Topic: When the bounty campaign is weak, but the ICO is successful (Read 671 times)
The project has the right to change the rules to suit the fundraising situation. In addition, some people did not follow the rules and were rejected by the project. Take a look at ETH two years ago, no one knew what a smart contract was and after a while it proved to people what it could do.
In my opinion, this is also possible by ICO projects when released, the development team of the project not only advertised by the campaign bonus on this forum they also advertise, introduce their ICO project on the social networking site, and also be a direct live promotion in their place. Or it could be that the manager of the bonuses campaign is not well managed, but people still see the potential of project through the external ads or blog posts are not included in the campaign bonus. This is just my personal opinion 
Some projects like LNK and Idice have proven to be good prices despite scammed and even red trust charges from DT2, I do not really understand this but should if the project wants total success it should be perfect in promotions, there should be no stains at all, because they spend capital for project development.
there is both direct and indirect relation between marketing and ico. you may have a bad project but with a good marketing you can sell a lot of tokens / coins. vice versa you might have an amazing project but if you cannot increase the awareness by marketing and any other tool, then just few people will invest but that doesn't mean that project won't be successful. those few investers could be big ones eventually.
But do keep in mind there is more to marketing than just bounty campaigns. I'm going through this right now. Reaching the end investors and created a competition for them to participate in by sharing on social media. A bounty campaign is an added bonus but not absolutely necessary.
there is both direct and indirect relation between marketing and ico. you may have a bad project but with a good marketing you can sell a lot of tokens / coins. vice versa you might have an amazing project but if you cannot increase the awareness by marketing and any other tool, then just few people will invest but that doesn't mean that project won't be successful. those few investers could be big ones eventually.
Well, thank you guys, for your opinions. I learned a lot of useful information for myself. And also concluded that need to look more closely at projects. Quality is more important than quantity. And if bounty hunters (I like the definition more - crowdsourcers) become more responsible in their choice of supported projects, then it's likely that the skam will be less.
So, Crumple Cat refuses to participate in dubious Projects summary. Of course, I'm not immune from mistakes, but I will choose projects very carefully.
So, Crumple Cat refuses to participate in dubious Projects summary. Of course, I'm not immune from mistakes, but I will choose projects very carefully.
Hi guys,
Perhaps you have encountered situations when some projects have a weak or completely failed bounty campaign, but ultimately they hold a successful ICO. Why is this happening?
For example, the project Ambrosus with whom I happened to deal. In the comments to the bounty campaign there are complaints that nothing can be understood in the campaign rules. And there really is not as usual. Probably therefore the number of participants in the signature campaign, Twitter and other programs is minimal, but the project has already raised more than 100000 ETH. Is this an exception or is it so often?
I don't understand this post. Perhaps you have encountered situations when some projects have a weak or completely failed bounty campaign, but ultimately they hold a successful ICO. Why is this happening?
For example, the project Ambrosus with whom I happened to deal. In the comments to the bounty campaign there are complaints that nothing can be understood in the campaign rules. And there really is not as usual. Probably therefore the number of participants in the signature campaign, Twitter and other programs is minimal, but the project has already raised more than 100000 ETH. Is this an exception or is it so often?
How bounty campaign can be fail? Every bounty is stake based, it means no matter how many participants are in campaign they will all receive their part of stakes and at the end of campaign they will receive tokens according to that number, if there is 2% tokens reserved for bounty than participants will receive there share of that 2%, if there is only one participant than he will receive whole 2%.
I meant campaigns that is not very popular or not at all perceived by the community, but hold successful ICOs
There is one big reason that I can imagine from the scenario you are putting here. The first thing is this forum is not only the place where these ICO get announced, it is the first place but not the last. So people are coming from around globe and investing money.
Now when you say there are minimal people engaged into the particular campaign which means the ICO project has to distribute less free tokens as compared to their speculated plan or share. Thus they return major amount of tokens which might just get dumped for zero profit to them but heavy buy back to customer is now overcomes already. Those token they can now redistribute for the investment into other community thus increasing the sell. That's why they might be getting huge take over afterwards. That's what I'm thinking about it.
Now when you say there are minimal people engaged into the particular campaign which means the ICO project has to distribute less free tokens as compared to their speculated plan or share. Thus they return major amount of tokens which might just get dumped for zero profit to them but heavy buy back to customer is now overcomes already. Those token they can now redistribute for the investment into other community thus increasing the sell. That's why they might be getting huge take over afterwards. That's what I'm thinking about it.
Bounty campaign is the way to introduce the coin, but that is not covering the entire feature and the usage of the coin, maybe the marketing team sucks but the actual product is great so people still invested on it, bounty campaign is not the only one that determine the suceessful of an ICO
i think the power of the ico is promoting like above me said. without doing promotion, the ico can not reach success. if the bounty campaign is weak, this is not guarantee for the ico is failed. maybe from the bounty itself, people are sure with the project and then they invest their money in that ico and fortunately, the ico can get success after its launch and in the market, the ico can survive among the others. I think its many ways for the ico to get success and bounty campaign is only one from the other campaign.
In my opinion, this is also possible by ICO projects when released, the development team of the project not only advertised by the campaign bonus on this forum they also advertise, introduce their ICO project on the social networking site, and also be a direct live promotion in their place. Or it could be that the manager of the bonuses campaign is not well managed, but people still see the potential of project through the external ads or blog posts are not included in the campaign bonus. This is just my personal opinion
Exactly. For our ICO, we are starting first some basic awareness for the first few days, then we will start advertising a promotion (that actually starts tomorrow) and after that we will ramp it up. Though we are taking part of the forums here, it is less than our other types and yet, we're getting plenty of interest and positive feedback.
A good campaign with a good manager, with pricey rewards will not always come up big as expected, or some might come out being weak at the end. Same as those with poor campaigns, some ICO'S turns out being a surprise on the market making several millions of dollars. So what those things mean? It means that campaign may be a good factor, but somehow sometimes, the ICO's attractiveness depends on the uniqueness and legitimacy of their project. Look at Ethereum, did it used a hype or something to become a successful one?
Most of the ICO projects hire a bounty manager to manage their campaign. Now the caliber of the bounty manger should not speak about the quality of the core team for the project. For instance, the bounty community of blackmonocrypto was very unhappy and they all suspect that bounty tokens were diverted to false accounts of people who did not even participate in the ICO. On the otherhand, the hardcap of BMC which was 30mil was easily achieved. In the case of BMC, they had hired ICOREWARD team to manage the bounty, who are very unprofessional and rude towards the bounty community.
good bounty manager also cant determine how good the ICO project is.
some of them also scam ICO like this one.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.22707522
Maybe some ICO's have poor management thus making it a failed campaign and less participants joined them but in their own place or area maybe they advertise the project and could be the reason why it was successful.
Perhaps you're right about the management. In a way, the situation of which the op was speaking is a paradox, for how can an ico be successful with a failed bounty campaign? The less number of perticipants is, the worse the outcome is likely to be. Maybe creators just put a lot of their own money in the ico to make it look like it's a successful one and that's it. I would stay away from such suspicious projects. I think that even if the project does have a nice idea but bad ways of promoting it - ICO will not be successful.
Hi guys,
Perhaps you have encountered situations when some projects have a weak or completely failed bounty campaign, but ultimately they hold a successful ICO. Why is this happening?
For example, the project Ambrosus with whom I happened to deal. In the comments to the bounty campaign there are complaints that nothing can be understood in the campaign rules. And there really is not as usual. Probably therefore the number of participants in the signature campaign, Twitter and other programs is minimal, but the project has already raised more than 100000 ETH. Is this an exception or is it so often?
I don't understand this post. Perhaps you have encountered situations when some projects have a weak or completely failed bounty campaign, but ultimately they hold a successful ICO. Why is this happening?
For example, the project Ambrosus with whom I happened to deal. In the comments to the bounty campaign there are complaints that nothing can be understood in the campaign rules. And there really is not as usual. Probably therefore the number of participants in the signature campaign, Twitter and other programs is minimal, but the project has already raised more than 100000 ETH. Is this an exception or is it so often?
How bounty campaign can be fail? Every bounty is stake based, it means no matter how many participants are in campaign they will all receive their part of stakes and at the end of campaign they will receive tokens according to that number, if there is 2% tokens reserved for bounty then participants will receive there share of that 2%, if there is only one participant then he will receive whole 2%.
sometimes it's compaign rules that affect the number of participant!
and if devs are confident, it's also a reason to doesn't any bounty!
and if devs are confident, it's also a reason to doesn't any bounty!
In cases with Ambrosus, there are no such restrictions. Just not quite the usual procedure of joining the campaign
A bounty is not mandatory for a succesfull ICO, it will help, butt still not mandatory. I think there are 2 sorts of ICO's The hype ICO (sh*tload of hyping, marketing, social media etc) and the silent ICO's with huge potentials. Both types proven to be succesfull.
In my opinion best ICOs do not arrange Bounty Campaign. For example, Ethereum, Kyber Network, 0x project did not have bounty campaighn and finished succesfull ICOs. Bounty Campaign usually helps not well known ICOs.
I have encountered that its normally not the Dev team that is holding the bounties. They normally outsource that kind of stuff to another team to be able to focus on the dev-side. And as with all things crypto, the majority of these guys are not good. Maybe they got a cool site and they can write good stuff, but when it comes down to manage a thread and keep track of stuff they suck.
Good bounty campaign doesn't mean that they will be 100% successful. Probably they get investors from other resources.
Yes you are right, we can't depend on campaign's but it's just a good indication that when a campaign is success then your manager is a good one but it doesn't portray that your ICO is successful. You can say that ICO is successful when the result of the campaign's are reflecting to the project by gathering thousands of investors that are interested to your project. And also it's not the only reason why an investor should invest to your ICO but to the content, road map and other important stuffs of that project.
I think its because lots of investor is still looking on project's whitepaper and other assets than on how it is advertise. Even an ICO did have a very poor advertising and marketing strategy if people who have read their whitepaper got interest they would still succeed. Just my opinion.
Of course white paper is important,because here they know what are the projects to be done and how it works.Though it is good to have bounty campaign also so that to reach other potential investor in the form of different medium.
Jump to: