Topic: Is KYC For Bounty Hunters Good? Lets Share Our Views! - page 12. (Read 2218 times)
I don't think it's very good for us, since one of the best things of cryptos are the anonymity, and the KYC requirement challenges that resolution, so I don't think it's necessary and even less for a bounty that probably won't succeed for that same reason.
KYC has now widely being used in ICOs and I think its a nice idea and it is helping them. Now it has also being used in bounties and I think its also a good idea because it will help fish out those using multiple accounts for the bounties.
Asking for KYC on bounties is never a good idea, a good bounty manager should be able to manage his/her bounty well with an accurate spreadsheet. Asking https enter to upload documents is not necessary, KYC is for the investors because their coin is distributed directly by the ICO team not from the bounty manager
Totally wrong, sometimes there's an ICO that regulate even for bounty hunter to submit their KYC because simply the project is distributing money to that people aswell.It's not wrong though, what's wrong is when the ICO is scam and asking for KYC, our data could be stolen.
Asking for KYC on bounties is never a good idea, a good bounty manager should be able to manage his/her bounty well with an accurate spreadsheet. Asking https enter to upload documents is not necessary, KYC is for the investors because their coin is distributed directly by the ICO team not from the bounty manager
Who would feel happy sending their ID to bounty managers?
Not me
Not me
As a bounty hunter i have no problem doing kyc. This kyc procedure is good so as to avoid members who do bounty with multiple accounts. But they should clearly state from the start that the bounty campaign needs kyc.
and I would also like to be sure that such a Bounty company will bring a really good income so that the risk of providing personal data is justified.
As a bounty hunter i have no problem doing kyc. This kyc procedure is good so as to avoid members who do bounty with multiple accounts. But they should clearly state from the start that the bounty campaign needs kyc.
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.
Yes, KYC is never been a bad idea considering that there are a lot of cheaters today but the timing on when they ask for KYC is the one that frustrates bounty hunters. Asking for KYC documents after the bounty campaign is very frustrating to bounty hunters. 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 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.
By having KYC how exactly would that be conducive to any bounty program unless it applies to the bounty manager in order to give confidence to bounty participants?
KYC is good at some point like avoiding the scammers but need to be the process of KYC seamless means easy to do. Many ask for Full KYC and that takes really much time. Many ask for the KYC at the end of bounty and main fails to do KYC for their own reason and can't get the reward also. It's good if they announce in the starting. Major scammers, we found in the social media bounty more over the others bounty.
KYC for bounty hunters are very annoying. It's unethical thing in the first place. Why would you announce KYC if the bounty ends has done? This is really pissed off.
That's why Dapps is the future among all the ICO, projects.
in any case, to provide personal data ethical is not difficult. That's just really do not need to annoy users and warn about it in advance. That's why Dapps is the future among all the ICO, projects.
Never, the bounty hunter currently earns so little that it is possible to trade off personal information about someone or an organization on the internet. Because they can get that information and do a lot of things in the world
KYC for bounty hunters are very annoying. It's unethical thing in the first place. Why would you announce KYC if the bounty ends has done? This is really pissed off.
That's why Dapps is the future among all the ICO, projects.
That's why Dapps is the future among all the ICO, projects.
The decision regarding the KYC process for bounty hunters does not only depend on the dev team. This kind of decisions are reviewed by lawyers and project developers, just have to do everything in accordance with the law of the country in which the project is registered.
I think you are giving far too much credit to the ICO market to suggest that lawyers are making decisions regarding KYC. I very much doubt the vast majority of ICOs have even considered the legal challenges of their project, let alone consulted a lawyer about them.
The majority of ICOs are scams, and the few that aren't usually have a completely unprepared and unknowledgeable team behind them that struggle to produce a coherent whitepaper or roadmap. They try to pay everyone in their worthless tokens because they want to spend as little money as possible on their trash project because they know it is likely to fail. There is no way they are going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to have a lawyer look through their project and advise them on the intricacies of KYC requirements for bounty participants.
KYC for bounties is almost always so they can avoid paying or so they can steal your data.
I think that this procedure should be mandatory only for investors. Because participants in the Bounty are usually people who do not invest their money in a project. They are not investors and therefore should not undergo this procedure.
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 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.
The decision regarding the KYC process for bounty hunters does not only depend on the dev team. This kind of decisions are reviewed by lawyers and project developers, just have to do everything in accordance with the law of the country in which the project is registered.
The recurrent fear of one's documents ending up in the wrong hands is the fear of many and the reason a lot bounty hunters stay away from bounties that require KYC to claim tokens. For some, it's better to lose once stakes and tokens to cheats, than losing one's identity to fraudsters who will use it for nefarious activities and the damages caused can take a lot of time to repair.
We all have different sentiment about it, but there are instances that we need to weigh the situation if the company beed to comply on some regulations in their country then we must accept it.
Again, me thinks it's more ethical to let people know from the get go. As a company, you should know the regulations governing your operations and activities before even starting off. So, they should as well include that as part of their prerequisite for joining their public sale or participation in their bounties. But it looks as though these guys deliberately keep that information from bounty hunters and lure them into participation and then they don't have no choice than to do KYC eventually since they must by all means claims their tokens.
I do not perceive KYC as something bad, but on the other hand this year there were a lot of fraudulent projects and many of them required to pass KYC and people sent their personal data. I think it's still very risky.
I would be fine with one KYC provider and one-time verification for all bounties, but that is probably a utopia.
A utopia for hackers.
One KYC provider for all ICOs would have a huge database of people and their information. Given the sheer number of ICO spammers on this forum, I would wager it would be at least in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands.
If you consider the fact that many large and well established crypto exchanges have poor security, and many new exchanges have even worse than that, then I have no doubt a new site ran by some unknown entity to serve mostly scam ICOs would have awful security.
Hundreds of thousands of KYC information coupled with awful security = a perfect target for hackers.
Jump to: