This theory of yours is actually logical and true. Due to problems like those you mentioned, payouts are not up to tasks done. Well, I think so many incoming ICOs are trying to nip that in the bud by restraining the rank system to start from member or Full member rank. I just hope it worked out like that
Well, for signature bounties, I want to believe this is one thing most of the managers themselves have really looked at which is why we see some limits now and we see some shit posters being bounced even from ICOs. From the look of things though, a higher percentage of stakes is being given to signature campaign, so at the end, there may be enough to go around, just that looking at the number of weeks involved and getting some peanuts, it can really be frustrating. 
Topic: When Bounties are not worth the effort - Limit the numbers - page 2. (Read 677 times)
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 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.
For ICO you need as many participants as possible for the campaign of signatures to get as much effective advertising as possible. You just need to consider the bounty as a nice bonus, and not as a basic earnings.
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.
Why would these campaign managers will limit these bounty campaigns?in the first place bounty campaigns are intented to promote these ICOs to be able to raise funds for their projects,so the development will go thru.If you limit the participants of each campaigns the newbies here wont have any chance to have free money from these campaigns,unless they have some followers in twitter and facebook they can surely participate. 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 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 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.
Why bounty manager or ICO marketing team should do this?
They share a limit of tokens for ALL participants. And no matter it will be for 100 or 1000 participants.
I think you wont stop a barman who brings you 10 pints of beer instead of 1 pint for same price
But as a bounty participant I'm totally agree with you.
It is a double edged sword; the increased number of participants decrease your cut, that is true. However, additional participants may mean that the ICO has a higher chance of succeeding due to the additional exposure brought about by the people in the signature campaign.
So I think it is not necessarily a bad thing. It decreases the risk of failed ICOs.
If you find an ICO with a great project and team then its definitely worth the effort, without a doubt, I've heard of people making 50k USD from bounties. If the project is good enough then it can still be worthwhile even with plenty of other bounty hunters
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 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.
Why bounty manager or ICO marketing team should do this?
They share a limit of tokens for ALL participants. And no matter it will be for 100 or 1000 participants.
I think you wont stop a barman who brings you 10 pints of beer instead of 1 pint for same price
But as a bounty participant I'm totally agree with you.
I agree that there should be a limit to how many people can promote a coin, and there are ICO's that are already doing this. For example , the coin from my signature has a limit of 300 Users for the signature campaign .
There are still 40 places available at the moment for this signature campaign
There are still 40 places available at the moment for this signature campaign
The attitude towards people who takes part in bounty has become worse for this year - thats true.
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.
If you limit the participants of a bounty campaign you really dont understand why these ICOs are paying for,they are paying the boutny hunters because they want to promote their ICO,if these managers will limit the participants the promotional activities of an ICO would be limited too,why would they pay us if they didnt achieve successful ICO at the end?its not about the bounties its about support the campaign or project that you know would be worthy in the future. 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.
Your idea is correct for bounties, but it is not interesting for bounty managers. After all, it is better for them if more people work for them for the same money
Of course, that a limited number of participants is more profitable for the bounty performer, but for the ICO itself it works on the contrary, the more people, the more they learn about the company. In any case, everyone makes a choice himself
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.
Well at least a half of modern ICOs are going that way. They put a limit on every rank, kinda "hero - 30; Sr. Member - 20; Member - 10" and sort of that.
Some have limits, but some really do not bother. The more the merrier for them as long as you are all fighting for stakes. It is only left for you to join or not. However, I understand your plight, because, the more the participants, the less the bounty participants get from such ICO. The only thing that managers can just do is to make sure that they give the chance to those with real and quality accounts.
Every ICOs have a different platform. Different manager and ways to manage. There isn't unfair with that, the problem is those who wants to participate. Ofcourse many members follow the campaign of (name of manager/ handler) because they trust him. He was tested in the past and true to every participants. I think you can join in signature campaign that required a limit numbers.
The ICO's number of participants isn't a problem for the ICO team since the more people are being lured into their project the more advertisement they can get and it would be great for the project to have a good run in the Token Sale. As for us, bounty hunters would have a smaller amount in our pocket since there is only a fixed price of tokens allotted in the campaign. So therefore, the main solution for this problem is picking an ICO which has a potential rather than joining an ICO that has too many participant's lured in it.
You might want to check out this project: https://www.cubaaz.io/bounties/
Conversely, for ICO project owner the more participants join the bounty campaign the better promotion they get. So, I think there will be not so much bounty campaigns with such limits.
High number of bounty participants happens with hot ICOs and thereby cutting the benefit for everyone
in the bounty. Some limit the number of participants and close bounty to new people after some time while
others let people join even in the last week. It is for every person to estimate the benefit before joining
the bounty.
in the bounty. Some limit the number of participants and close bounty to new people after some time while
others let people join even in the last week. It is for every person to estimate the benefit before joining
the bounty.
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.
This is a really good advice, thanks for saying so. But you need to, or every bounty managers needs to know this because if there is only one ICO does that, every other ICOs will take all the participants so that that ICO won't have enough participants to advertise its own project that leads to the lack of their profit. I think other managers have thought about this problem but they do have reason right not to do so. 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.
Yes I am completely agree with you. It is just wastage of efforts of the participants. In my opinion they should get a nice reward of their work at the end of the campaign and not just 10 or 20 stakes.
its all boil down to what the ICO owner want but campaign manager too has a say as well. there are some campaign manager here on bitcointalk like yahoo that limit the number of participant.
It is extremely unprofitable for ICOs:) this is why they will not make such a limitation. If you are disappointed with what you receive for a campaign - it is always up to you not to take it. Start trading on the stock or do whatever else you will be happy with and ICOs need as much advertising as possible for the same token amount. So limitation of participants' number will make ad campaign less efficient, but more expensive.
Simple fact. Their aim is to spread the news to as much participants as possible and they are paying for that. It would be bad for them to see just few participants with not much impact at the end of the day. It totally depends on each individual whether they want to go ahead with the campaign or not, but really limiting participants will not make any sense, the most important thing is for managers to audit participants thoroughly for alts or bots as the case may be, which I am sure they are doing. and ICOs need as much advertising as possible for the same token amount. So limitation of participants' number will make ad campaign less efficient, but more expensive. Jump to: