I agree changing the rules is an example of contract violations. Some project say in rules, manager or team can change everything in the first thread. This is like talking twice. He say not required kyc but if he change it doesn't violate the rules, because change is also in the rules
There are really some instances wherein before the campaign ends the bounty manager changes its rule and its alright because he has the right to change the rules without prior notice. But if they change the rewards intended for the bounty hunters, that's i think is deceiving the bounty hunters clearly. 
Topic: Bounty Campaigns deceiving hunters by changing rules? Read this! (Read 668 times)
I also believe that it is wrong to change the rules for participation in the bounty at the end of the program. The rules for the participation of a bounty must be clearly stated at the beginning of the bounty company and not changed at the end.
I think it was a great idea pointing this out for those who are not aware of this, the only thing i found disturbing is when it is written that "the team reserve the right to change rules of campaign at anytime" which directly means a campaign can decide to request for kyc from hunters in mid campaign or ending of campaign because of this rules,
I don't know if anything can be done after openly stating such rules.
Every company has the right to provide a policy that best suite them, it is just like when you apply for a job, and they give you offer letter stating all the policies that will bind you or the company, you have every right to reject the offer letter if you feel such binding policy is not favorable to you. I don't know if anything can be done after openly stating such rules.
This is the same way that we need to treat the situation here, participating in campaign is our choice to make, if we have read the policy binding that campaign and we are not comfortable with it, then we have every right to just ignore such campaign and look for campaigns that best suite out own interest, maybe if we can just stop being desperate about these campaigns, then and simply just take our time to carefully choose projects, things will probably just change.
I as a bounty hunter is also confused. Sometimes the rules are suddenly changed by the manager, but before that the regulations can also be changed at any time. Here I don't blame the manager. Because the Manager also follows instructions from the project team. If the regulations changed are certainly not a problem, but what I'm confused about is the regulation for KYC. At the beginning it is not said that a bounty hunter is needed KYC, suddenly at the end of the campaign the bounty hunter must do so to claim their prize. If not many people know this, they will lose what they should get. This is what makes me sad.
I agree changing the rules is an example of contract violations. Some project say in rules, manager or team can change everything in the first thread. This is like talking twice. He say not required kyc but if he change it doesn't violate the rules, because change is also in the rules
Since bounty participants now have such privilege and if cheating managers know about it, they will be afraid of cheating or taking any action that will cause the loss of their reputations, because all the cheated hunters will come into agreement to write against their actions.
I support the flag for the simple that they want all bounty hunters to claim their token, this practice has to be stopped from delaying bounty to doing KYC to locking the token, this practice must be stopped it's ok to change the rules but not in a way that bounty hunters will not get their token or will have a hard time claiming it.
The fact that Bounty Managers have the right to change the rules and regulations at any time doesn't mean it's convenient for bounty hunters. Most times, that act of changing rules always makes it difficult for hunters to claim thier tokens. To me, it's an act of cheating.
In my opinion, the manager who manages the bounty campaign has the right to change the rules of the campaign. as a bounty hunter must obey any changes made by the manager.
Great idea. How about the we change the rules in the end to say that all your work was charity and the manager doesn't have to pay you? Will you accept that and say that it was his right to do so? Managers can change the rules but only to some extent. They have their own responsibilities and you have yours.
The fact is that at the moment there are no clear rules for regulating the distribution of coins and as a result, the project team can act as it wants. There are also options for reducing the cost of project management - Bounty managers can use all sorts of tricks. You need to look for campaigns with reports and a fixed number of participants, otherwise, there is simply no point in wasting time.
Umbrella Token has a definitely 100% no KYC bounty program and decentralised IEO running on forkdelta, follow my links for ANN and further reading.
I think it was a great idea pointing this out for those who are not aware of this, the only thing i found disturbing is when it is written that "the team reserve the right to change rules of campaign at anytime" which directly means a campaign can decide to request for kyc from hunters in mid campaign or ending of campaign because of this rules,
I don't know if anything can be done after openly stating such rules.
That is what we are trying to address here. Hunters should still be paid for their work whether they can complete KYC or not. If companies refuse to pay in tokens, they could at least pay in eth or btc. Besides, KYC is common now and companies should have known that before they started a campaign. Why does it have to be at the end of the campaign before they consult their lawyers if KYC is required or not? I don't know if anything can be done after openly stating such rules.
I think it was a great idea pointing this out for those who are not aware of this, the only thing i found disturbing is when it is written that "the team reserve the right to change rules of campaign at anytime" which directly means a campaign can decide to request for kyc from hunters in mid campaign or ending of campaign because of this rules,
I don't know if anything can be done after openly stating such rules.
yes, it is indeed unpleasant, and it sounds inclined to them not to appreciate the work of the bounty hunter. they campaigned with the rules they made and it turned out they changed it themselves. isn't that very unpleasant. even though now we all know that, and understand that. I don't know if anything can be done after openly stating such rules.
I think it was a great idea pointing this out for those who are not aware of this, the only thing i found disturbing is when it is written that "the team reserve the right to change rules of campaign at anytime" which directly means a campaign can decide to request for kyc from hunters in mid campaign or ending of campaign because of this rules,
I don't know if anything can be done after openly stating such rules.
I don't know if anything can be done after openly stating such rules.
In my opinion, the manager who manages the bounty campaign has the right to change the rules of the campaign. as a bounty hunter must obey any changes made by the manager.
Great idea. How about the we change the rules in the end to say that all your work was charity and the manager doesn't have to pay you? Will you accept that and say that it was his right to do so? Managers can change the rules but only to some extent. They have their own responsibilities and you have yours.
I understand how most bounty hunters feel whennit comes to changing bounty rules at the end of bounty campaigns and what I do ask most bounty hunters is, do they really read bounty rules before starting it? If not, then they should start doing so because most bounty managers indicates that the bounty rules are subject to change and if it does happen that way, we should just accept because we were told before.
Now there are frequent cases when a project initially writes one thing, and when it comes time to pay coins to bounty hunters, the project drastically changes the conditions and begins to demand something.
I am not a lawyer but I think changing rules at the end of the campaign like suddenly requiring KYC before you can get your reward is an example of contract violations.
I know a campaign that using the same method, my friend joined the campaign last year as a signature campaign member. And maybe you've heard about it, it called Adab.They seem suspicious to me, you can do your research on this if you want to. Like you said, they changed the rules at the end of the campaign.
I know a campaign that using the same method, my friend joined the campaign last year as a signature campaign member. And maybe you've heard about it, it called Adab.They seem suspicious to me, you can do your research on this if you want to. Like you said, they changed the rules at the end of the campaign.
I'm afraid nothing can be done on past campaigns. I created this thread for current and future campaigns and to inform hunters, who often complains, that they can do something about it if they can prove that damage has been done from campaign rule changes.In my opinion, the manager who manages the bounty campaign has the right to change the rules of the campaign. as a bounty hunter must obey any changes made by the manager.
I hope I don't see you complain in the future.
very good if there is a bounty like that, but in my opinion the Terragreen case can still be forgiven because the project that does not pay the bounty is the most outrageous and when there are no bounty-like flag systems like that, this can be used as a new project that bounties don't change the rules arbitrarily it is better to be clear at the beginning even though it is quiet compared to the project it hates at the end of the campaign.
yes useful information, tired already cheat as they want,
I had a case, after the end of the bounty, they closed the telegram bounty, and the general group,
and then it turned out that their token went to his blockchain, and gave a week to replace the address,
they unsubscribed in the BTT stream,
I went several times and didn’t pay attention, I immediately went to the telegram link, and there nothing works,
thus left without tokens.
I had a case, after the end of the bounty, they closed the telegram bounty, and the general group,
and then it turned out that their token went to his blockchain, and gave a week to replace the address,
they unsubscribed in the BTT stream,
I went several times and didn’t pay attention, I immediately went to the telegram link, and there nothing works,
thus left without tokens.
This is often a controversial matter even among bounty hunters too. But beforehand, we must read first in the general rules on the bounty thread. Is there a statement about the rights of the bounty manager to change regulations. As long as the regulation is not too burdensome, it doesn't matter. However, of course, we also have the right to fight for our rights to continue to get the appropriate reward especially if we have worked hard.
In case you are not aware yet, there is a trust flag system in this forum that you (bounty hunters) can use against these bounty campaigns for violations of contract. Check the quoted text below for reference.
I am not a lawyer but I think changing rules at the end of the campaign like suddenly requiring KYC before you can get your reward is an example of contract violations.
If you want to know how it looks like, check this flag created for TerraGreen
If in the future you see campaigns violating contracts, you can use the example above. Please be sure to provide the proper evidence.
Every rule change is bad and it should not take place ... KYC as for me is a donation collection of data about cryptocurrency users. Often, the data you need to provide is too dangerous ... Big give false data and what's the point?Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. You can create a flag using a link on a person's trust page.
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it. It shows a banner on topics started by the flagged user for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time. For all users, a "#" is shown next to their trust scores.
For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
A new scammer flag should be created for each separate alleged incident. In the spirit of forgiveness/redemption, scammer flags expire 3 years after the incident if the contract was casual/implied, and 10 years after the incident if the contract was written. These expiration times might be administratively changed in specific cases.
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it. It shows a banner on topics started by the flagged user for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time. For all users, a "#" is shown next to their trust scores.
For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
A new scammer flag should be created for each separate alleged incident. In the spirit of forgiveness/redemption, scammer flags expire 3 years after the incident if the contract was casual/implied, and 10 years after the incident if the contract was written. These expiration times might be administratively changed in specific cases.
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.
I am not a lawyer but I think changing rules at the end of the campaign like suddenly requiring KYC before you can get your reward is an example of contract violations.
If you want to know how it looks like, check this flag created for TerraGreen
If in the future you see campaigns violating contracts, you can use the example above. Please be sure to provide the proper evidence.
This is impressive, its one of the solutions I've been praying for on this forum,by raising flags against bounty projects they will learn to adjust by force and bounty hunters will earn their respect back
Indeed, it has become a risk for us as bounty hunters, dealing with these alarming conditions. They arbitrarily change rules and regulations and token allocation. Even though it has been written that the Bounty Manager has the right to change rules and regulations, but if it is very burdensome or detrimental to bounty hunters, then we need to fight for it.
The best solution to this is if this forum can create rules for bounty managers that once they create bounty rules for participants it cant be changed or edit later on or after bounty ends then it will be good
These forum moderators don't like bounty, because it gives them a lot of spam posts from bounty hunter. I think it's hard to have a protection system for bounty hunter. Many bounties have declined their responsibilities and do not distribute tokens for bounty hunter
This is a big trouble for bounty hunters, but what we could do with it? Bear with it, and do more bounties)
This is the problem.
Many bounty hunters complain about campaigns changing rules at the end and now that a solution is being provided, they do nothing. Take note that it is not only requiring KYC, there are also issues like slashing the bounty pool.
If we can create a flag or support one, then I think clear and specific rules will be made by these campaigns. They cannot simply change whenever they want to.
I think campaigns don't care about flag on bounty topic once bounty is finished.
You know, they better lose reputation among hunters rather than pay you a lot of tokens to dump price
You know, they better lose reputation among hunters rather than pay you a lot of tokens to dump price
But campaign manager have the rights to change the campaign rules at any time and also they state that on their bounty threads so you won't get kuch support from the DT members when you didn't ready to accept the rule.
I don't think a flag can be used in the case of these bounty campaigns, Most of the bounty campaigns have always stated in their rules that they reserve the right to amend the bounty rules as they find appropriate or beneficial to the project without prior information.
You are both wrong... DT members know that it's unfair and very shady look at the support we got from them concerning TerraGreen KYC-Scam: Flag. Now that TerraGreen account is flagged, look at this beautiful red message that is displayed in their ANN thread: ANNThis practice should stop they are riping off people who worked hard and put their time and effort and the community is here to help, the case I provided above must serve as an example,if we continue this way we can prevent this from happening again.
I don't think a flag can be used in the case of these bounty campaigns, Most of the bounty campaigns have always stated in their rules that they reserve the right to amend the bounty rules as they find appropriate or beneficial to the project without prior information.
yes they have that but this practice should be stopped, they just want to scam some bounty hunters who do not want to do KYC and they know that if they are going to implement this, they are going to get free promotions from people who do not want to participate in a bounty with KYC. 
But campaign manager have the rights to change the campaign rules at any time and also they state that on their bounty threads so you won't get kuch support from the DT members when you didn't ready to accept the rule.
If is stated in the beginning, there's nothing wrong, but as always, people have to use commom sense, this is for manager and for bounty hunters
I know it's complicated but bounty hunter have to choose better options to change time to coins
I don't think a flag can be used in the case of these bounty campaigns, Most of the bounty campaigns have always stated in their rules that they reserve the right to amend the bounty rules as they find appropriate or beneficial to the project without prior information.
There have been several bounties that acted odd, still I changing rules at the of the bounty or projects that ended up being scam.
The same happened to CWEX. This people ended the campaign and send another form to bounty for verification purpose, yet their sole aim of being scammers was revealed.
The same happened to CWEX. This people ended the campaign and send another form to bounty for verification purpose, yet their sole aim of being scammers was revealed.
But campaign manager have the rights to change the campaign rules at any time and also they state that on their bounty threads so you won't get kuch support from the DT members when you didn't ready to accept the rule.
They really have the rights to change it and I think its not deceiving the people maybe they changed it because it should be on that way. If your not good with the changes then better to stop participating and look for other bounties. Though most of the manager are changing it without proper notice to the hunters then I believe they are not good manager. I am not a lawyer but I think changing rules at the end of the campaign like suddenly requiring KYC before you can get your reward is an example of contract violations.
Of course it is. They are asking for your ID for one of two reasons or both of them together.
Reason 1. They want to discourage you from claiming the reward. They know most people don't want to share their real name or show ID and will not claim the bounty.
Reason 2. They want to sell your ID and your email to spammers and scammers.
as a rule, such companies that deceive bounty hunters do not live long. I also many times fall when the end is prescribed by a sudden passage of kyc/
But campaign manager have the rights to change the campaign rules at any time and also they state that on their bounty threads so you won't get kuch support from the DT members when you didn't ready to accept the rule.
But in my opinion it is unfair for us, the bounty manager makes it difficult for us to receive tokens at the end of the campaign so that the rules are changed always at the end of the campaign.
That is one reason why yo should have just join a bounty with bitcoin payments, altcoins recently are way too disapproving. I remebered one time when I only received a converting amount of 1 dollars for my whole 3 months of doing a signature bounty on their project. It struck me hard leaving me no choice but to forget and move on. Now I rarely join bounty aside from Bitcoin payments only.
Yeah this is a highly wanted feature atleast this will put some pressure on the campaign managers and the projects team and they will not refrain from the rules because they will know that they will loose trust on forum which would not be a good thing for project's reputation.
There are indeed many problems in this area, and it’s good that some tools appear that can be used to solve them.
I participated in many campaigns where the rules changed right in the process. It was even that normal managers were engaged in projects, which then simply disappeared. This fact is not at all happy.
Yeah this is a highly wanted feature atleast this will put some pressure on the campaign managers and the projects team and they will not refrain from the rules because they will know that they will loose trust on forum which would not be a good thing for project's reputation.
This is a big trouble for bounty hunters, but what we could do with it? Bear with it, and do more bounties)
But campaign manager have the rights to change the campaign rules at any time and also they state that on their bounty threads so you won't get kuch support from the DT members when you didn't ready to accept the rule.
for me, it's no problem if the last day of the bounty they make the participant complete KYC but we should complain if they changed the total rewards on the last day.
because it's happened to me at the start they said that the total rewards will be around 5~6 M USD but in the end they just changed the rewards to 1M USD
But campaign manager have the rights to change the campaign rules at any time and also they state that on their bounty threads so you won't get kuch support from the DT members when you didn't ready to accept the rule.
But in my opinion it is unfair for us, the bounty manager makes it difficult for us to receive tokens at the end of the campaign so that the rules are changed always at the end of the campaign.
But campaign manager have the rights to change the campaign rules at any time and also they state that on their bounty threads so you won't get kuch support from the DT members when you didn't ready to accept the rule.
I am not a lawyer but I think changing rules at the end of the campaign like suddenly requiring KYC before you can get your reward is an example of contract violations.
I know a campaign that using the same method, my friend joined the campaign last year as a signature campaign member. And maybe you've heard about it, it called Adab.They seem suspicious to me, you can do your research on this if you want to. Like you said, they changed the rules at the end of the campaign.
In case you are not aware yet, there is a trust flag system in this forum that you (bounty hunters) can use against these bounty campaigns for violations of contract. Check the quoted text below for reference.
I am not a lawyer but I think changing rules at the end of the campaign like suddenly requiring KYC before you can get your reward is an example of contract violations.
If you want to know how it looks like, check this flag created for TerraGreen
If in the future you see campaigns violating contracts, you can use the example above. Please be sure to provide the proper evidence.
Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. You can create a flag using a link on a person's trust page.
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it. It shows a banner on topics started by the flagged user for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time. For all users, a "#" is shown next to their trust scores.
For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
A new scammer flag should be created for each separate alleged incident. In the spirit of forgiveness/redemption, scammer flags expire 3 years after the incident if the contract was casual/implied, and 10 years after the incident if the contract was written. These expiration times might be administratively changed in specific cases.
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.
A newbie-warning flag is active if there are more people supporting such a flag than opposing it. It shows a banner on topics started by the flagged user for guests and for users with less than 7 days of login time. For all users, a "#" is shown next to their trust scores.
For contractual violations only, a scammer flag can be created. This is the only thing which causes the "Warning: trade with extreme caution" warning to return. It also triggers a banner similar to the newbie-warning banner which is visible to all users. A scammer flag requires 3 more supporting users than opposing users to become active.
A new scammer flag should be created for each separate alleged incident. In the spirit of forgiveness/redemption, scammer flags expire 3 years after the incident if the contract was casual/implied, and 10 years after the incident if the contract was written. These expiration times might be administratively changed in specific cases.
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.
Only users in your trust network count as supporting or opposing flags. For guests, the default trust network is used.
I am not a lawyer but I think changing rules at the end of the campaign like suddenly requiring KYC before you can get your reward is an example of contract violations.
If you want to know how it looks like, check this flag created for TerraGreen
If in the future you see campaigns violating contracts, you can use the example above. Please be sure to provide the proper evidence.
Jump to: