Topic: Why do Investors always turn to reduce or deny bounty hunters their payments - page 3. (Read 434 times)
October 19, 2019, 06:51:30 PM
All of bounty rules I've seen before is "Full of Right". They have all the power for doing anything to participant. So as Smart Bounty Hunter, you must to analyze more careful to some project before join to it. But if in the middle of process they break their promise, just report them to scam accusations.
October 19, 2019, 06:40:30 PM
Changes made yo reduce the bounty pool particularly after the bounty, is a easy of cheating bounty hunter, even if they seem not to be able to defend and fight for themselves. The bounty manager or even the teams, know very well that, if they actual pool they had in mind, was what was announced, a lot of bounty hunters would have turned it down. So, I see it as an intentional act.
October 19, 2019, 04:00:49 PM
Why not?
Changes are expected when we are doing something and to prevent an unnecessary problem such as complaints, it is important for the managers to make that statement..
Changes are expected when we are doing something and to prevent an unnecessary problem such as complaints, it is important for the managers to make that statement..
Is that also proper for additional weeks for bounty without addition of stake? I have seen some bounties running an extended week but they don't make any addition to reward. I think the right to changes isn't bad but not for extension without addition to bounty reward.
October 19, 2019, 06:18:31 PM
I have seen this phrase many times in the bounty threads, but it did not stop me from participating in the bounty campaign, because this is not the main criterion for participation for me. I study the prospects of the entire project before participating.
You're right. You can participate in the bounty. There are projects that can really make a profit and achieve success. If you learn to choose the right projects everything will be fine. October 19, 2019, 05:32:38 PM
They do it because it allows devs to get people to work for free. It's a win-win situation for them. If the project fails they will not lose money on bounties. If the project gets to be worth some money they will only lose a percent of the profit.
This is allowed to continue because there's nobody to intervene. Bounty hunters have to stop working for free. Nobody will do it for them.
This is allowed to continue because there's nobody to intervene. Bounty hunters have to stop working for free. Nobody will do it for them.
October 19, 2019, 03:56:45 PM
Well... this condition ("bounty manager and project owners have the right to male changes to the bounty tool at any point in time") is extremely unfair to the bounty hunters and I don't know why it is being allowed here in Bitcointalk. I have seen the campaign managers misusing this condition very frequently. Sometimes they make KYC mandatory in the end, after not mentioning about it in the beginning. And sometimes, they extend the duration of the campaign, without increasing the bounty pool proportionately.
It may seem unfair, but a warning for a change in rules has been set at the beginning, so inevitably we have to accept all the risks. Was not from the beginning, we decided to join despite statements like that?Well, this phenomenon often arises since the market conditions are less favourable. Many projects failed to achieve ICO sales targets after listing. So promising projects with good strategies even experience difficulties, so that inevitably make some changes, including the bounty to keep their projects at a safe limit. Sometimes allocations are cut, distribution is delayed, etc. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, lately it has been misused, such as the application for KYC. Over time it's like bullshit to delay the distribution process because it has to do the KYC evaluation, ironically.
October 19, 2019, 03:56:11 PM
Yes, unfortunately they can do what they want with their tokens. Even investors do not have any rights. Try to read terms and conditions when you are investing into ICO. You give them money, but they are not obliged to anything. Sad, but true.. 
October 19, 2019, 03:54:36 PM
Some Project owners together with some Bounty managers promise Hunters certain percentage of total tokens to be created.
These promised tokens inturn manipulates hunters to engage in these bounties expecting to be paid.
One main phrase that gets to favor this bounty managers and project owners is "bounty manager and project owners have the rigjt to male changes to the bounty tool at any point in time"
Should the above statement be allowed to continue?
These promised tokens inturn manipulates hunters to engage in these bounties expecting to be paid.
One main phrase that gets to favor this bounty managers and project owners is "bounty manager and project owners have the rigjt to male changes to the bounty tool at any point in time"
Should the above statement be allowed to continue?
There is this assumption that bounty hunters are the cause of the dumping of tokens or cryptocurrencies. When managers realize that the token or coin is having a good market value, they get scared that bounty hunters might go and dump it when they share their reward to them. That is the only reason I think causes the reduction and deny bounty hunters their payments
October 19, 2019, 03:54:32 PM
Yes, in many campaigns such a moment is registered. Of course, it’s not very pleasant when the terms and conditions change unexpectedly and without any good reason. But in many agreements and documents in our ordinary life there is a "small print" in which indicated possible changes, and which usually no one reads at all.
Actually, if the project is really promising and responsible, it will not change the rules arbitrarily and harm the bounty hunter. But sometimes this unfavorable market situation makes all expectations change. Some of them have failed in reaching the target, so fundraising is extended, usually it also has an impact on the duration of the bounty. So, accept all this gracefully. 
October 19, 2019, 03:28:35 PM
Bounty managers and project owners have every right to change conditions due to some reasons, but abuse should not be allowed. I think that only bad projects abuse this right.
October 19, 2019, 02:51:19 PM
Yes, in many campaigns such a moment is registered. Of course, it’s not very pleasant when the terms and conditions change unexpectedly and without any good reason. But in many agreements and documents in our ordinary life there is a "small print" in which indicated possible changes, and which usually no one reads at all.
October 19, 2019, 02:50:34 PM
I have seen this phrase many times in the bounty threads, but it did not stop me from participating in the bounty campaign, because this is not the main criterion for participation for me. I study the prospects of the entire project before participating.
Many bounty hunters failed to understand that there are many things to consider when promoting projects, developers are humans too, they need funds to be able to pay hunters for their hardwork as well, once project failed to me softcap there will be problemThat's the thing, these projects will stop their bounty/airdrop campaigns if they ever feel that they won't get near their softcap at all. I've seen a lot of projects do that and in result, will piss of the bounty hunters because all their efforts to promote the campaign will be put to waste. DAO Maker is doing social mining which lets you work for crypto in exchange of helping the project grow, plus they're doing it for well-funded projects like ONE.
But for the bounty campaigns that suddenly stops, I hope that there will be a way for us to secure bounty tokens, similar to how tokens are secured on IEO's for investors.
October 19, 2019, 01:51:24 PM
Every decisions make by the project teams will be passed onto bounty hunters by bounty managers, most times bounty allocation get reduced because the project failed to reach its target hardcap, if they pay bounty hunters when the project failed to met target it will be a total loss for the team, remember that bounty hunters like to dump, just think about it
Bounty allocation should be not reduced because at the first time the bounty manager made a thread, there are a contract that how many percont of total supply that allocated to bounty.
October 19, 2019, 01:18:56 PM
It depends on the project and the decision of the team members, thinking about the late bounty distribution allows me to blame the bounty managers. They shouldn't be allowed to manage the bounty campaign if there is no enough experience for controlling the situation at the end-stage of the ICO. Reducing the bounty allocation will not save the project investors and the downtrend is inevitable at these moments from my experience.
October 19, 2019, 01:45:24 PM
Why not?
Changes are expected when we are doing something and to prevent an unnecessary problem such as complaints, it is important for the managers to make that statement.
That's all fine and dandy, but the problem is the project owners are starting to make changes like requiring kyc right at the end or reducing the payout to the bounty hunters...again, right at the end, after they've done all the advertising for the project. It's a statement that is being abused and it isn't fair to the bounty hunters.Changes are expected when we are doing something and to prevent an unnecessary problem such as complaints, it is important for the managers to make that statement.
Yes, I often see bounties like that, for example Mycro Jobs at the beginning of the bounty was launched. They did not say that following the bounty, they had to do KYC
And that's just one of a few examples I've seen of this. If the project can give a disclaimer like 'we reserve the right to change X' then at least they should be very clear about kyc requirements and state that the payment is fixed and not change it.Until bounty hunters start standing up for themselves, this abuse will continue. It's good that op started a thread to address the issue.
October 19, 2019, 01:17:41 PM
Yes, I often see bounties like that, for example Mycro Jobs at the beginning of the bounty was launched. They did not say that following the bounty, they had to do KYC, but after the bounty ended up to 1 year, the manager said that he had to do KYC to make sure when the distribution was right on target. disappointed that the allocation of prizes was cut even though the campaign was extended.
October 19, 2019, 01:12:21 PM
Yes, I often see bounties like that, for example Mycro Jobs at the beginning of the bounty was launched. They did not say that following the bounty, they had to do KYC, but after the bounty ended up to 1 year, the manager said that he had to do KYC to make sure when the distribution was right on target. disappointed that the allocation of prizes was cut even though the campaign was extended.
October 19, 2019, 10:35:59 AM
it happens every now and then that after the bounty campaign, all the rules are then in favor to the team because they can decide whatever they want to do. if the bounty hunters just unite to ask for real coin instead like BTC instead of the created tokens, the team of scam will finally see that all the people who promotes them can't just be their toys. i have participated to some of this campaign and was waiting whether the team will really do what they promise. some team are just not that honest.
October 19, 2019, 10:35:01 AM
Its really hard to detect which bounty projects will pay you after bounty ends, even projects or coins that are already trading on exchanges since last year failed to pay bounty hunters, e.g quarkchain and xblock refused to pay me my rewards, i think what remains now it how lucky you are
October 19, 2019, 10:29:46 AM
We can't really do much when that phrase is wrote in guidelines, if you don't like that, don't join that particular bounty.
They don't know how to pick the right projects so they trying to others opinion, I think must we read the OP post and pick the trusted projects. If you don't like to share your opinion just skip this thread, Bounty is important in crypto environment those are have good knowledge they always survive on long term. Jump to: