Imagine yourself the owner of ICO. Regarding bounty, the main interest is as much advertising as possible. The more a person participates in the bounty, the more advertising for the ICO. There is no motive for the ICO to limit the number of participants. The more participants, the better. The owner of ICO working on rates allocates X tokens for a particular company (for example, Twitter). And the number of tokens does not change from the number of people working in banti. So the owner of ICO removes the risks of exceeding the budget in tokens. It is right. But for members of the bounty - the more bounty members, the less they will receive as a result. The price of the rate decreases with each new person who came to work in the bounty. And there is a not very good idea "I want to have fewer participants to get more." Not a good idea for the ICO. ICO needs more participants, not less. A rare ICO immediately and specifically says the exact limitation of the number of participants, since this is not in the ICO's interest. In addition, it is very difficult to understand at the start of "And what I get at the exit working in the bounty", when payment in the rates (the rate can have a super volatility). Bets are better understandable for experienced people in the bounty and generally are almost not understandable for beginners in the bounty who constantly come to the industry. We want you to invite all your friends to our bounty without thinking about the competition for the size of the bet. Total "what we tried to do in the bounty": simplicity and clarity at a glance, lack of competition between participants and the desire to invite friends, an instant understanding of the size of the earnings even for the beginner and plus the high prices for each action. Do you think there is any sense in our decisions? We did better for the bounty members? Or all the same rates are better than specific prices?