Almost every collaboration argument traces back to the same root: a split that was assumed, never agreed. The fix costs nothing and takes five minutes — if you do it before the payout, not after.
What actually deserves weight
A fair split rewards contribution, not just presence. Weigh these:
- The initial finding. Spotting the vulnerability is often the hardest, least replaceable part.
- Escalation. Turning a low-severity bug into a critical chain is real, scarce skill.
- The write-up. A clear report that survives triage is worth money — sloppy reports get downgraded or closed.
- Triage handling. The back-and-forth with the program can drag for weeks.
Presence in a Discord call is not a contribution. Be honest about who moved the needle.
Splits that work
- 50/50 — the default when both people contribute across the board. Simple, and simple survives stress.
- 70/30 — one person brought the finding, the other helped escalate or report.
- Tiered — agree that whoever handles triage gets an extra cut, since that work lands after the fun part is over and is easy to resent later.
Whatever you pick, write it as a percentage, not a vibe.
The message that prevents disputes
Before any real value changes hands, send one message you both agree to:
Split: 60/40 (you/me). You: finding + escalation. Me: report + triage. If the program pays less than $X or asks for a rewrite, we revisit before continuing.
That is it. No lawyer, no contract. Just a record that turns "I thought we said…" into "here's what we said."
Reputation is the real enforcement
A written split only works if the other person honors it — and that is where reputation earned from real collaborations matters more than any document. On Bounterland, how you split and whether you deliver becomes part of a track record other hunters can see. The people who pay what they promised get chosen again. The ones who vanish do not. That incentive does more than fine print ever could.