Topic: Change rules in bounty programs. - page 16. (Read 3748 times)
it's a big dishonor. Because bounty hunters are not a company to play. And it will never happen. It is necessary for the forum management to put rules on this issue.
bounty rules are changing now and then due to recent bitcointalk rules we have a bounty to changed the rules in many signature campaigns arent accepting junior members and members they are accepting full member only
How do you feel about the fact that in some bounty companies change the date of delivery of reports. Change the amount of coins.
In general, at the height of the advertising company do what they want. I am amazed at this dishonest game. What is your opinion?
Well, that is not a problem if there was disclaimer on the general rules of the campaign. What disappoints me is the sudden requirement of KYC at the end of the campaign. I have no choice but to comply just to get compensated. Although it is difficult because i don't even know i'm dealing with.In general, at the height of the advertising company do what they want. I am amazed at this dishonest game. What is your opinion?
They have the right to do that even though the participants are very upset. It usually happens when price of coin goes up too fast, so I think they need to add conditions at the beginning.
faced with this not once, it certainly irritates and even leads to the loss of tokens, so you need to be careful, but managers have nothing to say, they have the right to do this :c
Globitex changed their bounty rules/allocation,
What can you do though, no point in moaning, is what it is, on to the next one!
What can you do though, no point in moaning, is what it is, on to the next one!
This is really a problem that most of the bounty hunters face. I think bounty rules should be fixed and need not to change. It affects on the mind of bounty hunters.
sometime i feel this condition like a trap, because beside disadvantage bounty hunter, changing a rule during ico run make manager bounty have added work with many complain from participants
I recently encountered this problem. Two bounties of campaigns in which I participated cut back the pool of bounty after the end of ICO.
This is really a problem that most of the bounty hunters face. I think bounty rules should be fixed and need not to change. It affects on the mind of bounty hunters.
How do you feel about the fact that in some bounty companies change the date of delivery of reports. Change the amount of coins.
In general, at the height of the advertising company do what they want. I am amazed at this dishonest game. What is your opinion?
Well, that is not a problem if there was disclaimer on the general rules of the campaign. What disappoints me is the sudden requirement of KYC at the end of the campaign. I have no choice but to comply just to get compensated. Although it is difficult because i don't even know i'm dealing with. In general, at the height of the advertising company do what they want. I am amazed at this dishonest game. What is your opinion?
They all have the right to do so though, in the first page they also mention about them changing the rules if things happen that they don't want. A manager can sometimes end the campaign earlier than the set date or they can simply change rules like adding more post in the ANN thread.
As a signature participants, there is just nothing else you can do but follow the rules unless you don't want to get paid.
Bounty Campaign Managers normally include a clause in the General Rules allowing for changes to campaign length, conditions and remuneration.
If you aren't prepared to accomodate those changes, don't sign up in the first place.
While there may be the odd campaign (eg UGC Token) that does indeed take advantage of their bounty people, most are very good.
Like any industry, both parties need to be accomodating of the other side. Some campaign managers are very strict in regards adherence to the rules, whilst some do allow for late submissions, etc, if you can provide a very good reason. I think it only fair that bounty hunters accomodate minor changes, as there are occasion where it can mean the difference between the ICO reaching soft cap (and bounty hunters getting paid) or getting nothing at all if the campaign fails.
If you aren't prepared to accomodate those changes, don't sign up in the first place.
While there may be the odd campaign (eg UGC Token) that does indeed take advantage of their bounty people, most are very good.
Like any industry, both parties need to be accomodating of the other side. Some campaign managers are very strict in regards adherence to the rules, whilst some do allow for late submissions, etc, if you can provide a very good reason. I think it only fair that bounty hunters accomodate minor changes, as there are occasion where it can mean the difference between the ICO reaching soft cap (and bounty hunters getting paid) or getting nothing at all if the campaign fails.
Of course, it is not very pleasant to see when the ICO campaign, at its discretion, changes its rules of payment of generosity, which ultimately affect the size of such payments. It is also one thing when a campaign in its own conditions warns about such an opportunity and about its such right, and another - when such changes will be introduced by it without any warnings. However, I'm already calm about this, vseravno the size of such payments eventually turns out to be decent.
I agree with you, the harder the rules of bounties, this shows the high dedication of the bounties manager.
although sometimes I myself also annoyed, there are regulations changed in the middle of the bounties that are running, and that change we do not know.
but how else, we can only follow it.
KEEP SMILE Bounties Hunters ..................
I think the coin company should be open on their first post bounty that is written is a very big coin so the bitcoiner will race to achieve the goal that is in the rules and not lie to its customers
How do you feel about the fact that in some bounty companies change the date of delivery of reports. Change the amount of coins.
In general, at the height of the advertising company do what they want. I am amazed at this dishonest game. What is your opinion?
In general, at the height of the advertising company do what they want. I am amazed at this dishonest game. What is your opinion?
awful. you apply for joining in one campaign and finally find yourself participating in the other one. The rules must be stable or at least not very much changed
Of course, it is not very pleasant to see when the ICO campaign, at its discretion, changes its rules of payment of generosity, which ultimately affect the size of such payments. It is also one thing when a campaign in its own conditions warns about such an opportunity and about its such right, and another - when such changes will be introduced by it without any warnings. However, I'm already calm about this, vseravno the size of such payments eventually turns out to be decent.
I know that generosity corresponds to a set of rules and is open to the fact that rules change in time. Nevertheless, I would remain with a heavy heart, if it led to the fact that I did not get my bets.
Two times I encountered changes in the conditions of the program bounty at the very end. This is mean, in my opinion. This is how greedy managers act. They want to get some of their coins with their bots.
Oh, this is a fairly common activity of many managers. Moderators work tirelessly to identify them, but nevertheless managers are very impure at hand and I think that they will always abuse their capabilities and power ..
Two times I encountered changes in the conditions of the program bounty at the very end. This is mean, in my opinion. This is how greedy managers act. They want to get some of their coins with their bots.
Jump to: