Topic: Is KYC For Bounty Hunters Good? Lets Share Our Views! - page 9. (Read 2218 times)
By applying KYC to a bounty hunter is a very good one, because that show how serious of the work and also a very good to be implemented before starting registration, Secondly KYC is simply know as Know Your Customer and is very simple and easy to register, Finally KYC gives the actual account of number participate.
KYC helps bounty managers cut out unscrupulous bounty hunters and thus reduce their costs of working with members.
If the ICO project can provide us with their KYC to prove the authenticity of the project, then I am very willing to participate in projects that need to provide their own privacy. I think this is fair.
kyc for bounty hunter is not good and i am not in favor. it is hard to find out if an ico is serious, so i do not want to give out my data. i prefer to forgo a bounty campaign when she calls kyc.
In my opinion, KYC is not required for Bounty hunters because they do not invest real money, so there is no need to check their identity.
As a rule, after passing KYC, bounty hunters do not provide tokens to those who did not pass KYC.
It's absolutely brutally bad to ask of kyc for bounty Hunter. Who knows where the documents are gonna end up with . The team should Inform prior hand if such a need exists so we can decide to participate or not .
In my own opinion , requiring KYC for bounty hunters is not a good idea, for the reason that the bounty hunters are the number one source of promoting the project will to the social media and public audience. If the management will require KYC for them then many other bounty hunters will not be verified if the don't have enough validations and it can cause to reduce the number of promoters of the project/s.
I consider introducing a KYC check at the end of the ICO or after it is completed, I consider it just an ordinary fraud by the ICO team. Already during this period, such a check can only be carried out with the aim of not paying the maximum part to bounty hunters of the tokens they earned. Some may not provide such copies of documents, which are sometimes required during such an inspection. For example, I live now at the place of my registration and I cannot submit relevant documents confirming my residence at the place of registration. I do not violate any laws of my country. At the same time, I first work on advertising the ICO project and in the end I get paid nothing for my work. Terms of the agreement to pay for work should always be first, before the work itself, so that I have the right to choose. Otherwise, it's just a hoax.
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.
Announcing KYC submission requirement at the end of the bounty is actually an unethical thing to do. If they wanted users to fill the KYC form, they should have been warned before the users join. Some users like to stay anonymous and hesitates to share their identity online. So, legit bounty hunters like them might end up suffering. Again, those project that turns out to be scam, might also scam your identity by selling it at the black market. KYC has both its advantage and disadvantage. 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 agree with you. I'm one of those who want to stay anonymous. It would be fine if the project is legit but how if the project turned out to be scam like you said? I've read a reddit post about scam project selling the KYC data on the dark web even the price will be jumped if they have passport scan. If the purpose of KYC is to reduce the scammers, i think proof of authentification is enough.
Some Bounty projects provide KYC procedures for Bounty participants. However, there are many people who think positively and negatively. I personally see KYC is very good because I also got a payment. In fact, many fraud participants are reduced.
KYC for bounty hunters doesn't seem too good because maybe your data and identity are not anonymous anymore and there will be people who will know and have your identity, it's very dangerous.
for the bounty hunter, KYC can be bad things like abused in identity theft. even the system of KYC should not also apply to the bounty hunter because they basically are not the customers who become a funny thing if they set this thing let alone the KYC is informed when a bounty is finished and you want to do payment. of course, inevitably bounty hunter resigned to give for the sake of payment obtained.
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.
To be honest, you made some good points here, Many ICOs will wait until the end before telling the hunters that there will be KYC, whereas any body that is unable to complete KYC or refuses to go through KYC, they project will collect those token.
In this several months most of the ICOs are not required KYC because they have notice that many bounty hunters are not paticipating there bounty campaign and your probably right those bounty hunters are not complete their KYC their token will goes to the who are holding the project.
if the process is easy, I will like it. but the fact is that the process of cyc is very difficult, even though it has entered the correct data and documents, the rules are also followed correctly. so that's all that needs to be fixed.
I do not like this procedure, not because I hide something, but because it is not safe to share my documents due to dubious profits. There are no guarantees that my documents will be safe in the future, and this is alarming.
I believe that this verification is in fact vital, as it gives us the opportunity to minimize the number of scammers in bounty programs.
in my own opinion the kyc (know you custome) is a great verification process that can ensure the safety of every individual,
through this all bounty hunters are in the good hands.
through this all bounty hunters are in the good hands.
If KYC is needed by those to whom I trust, then I will gladly do it, but often the project turns out to be a scam, and our data is sold in the darknet.
Of course, for scam projects, Our data will be sold everywhere. With the airdrop required kyc like today, surely 100% of those projects are scam and are trying to steal our information, and only a few bounty is required KYC and I see most of them are legit
If KYC is needed by those to whom I trust, then I will gladly do it, but often the project turns out to be a scam, and our data is sold in the darknet.
Jump to: