Topic: KYC for ICO buyers and bounty hunters? Better KYC for ICO & Bounties issuers! - page 2. (Read 462 times)
February 25, 2018, 01:46:13 PM
Not necessary for the bounty hunters because the SEC regulations prohibits people from U.S of joining any of these ICOS because most of these projects are potential scams,Bounty hunters are only promoting these ICOs so more people would invest to the project,they are being rewarded after the ICO sales has ended,so why would any bounty campaigns will require KYC? answer would be because they dont want you to have your stakes.
February 25, 2018, 12:13:49 PM
Who will explain to me that in the end you will solve the process of know your customer? What in the end? Well, will you see a man in the eyes? And how do you know if he really shows you these documents? After all, this process should identify fraudsters? But in this way, this process only abducts and creates a large database of people who are related to crypto-currencies.
February 25, 2018, 12:08:59 PM
In my side, I guess if they pursue to implement KYC to Bounty Hunters, maybe the Managers of that specific ICO project should make a documents like KYC, for example KTD ( KNOW THE DEVELOPER) (my opinion) just to make fairness from hunters - investors- developer.
February 25, 2018, 11:31:06 AM
KYC is very irritating, over all when it's unilateral and they ask for it at the end of a campaign.
But you know, they make the rules...
But you know, they make the rules...
February 25, 2018, 05:05:02 AM
I think when it comes to ico token projects, you need to forget about your anonymity because now tokens are the assets of young blockchain companies as stock. I believe that KYC is required, because then the ico start-UPS will have fewer problems with the law. IMHO
February 25, 2018, 05:00:11 AM
YEs! if the company wants to know about the real identity of the investors, Investors should too be able to know whom they are trusting their hard earned money (and time).
February 25, 2018, 04:55:51 AM
In my OP I am speaking of "rumors" that bounty hunters may be asked to undergo a KYC to be able to receive bounties, but this is actually already a fact. I've got to know that for example the Live Stars campaign, after having run for SIX months and finally completed their ICO, has suddenly required their bounty hunters to undergo a KYC if they want to see their money. This is very clearly an abuse, since this was not stated in the OP rules the bounty hunters had agreed upon and now people who have promoted them for six months have to stand the blackmailing of revealing their identity or getting stolen their deserved money. This is especially bad since the Live Stars project is about sex and pornography, and for obvious reasons people may well wish not to be "officially" involved with that. In some countries it may even be forbidden to have anything to do with that. With such a "rule" coming out of the blue in the last minute, the Live Stars team may well succeed in stealing the money of many of the bounty hunters who have promoted them for half a year, at the same time keeping an aura of pseudo-legitimacy, since mainstream brainwashing has given to the concept of KYC a layer of sacrality.
February 23, 2018, 09:49:27 PM
I think KYC would protect investors as well as bounty hunters to illegal or fraud ICOs. Because whos icos would make additional work of getting information to his investors if the fraud /scam ICO just want to take money out of the pocket of anyone.
February 23, 2018, 07:38:32 PM
KYC isnt a good idea for the bounty hunters because we are just promoting the ICO itself,we are not making any investments from it.KYC are being use to detect those people who are abusing the ICOs,and these ICOs are doing these verifications to protect themselves fromt he SEC's regulation because if they didnt comply they will get sued by the SEC especially when U.S citizens have joined their ICO which is prohibited in the U.S.
As far as the law is concerned, KYC will not be implemented if only SEC rules doesn't get on the way.
I don't see any sense that bounty hunters should also be put on KYC since they aren't investors. Let's watch how this KYC thing will be more bloom on ICO industry. Right now, majority of new ICOS are requiring KYC for their investors.
February 23, 2018, 07:34:28 PM
"Crypto" it's from ancient greek, and it means "hidden".
So, to take off anonymity to something "hidden" is a contradiction. Of course the power will try everything to connect cryptoaccouts to people, so we need to act very carfully.
So, to take off anonymity to something "hidden" is a contradiction. Of course the power will try everything to connect cryptoaccouts to people, so we need to act very carfully.
I guess this will be the endgame of the powerful circles, every wallet of every cryptocurrency linked to a phisical person, by law, and perhaps even by Windows. I would not be surprised if the next release of Windows would do that automatically, continuously scanning the PC for wallets and linking them to the owner of the Window license.
February 23, 2018, 04:20:51 PM
The rise of KYC in ICOs is inevitable and will only increase. You will see almost no legitimate ICOs without KYC in the future and that already is mostly the case.
As far as bounties go, it is very difficult to be part of bounty if you are from the US or China these days. You will constantly lose bounties that do a surprise KYC for bounty hunters at the end of the project. While giving someone my personal info does bother me, the main problem I have is that so many projects do not announce their intentions ahead of time. I understand they want to limit bots and multi account and KYC is a great way to do that, however it is totally unfair to put in so much effort and then not receive anything because you don't feel like sending your passport to some random company for like .001/btc worth of tokens.
As far as bounties go, it is very difficult to be part of bounty if you are from the US or China these days. You will constantly lose bounties that do a surprise KYC for bounty hunters at the end of the project. While giving someone my personal info does bother me, the main problem I have is that so many projects do not announce their intentions ahead of time. I understand they want to limit bots and multi account and KYC is a great way to do that, however it is totally unfair to put in so much effort and then not receive anything because you don't feel like sending your passport to some random company for like .001/btc worth of tokens.
February 23, 2018, 04:12:05 PM
The tendence is rising to legally impose a KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure to people willing to buy tokens at an ICO. At the same time there have been rumors a KYC possibly to be imposed also to bounty hunters taking part to bounty campaigns. Polymath has already imposed a KYC procedure to anyone willing to receive its airdrop.
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/important-update-c-15-bitcoins-to-share-bounty-thread-2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/important-update-c-15-bitcoins-to-share-bounty-thread-2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?
Now a lot of bounty hunters have been asking the reason why KYC is necessary . I believe that as long as bounty hunters are not scammers, they should share their information because they are also part of a project even though they don't pay any amount of money. Regulations are hard on ICOs that don't perform KYC so bounty hunters should be ready to fill many KYC
February 23, 2018, 03:41:00 PM
The problem is that when investing in an ICO project, almost everyone needs to go through KYC. We can not give them our data, but what remains for us? Projects dictate their own rules and have the right to change them in the course of behavior at any time. I believe that investors need some sort of guarantee ...
February 23, 2018, 03:29:25 PM
KYC isnt a good idea for the bounty hunters because we are just promoting the ICO itself,we are not making any investments from it.KYC are being use to detect those people who are abusing the ICOs,and these ICOs are doing these verifications to protect themselves fromt he SEC's regulation because if they didnt comply they will get sued by the SEC especially when U.S citizens have joined their ICO which is prohibited in the U.S.
February 23, 2018, 03:17:27 PM
I can't really understand the KYC procedure for bounty hunters. It's related to money laundering and anti terrorist activities. Since, no one making any deposit to bounty programs its totaly unneccessary. Some of them says it's for preventing multi-acc submission to bounties but it not that hard to find multiple identities.
February 23, 2018, 03:12:33 PM
Like it or not, we need a more controlled place to move. We want freedom, but - when someone scams us and we don't have an authority to complain with - we understand that freedom can be abused.
Actually, it seems to me correct that - if someone asks for my ID - I have the right to ask for HIS ID.
Actually, it seems to me correct that - if someone asks for my ID - I have the right to ask for HIS ID.
February 23, 2018, 01:05:02 PM
I fully agree with you, the projects team who is raising funds for their projects should be more transparent by providing their ids this will not only legalise the projects but also give more confidence to investors to invest big amounts.
February 23, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
"Crypto" it's from ancient greek, and it means "hidden".
So, to take off anonymity to something "hidden" is a contradiction. Of course the power will try everything to connect cryptoaccouts to people, so we need to act very carfully.
So, to take off anonymity to something "hidden" is a contradiction. Of course the power will try everything to connect cryptoaccouts to people, so we need to act very carfully.
February 22, 2018, 01:09:33 PM
The tendence is rising to legally impose a KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure to people willing to buy tokens at an ICO. At the same time there have been rumors a KYC possibly to be imposed also to bounty hunters taking part to bounty campaigns. Polymath has already imposed a KYC procedure to anyone willing to receive its airdrop.
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/important-update-c-15-bitcoins-to-share-bounty-thread-2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/important-update-c-15-bitcoins-to-share-bounty-thread-2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?
The KYC for Bounty Hunters will pretty much ruin the very meaning and intention of the crypto currencies. We will slowly go to a place when there won't be any differences between Crypto or Centralized money...
February 22, 2018, 01:01:12 PM
KYC for ICO bounty hunters - and much in airdrops - is just a lazy way to verify that no one uses multiple accounts.
(actually no a so efficient way: you can make plenty of passports with photoshop, I don't think they can check their authenticity... )
Btw, it's normal that the market will be more and more regulated, so it's better to accept this fact.
(actually no a so efficient way: you can make plenty of passports with photoshop, I don't think they can check their authenticity... )
Btw, it's normal that the market will be more and more regulated, so it's better to accept this fact.
I agree, there are smarter ways to verify things like that. And most of simple verifications with KYC can be easily forged with photoshopped IDs. However, there are also very accurate KYCs done with live operators who watch at you holding your document in a webcam which are more difficutl to cheat. This is just a technical remark. Going to the issue, I am against this nowadays obsession of identifying everyone. In a just society that would be good. But in an orwellian society like ours is becoming more and more, you never know how that information can at some point be used against you.
Jump to: