Topic: Influence of Bounty Participants - page 10. (Read 35540 times)
I think there has to be some standards set for bounty hunters. Not all should be allowed to come and join. I think the jr rank should be made compulsory for everyone to join any bounties.
Bounty hunters have huge influence as they give the huge promotion to any new ICO through their social media networks but limiting participation have no effect on dumping as bounty share always fixed to nearly 1 or 2% of total sale and if will be distributed to participants as per their stakes so no effect of limiting participation.
Bounty campaign - the easiest way to promote project without heavy expenditures. The main problem is that there are many bounty hunters, so rewards aren't so good, as it used to be. So, bounty managers should complicate the rules and also fix the number of participants
Lately there have been many who argue about bounty participants, some argue that the more bounty participants the better the new project will be. and there are also those who argue that bounty participants must be limited so they can avoid the number of dumper when a project is completed.
I have questions
1. How influential is this bounty participant for a new project?
2. If the bounty participant is restricted what will affect the success of a new project?
1. The only investors that bountyhunters can find are those, who visit bitcointalk i guess. And some small part from twitter and facebook. I have questions
1. How influential is this bounty participant for a new project?
2. If the bounty participant is restricted what will affect the success of a new project?
2. The more participant - the more info spreads.
I think bounty hunters really have a great role of promoting their project and to get more investors that will make the campaign get their success in the estimated time. And I think it would be great if all the bounty manager get what is their exact rewards on the campaign they participated because some of the ICO's don't give what really the allocated rewards to the participants sometimes.
The fewer people the more salary, the fewer people the less the project is promoted! But some kind of limitation should be.
Influence is pretty huge, but hunters can be as helpful and as well as a disaster for a project. If an ICO restricts to pay their earnings, the bounty hunters will destroy the image of the whole project and the team.
Well, it is up to the team as to how they would treat the bounty participants because if they would just do what they promise then the bounty participants would do their job in promoting the project and then if they would decide to not pay them then it would just reflect that they may just be a scam team and their intention is really to just get money from people and then run away thereafter. Bounty participants are influential because they are the key so that the information about the ICO can reach as many people as they can.
Influence is pretty huge, but hunters can be as helpful and as well as a disaster for a project. If an ICO restricts to pay their earnings, the bounty hunters will destroy the image of the whole project and the team.
Lately there have been many who argue about bounty participants, some argue that the more bounty participants the better the new project will be. and there are also those who argue that bounty participants must be limited so they can avoid the number of dumper when a project is completed.
I have questions
1. How influential is this bounty participant for a new project?
2. If the bounty participant is restricted what will affect the success of a new project?
Some times one have to check the negative effects of something to be able to judge the actual advantage, check the times when bounty hunters negatively advertised some products... You see the product going down... I believe the bounty hunters have influences that is so great it cannot be measured I have questions
1. How influential is this bounty participant for a new project?
2. If the bounty participant is restricted what will affect the success of a new project?
Perhaps you will be surprised, but bounty hunters bring little benefit to the promotion of the project. Their contribution to the project promotion and attraction of new investors is minimal. What is needed then the participants of the bounty? They increase traffic on social networks, promote the project hashtag in the search query, but nothing more.
It seems to me that the campaign bounty should not limit the number of participants because it is not profitable for them and the PR campaign of the project will be much worse
But in this case, the participants may become too much and then they will receive a very small payment. So I think it’s necessary to limit the number of participants.
Bounty hunters play an important role in the advertising and promoting a new campaign. It is not good if there are too much of hunters in a campaign as the quality is more important then the quantity in this case. It is true that many hunters dump their coins immediately as it is listed on exchanges but it does not effect the price long term as bounty rewards are usually 1-2% of the total supply.
Bounty hunters have a huge influence on new projects, because hunters are their main promoting power that allow the project to collect more funds and maybe to reach their funding goals. Without bounty hunters it would be difficult to achieve a soft cap on this market.
Lately there have been many who argue about bounty participants, some argue that the more bounty participants the better the new project will be. and there are also those who argue that bounty participants must be limited so they can avoid the number of dumper when a project is completed.
I have questions
1. How influential is this bounty participant for a new project?
2. If the bounty participant is restricted what will affect the success of a new project?
I have questions
1. How influential is this bounty participant for a new project?
2. If the bounty participant is restricted what will affect the success of a new project?
A bounty campaign can be what determines whether a coin is going to do well or not, it depends on how well that the bounty campaign is executed to make sure that they get across to the kind of investors that they are looking for to invest in their project. I do think that if there is some kind of limit on a project then it can lead to better results from the bounty participants
Member of the bounty company. could affect the project. For example, the majority of Bautista, sell tokens of the project immediately upon receipt. This affects the price of the token.
Lately there have been many who argue about bounty participants, some argue that the more bounty participants the better the new project will be. and there are also those who argue that bounty participants must be limited so they can avoid the number of dumper when a project is completed.
I have questions
1. How influential is this bounty participant for a new project?
2. If the bounty participant is restricted what will affect the success of a new project?
I think it would be better if we are able to makes every bounty participant to avoid selling their coins directly the first time the coins listed in the market, that way should be able to control the price for not dropping when it listed in the market for the first time. I have questions
1. How influential is this bounty participant for a new project?
2. If the bounty participant is restricted what will affect the success of a new project?
Some projects do not run a bounty but they do airdrop to increase the number of communities from the project, if they want the project to run well, they can run a bounty with a pretty good budget. For many participants who participated there was no one disappointed.
Bounty Hunter still plays a very important role, I think it is related to the success of the sale ico. but there are indeed some who do not carry out bounty campaigns, but the work of the team must be very hard by doing huge advertising to get investors. and it could have been a large amount of funds spent, even greater than making a bounty campaign.
Some projects do not run a bounty but they do airdrop to increase the number of communities from the project, if they want the project to run well, they can run a bounty with a pretty good budget. For many participants who participated there was no one disappointed.
It seems to me that the campaign bounty should not limit the number of participants because it is not profitable for them and the PR campaign of the project will be much worse
But in this case, the participants may become too much and then they will receive a very small payment. So I think it’s necessary to limit the number of participants.
Of course bounty participants have an influence on the success of a project even though it is not entirely, because they indirectly promote the ongoing project and certainly with the promotion will be able to attract investors to join
Jump to: