I don't understand for a project that needs kyc as a condition to be able to participant in campaign.
cause not everybody wants to give his personal information to someone he doesn't know.
Because they were also worried that the data was misappropriated.
Topic: Do I need KYC for generosity? - page 4. (Read 892 times)
I believe that your arguments are absolutely correct in the first place because the participants in the bounty program are not buyers, they provide a project promotion service and do not spend their money on the purchase of something, therefore, it is silly to require them to pass authentication.
I think no, I don't think it's fair. Why? because on several occasions, we are very difficult to verify. I am very disturbed by that, and I don't think you should be obliged too much.
I consider this check to be absolutely normal, we either agree with the conditions set by the team, or not.
When we read white paper, we do not ask to change this or that item. If you do not agree with the procedure of identification, then choose another company. But in such companies, the payments are more.
When we read white paper, we do not ask to change this or that item. If you do not agree with the procedure of identification, then choose another company. But in such companies, the payments are more.
There are multiple causes for this ...
1. Some legit ICOs can use KYC to reduce the number of fake accounts trying to benefit their "generosity".
2. Some not-sure-if-legit-probably-no will sell the KYC info to the highest bidder.
3. Some bounty managers may use KYC to not pay for some work done.
All in all, since the ICO/bounty/airdrop is made my people you don't know and you are not sure about their intentions, it's safer to not give out your info so easy, since you may have nasty surprises later on.
Even if you'll lose a couple of easy bucks because of that.
I understand that KYC required by bounty campaigns are reducing number of participants (fake and but also real participants) and that cause that ICOs dont have to send all allocated bounty tokens. 1. Some legit ICOs can use KYC to reduce the number of fake accounts trying to benefit their "generosity".
2. Some not-sure-if-legit-probably-no will sell the KYC info to the highest bidder.
3. Some bounty managers may use KYC to not pay for some work done.
All in all, since the ICO/bounty/airdrop is made my people you don't know and you are not sure about their intentions, it's safer to not give out your info so easy, since you may have nasty surprises later on.
Even if you'll lose a couple of easy bucks because of that.
But I do not understand why ICOs want to reduce fake accounts, I thought that they need as many investors as possible to collect enough money for their projects.
KYC is a personal matter, someone hates KYC, but I have a neyutral position and if I like the ICO and inspires confidence, I will pass KYC without problems, but I do it very rarely.
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 have had a similar argument before with a friend. I can't possibly fathom the idea of going through a strenuous kyc in other to perform my generosity tasks. It should be left for investors of specific countries who require it under their AML laws
I think KYC is a great process to protect the ICO investors from different cheaters that want to scam or to trick other investors or the team members. But on the other hand, it is very risky to send you private info to a project, because nobody knows what they are doing with this info.
Something I can not understand how a KYC check can protect investors from scammers or can the ICO team protect them? In my opinion, there is no correlation between the KYC verification and the protection of the rights of investors, as well as the ICO team. So far the biggest scammers here are ICO teams that cheat both investors and participants in the ICO generosity campaign.In our case, the KYC check is used by the ICO teams in order not to pay the tokens earned by us. How should I regard the behavior of the ICO team, when after the completion of the ICO the KYC check is announced, I indicate my confidential data, and in response I get a message that I did not pass the KYC check because I am a minor. At the same time in checking KYC, I indicated my age of forty. Isn't that a scam?
Since the beginning of the implementation of KYC, i'm already disagree with it.
In my opinion it against the idea of cryptocurrency that are anonymous.
In my opinion it against the idea of cryptocurrency that are anonymous.
Yes, but kyc is most important to indroduce yourself. KYC (know your customer) is provide that you are a legal customer. And government legality want to get People's identity to know them. KYC proved that which country's citizen you. So I think KYC is good. And one mkre things that many people used fake/multiple account for doing bounty.
Since the beginning of the implementation of KYC, i'm already disagree with it.
In my opinion it against the idea of cryptocurrency that are anonymous.
This is well noticed. Therefore, we need to avoid all these KYC checks and, if possible, not to participate in those ICO projects that require KYC checks for bounty hunters. I consider conducting a KYC audit against bounty hunters in general illegal, since we are not investors in ICO projects.In my opinion it against the idea of cryptocurrency that are anonymous.
There is a both pros and cons about KYC and we should analyze it. Firstly, KYC is actually for investors as it prerequisite if youre going to invest in case with the bounty hunter some impost kyc as well as their project iant allowed to have a bounty unless kyc is conducted. So that's lucky for us that we can participate on those campaign and they even want to provide a campaign for hunters though it will be hard aspect on their part as well.
I think KYC is a great process to protect the ICO investors from different cheaters that want to scam or to trick other investors or the team members. But on the other hand, it is very risky to send you private info to a project, because nobody knows what they are doing with this info.
Since the beginning of the implementation of KYC, i'm already disagree with it.
In my opinion it against the idea of cryptocurrency that are anonymous.
This is well noticed. Therefore, we need to avoid all these KYC checks and, if possible, not to participate in those ICO projects that require KYC checks for bounty hunters. I consider conducting a KYC audit against bounty hunters in general illegal, since we are not investors in ICO projects. In my opinion it against the idea of cryptocurrency that are anonymous.
This is easy. If you don't want to earn from the group because they are requiring KYC then better to leave them and find other ICO that KYC is not needed but i doubt that there is as every ICO is now KYC compliant except for the bounty. For me, there us nothing wrong with KYC as long as you and the ICOs are legit.
Since the beginning of the implementation of KYC, i'm already disagree with it.
In my opinion it against the idea of cryptocurrency that are anonymous.
In my opinion it against the idea of cryptocurrency that are anonymous.
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?
I believe that KYC demand is principally for defense of project founders from existing or future government rules. several ICOs originally ne'er planned to want KYC from generosity campaigners however got to modification rules for an equivalent reason I already explicit . 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?
The KYC procedure is indeed used for all investors and this, in my opinion, is very good. However, if the KYC procedure is used for bounty hunters or Airdrop, in my opinion, it is very bad. We can see that doing this prize campaign only gets a few prizes. But to get a prize they must submit personal data.
Just to be honest, I still feeling uneasy with the implementation of KYC. What i'm afraid of is that our data can be used for something bad.
That is something to be worried about, especially if we got scammed and we already put our KYC for it.
That is something to be worried about, especially if we got scammed and we already put our KYC for it.
This is what actually happens just check the dark web millions of data are being sold, if they didn't hit the target funds, there is another way to do it, and this is by selling your personal information on the dark web, once you sold yours there is no way to fix it, it will always be there as long as the internet is existing.
Just to be honest, I still feeling uneasy with the implementation of KYC. What i'm afraid of is that our data can be used for something bad.
That is something to be worried about, especially if we got scammed and we already put our KYC for it.
That is something to be worried about, especially if we got scammed and we already put our KYC for it.
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?
Why they want it to specific people, if they want adoption they should cover a lot of people not just specific and besides they cannot do a KYC when their coin hit the market, it's anything goes there, people who do not yet go through a KYC on those exchanges can easily avail their coins.
Jump to: