Removing the requirements is a bad idea. A long time ago when I worked with Neodice they had similar terms and after they removed the requirements within a week they had several hundred obvious cases of abuse (I say this because I saw the evidence they provided) 
If a company don't want to waste their budget by pure giveaway, they will have to set up terms and conditions of their programs. Terms and conditions are so helpful to prevent abusements from users, bounty hunters, and it will increase positive effects they can get from programs.If things are executed with paid costs, it must be managed with clear and very detailed, well-minded terms and conditions. With any company, running marketing programs and let it abused easily is very bad as it is a way of using company budget inefficiently. I can take examples of altcoin bounties that become more complex, with more tasks, and more technical tools for checking possible cheating and abusements from participants. Recent years, perhaps bounties are less intensively hosted in Bitcoin forum as altcoin projects tend to move to other platforms with automatic tools for cheating detections.
That’s exactly the reasoning behind our approach. Removing requirements altogether might sound good on paper, but in reality, it would lead to abuse and devalue the token economy, which wouldn’t benefit long-term players.
The $1,000 wagering requirement ensures that GLX tokens are earned through real engagement rather than just being farmed by users looking for quick gains. This helps maintain token value, dividend sustainability, and overall platform integrity.
We appreciate the conversation—these discussions help us refine and improve Galactix while keeping it fair for everyone!
