Topic: Should we limit members in one campaign? - page 18. (Read 1563 times)

If you go through the services thread, you will see that almost every good campaign manager has a cap on the number of participants. This is done because people want quality more than the quantity. This is the same reason why people pay more to Hero/Legendary compared to Member/Full Member. In the price of 1 hero, you can probably have 5-7 Members working, but if a company does that, it would lose its reputation since those posts won't be up to the mark. That is why it is necessary to limit members in one campaign.
The more the members, the more the stakes would be divided and the lesser you would earn. So it is preferable to have a cap on number of participants.

I think bounty campaign participants should be limited, this is necessary because gift sharing will be high enough and reduce spam in social media.

I think that's a good opinion. Yes should be limited for campaign in bounty program, why? yes that was at least a gift. My suggestion maybe there is a good manager make a bounty for newbie and jr. Member

Dear friend,
What you say maybe useful for me and other ones who are new members refer when join bounty Campaign.  Thanks so much,

I do think it really limits the number of rewards per participant when there are too many of them. 

Dear you,
Absolutely agree with you about this problem. Some ICO bounty project did not care about the bonus for participants because they only want many many member join to broadcast their project in social channel or blog and igrore bounus.
By the way, when choose the bounty campaign to join, i usually choose the campaign with <1000 members, it is the tip for you when join bounty.
Goodluck

I consider that it is necessary not to limit the number of participants, but to make more stringent requirements for participants and ban for the use of several accounts.

Limitation would be depending on on the team itself if they would decide to limit participants into each bounty program.Its true that the more participants the lesser potential income you would able to make since participants are too many which it can be explained by basic calculations.Usually team doesnt make any limit specially on bounty programs because owners or teams would be glad to have lots of people to spread awareness as long they do only give fix percentage allocation they dont matter or mind on how many would join up.

can not, because managers and participants can not to give restrictions to anyone who wants to come along and this requires some parts to be taken for each participant so that participants are satisfied with the payment result from bounty

It is called a marketing but at the end, people who are participating in those campaigns will earn less unless those programs increase the amount proportionally if participants go up. But I don't think they will do that part.


It is actually people mistake because they will not ask them to fix certain price for each action on social media instead they will join as soon as they announce as if they will never get again a chance. If no one joins such programs then they will be forced to fix price then you know how much you may be earning at the end of the week.

Limiting the participants in a campaign is a good proposal because the fewer partipants the higher profits you may earn but it is not applicable for ico organizers or the bounty manager because they only need higher amount of supporters so they just accepting who'd want to join.

I’ve seen some campaigns put a limit on signature campaigns and others limit telegram bounty members. This is not common practice yet and there is always a dual side to the equation.

Let’s say we’re considering a signature campaign:

On the one side, not placing limits gives the campaign a wider scope of reach, since their signature is carried out in more posts throughout the forum. The downside is for the signatory: the more people the less tokens they’ll eventually get for their stakes.

On the other side, placing more explicit and restricted limits would imply that bounty managers would have to select better the allowed participants, since offer would be smaller than demand. Filtering users not only by rank but by merit would become a common practice.
Nevertheless, having less overall campaign signatures on posts could in fact be more beneficial for the campaign since, theoretically, better posters would be allowed to be the brand ambassadors.

I personally have developed a signature virtual shield, and manage to get through the forum barely looking at people’s signatures. It’s those that figure in decent posts that manage to surpass my shield and catch my eye out of curiosity. Basically if the poster is sound, I don’t mind getting to know what campaign he’s backing.

I recently calculated that the amount of active users (counted either as sender or receiver of sMerit) that participate in a signature campaignis around 71%. That is pretty high considering the amount of users in the forum. An excess can obliviate the point of signatures since none stand out in the forest.

I don't think that. Main taget of bounty is more and more people know about the ICO. That bounty need more people to do that. So, it's marketing. 

That is why we can easily differentiate the bounty on bounties section and services section signature campaign. Most of bounties expect the spammers to be part of the project and they just to show off through out this forum.
But that does not matter for project. If the project has been comes to reputed manager that will refined the way we look the project.
There are successful bounty campaign managers. They takes the project with the right hand to promote. That way of approaching will be needed in every bounty campaigns.

Totaly agree with you, but a few days ago I had the conversation with bounty manager and he said that they don`t want a lot of spam in social networks. So they limited number of participants and made hard rules for own posts. This is good strategy also - they will receive only constructive posts and comments.

As bounty hunter I think that limits are good for us, cause we can get more distribution not this low cost tokens in every bounty.

In my opinion, it is necessary to limit the number of participants. The use of a huge number of participants, but the low quality of "advertising" is not enough.
Restrictions are necessary so that there is not a lot of useless spam.

The goal of the ICO bounties is to get advertisement and marketing at various media in the internet at a low cost with a form of rewards(tokens) that are given to the bounty hunters for every successful campaign. If this is the case the more the participants with in the campaign just means that the ICO is getting a lot of attention and good publicity which will contribute to its success. Yes you might get a lower share of the total allocation of the ICO however it does not mean that the value of the token will not be good, because it will depend on how good the project is and how the market will react. So all in all it is just natural for any campaign to have many participants.

Yes i think all kind of bounty campaigns should have a limit for participants. Becuase they are just to many participants which are just doing the stakes down. And for the projects himself it is much better when they are less people out there who received free bounty tokens. Initial coin offerings with huge bounty pool has always a hard dump as soon as they got listed on exchange. Thats why so many projects like envion dont pay the bounty tokens and scma the participants!

I fully support that there was a limit! this will allow to make Bounty more clearly and qualitatively! I think even all participants will appreciate their place in Bounty and will do more work! it will bring more desire and excitement over bounty, because it will make it possible to make a bigger sum !! it will only affect positively!