Topic: Solution to too many promoters - page 2. (Read 3286 times)
Bounty campaigns with limited number of participants and with fixed reward are superb, but I think it`s not as profitable for project. Why they should to limit participants number, when they can get much more promoters, if they will delete limit. Fortunately, some bounty managers still take care of particicpants and give really good circumstances for participation and reward. I don`t think number of bounties can increase to balance number of hunters, but I hope some managers will come up with something to make situation better. Now participation in bounties is really hard and non-profitable
the more the promoters, the higher chances of connecting to market but the downside is that the segmented market will be randomly shot and the project will look cheap because of unprofessional posts by dummy accounts.
The only way to get rid of them is to go into them and consider the best factors to decide on a bounty program. Find the best project and use up your skills to bring out the most rewards. If you are a good writer, do it well and develop your video editing skills. I think self-skill development has a big advantage in bonus programs.
Even if you find the best project and decide to give it your all so as to acquire good reward it won't make any difference if there are too many participants that join the bounty campaign, it's all about calculations mate, do your math, your hardwork would help up a waste, I don't spend too much energy on bounty project with unlimited participants 
as developer works on extensive as referring notion of message with the offers of involvement for the project, we might gains of objective as referring decision to put of spares with funds and resource on authorization to exchange with shifts of difference of the profit on returns.
I agree with this but the sole purpose of bounty campaigns is to have a crowd hype. By this, it is quite good to have more people who will join. It is also quite a strategy by some projects to have false hopes to campaign participants and ending up with no gains.
Limiting bounty hunters will do good if the projects are going to produce profitable rewards for bounty hunters cause there are only few bounty campaigns that actually turned out paying so well, most are paying shits coins or being scammed even worsts. Maybe BM's should atleast filter/screen every bounty hunter who will join the campaigns according to their Ranks.
That is somehow an answer to many disappointment by bounty hunters, limiting the number of bounty participants especially if the bounty reward is small is a great option and it will be a good indicators for every bounty hunters to have a better earnings from all their hardworks and efforts in promoting a project.
limiting the number of participants will only make the scope of information dissemination less extensive, whereas if you have many participants such as social media, there will be many people who know about the project that is being promoted and will increase interest. 
That is somehow an answer to many disappointment by bounty hunters, limiting the number of bounty participants especially if the bounty reward is small is a great option and it will be a good indicators for every bounty hunters to have a better earnings from all their hardworks and efforts in promoting a project.
You are judging it from bounty hunter point of view. Put yourself on project marketing director place. You dont need that participants limitation as you wish to get as huge as possible promotional impact for same amount spent. This limitation and wish to get more for less is like white and black; that never will match.
Adding bigger allocation is also not a solution. If you increase allocation, the number of participants will also go up, you increase more, more hunters will join. Till all your circulating supply is allocated to bounty. Then who will invest in it? Who will buy altcoins? Investors will never invest a project, whos large part of tokens will be distributed to hunters.
That is somehow an answer to many disappointment by bounty hunters, limiting the number of bounty participants especially if the bounty reward is small is a great option and it will be a good indicators for every bounty hunters to have a better earnings from all their hardworks and efforts in promoting a project.
Its the best idea, limiting bounty participants in a campaign could be more profitable and less spam campaign, however its up to bounty managers on how they conduct their bounties. Some of the bounty managers are already implementing that type of rules making rewards more decent.
In my opinion this idea is not the best, because I think promoting a project is not enough if the participants are limited and the project must really need more promoters so that the project can be known by many people and can achieve its target. The gift manager cannot decide with certainty without direction from the project owner, the gift manager can only enforce the rules if the project owner has agreed to what they have implemented.I think bounties are open to everyone and the minimum rank of jr.member is fair because not all bounty hunters work well and sometimes they even do or spread FUD on the project.
Yes, it still looks very fair to this day, depending on which side one will judge, but everyone at this point can make their participation in the bounty even though the rank is still below Jr.member.
Many bounty managers still choose quantity over quality, they don't really understand how their followers feels, if the project team wants more and many promoters to atleast meet their target of fundraising then they should let the payment fit, you can't promote a project for 4 months and ends up with 20$ because the project team has a target, this is slavery
Its the best idea, limiting bounty participants in a campaign could be more profitable and less spam campaign, however its up to bounty managers on how they conduct their bounties. Some of the bounty managers are already implementing that type of rules making rewards more decent.
In my opinion this idea is not the best, because I think promoting a project is not enough if the participants are limited and the project must really need more promoters so that the project can be known by many people and can achieve its target. The gift manager cannot decide with certainty without direction from the project owner, the gift manager can only enforce the rules if the project owner has agreed to what they have implemented. 
You are very right, the only solution to bounty hunters getting low rewards is what you've stated in your post, there should be limit to numbers of participants needed for specific bounty campaign, so that rewards will be fair for few hunters that manage to get in.
I think bounties are open to everyone and the minimum rank of jr.member is fair because not all bounty hunters work well and sometimes they even do or spread FUD on the project.I only see many participants and small rewards for bounty participants,
indeed there are bounty managers who have bounty participant limit rules, but many bounties still haven't used this rules
and what will happen? the project failed, bounties did not get paid and bounty hunters were increasingly spreading FUD.
I think bounties are open to everyone and the minimum rank of jr.member is fair because not all bounty hunters work well and sometimes they even do or spread FUD on the project.
Yes, it still looks very fair to this day, depending on which side one will judge, but everyone at this point can make their participation in the bounty even though the rank is still below Jr.member. I know that scam bounty projects still shows up on this forum from time to time but after managing to promote the bounty that's not a scam you end up with very low bounty reward, why ? I think the problem about bounties is we have too few bounty campaigns and too many bounty hunters
JUST IF
Just if bounty managers and project teams can start limiting bounty hunters the reward will still be fair enough, how can 500 participants share 3000$ bounty allocation?
Where are the bounties with fixed bounty allocations? After doing some digging on past bounty campaigns I noticed many of them have fixed rewards, this is good or limited participants
What do you think??
JUST IF
Just if bounty managers and project teams can start limiting bounty hunters the reward will still be fair enough, how can 500 participants share 3000$ bounty allocation?
Where are the bounties with fixed bounty allocations? After doing some digging on past bounty campaigns I noticed many of them have fixed rewards, this is good or limited participants
What do you think??
There are already some bounties like that and I remember joining one, its called "Aureus"? Or its near that word. These types of Bounties are really helpful and might yield a big amount of profit but that will also depend on the contract within the Bounty manager and the Bounty employer which are the developers themselves. Its a good way to earn Cryptocurrencies since you will only have a limited number of participants having it.
I have never seen a bounty hunter spread fud when they promote a project,
I only see many participants and small rewards for bounty participants,
indeed there are bounty managers who have bounty participant limit rules, but many bounties still haven't used this rules
Campaign participant restrictions should have been implemented when they made small allocations. especially with the payment of coins that have been traded on the market. we can clearly see the allocation given and there should indeed be restrictions on the participants who can join for each campaign. I only see many participants and small rewards for bounty participants,
indeed there are bounty managers who have bounty participant limit rules, but many bounties still haven't used this rules
You are very right, the only solution to bounty hunters getting low rewards is what you've stated in your post, there should be limit to numbers of participants needed for specific bounty campaign, so that rewards will be fair for few hunters that manage to get in.
I think bounties are open to everyone and the minimum rank of jr.member is fair because not all bounty hunters work well and sometimes they even do or spread FUD on the project.I only see many participants and small rewards for bounty participants,
indeed there are bounty managers who have bounty participant limit rules, but many bounties still haven't used this rules
You are very right, the only solution to bounty hunters getting low rewards is what you've stated in your post, there should be limit to numbers of participants needed for specific bounty campaign, so that rewards will be fair for few hunters that manage to get in.
I think bounties are open to everyone and the minimum rank of jr.member is fair because not all bounty hunters work well and sometimes they even do or spread FUD on the project. 
It's unfair that hundreds have joined to work at bounty, and its allocation tokens are low, I am with the idea of setting a suitable allocation with a limited number of participants so that bounty hunters who work for months get what they deserve from the tokens that give them a good return, and if the project team wants hundreds of hunters, they must increase the bounty allocation. There is no free promotion.
Before it wasn't unfair because after the ICO they can sell the token at a good price, sometimes even higher than the ICO price, it was only unfair now because there's no guarantee that price will rise and most of the time it will sell lower than the ICO or IEO price. Jump to: