That is why there is a proposal to pay bounty hunters not in tokens or coins of the project, in whose bounty company bounty hunters participate, but in Bitcoin or Ethereum or in some stable coin. In addition, it would remove the unnecessary talk that it causes a price dump. This has been discussed many times, but everyone prefers to turn a blind eye to this issue.
Topic: The misunderstandings in KYC (know your customer) - page 5. (Read 832 times)
i don't disagree with KYC verification if needed but the problem is sometimes the ICO owner is asking KYC after the bounty campaign which is very unfair for the bounty participants because not all of them have the required documents. my point is KYC must always indicate at the start of the campaign so bounty hunters will have the option if they will join or not.
One way or the other you are right, every project comes with it own rules and intentions and what they think its safe and secured for them. KYC if necessary only the project could tell so just conform to it. I always say if you have nothing to hide why the worry.
You do not understand the essence of KYC verification. This check is carried out to prevent cases of money laundering and to combat the financing of terrorism. The ICO teams themselves do not do this. They receive information and hold it for a certain time in case the relevant state bodies turn to them for the necessary information. ICO teams actually do not need this information. What difference does it make for them whether a citizen of one or another country will have their token? If this absurdity with the passage of the KYC test develops, then it will be possible to install KYC checks in all outlets. Imagine, you go to one store to buy cigarettes or juice, and you are told, pass before this check KYC. Fill out forms, attach copies of your passports, certificates of residence, and so on. Come after this to another store - the same thing. Do you think this will be normal?
One should not confuse the state program of combating crimes and the simple, unjustified interest of ICO teams to our confidential data.
One should not confuse the state program of combating crimes and the simple, unjustified interest of ICO teams to our confidential data.
I like the idea that you presented. I for one, doesn't like to go this kyc process and sometimes before that, you need to download their app and complete the kyc on that app. That's really absurd. Some apps are not really useful in your daily life so why force a user to download one and then be inactive afterwards? And yet, we don't know where will they use those collected info, and if that ICO project is really legit.
I do not think that the KYC procedure was introduced for this purpose. It was just a forced measure to get rid of a large number of scams and multi-accounts that participated in the bounty. And as we can see now almost every project requires to go through this procedure.
I am not a supporter of KYC not for bounty hunters not for investors. After all, there was a time when ICO was held without indefication of the identity of the coin owners and everything worked. And now this KYC is imposed under various beautiful pretexts. But think about the security of personal data, in whose hands may be your personal information and how it can be applied later.
I personally don't think the information they require from bounty hunters, some passport etc, match up with the tokens they give. What I mean is, it is absolutely not necessary since these information/ data they collect all in the name of kyc can get into the hands of wrong people
What I believe the reason for KYC is , is to avoid double standard. That is to represent yourself twice like cheating the ICO. They introduced it in bounty campaign to avoid alternative accounts
However, ICO announcing kyc after campaign is bad.
I believe that is the most reason for most exchanges and ICOs, though development can't really stop those cheaters if they don't do anything such as KYC verification that's why it exists in most ICOs these days. And i also agree to those ICOs that changing rules after the campaign is not that good because they never consider someone that doesn't like KYC at all. However, ICO announcing kyc after campaign is bad.
Kyc certainly has advantages and disadvantages and we all know them, but i do not send my personal data to any stranger. Everyone just has to decide for themselves whether they trust a project with their data or not. Even though i am not a bounty cheater, i still do not entrust anyone i do not know with my personal information. That has always been so and i will not change in the future.
there are many people who hate KYC for various reasons which in my opinion do not make sense, actually KYC is very useful for reducing fraud committed by some bounty hunters by using multiple accounts in one campaign so that for cheating participants they can only claim one account and This is very beneficial for bounty participants because the allocation for bounty is not reduced because it is sent to participants who commit fraud
The only difference is that the investors invested their cash and you invested your time and both of you holds the same token and shares equal rights. So if you say that you can't pass through kyc because you are a hunter, then you are the cheater
But how about ICO's not telling bounty hunters in the beginning that they need to go to a full KYC before the rewards are given, do you think it's fair?
Maybe there are hunters who really doesn't want give their identify in the first place. Crypto is supposed to be psuedo-anonymous. If ICO doesn't want cheater to their campaign then they should do a good job filtering all the candidates and hiring those who they think are legit.
I am wondering what the OP has to say about projects giving utility tokens as rewards. Where owning such does not give hunters equity shares or voting rights but are still required to go through KYC.
Refusing to give out your personal information does not necessarily mean you are a cheater. Burn that in your brain.
Refusing to give out your personal information does not necessarily mean you are a cheater. Burn that in your brain.
KYC is not available bad thing for bounty hunters actually. But, maybe most of bounty hunters haven't had any personal identity card yet that's why they are concern about that. Or maybe most bounty hunters using multi-account that make the can't receive any payment because they muat pass kyc proccess.
In my opinion, KYC is not a problem because it has good goals. Using KYC procedures for fraudsters can be removed. But what made me a little disappointed with the KYC procedure was that the projects they were running were not all successful.
I think we all need to forget about kyc stuff and I also believe that most bounty managers see these every day and most of them these days are abiding to people complain buy introducing kyc before any bounty and probably sated on the bounty you are about to participate into.
For me kyc must be given only to investors because or given a special way to make kyc, differentiated kyc for hunters and kyc for investors so that all can provide convenience ..
I have never objected to KYC verification, but if possible, of course I would prefer not to provide my personal data because in addition to privacy issues, KYC requirements are sometimes also difficult because there are several projects that require participants to provide personal data in the form of actual passports not everyone has it
I have heard a lot about this problem, in fact, they have requested or ordered the KYC for those who are whales, or who buy large quantities, some of those who work in the campaigns, want to maintain their anonymity, because they do it. By not wanting their data to reach different agencies and follow up, the KYC problem can start to be handled from a general point of view and, from an intrinsic point of view of the project, is giving a lot of talk, in the projects in which it is. It is convenient that its users have KYC to verify the authenticity and with that reduce the frauds.
You do have a point which I think is not valid enough, although for both bounty and investors to participate in kyc is not a wrong thing but, it's more important for the investors as far as they're the real customers here concerning the word itself, bounty hunters are just workers who work for the project and get paid for what they're told to do not necessarily to your customers, you have to think of the difference there.
IMO, I think KYC is needed for both ICO project and bounty campaign. You guys also know that almost ICO projects at the moment don't allow investors come from US or few countries to invest in their projects that why they have to know their customers identity to make sure that they're not come from countries which banned. Beside KYC is also a good way to avoid cheaters ruin bounty campaign.
Jump to: