Topic: KYC at end of bounty campaign - page 26. (Read 3299 times)

it is totally unfair , if it was not announced before the campaing begin,then it is breaking the rules. Usually such things do greedy ICO projects...so before you start doing the job do some research about the project and team

I was involved in a bounty by knowledge.io, and after the end of it, they asked for the KYC.
I gave it a thought and decided to go with the verification but their site asks me to verify not only with them but also to a third party named ICOS.
Can I trust this third party with my identity?

Your remarks appear so weak. that for those who enacted the rules, once who participate in their bounty campaign, it is equivalent to signing a contract with them,they must follow the spirit of the contract, can't change at will,which is also the essence of all cryptocurrencies.

KYC - it is important requirement and obligatory for the most regulated ICO.
I think that in the near future all the bounties of normal ICO projects will require identification of the identity - and this will be common process.

I think that major, trustworthy campaigns and projects would never do the thing like this, it often turns to a scam in a similar cases

I'm neutral about KYC, but the fact that this is announced at the end of the company is not right. I agree with you, what you need to warn for earlier or specify initially in the rules. But usually in the rules they write that they have the right to change them in the  company, so we have to put up with it.

However, who will DT those fraudsters？I think this time we need a hero/legendary member that have DT power to stand up and maintain order.

I think the same. It is necessary to announce the passage of the kyc in advance, so that everyone can decide whether he wants to do it or not.

This kind of action is unacceptable and should have a red trust that is given by  the DT. It is a clear fraud because they know if they announce it in the beginning of the campaign, and there will be no participants that will join their campaign.

Just yesterday, a project called BitcoinHomework bounty campaign ended. They asked for bounty participants to provide KYC verification, but just seventeen weeks ago, when their project was just beginning, their bounty managers were Said that bounty participants do not need KYC verification in telegram group.There is no credibility at all！

there are more than 200 countries, not all can regulate crypto. also there are a lot of tax havens so money laundering never stops. I don't expect any regulation in my country for example. don't be so government minded.

KYC is an incredibly important practice that serves as the backbone of global anti-money laundering efforts.I believe that all ICOs in near future will have KYC if not already because regulators that will be in each country

I do not think KYC is required for bounty participants. But if for investors, it's okay to avoid false investors. I think, they will not abuse our identity, if we know that ICO or bounty that has been followed is good, clear and transparent. Moreover, we must be careful before giving our personal identity.

KYC for generosity I think it is not needed , well for investors , but we bounty is meaningless.

KYC is very easy to pass. I think some people could not pass KYC because they used fake information. if you don't like KYC, you can join to bounty campaign which is not requirement KYC, you should research this before joining.
I think KYC is unnecessary for people are participating in bounty programs but it's normal if bounty manager announces it before bounty campaign start.

First, the ICO teams should clearly indicate on the basis of which normative legal act and which country they require in the participants of the generosity campaign to pass the KYC check. I suspect that in most cases such a requirement is an ordinary initiative and they do not have the right to do so. The KYC check is designed to prevent investments in which money laundering will occur. People who do not invest in ICO projects, such as members of the generosity campaign, can not undergo such a check.

Secondly, in order to require us to provide our identification data and copies of documents confirming our identity, at least some individuals of this ICO team must show their documents to us to prove that they are not scammers. In many countries, including in my country of residence, the law on the protection of personal data of citizens has been adopted and only authorized persons, as a rule, of state bodies, can ask for such data, and if certain circumstances exist. Here, in general, there is a paradoxical situation when teams ICO, which according to statistics consist of scammers for 50-80 percent, without presenting to us the evidence that they act under their own name, require us to provide information and copies of documents that are provided in clearly defined law cases and, as a rule, state bodies that guarantee us that our data will not be used by third parties. Here, no one guarantees us anything.

Third, if the ICO team requires us to pass a KYC review at the end of the ICO campaign, this should be clearly indicated in the context of joining the generosity campaign. If it was not indicated, it can be qualified as a usual fraud, that is, taking possession of another's property by deception or abuse of trust. In this case, in the absence of preliminary information on the possibility of conducting a KYC check, the ICO team deprives participants of the campaign of generosity of freedom to choose to provide identification data. If such a person refuses to provide these data, he simply will not be paid the tokens he earned, which is what is calculated in this case. By this time, each participant in the generosity campaign has already indicated how many tokens he has earned and if he refuses to provide his personal data and copies of documents, or for any reason can not do it, then tokens are not paid and are subsequently assigned by the ICO command. This is fraud.

I think that such practice which is carried out by many companies, it is necessary to stop. You can't just change the rules. If you want the members of your company bounty to undergo identity verification, then specify it at the beginning of the company bounty in the rules.

That's becoming a common practice nowadays, we shouldn't be concerned of it so much I think.

It is fair because according to every rules in bounties, campaign managers have the right to change the rules anytime. KYC is good, it was been made in order for the ICO to verify their customers or bounty hunters. KYC is imposed in order to avoid terrorism act or to avoid criminal people.
[/quote]

I agree. And why a normal person who is not a bot should be afraid of KYC? I have nothing to hide. And the company's rules do not take much time.
If it is bad to read the conditions at the beginning of the digging (and this was with me once), then you can get into an unpleasant situation, and the work done turns into an asexeless for you, and not for the company.

some campaign executives are abusing this situation. managers should give early notice. this situation is affecting the confidence negatively.