Topic: Should we limit members in one campaign? - page 3. (Read 1560 times)
Generally I have see potential and successful project have bounty with limited participation which is quite good as it help improve quality rather than quantity.it is also a sign that how team value their project and supporting members.
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…
You have a point. Maybe that is the reason why many bounty participants only receives small amount of tokens and not enough for their hardwork during the campaign. If the campaign managers will set a number of particiapants that are enough for the campaign, for sure the participants will received a big amount of tokens after the ICO. 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…
In fact, many bounty tasks have restrictions on the number of participants. Generally speaking, they will require 1000-2000 participants. However, many projects do not have so many participants, so it does not matter if you do not limit the number of people.
I do not agree with you, according to my observations, quite often projects that put a limit on the number of participants in the bounty run into the limit. As a rule, these are projects with good previous experience, or from the real business sector.
In fact, many bounty tasks have restrictions on the number of participants. Generally speaking, they will require 1000-2000 participants. However, many projects do not have so many participants, so it does not matter if you do not limit the number of people.
Everything depends on the generosity of the project team that conducts ICO.I notice that the more means are allocated to the bounty of the company, the more they subsequently raise funds.
Limit the members in the bounty campaign is the other way to improve the efficency when asdvertise the ICO or some coin marketing campaign. The limit participant will bring the high rewards and help them try to help the project.
yes i think There must be limitations with respect to the members. restricting members in bounties can truly help bounty hunters to procure more benefit.because during reward distributions low ranks members most affected
Yes i do believe that's the best thing to do so as the participants can gain something tangible from the work they are doing
yes I think that is very important. if ico it limits participants in their campaigns. because if it is limited many will join and it will be an injustice in giving rewards to the bounty hunters. like now the bouty sosmed Twitter and Facebook programs are very much the participants and the rewards they share will be less for the prizes they receive. its better if there is a restriction of participants then the payment will be regular. and we hunters will not be disappointed.
concereza we should limit as standard of any bounty but infezlimente niguem wants to cooperate greed for divulgation does not exist but ico announcements therefore bounty are their princupal way of divulging therefore we have to be more valued
Undoubtedly, limiting the number of participants would have a positive effect on the promotion of the project and on the reward of each participant. You could even limit by rank, as do some bounty managers.
in any case, the restriction appears not only at the beginning of the company's Bounty, But also during the Bounty campaign. Such an example can be given by Bounty company Jimbi, where not only began to limit the number of participants several times after a certain time, but also began to reduce the reward for the work done for each week.
preferably so, for a good level of profit in a bounty, there should be a limitation of participants in a bounty project, because the large number of participants becomes the determinant of the amount of benefits that the participants will get
I support the idea of limiting the number of participants in the company bonuses, and given the popularity of the bounty at the present time, even in a very strong and promising company with a huge number of participants, earnings turn out to be scanty. And this kills all prospects of this sphere of earnings. It is necessary to put a limit on the number of people in proportion to the pool allocated to a certain company and then the work on the PR of the project will be made better and the people will have more money. Although companies do pay all the same for a million 1 per 10k people or 500k people, the result is important to them, and the bounty is a consumable, as in other real industries.
To be honest, being an bounty hunters means to solve a lot of issues like searching the real projects that wont become scam eventually. And I think members limit is needed for both sides profit.
Am agree with you, now there are a lot of bots in companies, and payments are quite penny, I think you need to enter a rule first com- first serve!
making restrictions bounty participants is possible in need, because it affects the benefits received by the bounty hunter, maybe the limit is 1000 participants for each campaign depending on the allocation of tokens
i am in favor. there are bounties that are so crowded that its hardly worth taking part in them. a limit would be really good.
yes it should be like that because by making a restriction of each member to be able to follow and become a bounty campaign participants should have been applied for now in order to bounty campaign is not too many participants.
In general,
With many many things that we shared in this topic, we know that a limitation of participants in a bounty campaign will help to distribute members to diffrent campaign. This thing is better for bounty hunters. But it is too hard for project managers who always need more and more participants for advertisement.
Dear everyone, if you have more solution for this issue, please share it.
Thank you so much!
Unfortunately there's no solution yet, and i wouldn't recommend using bots since it is against in all of the forum rules and they weren't advisable to use for a good project. In the first place, the participants should accept what's the manager will give them at the end of the campaign or else they shouldn't be joining that campaign if they don't want to accept a small bonus. With many many things that we shared in this topic, we know that a limitation of participants in a bounty campaign will help to distribute members to diffrent campaign. This thing is better for bounty hunters. But it is too hard for project managers who always need more and more participants for advertisement.
Dear everyone, if you have more solution for this issue, please share it.
Thank you so much!
I think that in any companies need to limit the number of participants to be the first incentive to get into such a company and kept a good reward.
Its up to the campaign manager if they want to limit thier participants in every category of the bounty campaign, more amd more members in the campaign will result to less reward that everyine that could get.
Jump to: