Topic: KYC at end of bounty campaign - page 18. (Read 3292 times)
This should be announced before the Bounty campaign begins so yes it is not fair
It seems to me that all the debate about the KYC is reduced to a very convenient amendment to the rules of participation in ICO, which sound approximately like this, "we have the right to change the rules at any time."
And you can not do anything about it. Here are two ways out - or just finish with it, or resign yourself and try to keep track of everything, pay more time. In every case there are problems and all of them are solved.
It seems to me that all the debate about the KYC is reduced to a very convenient amendment to the rules of participation in ICO, which sound approximately like this, "we have the right to change the rules at any time."
I think if campaign need kyc they should announce it before ico not when its ends, so basically they are cheating to take more money to themself.
Yeah I think it's not about kyc that makes us more notified to participate bounty campaign but on how we seriously have a positive info in posting bct forum activities.
I completely agree, very convenient way to throw people on money. It's not always possible to keep track of all the news, especially if you simultaneously participate in many ICO
Very comfortably.
And they got the ad for free, and they made another profit on it! If you want to earn money, you have to follow all projects, or limit yourself in quan
I think if campaign need kyc they should announce it before ico not when its ends, so basically they are cheating to take more money to themself.
Yeah I think it's not about kyc that makes us more notified to participate bounty campaign but on how we seriously have a positive info in posting bct forum activities.
I completely agree, very convenient way to throw people on money. It's not always possible to keep track of all the news, especially if you simultaneously participate in many ICO
What do you think about bounty campaigns that announce their KYC check at the end of the campaign? Many bounty hunters simply don't want to do that and the bounty managers or the ICO teams get free promotion for their projects.
Is this fair?
Every bounty thread should clearly state, wether there will be a KYC or not. We should ask the admins for changing the rules regarding this issue.
What do you think?
Is this fair?
Every bounty thread should clearly state, wether there will be a KYC or not. We should ask the admins for changing the rules regarding this issue.
What do you think?
As long as it is stated at the beginning of the campaign I think is fair because people can decide if they want to participate or not. As much as I do like that it will help decrease bounty hunters with multiple accounts, I probably wouldn't participate in a campaign that requires KYC (unless it is an impressive project) because I don't want to give so much info to some random people (even if you do all the research there is still a chance the ICO could be a scam).
Bounty manager should declare if before the bounty starts so that bounty hunters will have an option on joining the said campaign or not. For me, asking KYC when they bounty campaign is over is not fair on the bounty hunter's side.
I don't like icos that change rules at the last minute. Rule does not change after the match begins
The process of requiring documents from members of the company's bounty is not considered normal. If I invest it is normal, know your investor. But here is a completely different situation. And even more so at the end of the company's bounty.
I think KYC is right for those who have to invest and participate in ICOs, but for those who participate in bounty campaigns it should not be required. There is no global regulation that provides for the personal identification of the bounty hunters, it is very sensitive data and therefore I am against this procedure
Yes I think so too. It is not necessary for bounty hunters to participate in KYC. Bounty hunters have been with the project in promoting it, so I believe they have well proven their identity in the very first place.
And if ICOs should include bountu hunters in KYC, they should indicate it in the rules.
A lot of team want kyc from ico participator but now some of them started to want from bounty participator passport or something like that, because they want to see to countries, everything is legal so they must want this informations.
I think KYC is right for those who have to invest and participate in ICOs, but for those who participate in bounty campaigns it should not be required. There is no global regulation that provides for the personal identification of the bounty hunters, it is very sensitive data and therefore I am against this procedure
If KYC was never mentioned and then required it could be one of two things: an incompetent bounty manager, or an incompetent ICO organizer who never told the bounty manager (or didn't know) that KYC would be needed. I value my internet privacy a lot: I value not getting my identity stolen so I just don't feel comfortable doing KYC!
So what do we do? If the bounty manager just didn't bother to mention the KYC then of course I would never use them again and perhaps give them a bad rating in the bounty manager threads.
If it was the retarded ICO folks who do this at the last moment? That is a tougher decision. I would expect an apology from the bounty manager and some attempt to make it right rather than an 'oh well'. Complete bullshit if this ever happens.
Not only on those 2 scenarios but rather the 3rd one would be just "Intentional" because management would really saw that there would lots of bounty hunters would back-out due to that such changes or KYC process because most of us here wont really like that process for the sake of anonymity. Ive seen these kind of bounty programs which they dont even tend to announce it from the start and when the campaign ends they do already require such thing this is why as a participant it would be your risk to choose up if you would proceed or not. So what do we do? If the bounty manager just didn't bother to mention the KYC then of course I would never use them again and perhaps give them a bad rating in the bounty manager threads.
If it was the retarded ICO folks who do this at the last moment? That is a tougher decision. I would expect an apology from the bounty manager and some attempt to make it right rather than an 'oh well'. Complete bullshit if this ever happens.
I agree. I do not like campaigns that did not initially indicate the KYC requirement. I no longer participate in the bounty of such managers.
The passage of KYS kills the very principle of decentralization as such. I agree that soon it will be practically the norm. But before carrying out the Bounty Company, it is necessary to report this, and not to put people before the fact of KYS at the last moment after the work done.
I'd not participate in any bounty when there's needed KYC. But when they announce the KYC at the end of the bounty, I think that I will do it. Because you've invested your time in it..
I don't think if there is anything wrong with the inclusion f KYC in the bounty campaign. If the hunters are genuine in their activities then i see nothing wrong with filling the KYC forms, it just enhances trust between the hunters and the campaign managers
I think KYC is good thing for actual bounty hunter, Bounty Manager or company have to right to know your coustmor KYC.If you are a genuine bounty hunter then why are you worried for submitting KYC. in my views KYC at the end of bounty is best way to stop rewarding to fake spamers.
Actually there is a positive thing to give KYC to bounty hunter in a campaign. Because now more and more cheats in bounty. So maybe by giving KYC it makes the fraudsters can not follow the bounty. I agree if a campaign is given KYC.
I dont like to do KYC,too. But if you read the rules, then you will see that they have the right to change the rules. You have to leave the project if you dont want to do KYC. Thats the risk you have to take .
Jump to: