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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Agree $4 is enough for just joining the telegram group its like an airdrop, manager have to be wise in dealing with fake accounts joining in tg campaigns  but in other campaigns like social media and signature its a very small amount if too many participants will join and you have many task to complete everyday to earn stakes the only solution is to increase the reward or limit the participants.

Still $4 dollar for four week is decent amount for doing nothing.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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
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

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.


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?

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.

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

I have no problem with the Telegram bounty not being capped but it is the social media that I am concerned about because this is where almost everyday tasks are required and if unlimited participants can be allowed then we can end with little for our hard work in sharing the project. This is one area that calls for balancing...and it is the job of the bounty manager to determine how many hunters should be allowed. At any rate, we can choose the project that we wanted to promote in the first place so we are partly in control.

The problem is the bounty participants aren't encouraging the projects to capped down on the numbers of participants they should employed. For a retweet/share campaign which involves writing of original post or tweets when there isn't a post to share or retweet instead of participants to create original post about the project, they engage in copy & paste of past post by projects or plagiarism of other participants works. Same problem can be found in signature, translation, article campaigns etc.

Also most bounty participants don't have real friends, all the numbers we see are bought followers or subscribers that's why must campaign prefer quantity over quality so at least they get more exposure even though it means paying pennies.

I dont think its about the participant .  In sig campaigns that pays in btc ,there are campaigns that only 3 to 5 participants but the pay rate is not really impressive  . There are also campaign that have a participant of over 40 to 60 but the payrate is still higher than any common campaigns .  I think that is the same as on bounty campaigns .  The campaign  can hire huge number of users but they still can pay descent if they want to

None of the campaign campaign managers for bounties have some limits for paying tokens. To manage the signature campaigns and bounties paying in Ethereum or any listed big tokens will alone have the limits for sure.
May be forum DT1 can be enforce some rules to open the campaigns. It will reduce the spams and increase the quality campaigns to attain this forum's marketplace and many things.

In general, participants would want as many rewards as possible, while the ICO/IEO/projects marketing team would want as much good exposure as possible. They don't need to hire spammers or low-quality marketers. In the end, I think there's no need to put a cap as most bounty hunters won't be able to produce a good exposure. For example, a bounty hunter with 30k followers that he got from follow to follow won't bring any marketing impact to the ICO as most of the time his tweet/rt would be exposed to other hunters, and not potential investors. Not saying that there are no bounty hunters that want to invest in ICO/IEO, but the possibility is small.

I think, instead of putting a cap, they should only choose to run a good bounty, such as content creation, signature, community engagement like what LTO or Elrond does, or platform advertising (that needs to be moderate heavily). Based on my own experience of managing a bounty, there's probably under 50 accounts that could produce good advertising and the rest of them are spamming. So, if they want to be really strict, they only need to deny those low-quality accounts. However, those bounty hunters won't like it and start slandering them.

This will be the verdict of the bounty manager and the project management. I've already seen some that has cap for their participants and others are conducting a first come-first serve basis. If you are worried with the limitation of a bounty and you see it's unlikely to cap their participants, you shouldn't join that in the first place. They want to expand and add more participants because for them, it's somehow effective to reach out more potential investors.

Well said by everyone but i think the signature campaign bounties are the ones that suffers that effect most whereby 1500 participant will need to share $30,000 for 8 weeks programs.
Some might conclude that people should leave the bounty if the pay is not good but such conclusion is an error because bounty hunters are party of the system and we should be considered and treated as important persons.
I think signature campaign bounties participants deserves a better pay and such might not take effect if not capped.

if the bounty participant capped then it just good for the bounties hunter while it's not too good for the ico company.
because if the participants are not restricted it means the project will be more famous than with a small number of participants

if you watching a lot of tg groups in some icos and there were thousands of bot. I can say only some accounts are not erased by the system.

But the bounty participants should be capped to ensure there will be much good quality participants.
Just like when signature gets capped and it will be so easy to monitor the participant.

---

OP, i think there must be a maximum cap for participant.

Then they should increase the bounty on telegram limit the participants to 1000. So everyone would get fair rewards.
We cant deny that some participants have multi accounts on telegram.

Capping bounty participants will surely help the bounty hunters to earn more however, the issue of large participants only affect the signature bounty hunters more than any other campaign because they can promote as many project as possible but the signature campaign can only promote one project at a time.

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 ?