imusify bounty - KYC required after bounty scam

[casperBGD]

i thought over was this a scam or my mistake, but do think that this behavior is scam

in bounty thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105001.0 was not listed that KYC is needed, even now, when the bounty is ended, on the thread there is no details that KYC is required

i have done Blog bounty, and was on position 163 in the spreadsheet, final sheet has only 48 approved participants for article/blog bounty, than means at least third is rejected because of KYC, which is a large number, and this is because KYC is poorly communicated at the end of the bounty, which is changing rules, and scam to participants that done their work

there is a bunch of people on their telegram group claiming the same

[fortunecrypto]

i thought over was this a scam or my mistake, but do think that this behavior is scam

in bounty thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5105001.0 was not listed that KYC is needed, even now, when the bounty is ended, on the thread there is no details that KYC is required

i have done Blog bounty, and was on position 163 in the spreadsheet, final sheet has only 48 approved participants for article/blog bounty, than means at least third is rejected because of KYC, which is a large number, and this is because KYC is poorly communicated at the end of the bounty, which is changing rules, and scam to participants that done their work

there is a bunch of people on their telegram group claiming the same

So many ICO's are like that, they know that most of bounty participants do not like KYC and they rather leave the campaign or do not bother to get the stakes, sometimes they do it intentionally like what you said, they almost don't want to pay their bounty hunters, they are delaying it, locking it and do whatever so they will not distribute it to bounty hunters.

[casperBGD]

yes, i am aware of that fact that most of bounties are looking for KYC, which i do not see as a problem
here is the issue that it was not stated before the bounty, it is stated later and on telegram group, poorly distributed

regarding bounty reward, i do not mind, most of projects that do not take their hunters seriously, will not take their consumers and users seriously as well, and chances to establish a viable project with that vision are small, if existing

[TECSHARE]

Show me documentation of the work you did for them, and open a trust flag, and I will support it. If the terms are not disclosed before hand this is absolutely fraud.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Show me documentation of the work you did for them, and open a trust flag, and I will support it. If the terms are not disclosed before hand this is absolutely fraud.

I'll support a flag for this as well, provided that the KYC terms really weren't disclosed beforehand--and without even having looked at the thread, I'll betcha this is exactly the case.  It's the second time I've seen this happen, and there probably have been and/or will be other cases like this.

Given that OP started the thread days ago, I'm assuming he doesn't quite understand the flag system or doesn't care enough to create a flag.  OP, don't just start a thread whining about something like this and walk away from it.  Those fuckers deserve a flag if what you say is true, so if you're not going to do it, find another member who got screwed and knows the trust system here and have them flag these morons.  It doesn't help anyone when you just sit there and let yourself get violated in whatever hole these projects choose.  Are you a man or a mouse?

[Patatas]

Create a flag and I'll support it. I find it absolutely unnecessary for the bounty participants to do any KYC for a shitcoin. The only outcome is you revealing your personal information which can be sold/used/faked for pulling other scams. I wouldn't be saying the same if the KYC requirements were mentioned since the day-1 of bounty.

[rhomelmabini]

Show me documentation of the work you did for them, and open a trust flag, and I will support it. If the terms are not disclosed before hand this is absolutely fraud.

I second this one as well. Please contact members been affected by this I'm pretty sure you're that huge.

Base on the spreadsheet of imusify it clearly shows that many has been wiped out because of KYC. If you'll see the bounty thread as well it has been edited last 15th of June and it might be that day they changed their rules.

[TECSHARE]

Show me documentation of the work you did for them, and open a trust flag, and I will support it. If the terms are not disclosed before hand this is absolutely fraud.

I'll support a flag for this as well, provided that the KYC terms really weren't disclosed beforehand--and without even having looked at the thread, I'll betcha this is exactly the case.  It's the second time I've seen this happen, and there probably have been and/or will be other cases like this.

Given that OP started the thread days ago, I'm assuming he doesn't quite understand the flag system or doesn't care enough to create a flag.  OP, don't just start a thread whining about something like this and walk away from it.  Those fuckers deserve a flag if what you say is true, so if you're not going to do it, find another member who got screwed and knows the trust system here and have them flag these morons.  It doesn't help anyone when you just sit there and let yourself get violated in whatever hole these projects choose.  Are you a man or a mouse?

This is an old tactic, one in use since the days of Mt. Gox. They pulled this same scam one day just enforcing KYC without notice and locking those who refused to ID out from their funds, which conveniently got to stay as part of their bottom line. This is a very old scam and should not be tolerated just because it is done under color of law. If this is a requirement it needs to be explicitly stated beforehand, not after people come to claim payment for their work so you can make excuses to stiff them and just make the excuse you are just following the law.

[casperBGD]

here is the proof of the work, it was a blog bounty:
https://golos.io/blockchain/@casperbgd/imusify

i raised a flag, with this topic as a proof, i saw that they now changed their bounty thread, to include sentence regarding KYC procedure, it was not there in the beginning
here is a link to google spreadsheet with participants
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tLjkznfiyXx6qppLFPL_XDFU5nn2WHsl0wpprrURKHY/edit#gid=2146982639

there was 559 entries, and only 48 approved after KYC

[rhomelmabini]

Seems you forgot to add the link with your flag for imusify. To the awareness of anyone and wants to support the flag this is the link to it https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=305

Now is to get some more support especially on the DTs.

[TECSHARE]

here is the proof of the work, it was a blog bounty:
https://golos.io/blockchain/@casperbgd/imusify

i raised a flag, with this topic as a proof, i saw that they now changed their bounty thread, to include sentence regarding KYC procedure, it was not there in the beginning
here is a link to google spreadsheet with participants
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tLjkznfiyXx6qppLFPL_XDFU5nn2WHsl0wpprrURKHY/edit#gid=2146982639

there was 559 entries, and only 48 approved after KYC

Seems you forgot to add the link with your flag for imusify. To the awareness of anyone and wants to support the flag this is the link to it https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=305

Now is to get some more support especially on the DTs.

Supported.

EDIT: rescinded until further information is presented

[nutildah]

i raised a flag, with this topic as a proof, i saw that they now changed their bounty thread, to include sentence regarding KYC procedure, it was not there in the beginning

Here's the problem:

Unless you can find an archived copy of the thread saying KYC isn't required, I can't support it, as the Telegram bounty group stated KYC was required for bounties since day 1 (Feb 2nd).



You might be correct that they changed it and it was their job to have it clearly stated from the beginning, so I'm not opposing it either. But it would be helpful if there was more proof the Bitcointalk thread didn't originally state it.

[TECSHARE]

i raised a flag, with this topic as a proof, i saw that they now changed their bounty thread, to include sentence regarding KYC procedure, it was not there in the beginning

Here's the problem:

Unless you can find an archived copy of the thread saying KYC isn't required, I can't support it, as the Telegram bounty group stated KYC was required for bounties since day 1 (Feb 2nd).



You might be correct that they changed it and it was their job to have it clearly stated from the beginning, so I'm not opposing it either. But it would be helpful if there was more proof the Bitcointalk thread didn't originally state it.

That doesn't appear to me to be a clear statement that KYC is required to claim bounties. I do agree with your argument though that we need further verification regarding the alleged thread edit. Perhaps a moderator can look at the change log of the thread edits and let us know.

On closer examination of the thread I see the terms "imusify reserves the right to change these terms or rules any time,". If this was present from day one, the debate over the KYC edits would be moot. The terms and conditions linked seem to be pretty thorough as well. This is another thing which if posted from day one would invalidate this claim. Unfortunately for now I am going to have to rescind my support unless or until a moderator can validate that these were all added later. I still think this is shady behavior either way not making it very clear, but they may have technically provided notice.

[TalkStar]

Unless you can find an archived copy of the thread saying KYC isn't required, I can't support it, as the Telegram bounty group stated KYC was required for bounties since day 1 (Feb 2nd).

You are right. To submit support on flag we need to be clear about their KYC requirement announcement. An archived link can make it much clear o everyone but i don't think that bounty competitors were so much careful at the starting time to feel it necessary to archive

On closer examination of the thread I see the terms "imusify reserves the right to change these terms or rules any time,". If this was present from day one, the debate over the KYC edits would be moot.

Yeah its another good point which can help us to take proper decision against them. I hope one of our Mods response on this issue could bring a solution.