what you are suggesting is beneficial to users not the owners and because what users want doesn't matter and the owners are thinking about their own benefit, something like this will never happen.
what they want is to have their useless token advertised as much as possible to as many people as possible while they spend as little money as possible. so having a huge army of newbies who spam their useless crap all over the internet is so much better for them instead of using a small group advertising it in a smaller space.
and since we have a huge number of greedy kids who would jump for 1 satoshi, things will never change.
Topic: Should Bounty Participants Be Capped ? - page 2. (Read 791 times)
strongly agree with the proposal you gave, so far I have seen several bounty campaigns have done it, arguing that there are many fraudulent accounts that are detrimental to participants in the bounty campaign.
but the reason for the project with a lot of participation, it will be more profitable for the project, expanding the coverage
but the reason for the project with a lot of participation, it will be more profitable for the project, expanding the coverage
Some bounties have more than 5000 people participating in their Telegram campaign bounty (My case study) with total $20,000 in token to be shared.
Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?
I shared this your thoughts before and at the end I do concluded that the developers are out to make they projects mainstream and the more numbers they have in the Telegram group or Twitter followers the more people know about them and, and invest in those projects. You and some of us the bounty hunters are concerned with what we are been pay but the owner is concerned if they can reach hard cap with minimal amount spend. In fact we have many projects today that refuse to paid bounty hunters after promoting this project to general public and that means they don't value them much. Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?
It will be a good idea if bounties participants are capped so that those who have joined before the maximum limit can get a good reward the lesser the number of participants the greater the rewards
Some bounties have more than 5000 people participating in their Telegram campaign bounty (My case study) with total $20,000 in token to be shared.
Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?
Im not shock about the large amount of bounty participants cause this forum has more than 100k members, and i think limiting bounty particpants in a campaign is a good move to increase the reward that will get by every participant. Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?
Some bounties have more than 5000 people participating in their Telegram campaign bounty (My case study) with total $20,000 in token to be shared.
Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?
Still $4 dollar for four week is decent amount for doing nothing. Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?
But limiting will restrict that bounty from spam but it will look like their project is followed by less people will make less attrative to the investors that is why bounties having stake system and they are not going to restrict people from joining even on the last week
Some bounties have more than 5000 people participating in their Telegram campaign bounty (My case study) with total $20,000 in token to be shared.
Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?
Still $4 dollar for four week is decent amount for doing nothing. Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?
But limiting will restrict that bounty from spam but it will look like their project is followed by less people will make less attrative to the investors that is why bounties having stake system and they are not going to restrict people from joining even on the last week
I agree with this idea, managers should give participants restrictions.
especially with small allocation campaigns, haunter bounties must be respected and they are entitled to justice.
Yes, and manager should blacklist you because you add nothing with their project. Not only in small bounty, but this should be implemented in all bounties, no matter how big / small the bounty.especially with small allocation campaigns, haunter bounties must be respected and they are entitled to justice.
Signature campaign should be capped or there should be limit on how many participants are allowed to join, and lastly the only full members are allowed because of signature they are carrying and avatart, but still it depends on management on what kind of rules they will implement.
So, sr member, hero and legendary ranks aren't allowed to join on signature campaign? 
I agree with this idea, managers should give participants restrictions.
especially with small allocation campaigns, haunter bounties must be respected and they are entitled to justice.
especially with small allocation campaigns, haunter bounties must be respected and they are entitled to justice.
If the project manager care for the bounty hunters more than the project, they would cap the number of participants.
However, I'm not seeing that way, they are running crowdfunding, more exposure means more opportunity to collect their target funds (hard cap and soft cap).
However, I'm not seeing that way, they are running crowdfunding, more exposure means more opportunity to collect their target funds (hard cap and soft cap).
Of course everything should be capped,,, if you want the project to have fair and equitable distribution, then you better make sure everyone is capped, not just bounty hunters but the devs, the project reservers, everything!
Capped and also locked for periods and only able to transfer some, depending on use. The more you use or spend, the more you can put to market liquidity.
Only few I saw that are capping the bounty participants, like for signature campaign, they capped at 100 participants only, but other campaign they don't limit. IMO, it's no necessary to cap as participants alone can decide whether they will still join knowing the number of participants displayed in the spreadsheet.
I think that limit or not is based on devs team criteria and strategies and managing bounty. The popularity is very important for the crypto market and the bounty forms also affect links to other search engines. That helps people easily see the project. However, I think to be fair, it should be limited to ensure the income from the participants' work.
If the project manager care for the bounty hunters more than the project, they would cap the number of participants.
However, I'm not seeing that way, they are running crowdfunding, more exposure means more opportunity to collect their target funds (hard cap and soft cap).
That's how I see this as well, the team wanted to have more exposures so they will not care about this, the more participants the more promotions they will have, and for the business, it will also helps to get more attention and received potential investment.However, I'm not seeing that way, they are running crowdfunding, more exposure means more opportunity to collect their target funds (hard cap and soft cap).
It's a good idea if bounty managers will consider this for bounty participants sake.
If the project manager care for the bounty hunters more than the project, they would cap the number of participants.
However, I'm not seeing that way, they are running crowdfunding, more exposure means more opportunity to collect their target funds (hard cap and soft cap).
However, I'm not seeing that way, they are running crowdfunding, more exposure means more opportunity to collect their target funds (hard cap and soft cap).
Signature campaign should be capped or there should be limit on how many participants are allowed to join, and lastly the only full members are allowed because of signature they are carrying and avatart, but still it depends on management on what kind of rules they will implement.
Some bounties have more than 5000 people participating in their Telegram campaign bounty (My case study) with total $20,000 in token to be shared.
Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?
The entire decision would depend on the project owner itself if he would decide to cut-off participants when it comes to bounty yet we know that Mathematically, when we placed everybody on a flat rate 20000 divided by 5000 will give us 4. This means each participants shall earn $4 for the duration of 4 weeks or more.
This type of overloaded bounty participants also cuts across all other bounties.
Should the bounty managers limits numbers of participants ? Or what do you think can be done to encourage bounty hunters ?
owners will always aim for maximum exposure which means they dont really care on how many bounty hunters would able to join up on any program task.
Therefore, this is already a common result which it do floods out where it do normally results on lesser bounty.
Agree they should, the distribution of tokens after the bounty campaign ended was a bit complicated. Especially for those bounty hunters who didn't know how to share it or how to count the stakes and etc. At least for those people who didn't know it, they will assume that the bounty manager is not fair because their work is not balanced with the income they get.
yeah of course, it should be capped. Mostly bounty hunters won't earn anything in participating campaigns like telegram bounty. Because they receive only very few tokens and more over when its taken to exchange and converted into btc or eth , hunters wont earn anything because of transfer fee. So I generally dont participate in such type of stupid bounties.
I am now seeing this topic as important since it affects almost every member of this forum in one way or the other.
Signature bounty participants should be capped to either 50 or 100 at most.
We are all here to make suggestion and it is likely the bounty managers might come across this thread and make this forum signature bounty hunters happier.
There is a bounty on going that is paying out monthly based on stakes, it already has over 1000 members, each legendary members would earn $12.5 per month based on the current market exchange of that coin.
I think there is need to actually review the bounty system
Signature bounty participants should be capped to either 50 or 100 at most.
We are all here to make suggestion and it is likely the bounty managers might come across this thread and make this forum signature bounty hunters happier.
There is a bounty on going that is paying out monthly based on stakes, it already has over 1000 members, each legendary members would earn $12.5 per month based on the current market exchange of that coin.
I think there is need to actually review the bounty system
If talking about telegram bounty campaign indeed this usually have plenty of members even if supposse can they want unlimited members joining their telegram channel because they might be consider more people to joining then they can increase their popularity projects through that apps
To be honest, I think most investors won't care about how many members joined their ICO/channel. Most of the time bounty requires participants to wear a tag and then post on other groups as a form of marketing, which in turn could lead to a ban or something similar from the owner of that group if you're doing it too aggressively. If you hire 5 thousand hunters to do that, your project image would likely turn into a negative one as it would certainly feel spammy.
Yes for me. because if manager not limit participants, sometime it will give very low rewards for others. So i always see first how many participants that already join in campaign because i only do signature campaign.
Most of the time, the signature campaign got around 25% from the pool. If there are 200 participants (some manager capped it at this number), each of them will get around 0.01225% (assuming they have the same rank). That's good enough for you?
Jump to: