Quote from: davey76 on January 10, 2018, 12:16:09 PM

I don't think people use bots to do whole bounty process, but this is what I see a lot:

1: newbie with 1 post joins a certain bounty
2: next post: another newbie with 1 post joins
3: next post: another newbie with 1 post joins

Can't help thinking that must be one person ....

I'm surprised they even allow Newbies to join, if there's anything I've learned during my time managing (Bitcoin) giveaway campaigns, it's that many people love joining with many accounts.
I can only conclude they simply don't care about fake entries: they're giving away a small fraction of the tokens they've created out of thin air, and make a huge profit off it once it's hyped enough. The more they spam, the more profit they make.

Quote from: hilariousetc on January 10, 2018, 07:14:31 PM

I'm increasingly noticing more and more campaigns that are paying newbies because why the hell not. If you've premined a crapcoin for free then it doesn't matter who you pay as long as they're spamming your advert all over which is all they want at the end of the day.

My thoughts exactly!

Quote from: davey76 on January 10, 2018, 12:16:09 PM

I would love to stop reporting my work on the forum, but I have to report.

I was under the impression this isn't even allowed:

Quote from: theymos on January 27, 2014, 06:11:50 AM

Specifically, you are not allowed to give people any incentive to post insubstantial posts in your threads. You can't offer to pay people who post their addresses, usernames, etc.

Most bounty-threads have hundreds of posts showing nothing more than endless lists of links to twitter and facebook. The bounty board has more than 300 different topics bumped up within 24 hours.

Most bounties are only used to hype some ICO, and after the creator gets his money, he moves on to the next similar project to do the same again. According to theymos' definition, most "Initial Coin Offerings" actually sells Tokens, not Coins. Wouldn't it be time to enforce using the right terms, in other words, take away the advantage of using the overly hyped word ICO and force them to call it an ITO if they sell tokens?

Quote from: pugman on January 11, 2018, 03:32:28 PM

Agreed to some point, people would be hesitant to pay 100$ for one account, that too in a forum. I just realized one more thing, since a lot of shit posters are from India, not all of them but most. Paying a 100$ would be a little too much, here's the math:-
1$=63 rupees or so. 100$=~6300 rupees. I have heard a lot of people get food for around 30-40 rupees per meal, a lot of Asians would be grieve-struck, if they have to pay a 100$ for such. Also will legitimate users would also have to pay for this?

I think it's a ridiculous amount to pay $100 to be able to use a signature on an account on a forum! But, my signature pays me an even bigger amount, so if required, I'd pay it instantly. When I had my first signature payment, it was worth $16.64. Back then, I wouldn't pay $100 for a signature. It may even backfire: the industrial scale farmers could just add the cost to their business model, while normal users back out.

I can even imagine the Lending-section will get a new business model: get a $100 loan based on the quality of your past posts, so you can afford to buy a signature and pay back the loan.
Paying for a signature won't stop the bounty-spam though.