Topic: Why do developer find it difficult to pay bounty hunters - page 2. (Read 769 times)
If the project has achieved Soft Cap sales, they must be able to pay the bounty hunter. But not all developers can pay for it, but there are developers who commit fraud. And things like that that sparked debate between developers and bounty hunters.
I can understand that developers do not pay tokens if they have not reached softcap.
But i can not understand that some developers do not pay even though soft or hardcap has been achieved.
Currently bounty participants can not do anything about it and that is bad.
But i can not understand that some developers do not pay even though soft or hardcap has been achieved.
Currently bounty participants can not do anything about it and that is bad.
Looking at the situation at hand now in cryptocurrency bounty hunting case, we could all see that bounty hunter has turn to a cage of war between dev and hunter these days and that really gives me concern.
Doing bounty does mean that bounty hunters are useless or something cause the way and manner developers are handling hunters now gives a very wrong signal and I see this technology as a way forward for all not a mix to scam people or get rich over night.
Though the technology is decentralized and more why we are having issue as the developer can't be sue or sue , so any bounty that hunters participate in is not a contract as we do have a clause in the terms which says " the team can change the rules any anytime " which make the whole contract useless and not legal as both party have right to decide what is good for the project after the first agreement is sign and if there must be a change them there must be an agreement between the two party not that one party will just decide on what he think will favour him alone and will now point out to the clause that say " they can change the rules anytime"
Imagine a project who lock bounty reward for 90days base on agreement and even after that time they never release it and keep posting the hunters.
Imagine a project that assign 3% of the total supply to hunters and only used 1% and after the hard work of the hunters completing the task stipulated in the rules , the team change the rules and reduce the reward from 1% to 0.07% , like the real reward is 1M and was reduce to 70,000 for all bounty hunters .
Allowing this type of things happening and going Scott free is dmagi g the image of this great technology and making it look to newbies as a scam when many are still agitating and we that are in this space still give them chance to bad mouth our great community which I think need a very urgent attention to curb all scam project .
Doing bounty does mean that bounty hunters are useless or something cause the way and manner developers are handling hunters now gives a very wrong signal and I see this technology as a way forward for all not a mix to scam people or get rich over night.
Though the technology is decentralized and more why we are having issue as the developer can't be sue or sue , so any bounty that hunters participate in is not a contract as we do have a clause in the terms which says " the team can change the rules any anytime " which make the whole contract useless and not legal as both party have right to decide what is good for the project after the first agreement is sign and if there must be a change them there must be an agreement between the two party not that one party will just decide on what he think will favour him alone and will now point out to the clause that say " they can change the rules anytime"
Imagine a project who lock bounty reward for 90days base on agreement and even after that time they never release it and keep posting the hunters.
Imagine a project that assign 3% of the total supply to hunters and only used 1% and after the hard work of the hunters completing the task stipulated in the rules , the team change the rules and reduce the reward from 1% to 0.07% , like the real reward is 1M and was reduce to 70,000 for all bounty hunters .
Allowing this type of things happening and going Scott free is dmagi g the image of this great technology and making it look to newbies as a scam when many are still agitating and we that are in this space still give them chance to bad mouth our great community which I think need a very urgent attention to curb all scam project .
I think it is because when the project was a success and it raised so much than expect, then devs usually are getting greedy about it if they want to share it to the ones the helped them achieve it.
It has been really hard for the Teams to collect needed funds from the ICOs these days since lotf of Investors are not interested in Buying from ICOs. In this scenario it is highly natural that ICO Teams are never comfortable with Bounty Payments with the amount of funds they getting collected.
You should name names or drop these people who scam bounty hunters and if they are bounty managers that is offering bounty management then they deserve to be red trusted, there are still a lot of campaigns like these now, they are afraid that bounty hunters will dump all their shares, they do not have confidence in their coins, that if it is dump, there will always takers.
My opinion is that they should pay the bounty hunters, even if they didn't reach the soft cap.
The best would be at least two bounty campaigns during the ICO, so they could pay the first bounty and the tokens could start to be traded and possibly attract more investors.
The best would be at least two bounty campaigns during the ICO, so they could pay the first bounty and the tokens could start to be traded and possibly attract more investors.
"should pay" - What should they pay you, if the project didn't reach softcap and they closed project? They can send you their tokens which are worth of 0 and what will you do with those tokens?
