When Bounties are not worth the effort - Limit the numbers

Bitcoininspace

sr. member

Activity: 574

Merit: 250

Quote from: paxmao on February 08, 2018, 06:23:31 AM

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

On the one hand, it's more profitable for developers when more participants write about their project for the same expenses. But if they do not make the rules more fair, most of the participants will simply stop participating in the bounty at all.

herurist

sr. member

Activity: 1680

Merit: 259

Quote from: paxmao on February 08, 2018, 06:23:31 AM

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

I agree with you but maybe develop team has another opinion why they not limit the number of participants. Maybe they don't have any brilliant concept or clearly road map that make they lost faith and way how to successful a project. Even dev team give limit that's not guarantee ICO project will success also. Let dev team work with their own way and we just follow the rules to finish the task. Simple like that.

DirtyMartini

full member

Activity: 277

Merit: 101

Most bounties or signature campaigns give you access to a spreadsheet of all the participants so if you can see that there are too many to be worth your while, simply do not participate.

cryptonianz

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

I believe there should be no limit, since they are marketeers of the ICO and the popularity level increases. More bounties campaigns means more participants.

y3v63n

jr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 3

Quote from: paxmao on February 16, 2018, 08:35:58 AM

How about setting a fixed amount like PolicyPal or others, that simply say 50 per week for Juniors, maximum of 15 juniors.

Yes, something like this seems reasonable. There should be some limits, otherwise the whole promotion will turn into making the same posts with different hashtags and ICO names.

jk9694

full member

Activity: 274

Merit: 122

ICO is developing along with the bounty at high rates, so in 1-2 months we will see more well-considered rules not only in the signature campaign

paxmao

legendary

Activity: 2366

Merit: 1624

Do not die for Putin

How about setting a fixed amount like PolicyPal or others, that simply say 50 per week for Juniors, maximum of 15 juniors. Other methods are not fair to the promoter and all I see is thing like "if you don´t like it don´t take it" or "you are not supposed to want to make money"....
If I don´t like something, I try to change it. And why would I not want to make money when everyone else involved is going to make money? If you are so altruistic let me PM you my ETH address. You can prove your generosity there.

Wonder_woman

full member

Activity: 674

Merit: 101

I am hired and not own by any Team!

I don`t think bounties are not worthy because every ICO needs to be promoted as vast as possible and if you limit the participants on bounty campaigns it would be a less effective campaign and bounty campaign is the best way to promote ICO in the social media nothing more. So, I think it is better not to limit the bounty participants number. And these campaigns must be honest in giving what is meant for these participants as well.

grumpy619

sr. member

Activity: 546

Merit: 255

So it's a bit offensive , if there are unlimited number of participants. Especially when I joined the signature program from the very beginning, but the remaining 80% of the people fly when it became clear, that the project is successful because it has collected softcap.That's not fair, if you worked on the project from the beginning and someone came when all the hard work is done and you share rewards with thousands of people.

mrcastelo

full member

Activity: 518

Merit: 100

I check first how much the bounty pool a certain ICO has before joining because If I see that they have a very low bounty pool for the bounty I don't joined the bounty of that specific ICO. We cannot suggest that they limit the participants because the more participants the wider the reached of the advertisement. So it will be our discretion if we will joined a certain bounty especially if there are too many participants.

sserge009

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 501

Unfortunately, a bounty may not be worth it not only because of the large number of participants. Sometimes the project does not justify itself and payments are minimal.

KXC247

jr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 1

The icos that launched this bounty programs would want the best in terms of marketing . you should be grateful for the ones you receive from them .

Capping the participants in signature bounty would not go well with project owners but it would be more profitable for participants.

A balance just needs to be stroked so that every one would be happy about it.

That's my opinion

cryptothreads

hero member

Activity: 1274

Merit: 500

Quote from: Kim Ji Won on February 16, 2018, 07:19:43 AM

Quote from: paxmao on February 08, 2018, 06:23:31 AM

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

I really feel that reducing the number of people participating in the signature campaign is a bad thing. Everyone wants to have their own profit in many ways, the signature campaign is bringing a lot of profit for the bounties. I'm a bounty and I'm always trying for this job.
Those who do not work on the project will pay for it. Managers will warn or punish them. It's all thanks to the good management of the manager and everything that is not related to the people who try to do the signature work.
We can't do anything about that because a seemingly good ICO attracts many investors and bitcointalk members who also want to be a part of the project and advertise it so that they will also have a fair share of the token. It will also be a good exposure to the ICO that will help to their success if there will be a lot of members advertising the said campaign.

y3v63n

jr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 3

Quote from: paxmao on February 08, 2018, 06:23:31 AM

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

Totally agree. The limit of participation should become a norm in bounties. I have been taking part in Twitter campaigns and I can tell that half of the people just post crap, use Google Translate, post the same posts, use multiple accounts to cheat, etc. What's more, many participants just do the minimum contribution (often, they don't even contribute regularly and disappear) and in the end receive only a small fraction of the bounty fund. But by doing so they also dilute the stakes of those who have been working their asses off. So everyone gets peanuts. Moreover, many bounty managers seem to be overwhelmed with such amount of entries and are just unable to do the checking part properly.

But if there was a limit, and I am happy that some campaigns choose this way, everyone would be able to see what they can actually earn and increase the quality of the content they post.

Kim Ji Won

full member

Activity: 350

Merit: 110

Quote from: paxmao on February 08, 2018, 06:23:31 AM

I have observed that many ICOs that have a signature bounty campaign end up not being worth due to the huge number of participants. I think that ICOs should limit the number of signature participants to avoid a disappointed community. ICO campaign managers could probably advise their clients about it.

I have seen only one ICO at the moment that provides a limited number of people in the signature campaign and also a fixed payment in USD for each rank. I think that is a fair way of promoting for everyone.

We can't do anything about that because a seemingly good ICO attracts many investors and bitcointalk members who also want to be a part of the project and advertise it so that they will also have a fair share of the token. It will also be a good exposure to the ICO that will help to their success if there will be a lot of members advertising the said campaign.

TwoSides

newbie

Activity: 125

Merit: 0

I've seen some bounty campaigns that only accept Member ranks as the lowest rank that could participate. I'm actually disappointed as I can't participate but I guess that only shows how good that bounty is. Ranks means experience in the forum and marketing that's maybe why they limit the participants through it. I guess us with lower ranks should strive more in providing good posts/comments which are worth reading to rank up.

coin5haker

member

Activity: 350

Merit: 16

~bitcoin enthusiast~

First came, 1st served would make the sense, but what if all slots will be taken by Jr., Members, leaving Full, Senior, Legendary off-board? Dividing slots into groups would make more sense. Like only certain amount of junior members, more Full-Senior and unlimited Legendary (who doesn't want them? Grin

)

But for BM and ICO, more ppl join means more word spread. So it will be as it is, unless people won't join bounties (won't happen)

DeepChipolino

member

Activity: 658

Merit: 11

In fact, there is no need to set limits on the number of participants, the rank of the participants or something else. I think need to act on the target audience. If the project has a specific matter, then it is necessary to act in the corresponding community.
Now it's like shooting a cannon on sparrows. But it's better to act like a sniper.

paxmao

legendary

Activity: 2366

Merit: 1624

Do not die for Putin

Quote from: yndye on February 08, 2018, 07:12:12 AM

The one who are implementing the ICOs would like it if there are more people who would participate in their campaign so I think it would be a disadvantage to them if they would limit it. It may be the prerogative of the bounty manager if he wants to limit the participants in the campaign because it is an additional job in his part if there are more participants. You have an option to participate in campaigns paid in bitcoin because they are limited but then you have to be fast to get a spot because within just minutes the slots may be immediately filled except for those managers who will choose those people who have quality post because it takes some time for the slots to be filled up.

It may come that indeed, a filter by merit that requires some quality in the posts to participate in the campaigns, apart from mere raking.

sebinator

full member

Activity: 294

Merit: 113

Yes, I noticed that, too. In addition to that there a lot of cheaters, who gain double of the normal stakes. Furthermore, the quality of the posts from most of the participants is horrible and simply spam for this forum.

Topic: When Bounties are not worth the effort - Limit the numbers (Read 677 times)