This stuff has been mentioned several times and it seems the devs and the bounty campaign managers have turned deaf ears to it. The truth is that, this would keep happening until they find a solution, and investors are already drifting towards the pattern of waiting for it to hit an exchange first.
I always thought there is a way tokens are locked, but I do not know if this would have to be something general or you can decide to select the ones you are locking. Probably, someone could enlighten me on that, otherwise, it would just be for the devs to lock the tokens of bounty hunters until after a few period when the market is doing well if they do not want to decide to pay in Ethereum.
However, that payment in Ethereum would be the best bet, and any of the bounty hunter who would love to invest in the project, can go to an exchange after the payment to make the purchase and that becomes a win-win situation for everyone.
Very well said, I agree entirely. I am also noticing the pattern is starting to begin where ICO investors are being more cautious. Such greed by project managers will negatively effect the entire alt-sphere when it makes nearly no difference for them to simply pay in ETH. The difference is literally insignificant for them, but huge for the "tokenomics" (to use the latest buzz-word) of their token.
I will not want to totally agree with your argument. This is based on the perspective of an investor but also looking at it from the angle of a bounty hunter, it is of two ways. For those bounty hunters who want to sell immediately the token get to them, it is always better to give them eth to even save them the stress of selling the token to get eth. But for those who have the intention to hold the coin for a long time, they will have to start making attempt to buy the tokens of which they would have gotten directly from bounty participation.
I'm also in the same shoes as you, as I'm both a fiat investor and a bounty hunter too, so see it from both sides. The question is how do you tell which bounty hunters want to HODL the token and BELIEVE in the project they're promoting, vs those that just see their bounty as "work" that they need to convert to ETH immediately once the token hits an exchange?
This is the best solution both investors and bounty hunters but project owners being greedy as always. They tend to cut as much as posibble from bounty pool if they had a chance. It is hard to believe even hundreds of millions collected icos are looking for several thousands to rip off from bounty hunters. Since no one has sanction power over project owners, this suggestion will pretend to be not heard.
It's unfortunate but true. ICO teams are raking in millions of capital when via traditional venture funding they'd receive exactly $0. And then they are so greedy they cannot even allocate 2% of their holdings to the people that promoted their project?
Maybe another good option would be for bounty hunters to be allowed to choose if they want to receive the payment in ETH or in the ICO's token in this case.
Excellent suggestion.
You are assuming that some of these developers want their tokens to succeed. But a lot of them just want to get their hands on Ethereum, and don't care if the token crashes and burns, its the investors that take the hit.
Once investors stop being fools and stop participating in these ICO's, you might see a change in behaviour, but not till then. And the change will be reduced ICOs, not bounties paid with ETH.
Herein lies the sobering truth. This is the sad reality of it.