It makes no sense to limit the number of participants in the generosity campaign in any particular project. The statement that this will stimulate the writing of quality messages is a myth, as always. The forum has already introduced merit. Has anything changed from this? They practically blocked the access of new members to the forum and made earning money in signature campaigns for higher ranks, which by such innovation cut off new competitors with similar ranks. And who will do it? ICO companies that allocate a certain number of tokens to the generosity campaign are not interested in limiting the number of participants, for them the more their number, the better for them, as more of their ICO ads will meet.
Sometimes there are also ico projects that restrict participants to signature campaign rewards, I've read in this forum some time ago, but is it possible that make those rules are bounty managers, but even rarely ICO projects that limit participants to the Gift, the more participants will become better and will be more promising for the success of a project.
Topic: Should we limit members in one campaign? - page 16. (Read 1560 times)
It makes no sense to limit the number of participants in the generosity campaign in any particular project. The statement that this will stimulate the writing of quality messages is a myth, as always. The forum has already introduced merit. Has anything changed from this? They practically blocked the access of new members to the forum and made earning money in signature campaigns for higher ranks, which by such innovation cut off new competitors with similar ranks. And who will do it? ICO companies that allocate a certain number of tokens to the generosity campaign are not interested in limiting the number of participants, for them the more their number, the better for them, as more of their ICO ads will meet.
Sometimes there are also ico projects that restrict participants to signature campaign rewards, I've read in this forum some time ago, but is it possible that make those rules are bounty managers, but even rarely ICO projects that limit participants to the Gift, the more participants will become better and will be more promising for the success of a project.
I think that such restrictions are necessary for "big interest" projects. And it makes no sense to make restrictions, as the more participants, the higher the marketing result. I do not think that most of ICO will take these restrictions. I believe that they need to monitor the quantity of multi-accs, it's main problem.
It makes no sense to limit the number of participants in the generosity campaign in any particular project. The statement that this will stimulate the writing of quality messages is a myth, as always. The forum has already introduced merit. Has anything changed from this? They practically blocked the access of new members to the forum and made earning money in signature campaigns for higher ranks, which by such innovation cut off new competitors with similar ranks. And who will do it? ICO companies that allocate a certain number of tokens to the generosity campaign are not interested in limiting the number of participants, for them the more their number, the better for them, as more of their ICO ads will meet.
Maybe is best to everybody to limit the members of so that we do our best to succeed I'm not saying that we cannot do our best if we are crowded and I'm some other place the more members is better campaign.
Yes I hope that thet will limit the participants, but it will depends on the bounty manager or who is handling the campaign. Some bounty project practice this system.
It is the decision which is taken by the manger and probably even the ICO team who is bringing the coin would mutually discussion about the plan to go about and how many participants require or what are their target etc and then only the campaign is started.
In my opinion, the members involved in the campaign should be limited. Because the project gift supply is not available to unlocked members. This has led to the release of a few campaigns due to unlimited participation. I once considered this in the campaign.
If you check the services section's btc paid signature campaign they are already have few spots only for the campaign participants there I hope we do not need any regulation at there. If want to reduced the number acceptance means they should done that on bounty campaign.
Since the free spreadsheet application there are people just applying in 1000s in numbers.
Manual acceptance has been done with checking the post quality means we will find the quality posters for the forum and no tons of members in bounties.
Limited participants in one campaign will be a good idea. It will not only lessen spam posts which is good while promoting the project and we can earn much higher bonus if there is only limited participants. It's a win win situation. It is an advantage for both parties.
Yes they should be limited to one campaign and there should be tighter rules to sig campaigns on this forum, there is way to much abuse of them as there is now...so many bots and other users who dont even care about the signature they represent
In my opinion, the members involved in the campaign should be limited. Because the project gift supply is not available to unlocked members. This has led to the release of a few campaigns due to unlimited participation. I once considered this in the campaign.
agree with u
right now too many peoples joining more tha 5x or more than that
even their social media is full of spaming
i dont think that what campaign work
but well it depend on bounty manager , they have the ruler
right now too many peoples joining more tha 5x or more than that
even their social media is full of spaming
i dont think that what campaign work
but well it depend on bounty manager , they have the ruler
But the number of members is already been limited in most of bounty campaigns. That's the positive thing and lot of bounty managers are following that idea
There are many bounties who sets only few members who can join the campaign. But that is why they are paying members so that their company or ico will be known by many people by the use social media so they dont set any limit on who can join the campaign becuase they already provided on how much they will distribute. Maybe, if you want higher rewards, choose the campaign your joining. Check the members who joined.
of course they should. otherwise for a couple of months, everyone will receive $ 10
You have a point most of participants in social media were using dummy account and even their followers/friends are product of some apps where you could gain instant followers, and the essence of social media advertisement will be meaningless. Thats why they limit the participants within a particular number of applicants and they are very strict on the setting campaign rules. I absolutely agree in your opinion.
This is a should be done because in order for the allocation in the campaign not shared with the people so that the results obtained will become larger. Some are already implemented but not all.
Managers and the dev behind the project should be aware that there are a lot of participants to be expected especially in a known project that is gonna conduct campaigns again. I don't see any bounties get a status of close at least for now and I think they might be expecting a lot from their projects such as investors. What I think should be done is that they should know the "reach" of their project before knowing the limits of participants. A small but effective campaign could already be enough to 10 members. Speaking of social networking sites and its relation to spam, it is up to participants themselves whether they really think the project will be successful as these scammy/shit projects just tend to waste space in the marketing space in popular sites like Facebook and Twitter and it is being polluted continuously, and this could also be the reason that Mark Zuckerberg led him to decide or plan out the ban of cryptocurrency in his site and I think it is just right as it could also ruin the image of cryptos.
Dear all,
Sorry for any inconvenience for this topic,
I’ve ever joined some bounty campaigns and get some tokens. Bellow are my thinking:
There are some projects attract so much participants, although that means the project is very interesting but it has limited bonus. Result, bonus that each participant receivers from the campaign very small. A lot of participants in one campaign has made so many spams on social networking….
So a question here: Should we limit members in one campaign?
(maybe depend on the bonus value of that campaign)
What are your thinking?
Please share…
Sorry for any inconvenience for this topic,
I’ve ever joined some bounty campaigns and get some tokens. Bellow are my thinking:
There are some projects attract so much participants, although that means the project is very interesting but it has limited bonus. Result, bonus that each participant receivers from the campaign very small. A lot of participants in one campaign has made so many spams on social networking….
So a question here: Should we limit members in one campaign?
(maybe depend on the bonus value of that campaign)
What are your thinking?
Please share…
i think is good if bounty campaign use limit participant
because bounty campaign participant can get good payment
but promote can't masive if use limit participant
Please share more idea! Thanks
I think the bounty campaign should limit the members in one campaign. I strongly agree that the token distribution is clear and feasible to received, rather than the unlimited members of the accepted payout results will disappoint the bounty campaign participants.
Jump to: