Topic: Should Bounty Participants Be Capped ? (Read 791 times)

You are right.
Most of the money companies use goes to promoting. You will notice companies that are well known have good promotions. Sometimes a new brand comes in and owns the scene with ads all over the place and this often works, its like a takeover. Some companies are born that way. All the big brands display their banners in the most popular places to the point where even your gran knows what the brand is even if it's targeted at young people. That is what good advertising does.

As far as I can remember, harmony was taken place in Binance but they still had a bounty in bitcointalk, isn't it? Bounty will stayed forever, may be the form will change. Cause successful fund raising campaign needs more promotion.

IEO means no bounty, maybe in big exchange like Binance they don't need, but with small exchange, they need bounty for their exposure.
The thing is there's less project compared to last 2017's ICO, so that only create little opportunity for bounty hunting.

After IEO's many companies are not showing interest to launch the bounty because exchange itself taking some professional activity in the market. So this makes the companies are not showing interest towards the bounties.

It will only help the bounty hunter to get some more passive income but you know the ICO marketing will be lowered because of the low participant. More bounty hunters mean more exposure for the ICO which help the project to raise more money.

You can work on earning more merit. More merit means better opportunities here on this forum, or try your hand at trading, takes balls of steel though to sit and learn the whole thing from scratch.
 I may be stuck at senior level, though I've been here for many years, I've learned that the merit system made it so you really have to grind to get good within the community and to reap the rewards on the solid campaigns. Many companies offer shitty bounty rewards on purpose for lower ranked members because of it's cheap labor, almost free in most case (ICO fails).
  The second reason why hunters are getting bum deals is because of having little to no understanding of what it is exactly they're investing their time and energy into. They're fooled by the thread titles of the campaigns,
Example: "(BOUNTY) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ BIG PAYOUT$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, JOIN SHITCOINS-R-US/ NO KYC, $100,000.00 CRAP DROP(AIRDROP) !"



 Most of the projects hunters join are clones or are a bad investment from the beginning. Due Diligence would help hunters sort lot of shit coins out from the real promising ones.
   The projects team, their direct communication with their community, a solid white paper, an innovate spin on a blockchain concept (not a clone project), a believable roadmap and a working product are just a few of the necessities to look for when bounty hunting for a plausible campaign.

They should cap participants, some bounty hunters are doing this capping and it's very rewarding for participants and we can praise bounty managers for doing this, but as we all know some bounty managers and developers, wants huge promotion and they want to accept unlimited number of participants, sometimes deteriorating the rewards bounty hunters will receive.

There are few campaigns which pay with the number of their weekly token. They have set exact number how much token you will earn based on your rank. So even though they have limit their participants, you can't earn more

What? there are companies that you can join and it's your task to research on how big they are. But looking for those 'large' companies, do you think how many percentage of them are operating a bounty right now? it's not about on how good and timely the payments are but it's about on how legit they are. If you have found one, you're lucky but limiting their participants is their choice and you just have to choose the best bounty that fits your wants but don't join the scam ones.

Recently, I noticed that only in such companies it is possible to earn good money. Therefore, it seems to me that such companies should be larger. In such companies, payments are good, and they are timely.

with the limitation of bounty participants, of course this will be very beneficial for the participants when the project ends later, because for those bounty participants who join the project will get a lot of results and of course this is based on the stake they get.

Yes , if participants is only limited in each bounty campaign section thus every participant will have good rewards in the end of bounty campaign.

good approach but a bounty manager will not like to limit the number of participants.
the more participants the more advertising. the BM doesn't care if there is less money left for each participant

Even if you as a hunter see it necessary to be capped base on overload as you rightly pointed out, the project team wouldn't want to do this because to them it is cheap labor, they can get thousands of members in their telegram group with miserable amount that can't benefit you, and the funny part is that some hunters are willing to do anything for just a $1 and bm and team will take advantage of this.

Some bounty managers don't care about the computation, all they want is more people campaigning to the project they are promoting, the signature is ok  even if they are not capping the participants, but when it comes to facebook twitter and telegram the number could go up to 20k participants and that is not good for bounty participants of those campaigns.

Whatever the case is, you guys should treat or assume bounty as a contract. Either you agree with it or you don't, and if you agree to join then you should follow all the rules. It's clear that most of the time bounty programs will put their interest first and not yours, you can't beg them to change it as it's their business.

When you agree to join their program, you should be prepared for the worst, including if they scam you at the end of the campaign. If you can't risk that, then don't join any bounty campaign.

That's why you must do an audit. I don't even think if the platform will accept the promotion create by spammers. Remember about that not all of bounty hunters can meet the expectation and the manager should have watched his participants.

Correct!
Main reason is into that exposure thing that you we're saying.Company won't really decide to limit the members
because the more the better but as a bounty hunter its up to you if you'll join or not.

I think that needs to be done by various existing projects. by limiting the number of participants to bounty hunters, of course, can be one of the recommendations of people before deciding to participate in promoting related projects, so that the budget allocation that can be given to participants is commensurate with the work done and does not disappoint participants because they do not receive a small budget provided by the related project

Limiting the number of participants in a particular bounty would certainly benefit the few hunters. But we should not forget that the project needs to be promoted and the hype is always generated around a project when we have a large number of people promoting it. The best way is to make rules strict such that bounty hunters  only promote a project using their greatest effort.