Topic: A new form of cheating teams ICO - page 4. (Read 784 times)
Unfortunately, I have seen many such ico and it is almost impossible to influence their decision. The problem is that there is still no normal regulation of ico, based on this, it is far from always possible to find leverage on such fraudsters. I believe that one of the existing levers is to massively declare deception. Sometimes it worked and the ico administration paid all the promised rewards, but it was not always. So until there will be an organ of control over the holding of ico, investors and participants in the bounty will always be concerned about the complete fulfillment of conditions by the ico administrations.
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.
Nice to meet you. I am also a lawyer. In our country, such forms are called "Formatted clauses".
This means that all the items in the contract are formulated by Party A, and Party B can only Yes or No. The law has clear rules for such formatted clauses.
1. If the party that provides the format clause is exempt from its liability, aggravates the other party's liability, and excludes the other party's main rights, the formatted clauses is invalid.
2. If the formatted clauses and the non-formatted clauses are inconsistent, the non-formatted clauses shall apply.
3. In accordance with the usual interpretation of the terms of the formatted clauses, which have two or more meanings, an explanation should be made that is not conducive to the provision of the formatted clauses.
For The ICO teams, they are the provision of the formatted clauses. Once they differ from whit the bounty participants of the understanding of the formatted clauses , should tend to benefit the bounty participant.
Since the bounty participants come from different countries in the world, the legal regulations may be different. Even if the law of the country where the ICO team is applied, I don’t think that the laws of the country where the ICO team is located will have different regulations. The laws of many countries are such a consensus.
First, I left the project no matter what I was doing, because for me, personal data is the most important thing, unless it has become a rule from the sta
However, this is not a method - to work for three to five months and then quitting our work for KYC without pay, because such a form of fraud of ICO teams appeared in us. Moreover, such fraud is now becoming a mass phenomenon. With such a fraud, you need to do something. It is possible that the administration of the forum forbade them to do this, so that the KYC check would be carried out only when joining in generosity. They should worry about the forum member?
First, I left the project no matter what I was doing, because for me, personal data is the most important thing, unless it has become a rule from the sta
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.
Do you think that ICO teams should not abide by the laws of most states? So why do they comply with the US and Chinese orders for KYC verification? Moreover, it is so zealous that they demand to pass such an inspection by KYC not only in relation to investors, but also in relation to bounty hunters, in relation to whom they should not conduct such an inspection?Do you think that ICO teams have the right to ignore the laws and at the same time deceive us?
I wonder why you are protecting the obvious scam?
I, too, have a negative attitude towards the demand of KYC for bounty hunters by companies. In the first place, the product itself does not yet exist and it is not clear why verification is needed. And secondly, in this way, projects often recruit a database of documents and sell them. And where then your data is used is not clear.
Many companies/projects agree to pay for cypto enthusiast database for their next fraud/scam actions. because almost ico which ran bounty in past don't request participants do KYC but now most of them event not exist project can post a bounty campaign and ask for kYC to collect personal documents. But most people from 3rth countries don't care about their document they can easily submit just for few dollars from a bounty
KYC must be specified at the very beginning. The team should not change the rules. I think so.
Fraud in ico projects has been and will continue to flourish for many years. All who are involved in cryptocurrency want to benefit from this also it works with ico projects. If it is profitable for them to demand kyc they will do it because they have thought of everything in advance. The market for ico projects is the wild west where the strongest survive.
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?
Yes, now the announcement of the KYC check at the end or after the completion of the ICO is one of the biggest problems of bounty hunters. We have been working for several months and after finishing work on us they begin to simply scoff. They come up with various forms for entering our confidential information, which does not want to be accepted in all cases and it costs us very big nerves, however, despite our efforts and desire, it is not possible to pass such a test by KYC in all cases. That is, it turns out that we conscientiously fulfill the stipulated conditions, and then we are simply deceived. Instead of paying for our work, we come up with various reasons for refusing to pay. Of course, this should be regarded as fraud, because, as a result of this, the ICO teams illegally assign our tokens.
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.
I, too, have a negative attitude towards the demand of KYC for bounty hunters by companies. In the first place, the product itself does not yet exist and it is not clear why verification is needed. And secondly, in this way, projects often recruit a database of documents and sell them. And where then your data is used is not clear.
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?
Jump to: