Topic: Should we limit members in one campaign? - page 6. (Read 1560 times)
It would be grate if one of the campaigns have it limits with there entry inorder to claim rewards exact amount for each participants. To somehow minimize the spam accounts for double entry. The less participants the bigger the rewards will be provided.
For me,i also agree for bounty campaign that have limit the number of participants. But also i think,a lot of campaigns should have also a lot of participants,for the purpose of spreading their bounty campaign projects informations,and to introduce their aimed,to be a successful projects,and all including participants will be benifited.
Dear admin, in my opinion i would like to suggest the bounty manager should limit the number of members to join in one campaigns. Now i see many team they limit amout of members and they also require to do KYC. I think we should join these team and we may have a big chance to get more rewrads. Many thanks
I totally agree on the limit on members participating on a campaign to curb spam and enable a larger allocation of tokens to be given on a bounty and of course it will mean more work for the bounty participants,but I don't mind since an increase in the allocated tokens are certain.
Limiting the members of a campaign will make the quality of the job more secure and the testing of the campaign manager easier, I am very supportive of this. Without limiting the number of members, there are many campaigns with too many members and that leads to poor quality of work and difficult management.I really believe that the number of bounty hunters in a single campain should be limit jus to ensure that even with small ranks can be benefit and can earn more.
I totally agree on the limit on members participating on a campaign to curb spam and enable a larger allocation of tokens to be given on a bounty and of course it will mean more work for the bounty participants,but I don't mind since an increase in the allocated tokens are certain.
Limiting the members of a campaign will make the quality of the job more secure and the testing of the campaign manager easier, I am very supportive of this. Without limiting the number of members, there are many campaigns with too many members and that leads to poor quality of work and difficult management. 
more participants will be more profitable project, but not profitable for us because rewards are shared for the participants.but there are also managers who limit the number of participants sergei name.
The harvest is ripe, so why should the laborers be few, i know because we we are humans we cannot promote all the bounties at a time, but my advice is this, participate in as much bounty that you can, promote as many project as possible but keep to their bounty rules.
I totally agree on the limit on members participating on a campaign to curb spam and enable a larger allocation of tokens to be given on a bounty and of course it will mean more work for the bounty participants,but I don't mind since an increase in the allocated tokens are certain.
For the bounty hunters, of course, it is advantageous to limit the participants, since indeed in many bounties very many participants are registered, while their share is decreasing.
But for companies, on the contrary, it is better when there are many participants and the audience's reach in social networks is greater.
But for companies, on the contrary, it is better when there are many participants and the audience's reach in social networks is greater.
Unlikely, the more people are involved, the more spam on the social networks and that is what they want, their ico will be for many people.
The purpose of bounty is to makerting and the more participants they promote success
The purpose of bounty is to makerting and the more participants they promote success
Yes, talking about the purpose for popularization of the idea of the project -yes, you are quite right. The more people mention about the concrete project in their social profiles or other resources - the better for the rising interest to the project from potential investors. But for the people, who participate in the bounty - who make the contribute to the development of the idea of the project - it is less interesting... everyone wants to get the right and attractive own benefit... May be it`s a good idea to limit the amount of participants members, but taking into account the both side`s interest.
No, I believe that there should be no restriction on the number of participants in the ICO generosity campaign either on this forum or in social networks. There are already quite a few restrictions on this forum. Now there are a lot of different ICO projects, among which are prospective and fraudulent. In many projects of the participants of the signature campaign, there are several dozen people. This is quite a bit. In some campaigns, ICO campaign participants signatures reach up to six hundred. Therefore, everyone has the right to choose, which can not be denied. In addition, the ICO teams themselves are not interested in this restriction. They allocate a certain number of tokens to the generosity campaign and the more people will advertise their project, the better for them.
Dear everybody,
Very very thanks for your mention and sharing,
There are very very many great ideas both agree and disagree. All of them are very useful for everybody who attention to bounty campaign.
On advertising, As many participants as possible. It’s always right. But I think we should mention to advertisement quality so we need more and more good articles/posts/tweets, not the spams.
Dear everyone, please continue share your thinking!!!!
Thank you...
We do really mind about the spam thing but I would tell you this. Most projects wont really care at all as long the extent or spread of exposure would be on its maximum no matter what the cost since they do paid or allocate amount for the sake of advertising. For us bounty hunters ,limitation on participant would be ideal to have a possible maximum good payrate due to low numbers compared to higher ones but well decisions would always vary on the team itself on what would they do prefer. Very very thanks for your mention and sharing,
There are very very many great ideas both agree and disagree. All of them are very useful for everybody who attention to bounty campaign.
On advertising, As many participants as possible. It’s always right. But I think we should mention to advertisement quality so we need more and more good articles/posts/tweets, not the spams.
Dear everyone, please continue share your thinking!!!!
Thank you...
Thank you everybody,
Someone tell that the project manager need the big number of member as much as possible. I think as project manager, they do as you say because they need more and more participants for advertisement. I agree with you about that.
But, what are your thinking as a bounty hunter? please continue share...
Thanks so much!
It seems to me that in answering this question, I need to think about the possibilities of Bounty Hunters in different Bounty companies. One company can be promising and can satisfy the coins of many users, and another company may not even collect a softcap and will not be able to pay anyone. Someone tell that the project manager need the big number of member as much as possible. I think as project manager, they do as you say because they need more and more participants for advertisement. I agree with you about that.
But, what are your thinking as a bounty hunter? please continue share...
Thanks so much!
I think it would be a good idea to limit the participants in one campaign, since the profits for each of them will go up, and I think that making a member rank for some companies would be also a good idea (in one case if they need high quality ).
Thank you everybody,
Someone tell that the project manager need the big number of member as much as possible. I think as project manager, they do as you say because they need more and more participants for advertisement. I agree with you about that.
But, what are your thinking as a bounty hunter? please continue share...
Thanks so much!
Someone tell that the project manager need the big number of member as much as possible. I think as project manager, they do as you say because they need more and more participants for advertisement. I agree with you about that.
But, what are your thinking as a bounty hunter? please continue share...
Thanks so much!
It's better to have a limit signature campaign restrict to control participating and prevent duplication. great reward for because there's a limit, No more effort for the admin when they update ... Thanks.
Limiting members only good for participants, not for bounty hosts. The hosts always want more and more people to know about their ICO, so more participants mean better marketing effect.
The developer of the project is important advertising of his product, they give bonuses for marketing, and not just for you to earn. The more people will advertise their project, the more profitable they are. They do not care how much you earned.
I think we should limit the number of participants
Joining many leads to little reward, no one wants this to happen at all
Joining many leads to little reward, no one wants this to happen at all
I think that if the rewards activity may limit the number of participants to be considered in different periods, when it is just launched, of course, there is no need to limit the number of people, because the goal is to rapidly expand the popularity and increase the community population. When the activities are approaching the planned target number, they should start to limit the participants. It is a good habit to plan the target number in advance in the design activities. Of course, it is important to understand that the measures to limit the number of people are to improve the quality, such as increasing the difficulty or level of participation. If there are many people participating in more demanding requirements, then you should be happy, not to limit them.
Jump to: