manage or to collect thr consensus of each member. The same goes with a bounty. I think a bounty without a manager will not be successful. 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.
what? No manager's bounty? I will not choose such a bounty. I think these bounty is a scam. I prefer to have manager's bounty.
It’s very difficult to create decentralised bounties because it requires human verification to ensure participants are legitimate or not, bounty0x is the closest so far
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 if?
UPD: Manager still needed but work only with 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 if?
UPD: Manager still needed but work only with creation and news.
Wow it's double work for all participants and confusing because of every one of us here has different views on the guidelines set up by the company, I prefer the one we have now it's not confusing but let's see maybe one ico will take up your idea and see if it is really effective.
A bounty without manager I don't believe in that I think I will lead to scam there should be a manager for every bounty campaign and it will lead to a great and successful project
This is much time consuming and hence inefficient and costly.
When a manger is managing a bounty, his only job is to manage it and we expect 100% efficiency from him/her.
The same work when we try to verify from the bounty participants themselves, we need a task to be verified by more than 2 people as we cannot believe on a single response. i.e. the work that can be done in 1 hour would require more than 2 hours.
This would too consume larger amount of time of bounty participants which would make them desire for more payment for same work.
When a manger is managing a bounty, his only job is to manage it and we expect 100% efficiency from him/her.
The same work when we try to verify from the bounty participants themselves, we need a task to be verified by more than 2 people as we cannot believe on a single response. i.e. the work that can be done in 1 hour would require more than 2 hours.
This would too consume larger amount of time of bounty participants which would make them desire for more payment for same work.
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.
What do you think about if?
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.
What do you think about if?
Unlike blockchain, human can make errors and lots of bounty participants are newbies. Some of them using alt accounts. There will be bias and sabotage that will happen when it comes to confirmations. That is why blockchain is made due to the blunders that humans do in a centralized system. It is invented to correct fraud and increase security with pure transparency.
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.
Jump to: