Topic: IS IT A SIGN OF FAILURE OR Scam? - page 3. (Read 3709 times)
I think that is because they want to get a payment in bitcoin or ethereum because bitcoin or ethereum will be worth to them. Although I already saw some signature campaign that pays the participants using the tokens, it doesn't mean that the project can succeed. All things will depend on the developer and the team to manage their project so it could succeed in the future. So it is up to them to pay with bitcoin, ethereum or their token.
The reason why they don't want to receive payments with tokens is because they have to wait longer to be able to get money not because they don't believe that the project will be successful.
Also considered is because the bounty system with token payment often changes at the end of the bounty, the change is often in the number of tokens as well as the time of payment.
Not because they believe that it will be a scam but rather the timeliness also amount that will be received.
Also considered is because the bounty system with token payment often changes at the end of the bounty, the change is often in the number of tokens as well as the time of payment.
Not because they believe that it will be a scam but rather the timeliness also amount that will be received.
Having the payment option of top crypto for bounty participants isn't a sign of failure or neither a scam. Most of these bounty
campaigns are designed to attract high ranking members of the forum but often its a fair reward they will get either in BTC or
ETH so its nothing to worry about. But at the same time, it also doesn't guarantee that the project will not go flop, so the key
trick here is to do diligent research first on any project we like to support.
campaigns are designed to attract high ranking members of the forum but often its a fair reward they will get either in BTC or
ETH so its nothing to worry about. But at the same time, it also doesn't guarantee that the project will not go flop, so the key
trick here is to do diligent research first on any project we like to support.
In many cases, signature bounty participants accept the form of payment that is usually offered by the project team whether it can be Bitcoin, Eth or the tokens of the project itself. Now, this has nothing to do whether the project can be a scam or going to be a failure as nobody knows what can really be. There had been good projects that started so well but then they ended up bad. In other words, even if we might be suspecting a project to be a scam, there are cases that we are proven false and of course, on the other hand, there are those we assumed will be successful in the marketplace but they eventually fail even big time.
It has more to do with the pre-agreed payment fee more than anything else. I have been part of campaigns where they paid in eth or btc without me being a hero or legendary btt member. Payment type doesn't really determine how authentic a project will be. Some devs just feel they need to preserve the value of their token by paying in btc or eth. Others don't mind and would be happy to pay using their tokens to boost more liquidity
You are right
It has more to do with the pre-agreed payment fee more than anything else. I have been part of campaigns where they paid in eth or btc without me being a hero or legendary btt member. Payment type doesn't really determine how authentic a project will be. Some devs just feel they need to preserve the value of their token by paying in btc or eth. Others don't mind and would be happy to pay using their tokens to boost more liquidity
I have seen series of signature bounty campaigns that make their payments in bitcoin and ethereum for people of high ranks in the forum to wear their signature code, avatar and personal text.
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
One main reason is that establish coin and token such as bitcoin and ethereum have value for them. They dont want to waste effort for such coin/token which seems no guaranteed success. Take a look at VOUC token for starter token like VOUC token, who would you think will accept a payment via VOUC token even if you can avail ETH discount voucher as much as 50% off.
One example is our limited 3voucher issued worth 0.017 ETH each which you can avail for only 1 VOUC
1 VOUC = 0.0011 ETH
So higher ranks have their own judgement when it comes about acceptance of payment
I have seen series of signature bounty campaigns that make their payments in bitcoin and ethereum for people of high ranks in the forum to wear their signature code, avatar and personal text.
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
some projects are very desperate to attract investors that they go all the way knowing the still do not have a good project in their hands, While the good ones do not want for their token to dump in the market, hence paying with btc or eth with excess liquidity in their market. These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
I have seen series of signature bounty campaigns that make their payments in bitcoin and ethereum for people of high ranks in the forum to wear their signature code, avatar and personal text.
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
Not all high-rank members are experts, they got their rank because in the past you do not need merits to rank all are activity-based, we are all the same here if you look at the spreadsheets of a scam project, there are seniors, heroes and legendary there, everyone got scam one time or another.
I have seen series of signature bounty campaigns that make their payments in bitcoin and ethereum for people of high ranks in the forum to wear their signature code, avatar and personal text.
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
Signature campaign is just an advertisement so if you want your project to be successful through advertising alone then you will end up failed.And also members don't want to waste their time to promote an useless project that is why they join with the projects paying in bitcoin.These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
If the project have high hope on their success then they should go with paying in bitcoin rather than their tokens which could be dumped by hunters.
You can create such a comparison between how much altcoin hunters who have received the payment in the token with native coin hunters who have been receiving only in the native crypto payment like bitcoin or ethereum.
Signature is already divided into the two sides for those who are interesting to earn native coin can go with the campaign that allocated native coin too.
Remember it's very rare to see a campaign that used native crypto. I have participated in so many campaigns and i have received more than 90% of my payments in the token form and it's not a native token. That depends on the people's opinion about that.
it's not a sign of a scam but they are looking for the stability.
Signature is already divided into the two sides for those who are interesting to earn native coin can go with the campaign that allocated native coin too.
Remember it's very rare to see a campaign that used native crypto. I have participated in so many campaigns and i have received more than 90% of my payments in the token form and it's not a native token. That depends on the people's opinion about that.
it's not a sign of a scam but they are looking for the stability.
Bounty participants understands what is happening with the market now, of course since altcoins are dropping they would choose BTC or stable altcoins over a project tokens they will receive after the bounty. They are like people working that wants to receive their expected salary after the job and you can't blame them, and in fact I believe it will change from time to time depending on the market situation as what I have observed last 2017, signature campaigners leave a BTC paying campaign for altcoins as they will receive bigger, even x10 of what they will earn in btc signature campaign.
I have seen series of signature bounty campaigns that make their payments in bitcoin and ethereum for people of high ranks in the forum to wear their signature code, avatar and personal text.
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
Some projects decide to pay bounty hunters in bitcoin or stable coins like usdc to avoid dumps from bounty hunters and i have seen few project that did this and they are doing fine, they are just trying to avoid token value from getting shrinked, if any project paid hunters in bitcoin and still end up not doing well then its a really uselss project These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
... Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
...
...
No, this does not mean that the token will not succeed. Just experienced forum users prefer to get paid for working in cryptocurrency, which already has a price. Thus, they exclude for themselves the risk of the situation that they will not receive a payment if the project token does not have value.
The answer to that question is most signature participants knows the outcome of the project that 80% of them will never reach the market.
so when there is a signature campaign that pays on btc or eth they will prefare to join it than joining some project that paying on some unknown altcoins.
so when there is a signature campaign that pays on btc or eth they will prefare to join it than joining some project that paying on some unknown altcoins.
As @coin-investor said it's up to project owners to decides whether they want to pay the hunters with their own cryptocurrency or pay the hunters with BTC/ETH so deciding whether a project is scam/failure based on this would be unfair IMO.
I have seen series of signature bounty campaigns that make their payments in bitcoin and ethereum for people of high ranks in the forum to wear their signature code, avatar and personal text.
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
Do not make decisions based on members rank either legendary or sir members, whatever signature they are wearing its a risk been taken just like any jr member or full member did, Ranks doesn't give a genuine outcome of projects,whether scam or not its all about risk taking even after strict researches These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
I have seen series of signature bounty campaigns that make their payments in bitcoin and ethereum for people of high ranks in the forum to wear their signature code, avatar and personal text.
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
I have seen both the signature campaign the one that pays with Bitcoin and Ethereum and the one that pays with their token, it's not the high-rank members that offer that they open a campaign that pays Bitcoin and Ethereum it's the developers, the bounty hunters has the option to accept and decline that, I would have picked a stable and top coins than wait for months to see the value of the token.
High ranks and newbies or any rank is not a guaranty that you will not get scammed or short-changed I also suffer and experienced not getting paid, locked my token and get disqualified from these ICO campaigns.
I have seen series of signature bounty campaigns that make their payments in bitcoin and ethereum for people of high ranks in the forum to wear their signature code, avatar and personal text.
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
These people of high ranks are sometimes seen by the newbies as the experts who can only or mostly campaign for projects with great potentials. The project teams seems to also believe this to the point that they pay them in bitcoin or ethereum in believe that those high rank members wearing their signature codes will attract investors for them.
Some of these projects end up being a waste of investors' funds and times.
Now my point is, if the high rank signature hunters really believe a cryptocurrency project will be success, why don't they accept it as payment? Does it mean they already foresee that the token will end up being a shit in the end?
KONOIS (KON) token is an example of such projects
Jump to: