Limiting participants makes it possible to calculate the minimum amount we will earn from the campaign. In my opinion, this is a great idea and all managers should start doing it.
Escrow is an even better idea because it guarantees the payment of the reward.
The only risk the participant runs is that the project may fail, but this is never predictable.
Restricting bounty participants is very appropriate for managers, because this can increase the acquisition of opinions for participants, ideas like this should be followed by other managers, so that the interest of bounty participants is more focused and profitable, project payments through escro are more secure than payments made by managers , although not all projects that have escro can be successful
Not all the bounties of those bounty managers are escrowed. The payment distribution of some bounties is handled by the project teams. But we can trust those bounty managers because they have a good reputation and are very experienced in managing a bounty. They must do deep analysis or research before they decide to manage a bounty. And they must inform us immediately if there is something wrong with the projects. So, we don't waste much time working the bounties. So, not each bounty managed by the bounty managers can be successful, surely there is the possibility of failed bounties among them.
Trusted managers as discussed earlier, they maintain the reputation and quality of the bounty, but also many managers do work that is not in accordance with the bounty rules, with various reasons they give. Therefore, for now we have to be selective in choosing bounty projects, instead of wasting time doing unpaid work, at least we should join a bounty program managed by a reputable manager.