All depends on the development team because they are directly connected with the ICO Team. I think they don't pay bounty hunters because sales don't reach Soft Cap. And from my experience, I got a project that sales did not reach the minimum sales target. And the most difficult is if the team changes the rules for bounty hunters.
thats the struggle of every bounty hunter nowadays. since most projects are paying their own tokens, you can never be sure if you will really receive it or not. even if you research the project and seems that everything will fall into place. there's no guarantee that they can achieve their minimum targets. ive seen great projects but they haven't got their target funds ending up scrapping it. and whats more, once you received those tokens, the value already decline to as much as 5-10% of ico price, now where do you want to go in this kind of blunder? unlike those days, sig campaigns are mostly btc-paying campaigns. you will hardly see that now.
Most of the ICOs were going on the bull run, and even if they got a lot of eth for their project, it doesnt worth much now, and most of them just get a fraction of softcap anyway...
All depends on the development team because they are directly connected with the ICO Team. I think they don't pay bounty hunters because sales don't reach Soft Cap. And from my experience, I got a project that sales did not reach the minimum sales target. And the most difficult is if the team changes the rules for bounty hunters.
It is not fair to the hunters if they change the rules after the campaign has been completed. But, they can do anything they want and this is the risk of participating in bounties. You can complain about it but you will not get more coins. Hopefully not many projects like that and I am sure they will not be a successful one if they treat the hunters that way. They will not be different to their investors as well.
Looking at the situation at hand now in cryptocurrency bounty hunting case, we could all see that bounty hunter has turn to a cage of war between dev and hunter these days and that really gives me concern.
Doing bounty does mean that bounty hunters are useless or something cause the way and manner developers are handling hunters now gives a very wrong signal and I see this technology as a way forward for all not a mix to scam people or get rich over night.
Though the technology is decentralized and more why we are having issue as the developer can't be sue or sue , so any bounty that hunters participate in is not a contract as we do have a clause in the terms which says " the team can change the rules any anytime " which make the whole contract useless and not legal as both party have right to decide what is good for the project after the first agreement is sign and if there must be a change them there must be an agreement between the two party not that one party will just decide on what he think will favour him alone and will now point out to the clause that say " they can change the rules anytime"
Imagine a project who lock bounty reward for 90days base on agreement and even after that time they never release it and keep posting the hunters.
Imagine a project that assign 3% of the total supply to hunters and only used 1% and after the hard work of the hunters completing the task stipulated in the rules , the team change the rules and reduce the reward from 1% to 0.07% , like the real reward is 1M and was reduce to 70,000 for all bounty hunters .
Allowing this type of things happening and going Scott free is dmagi g the image of this great technology and making it look to newbies as a scam when many are still agitating and we that are in this space still give them chance to bad mouth our great community which I think need a very urgent attention to curb all scam project .
Doing bounty does mean that bounty hunters are useless or something cause the way and manner developers are handling hunters now gives a very wrong signal and I see this technology as a way forward for all not a mix to scam people or get rich over night.
Though the technology is decentralized and more why we are having issue as the developer can't be sue or sue , so any bounty that hunters participate in is not a contract as we do have a clause in the terms which says " the team can change the rules any anytime " which make the whole contract useless and not legal as both party have right to decide what is good for the project after the first agreement is sign and if there must be a change them there must be an agreement between the two party not that one party will just decide on what he think will favour him alone and will now point out to the clause that say " they can change the rules anytime"
Imagine a project who lock bounty reward for 90days base on agreement and even after that time they never release it and keep posting the hunters.
Imagine a project that assign 3% of the total supply to hunters and only used 1% and after the hard work of the hunters completing the task stipulated in the rules , the team change the rules and reduce the reward from 1% to 0.07% , like the real reward is 1M and was reduce to 70,000 for all bounty hunters .
Allowing this type of things happening and going Scott free is dmagi g the image of this great technology and making it look to newbies as a scam when many are still agitating and we that are in this space still give them chance to bad mouth our great community which I think need a very urgent attention to curb all scam project .
The bounty hunters are always the underprivileged.
You can see that the current projects work very long but the reward is quite small. There are even scam projects or tokens we receive that do not list on any market. This makes us really depressed and upset.
My opinion is that they should pay the bounty hunters, even if they didn't reach the soft cap.
The best would be at least two bounty campaigns during the ICO, so they could pay the first bounty and the tokens could start to be traded and possibly attract more investors.
The best would be at least two bounty campaigns during the ICO, so they could pay the first bounty and the tokens could start to be traded and possibly attract more investors.
I'm a bounty hunter as well, and I always find it absurd anytime I'm not rewarded for my work. But, I've come to realize that it all depends on the project itself. If the project comes out successful, I think they'll pay. But, if it doesn't, it's not possible for them to reward us bounty hunters.
It seems you are reading my mind. The unfair treatment of bounty hunters is gaining momentum. After many months of work done, we just need to gnaw our rewards, meeting with manipulations and cunning from the project team. By subscribing to a project, we constantly take risks, we do not know whether it will be successful or not, whether we will receive a reward or not. The work of bounty hunters is very ungrateful.
With such an attitude to the hunters, is it worth it to continue to participate in the bounty campaigns, if we are not paid, we may not work for them, sooner or later it will be, because everyone is trying to deceive
it is not difficult for them they are the one making it difficult to the bounty hunters. i have joined a bounty campaign and they don't require kyc but after the bounty is finish they required kyc for bounty participants. they said they change rules due to certain reasons. some or many people will change if money is involve.
You are right , participate in bounty campaigns, there is always the risk of being left without remuneration for many reasons. I also don’t like the fact that developers can change the rules throughout the whole campaign, but it is possible that the ICO project market will be regulated in the near future, in some way and the projects will give some guarantees to investors and, accordingly, participants in the bounty campaigns will also be less exposed risks not remain without reward.
Looking at the situation at hand now in cryptocurrency bounty hunting case, we could all see that bounty hunter has turn to a cage of war between dev and hunter these days and that really gives me concern.
Doing bounty does mean that bounty hunters are useless or something cause the way and manner developers are handling hunters now gives a very wrong signal and I see this technology as a way forward for all not a mix to scam people or get rich over night.
Though the technology is decentralized and more why we are having issue as the developer can't be sue or sue , so any bounty that hunters participate in is not a contract as we do have a clause in the terms which says " the team can change the rules any anytime " which make the whole contract useless and not legal as both party have right to decide what is good for the project after the first agreement is sign and if there must be a change them there must be an agreement between the two party not that one party will just decide on what he think will favour him alone and will now point out to the clause that say " they can change the rules anytime"
Imagine a project who lock bounty reward for 90days base on agreement and even after that time they never release it and keep posting the hunters.
Imagine a project that assign 3% of the total supply to hunters and only used 1% and after the hard work of the hunters completing the task stipulated in the rules , the team change the rules and reduce the reward from 1% to 0.07% , like the real reward is 1M and was reduce to 70,000 for all bounty hunters .
Allowing this type of things happening and going Scott free is dmagi g the image of this great technology and making it look to newbies as a scam when many are still agitating and we that are in this space still give them chance to bad mouth our great community which I think need a very urgent attention to curb all scam project .
Doing bounty does mean that bounty hunters are useless or something cause the way and manner developers are handling hunters now gives a very wrong signal and I see this technology as a way forward for all not a mix to scam people or get rich over night.
Though the technology is decentralized and more why we are having issue as the developer can't be sue or sue , so any bounty that hunters participate in is not a contract as we do have a clause in the terms which says " the team can change the rules any anytime " which make the whole contract useless and not legal as both party have right to decide what is good for the project after the first agreement is sign and if there must be a change them there must be an agreement between the two party not that one party will just decide on what he think will favour him alone and will now point out to the clause that say " they can change the rules anytime"
Imagine a project who lock bounty reward for 90days base on agreement and even after that time they never release it and keep posting the hunters.
Imagine a project that assign 3% of the total supply to hunters and only used 1% and after the hard work of the hunters completing the task stipulated in the rules , the team change the rules and reduce the reward from 1% to 0.07% , like the real reward is 1M and was reduce to 70,000 for all bounty hunters .
Allowing this type of things happening and going Scott free is dmagi g the image of this great technology and making it look to newbies as a scam when many are still agitating and we that are in this space still give them chance to bad mouth our great community which I think need a very urgent attention to curb all scam project .
The bounty hunters are always the underprivileged.
You can see that the current projects work very long but the reward is quite small. There are even scam projects or tokens we receive that do not list on any market. This makes us really depressed and upset.
I myself am an active participant in the bounty, and the situation around the participants in the bounty is indeed not quite satisfactory lately. Many projects simply cheat and do not fulfill what they promised at the outset of the bounty program.I think that this all depends on the situation on the market. That's all. You shouldn’t give up, because there are still worthy projects that are willing to pay generously for the work performed by the participants in the bounty.
Well it depends on the Platform who run the Bounty Campaign! if the devs are true and transparent enough, Im sure that we getting paid ontime as promise. But if the platform that run and ICO is bogus and shady background it means the devs are also faked so dont expect to get paid with our work! thats simple.
Jump to: