Topic: Do I need KYC for generosity? - page 2. (Read 880 times)
Well yeah if you are trying to help and just want to be an anonymous then just like what you said that this is totally stupid. Yet, if all just becuase your endeavors on helping someone with the team that are promoting then setting aside about the KYC should not be a hindrance in giving help. One should do the KYC.
KYC is made to detect cheaters and people that want to exceed the personal cap, to get more profit. I think that such a process is pretty fair and it should be done for security reasons to protect honest investors.
Yes right, according to its use to protect cheating hunters by participating with many accounts. But this is different from what we discussed about the distribution of tokens by hunters who have to be asked to KYC so that data about hunter data is known to consumers. I think this is a bit strange but if it's not off track and it's safe it's not a problem.
KYC is made to detect cheaters and people that want to exceed the personal cap, to get more profit. I think that such a process is pretty fair and it should be done for security reasons to protect honest investors.
Once and for all we should put KYC into it's rightful place in the crypto industry, it should only for those whales who are buying big shares of the tokens and not bounty hunters who will just get a few dollars worth of token.
Or, we need a platform on which will become an intermediary between ordinary users, like you and me, and projects requiring the completion of the KYC procedure; this platform must also be decentralized to ensure the maximum level of security. Alas, so far no project in this area has achieved proper success, but this is only for the time being.
Recently, more and more arguments have arisen that ICO generosity campaign participants really need to be tested by KYC in order for ICO teams to provide information that their tokens are distributed to specific people. In my opinion, this generally sounds like something stupid. Who and why should the ICO team provide such data? Tokens are not much different from any other product, and stating that merchants need to know who they are selling is stupid.
You welcome the situation when we go into the store and in order to purchase any product and we will be asked to first fill out a special form with your confidential data? Do you think that this is different from the situation with cryptocurrency?
You welcome the situation when we go into the store and in order to purchase any product and we will be asked to first fill out a special form with your confidential data? Do you think that this is different from the situation with cryptocurrency?
I sincerely do not go with that premise. Kyc(know your customer) was introduced as an AML(Anti money laundering) law requirement of specific countries to ascertain the financial spendings of an individual and to monitor appropriately
Once and for all we should put KYC into it's rightful place in the crypto industry, it should only for those whales who are buying big shares of the tokens and not bounty hunters who will just get a few dollars worth of token.
Before collecting our data projects must go to the stock exchange. Do your work . Most of the projects just collect our data with you. Then use them for their own purposes. I hope everyone understands this.
KYC for bounty hunters most likely entered because of the very large number of multi-accounts and bots that occupy most of the pool. On the one hand, KYC eliminates fraudsters, and on the other hand, sending screenshots of their documents to everyone in a row also has no desire. Admins say your business is to pass KYC or not. But if you do not pass KYC, you will not get anything.
KYC now has no meaning for bounty. For bot or fraud cases, KYC is not required to remove those people. I think they want KYC because they can sell that information
KYC for bounty hunters most likely entered because of the very large number of multi-accounts and bots that occupy most of the pool. On the one hand, KYC eliminates fraudsters, and on the other hand, sending screenshots of their documents to everyone in a row also has no desire. Admins say your business is to pass KYC or not. But if you do not pass KYC, you will not get anything.
Recently, more and more arguments have arisen that ICO generosity campaign participants really need to be tested by KYC in order for ICO teams to provide information that their tokens are distributed to specific people. In my opinion, this generally sounds like something stupid. Who and why should the ICO team provide such data? Tokens are not much different from any other product, and stating that merchants need to know who they are selling is stupid.
You welcome the situation when we go into the store and in order to purchase any product and we will be asked to first fill out a special form with your confidential data? Do you think that this is different from the situation with cryptocurrency?
You welcome the situation when we go into the store and in order to purchase any product and we will be asked to first fill out a special form with your confidential data? Do you think that this is different from the situation with cryptocurrency?
More and more it looks like a hoax. To give the data is not known to whom. I do not like this procedure. Today I just studied an article about this. These are all of the procedures that give this opportunity.
it seems not, because Kyc is only for investors. but there are some projects that require cyc for bounty participants. it all depends on the policy of the project team.
For me, it is unreasonable for a bounty campaign to require KYC in order for the bounty participants to receive the tokens. Because at the first place, they dont really need that information. And some bounty campaigns announce it in the end of the campaign which pretty irritating for I.
Recently, more and more arguments have arisen that ICO generosity campaign participants really need to be tested by KYC in order for ICO teams to provide information that their tokens are distributed to specific people. In my opinion, this generally sounds like something stupid. Who and why should the ICO team provide such data? Tokens are not much different from any other product, and stating that merchants need to know who they are selling is stupid.
You welcome the situation when we go into the store and in order to purchase any product and we will be asked to first fill out a special form with your confidential data? Do you think that this is different from the situation with cryptocurrency?
Yes, I agree. There shouldn't be KYC for bounty hunters. What for? They are only working in exchange for a small amount of token but afterwards received lesser than expected. You see your personal information too in exchnage for less than a dollar value of tokens? It's not fair. You welcome the situation when we go into the store and in order to purchase any product and we will be asked to first fill out a special form with your confidential data? Do you think that this is different from the situation with cryptocurrency?
You want to give your data to people for a reward that you may be able to get in a few months, and in a falling market, I generally doubt that it will be distributed to bounty hunters.
I think it really depends on the kind of project that you are investing in and how much that you are willing to invest into the said project and how much you trust them. Personally I would never do kyc for any kind of new project no matter how legit they look because that is my entire identity I am giving out and I would hate to have it used against me
Of course no one wants to send their personal data to just anyone. It is especially bad when the KYC procedure is announced at the very end of the bounty of the company. I think that this procedure is not always necessary, but if you are involved in projects from Amazix, there is no need to be afraid of this procedure.
I think it was a necessary measure. Just look how many bots and multi-accounts involved in the bounty companies. The introduction of the KYC procedure at least a little, but helps to deal with it. But I believe that about the introduction of this procedure it is necessary to warn at the beginning of the bounty that the participants made decisions whether or not to participate.
Well in my opinion KYC would still be the best way to lessen up fake bounty hunters and this would maximize the tokens you could get since fake ones can not do KYC's except they have already planned it and know what to do and has back up plans.
KYC verification has never had the goal of eliminating multi-accounts in this forum. This is not a problem at all for the ICO teams, for them there are how many accounts you have, just to write quality messages with their advertising for the ICO project. And in order to reduce the number of multi-accounts, it would be wrong to violate our privacy rights. Now massively, ICO teams, under various far-fetched pretexts, conduct KYC checks against bounty hunters after the end of the ICO with the aim of not paying the tokens we earned. This is still a big problem. 
Well, i respect each other individuality to agree with kyc requirements or not, but for me the team should look for other alternative way which they can make a follow up contact with the participants information not the whole data personality with the individual because that is a foul against the security of a person.
I think that if you found a good project and you are confident in it, but there is a condition that it is necessary to pass the KYC, then I would personally take part in it.
Jump to: