Topic: Is KYC For Bounty Hunters Good? Lets Share Our Views! - page 10. (Read 2218 times)
I also do not see anything wrong with this, but still it seems to me that there should be at least some guarantees that your data will not be delivered somewhere to another place or to other people
In recent times there has been several ICOs introducing KYC for bounty hunters, and that has made many Bounty hunters to feel bad.
I would like to share my opinion over this issue. I never see KYC as a bad idea, KYC will actually reduce scammers from using multiple accounts for one bounty and that will also give the genuine hunters the space to earn more in their bounty hunting.
The place I have issues with ICO projects running bounty programs is the idea of some projects that introduce KYC at the end of the bounty program which I really feel it should not be so. It is the same thing as those who used multiple accounts during the bounty because it will still reduce the amount the genuine hunters will earn.
If KYC should be introduced at the end of bounty, the left over coins/token should be distributed among the genuine hunters otherwise I see it as the same scam to the genuine bounty hunters:
Anyway, this is my own view, If you have a contrary view, please share it. I would like to know more also.
I like your opinion and I agree with it. As we know, KYC has a use as a medium for verifying user data. So, if KYC is used to verify the data of the bounty hunters themselves it is not a bad thing. This can also avoid the occurrence of multiple account usage in 1 campaign and there is nothing to be afraid of doing KYC because crypto is no longer anonymous.I would like to share my opinion over this issue. I never see KYC as a bad idea, KYC will actually reduce scammers from using multiple accounts for one bounty and that will also give the genuine hunters the space to earn more in their bounty hunting.
The place I have issues with ICO projects running bounty programs is the idea of some projects that introduce KYC at the end of the bounty program which I really feel it should not be so. It is the same thing as those who used multiple accounts during the bounty because it will still reduce the amount the genuine hunters will earn.
If KYC should be introduced at the end of bounty, the left over coins/token should be distributed among the genuine hunters otherwise I see it as the same scam to the genuine bounty hunters:
Anyway, this is my own view, If you have a contrary view, please share it. I would like to know more also.
But it is true that you say that if this campaign want to do KYC for bounty hunters, they must notify at the outset, not at the end of the campaign. Because if there are many bounty hunters who are not ready for KYC and want to remain anonymous then they will definitely leave it. This clearly becomes unfair because the campaign did not have any commitment from the start.
Agree, kyc isn't bad as most ico are left with no choice, i think ico have to be compliance with the new regulations.
It is dubious to introduce it at the end of the bounty campaign, cheating asides a lot of hunters wouldn't want to submit their documents.
It is dubious to introduce it at the end of the bounty campaign, cheating asides a lot of hunters wouldn't want to submit their documents.
Introducing KYC to Bounty was and still remain the Best decision and method to Phish out those set of hunters using multiple accounts or those that are in the habit of stealing other people's work and claim ownership of it. KYC is good and I welcome the idea only if our information are safe with them. I have a friend who is scared of KYC till date because she doesn't trust them with her personal Profile information because of those scam project out there.
In my opinion KYC for Bounty Hunters is perfectly reasonable. Because it will strictly manage the number of participants in the campaign. However the weakness is that the information we provide may be leaked to the market and bad guys take advantage.
What you write scares me. In my opinion, it is quite the opposite - most ICOs are legit projects and even have to cooperate with lawyers.
I am afraid you are mistaken.
https://www.investopedia.com/news/80-icos-are-scams-report/
81% of ICOs are outright scams. Add that to the 6% that fail outright, and the 5% that just "go dead", it takes the total amount of trash ICOs to over 92%.
Less than 2% of ICOs were "successful" in this study. However, "successful" only meant that they had a beta of a product, a roadmap and some github activity - a very low bar to be set, and really the bare minimum that any ICO should reach. And we all know plenty of projects which fulfill these criteria that still go on to be worth nothing or turn out to be scams.
Kyc is not good for bounty hunters in terms of their privacy what if they send information to a unsuccessful project or scammers. High possibilities that those profile will use in illegal businesses. We dont know much about it, just more safe if we remain anonymous in this field
I hate that fact as well that some projects implement KYC at the end without informing at the start of the campaign. Some hunters are conservative on giving up some important info due to identity theft and frame up. I understand this, but KYC has also good point to limit the campaign to legit participants. The problem here arises if the project was a scam and you already did the KYC. This is dangerous as your data can be used on fraud activities.
That's the point, with how those many ico's turned into scam project and if you already provided your KYC, there's also some chances that they might used it illegally, the point of KYC is really good for well succeeded project maybe after the bounty ends up they can ask for KYC before receiving the rewards in this case the managers and the team will be assured or maybe have a big chance that the campaign is not being populated by cheaters.KYC for the bounty can be quite good if the goal to reduce the double account is pretty much obsolete. but many who thus avoid this because it considers it unsafe in shipping identity because it can be abused by the other party. will probably need some consideration also for this though for ICO and bounty is quite important for the sake of clarifying the existing distribution of flow.
a savvy guy can actually still do multiply accounts to participate in bounties, all he needs is the passport of someone else. so with IP address filtering anyone can participate with proxies. its not hard to do it if there is the motivation. i hate KYC but what else can we do. investors were asked for KYCs, all the more to bounty participants.
KYC for the bounty can be quite good if the goal to reduce the double account is pretty much obsolete. but many who thus avoid this because it considers it unsafe in shipping identity because it can be abused by the other party. will probably need some consideration also for this though for ICO and bounty is quite important for the sake of clarifying the existing distribution of flow.
As a bounty hunter, i feel that KYC is just like one of nightmare in cryptocurrency world.
I believe other bounty participant will feel that way too.
I believe other bounty participant will feel that way too.
It is true that it reduces scammers, but only to be a hunter for gifts seems like it doesn't need to be done, moreover it is not necessarily that the projects that are followed make a lot of money. in my opinion that will add complexity to participating
I find KYC checking for bounty hunters illegal. The ICO team does not have the right to require identification from headhunters. Moreover, the requirement to provide such data at the end of the ICO, after the bounty hunters perform the agreed work, will be even more illegal if it was not previously stated in the conditions of joining the ICO signature campaign. This is definitely reminiscent of fraud for the non-payment of earned tokens.
I hate that fact as well that some projects implement KYC at the end without informing at the start of the campaign. Some hunters are conservative on giving up some important info due to identity theft and frame up. I understand this, but KYC has also good point to limit the campaign to legit participants. The problem here arises if the project was a scam and you already did the KYC. This is dangerous as your data can be used on fraud activities.
That's the point, with how those many ico's turned into scam project and if you already provided your KYC, there's also some chances that they might used it illegally, the point of KYC is really good for well succeeded project maybe after the bounty ends up they can ask for KYC before receiving the rewards in this case the managers and the team will be assured or maybe have a big chance that the campaign is not being populated by cheaters.I hate that fact as well that some projects implement KYC at the end without informing at the start of the campaign. Some hunters are conservative on giving up some important info due to identity theft and frame up. I understand this, but KYC has also good point to limit the campaign to legit participants. The problem here arises if the project was a scam and you already did the KYC. This is dangerous as your data can be used on fraud activities.
That's the point, with how those many ico's turned into scam project and if you already provided your KYC, there's also some chances that they might used it illegally, the point of KYC is really good for well succeeded project maybe after the bounty ends up they can ask for KYC before receiving the rewards in this case the managers and the team will be assured or maybe have a big chance that the campaign is not being populated by cheaters.
Look at ICO if there sayed what some country residents cant participate in the ico, be sure at the of bounty camp they ask kyc from you.
because you can be citizen of resticted country and they cant give you tokens
because you can be citizen of resticted country and they cant give you tokens
I am thinking in the same direction with you, I believe KYC is a good thing to weed off scammers and reward good bounty hunters but I think it is not good when you don't inform people about the KYC at the early stage, as it is required some countries will not be allowed to go through KYC and it is bad for such hunters after doing the bounties for months.
I hate that fact as well that some projects implement KYC at the end without informing at the start of the campaign. Some hunters are conservative on giving up some important info due to identity theft and frame up. I understand this, but KYC has also good point to limit the campaign to legit participants. The problem here arises if the project was a scam and you already did the KYC. This is dangerous as your data can be used on fraud activities.
KYC for bounty hunters is bad practice but for investor is good,But now a days many projects first don't tell about KYC for bounty hunters and at the end of ICO they ask for KYC. This is also very bad practice.
Well, I don't think it's a problem ... KYC is used to find out the identities of their supporters. well, but maybe some bounties don't require that, because sometimes bounty hunters are just those who help support the development of the project through advertisements. yeah, but it all depends on the project. 
In recent times there has been several ICOs introducing KYC for bounty hunters, and that has made many Bounty hunters to feel bad.
I would like to share my opinion over this issue. I never see KYC as a bad idea, KYC will actually reduce scammers from using multiple accounts for one bounty and that will also give the genuine hunters the space to earn more in their bounty hunting.
The place I have issues with ICO projects running bounty programs is the idea of some projects that introduce KYC at the end of the bounty program which I really feel it should not be so. It is the same thing as those who used multiple accounts during the bounty because it will still reduce the amount the genuine hunters will earn.
If KYC should be introduced at the end of bounty, the left over coins/token should be distributed among the genuine hunters otherwise I see it as the same scam to the genuine bounty hunters:
Anyway, this is my own view, If you have a contrary view, please share it. I would like to know more also.
So am I, A project that asking KYC for their bounty hunter doesn't seems right, after all of our struggle to help on promoting their project, we are asked something that i think isn't necessary, especially when the coins has a little value after it got listed in the market. I would like to share my opinion over this issue. I never see KYC as a bad idea, KYC will actually reduce scammers from using multiple accounts for one bounty and that will also give the genuine hunters the space to earn more in their bounty hunting.
The place I have issues with ICO projects running bounty programs is the idea of some projects that introduce KYC at the end of the bounty program which I really feel it should not be so. It is the same thing as those who used multiple accounts during the bounty because it will still reduce the amount the genuine hunters will earn.
If KYC should be introduced at the end of bounty, the left over coins/token should be distributed among the genuine hunters otherwise I see it as the same scam to the genuine bounty hunters:
Anyway, this is my own view, If you have a contrary view, please share it. I would like to know more also.
Jump to: