Topic: Solution to too many promoters - page 5. (Read 3286 times)
Apparently, crypto project devs now want to see more value and are unwilling to pay very high amounts of money to bounty hunters, especially those who spam and cheat by creating multiple accounts. Rewards are much less now and the best way to distribute is to set fixed amount of rewards for each campaign and cap the number of participants that will be allowed to join.
Im agree with you make a limit to participant bounty was the only way to make the pay was fair and worthed project to do
But i believe the company who make the bounty campaign ofcourse already counted all of it
And the company make bounty campaign ofcourse have a target to reach to
The main purpose to make bounty campaign in all of social media was to reach people, to make people know the company was exist and have a good project and if the participant was limited maybe they dont get the target they must achieve
But i believe the company who make the bounty campaign ofcourse already counted all of it
And the company make bounty campaign ofcourse have a target to reach to
The main purpose to make bounty campaign in all of social media was to reach people, to make people know the company was exist and have a good project and if the participant was limited maybe they dont get the target they must achieve
It does not matter to me if many promoters promote the project because I have noticed more and more projects or bounties are popping up every day
not all bounties can get maximum results if the promoter can't judge or be more careful before joining, then only got a loss
not all bounties can get maximum results if the promoter can't judge or be more careful before joining, then only got a loss
Each project has different rules from one another and I rarely see projects with fixed allocations for participants. I also agree about limiting project participants, this rule will at least be worth our efforts when promoting the project, only if the project is really successful and the team pays the participants.
I think that is the only way to limit the participants who can participate in a project, but when giving limits, you must be able to choose participants who have a lot of money, because if only people with little money will make the project unable to develop and certainly not. will be able to make the price go up.Lowering the participants are fair for hunters because we can get a deserving amount by promoting, but its not an advantage to the dev because we know as much as possible they are looking for more promoters to spread awareness.
Each project has different rules from one another and I rarely see projects with fixed allocations for participants. I also agree about limiting project participants, this rule will at least be worth our efforts when promoting the project, only if the project is really successful and the team pays the participants.
I think that is the only way to limit the participants who can participate in a project, but when giving limits, you must be able to choose participants who have a lot of money, because if only people with little money will make the project unable to develop and certainly not. will be able to make the price go up. 
the restriction will make the bounty better, as it triggers healthy competition.
1. registration speed
2. Participant consistency level
3. Maximum prizes
No matter how good the project is, if there are many who promote the biggest beneficiary is the project team, because the product is getting famous, while the bouty participants only get a few benefits.
by limiting the participants, i also think that the manager should do the participants check before allowing them to register the campaigns. if it is a signature campaign, manager should check the post quality, accusations against those users, date when the account created. it does not matter who is faster at register but at least you can have the participants who have good quality post, that is better in my eyes 1. registration speed
2. Participant consistency level
3. Maximum prizes
No matter how good the project is, if there are many who promote the biggest beneficiary is the project team, because the product is getting famous, while the bouty participants only get a few benefits.
the restriction will make the bounty better, as it triggers healthy competition.
1. registration speed
2. Participant consistency level
3. Maximum prizes
No matter how good the project is, if there are many who promote the biggest beneficiary is the project team, because the product is getting famous, while the bouty participants only get a few benefits.
1. registration speed
2. Participant consistency level
3. Maximum prizes
No matter how good the project is, if there are many who promote the biggest beneficiary is the project team, because the product is getting famous, while the bouty participants only get a few benefits.
Each project has different rules from one another and I rarely see projects with fixed allocations for participants. I also agree about limiting project participants, this rule will at least be worth our efforts when promoting the project, only if the project is really successful and the team pays the participants.
I personally like the way Bubbalex is handling his campaigns, it is very encouraging and many are always looking forward to it including myself. It is important for bounty managers to care about the reward of participants instead of loading up a campaign with too many people why not set maximum cap.
The conditions in the crypto market for new projects have changed a lot over the past 3 years.
If earlier a project, even with a weak marketing company, could easily carry out a successful fundraising, today it is necessary to make truly titanic efforts so that investors look at your project and decide on an investment.
I think this is for the best, because now it’s extremely difficult for any garbage to get to the top, but for good projects the conditions have become more complicated.
Therefore, the more hunters participating in the project, the higher the chances that he will succeed.
An alternative would be bounty companies that accept only really effective hunters, this would create a natural precedent for improving the overall quality of work among bounty hunters due to the increasing complexity of the conditions.
If earlier a project, even with a weak marketing company, could easily carry out a successful fundraising, today it is necessary to make truly titanic efforts so that investors look at your project and decide on an investment.
I think this is for the best, because now it’s extremely difficult for any garbage to get to the top, but for good projects the conditions have become more complicated.
Therefore, the more hunters participating in the project, the higher the chances that he will succeed.
An alternative would be bounty companies that accept only really effective hunters, this would create a natural precedent for improving the overall quality of work among bounty hunters due to the increasing complexity of the conditions.
How do you think a bounty manager can define an effective hunter? For example, in a signature campaign there are usually few participants and, in principle, they can be examined. But if it's a social media campaign? There can be 200 or 500 participants. Even with a limited number. It's very difficult and time consuming. I don’t think that someone will do this, because projects need advertising and as extensive as possible.
You all so worried about what you will get paid you don't even care about the actual project and then you want to cry when you don't get paid. Getting $100000000 worth of tokens doesnt mean anything if there is no use for them or no demand. You need to support good projects you believe in. Only good projects will have tokens worth something.
You know ,i agree with you but i think the project team doesn't like this idea because their aim is to promote their project and they need a lot of promoter to do this job as part of their marketing strategy. I think giving a fixed reward and having a limited participants are the same strategy because if the well give a fixed reward of course they will limit the number of participants to join.
How about you just use your brain and work out the possible payment vs the risk instead of blaming the bounty? If you don't like 500 hunters working for a mere $3000 then why the hell are you supporting it. You don't care about the project only the money and thats why you never make any.
I know that scam bounty projects still shows up on this forum from time to time but after managing to promote the bounty that's not a scam you end up with very low bounty reward, why ? I think the problem about bounties is we have too few bounty campaigns and too many bounty hunters
JUST IF
Just if bounty managers and project teams can start limiting bounty hunters the reward will still be fair enough, how can 500 participants share 3000$ 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??
You know ,i agree with you but i think the project team doesn't like this idea because their aim is to promote their project and they need a lot of promoter to do this job as part of their marketing strategy. I think giving a fixed reward and having a limited participants are the same strategy because if the well give a fixed reward of course they will limit the number of participants to join.
How about you just use your brain and work out the possible payment vs the risk instead of blaming the bounty? If you don't like 500 hunters working for a mere $3000 then why the hell are you supporting it. You don't care about the project only the money and thats why you never make any.
The conditions in the crypto market for new projects have changed a lot over the past 3 years.
If earlier a project, even with a weak marketing company, could easily carry out a successful fundraising, today it is necessary to make truly titanic efforts so that investors look at your project and decide on an investment.
I think this is for the best, because now it’s extremely difficult for any garbage to get to the top, but for good projects the conditions have become more complicated.
Therefore, the more hunters participating in the project, the higher the chances that he will succeed.
An alternative would be bounty companies that accept only really effective hunters, this would create a natural precedent for improving the overall quality of work among bounty hunters due to the increasing complexity of the conditions.
If earlier a project, even with a weak marketing company, could easily carry out a successful fundraising, today it is necessary to make truly titanic efforts so that investors look at your project and decide on an investment.
I think this is for the best, because now it’s extremely difficult for any garbage to get to the top, but for good projects the conditions have become more complicated.
Therefore, the more hunters participating in the project, the higher the chances that he will succeed.
An alternative would be bounty companies that accept only really effective hunters, this would create a natural precedent for improving the overall quality of work among bounty hunters due to the increasing complexity of the conditions.
How do you think a bounty manager can define an effective hunter? For example, in a signature campaign there are usually few participants and, in principle, they can be examined. But if it's a social media campaign? There can be 200 or 500 participants. Even with a limited number. It's very difficult and time consuming. I don’t think that someone will do this, because projects need advertising and as extensive as possible.
maybe even small rewards it's enough for me because eventually if we are still participate more legitimate campaign I think it becomes double because in particular way for being a promoters is to accept from losing so that,there is no legal job that is easy to do better in one time.I guess we are all living with lack of financial so, we need to wait and encourage to do the right as promoters.
Limiting the number of participants allows you to receive at least some decent reward, although few projects take such a step. Many consider it best to attract an unlimited number of participants, neglecting the quality of their work. At the same time, bounty hunters who respect their work always plan ahead for opportunities to receive rewards and do not go into the crowd.
Yes, some project really doesn't care about quality by using unlimited number of participants in their bounty campaign. This is why they don't want to limited participants and just want to spread about their work as much as they can. 
this solution is very precise i think but look to allocations if the allocation is low it is better to limit the participants but if the allocation is large there is no harm many joined
Obviously, for low budget projects they need to limit their participation. This will keep the project secure and the bounty hunter will receive a small sum from the bounty. Without limiting it, I think people will get 1-2 $ for 2-3 months of work
Actually its on their prerogative to give you rewards so if the project really wanted to have more promoters, why would they limit it. In fact they wanted a more expand marleting. We can only be lucky to some campaign managers who are concern to the hunters and implementing some limits like bubblealex. But indeed, this will be helpful but we should not complained in the first place.
it is ineffective, bounty participants should be limited to only 1% of the total allocation, and that is so that bounty participants still get decent rewars. but there are still managers who do not limit the number of bounty participants and result in unfair rewards for bounty participants
Limiting the number of participants allows you to receive at least some decent reward, although few projects take such a step. Many consider it best to attract an unlimited number of participants, neglecting the quality of their work. At the same time, bounty hunters who respect their work always plan ahead for opportunities to receive rewards and do not go into the crowd.
That's the beauty of doing that, the chance for bounty hunters to receive decent amounts of rewards by limiting participants is
a good step from the team and the bounty managers. With the same concepts BM can hire hunters who have good posting qualities
in returned of advertising the project in the right places where target audiences will be triggered.
I also agree with your opinion, as many bounty hunters complain that they are getting very few tokens, but they all have their own policies regarding the bounty manager.
it is better to receive less reward, but the tokens must have value and then can bring profit to their holders. very often bounty hunters receive a large amount of tokens but they do not cost any dollar
Limiting the number of participants allows you to receive at least some decent reward, although few projects take such a step. Many consider it best to attract an unlimited number of participants, neglecting the quality of their work. At the same time, bounty hunters who respect their work always plan ahead for opportunities to receive rewards and do not go into the crowd.
Jump to: