Topic: A new form of cheating teams ICO - page 3. (Read 853 times)

You're wrong. Because almost all projects indicate such an item. The team can change the rules at any time. What does this mean? That the law of law does not help here.

The ICO teams are now applying to bounty hunters a new form of fraud, with which something needs to be done - this is an unspecified earlier test of KYC after the end of the ICO.

As a lawyer, I can say that the conditions for joining the ICO generosity campaign are in fact one of the types of contracts with so-called implicit, that is, silent actions. The fact that we further fill out their form of accession means that we have agreed to their terms of the contract.

In any contract there are so-called essential terms of the contract, which must always be specified. If at least one of them is not specified, the agreement on the decision of the court may be invalidated. The contract price, that is, the amount payable to bounty hunters, is one of the essential conditions of the contract and must be clearly stated. If it can change, it should be indicated in what cases and by how much. Otherwise, such a contract will be invalid. If in the terms of accession it is only generally indicated that any conditions may be changed, then such a piece of paper cannot be recognized as a contract and will in any case be illegal.

If the contract is made and executed, one of the parties is not entitled to declare additional substantial payment terms that were not previously agreed

In this case, this should be considered an ordinary fraud, and the ICO team should bear the material, and in the case of the intention of such actions, the criminal liability for fraud, that is, the seizure of another's property by deception or abuse of trust.

What do you think we need to do in this case with such fraud?

The ICO teams are now applying to bounty hunters a new form of fraud, with which something needs to be done - this is an unspecified earlier test of KYC after the end of the ICO.

As a lawyer, I can say that the conditions for joining the ICO generosity campaign are in fact one of the types of contracts with so-called implicit, that is, silent actions. The fact that we further fill out their form of accession means that we have agreed to their terms of the contract.

In any contract there are so-called essential terms of the contract, which must always be specified. If at least one of them is not specified, the agreement on the decision of the court may be invalidated. The contract price, that is, the amount payable to bounty hunters, is one of the essential conditions of the contract and must be clearly stated. If it can change, it should be indicated in what cases and by how much. Otherwise, such a contract will be invalid. If in the terms of accession it is only generally indicated that any conditions may be changed, then such a piece of paper cannot be recognized as a contract and will in any case be illegal.

If the contract is made and executed, one of the parties is not entitled to declare additional substantial payment terms that were not previously agreed

In this case, this should be considered an ordinary fraud, and the ICO team should bear the material, and in the case of the intention of such actions, the criminal liability for fraud, that is, the seizure of another's property by deception or abuse of trust.

What do you think we need to do in this case with such fraud?

The ICO teams are now applying to bounty hunters a new form of fraud, with which something needs to be done - this is an unspecified earlier test of KYC after the end of the ICO.

As a lawyer, I can say that the conditions for joining the ICO generosity campaign are in fact one of the types of contracts with so-called implicit, that is, silent actions. The fact that we further fill out their form of accession means that we have agreed to their terms of the contract.

In any contract there are so-called essential terms of the contract, which must always be specified. If at least one of them is not specified, the agreement on the decision of the court may be invalidated. The contract price, that is, the amount payable to bounty hunters, is one of the essential conditions of the contract and must be clearly stated. If it can change, it should be indicated in what cases and by how much. Otherwise, such a contract will be invalid. If in the terms of accession it is only generally indicated that any conditions may be changed, then such a piece of paper cannot be recognized as a contract and will in any case be illegal.

If the contract is made and executed, one of the parties is not entitled to declare additional substantial payment terms that were not previously agreed

In this case, this should be considered an ordinary fraud, and the ICO team should bear the material, and in the case of the intention of such actions, the criminal liability for fraud, that is, the seizure of another's property by deception or abuse of trust.

What do you think we need to do in this case with such fraud?

Kyc is like two sides of a coin, where on the one hand it is used to avoid fraudsters who try to make a profit, on the other hand if it falls into the hands of irresponsible people, it will be misused
We never know until a project that requires Kyc to turn into fraud or legal

You're wrong. Because almost all projects indicate such an item. The team can change the rules at any time. What does this mean? That the law of law does not help here.

Now I find that bounty hunters are on the weak side. Bounty hunters have no legal rights to protect them. The project team and the bounty manager can unconditionally modify the rules and extend the bounty time. This market needs regulation to ensure that the rights of bounty hunters are protected.

The ICO teams are now applying to bounty hunters a new form of fraud, with which something needs to be done - this is an unspecified earlier test of KYC after the end of the ICO.

As a lawyer, I can say that the conditions for joining the ICO generosity campaign are in fact one of the types of contracts with so-called implicit, that is, silent actions. The fact that we further fill out their form of accession means that we have agreed to their terms of the contract.

In any contract there are so-called essential terms of the contract, which must always be specified. If at least one of them is not specified, the agreement on the decision of the court may be invalidated. The contract price, that is, the amount payable to bounty hunters, is one of the essential conditions of the contract and must be clearly stated. If it can change, it should be indicated in what cases and by how much. Otherwise, such a contract will be invalid. If in the terms of accession it is only generally indicated that any conditions may be changed, then such a piece of paper cannot be recognized as a contract and will in any case be illegal.

If the contract is made and executed, one of the parties is not entitled to declare additional substantial payment terms that were not previously agreed

In this case, this should be considered an ordinary fraud, and the ICO team should bear the material, and in the case of the intention of such actions, the criminal liability for fraud, that is, the seizure of another's property by deception or abuse of trust.

What do you think we need to do in this case with such fraud?