Bitcoin Forum

Recently, more and more arguments have arisen that ICO generosity campaign participants really need to be tested by KYC in order for ICO teams to provide information that their tokens are distributed to specific people. In my opinion, this generally sounds like something stupid. Who and why should the ICO team provide such data? Tokens are not much different from any other product, and stating that merchants need to know who they are selling is stupid.
You welcome the situation when we go into the store and in order to purchase any product and we will be asked to first fill out a special form with your confidential data? Do you think that this is different from the situation with cryptocurrency?

Yes, the situation with checking KYC begins to reach the point of absurdity. Such verification is still justified for investors, especially those who invest heavily in ICO projects. However, for ICO generosity campaigners, who receive a small amount of free tokens for their services to promote the ICO project, KYC is in any case redundant.
This situation really resembles the purchase of goods in a trading company and it looks quite funny.

I believe that KYC requirement is mainly for protection of project founders from existing or future government regulations. Many ICOs originally never planned to require KYC from generosity campaigners but have to change rules for the same reason I already stated.

There are multiple causes for this ...

1. Some legit ICOs can use KYC to reduce the number of fake accounts trying to benefit their "generosity".
2. Some not-sure-if-legit-probably-no will sell the KYC info to the highest bidder.
3. Some bounty managers may use KYC to not pay for some work done.

All in all, since the ICO/bounty/airdrop is made my people you don't know and you are not sure about their intentions, it's safer to not give out your info so easy, since you may have nasty surprises later on.
Even if you'll lose a couple of easy bucks because of that.

you have to ask yourself this: are they regulated?

the answer is simply NO.
they are running a token in an unregulated market, using a payment method with tokens and cryptocurrencies that are not regulated and they don't have a legitimate business either. and to top it all the method they are using (ICO) is not legal in most places in the world and is not regulated in anywhere.
so with all that not-regulated status why would they only choose one part of regulation which is KYC?

for a while ago, KYC was unnecessary and sounded stupid if it was implemented into ICO, it only worsened sales, but for now, seeing a lot of ICOs with poor quality levels, I think KYC is one of the determinants, is ICO good or bad quality, because ICO with good quality, it needs to do a good security system with KYC

I'm honestly against KYC because it defeats the whole purpose of cryptocurrencies and anonymity. I understand the need of asking users for identity while investing because they have to comply with laws and regulations of their country but while participating in Bounties and airdrops? this sounds ridiculous and looks more like an attempt to collect and sell user's data.

This is not stupid. There are some reasons for that

Because of their own benefit:

Because of legitimacy:
Some projects are placed in countries not accepting cryptocurrency. Or they are trying to get away from investors coming from restricted countries.

Because of Anti Money Laundering (AML), I think this is the main reason of almost KYC requirement. Because of the anonymity of cryptocurrency, they are worried that they will be involved in unlawful events. Do you want to be caught by interpol while you are deploying your project?

To participate in an ICO, maybe KYC will be needed as some countries don't allow their people to engage in such trade but for bounty participants it is sad to note that team are doing this maybe because they want to catch cheaters and not to know where their token will go to.

The idea is KYC for investors to me is not a bad idea but bringing bounty hunters into this is what i fo not agree with.This KYC of a thing is now been used to take people data for negative purpose.

I am very uncomfortable in KYC requirements that require every investor to provide personal data. Whatever reason they give, I still disagree and will leave the ICO that has KYC requirements for its investors.

yes right, it's very suspicious, it's better to ask first than regret later on, if it really doesn't make sense, indeed there must be clarification before you submit your personal data

When you encounter projects like this that requires you to give out your KYC for in return for a coin. Seriously, get out on it. Do not intend to give your information on that easy. Protect you privacy with big confidentiality. Because it might be used so some cyber attacks.

the very procedure of confirming that you are not a bot is good
but it’s also unpleasant enough for me to share my personal data with anyone, not with a specific person, but with the team and where this data can go further - it’s not clear
she is imperfect and risky
I think that you need to identify yourself, but you need an alternative and more confidential way

      Your thoughts are very specific and understandable , I highly appreciate to this , so KYC  requirement should  be included of the rules in the very bigenning and not included to their rights to change the rules , just to be fair and have the option either to join or not , after all we will be forced to render just to claim our tokens .

in my opinion, KYC is good for people who want to buy an ICO coin. because with the presence of KYC the ICO team can see someone's identity that is clear with their origin. thus the ICO team can monitor customer transaction activities.

ICO collects KYC's data information for submission in future supervision. They want to be exempt from regulation. Make ICO look legal. But I don't think it's necessary at all.

KYC verification is aimed at not restricting the use of multiple accounts in ICO signature campaigns. For ICO teams, it doesn’t matter how many accounts you use, just to write high-quality messages with their advertising for the ICO project. The requirement to have one account is more the rules of this forum, which in their conditions are forced to duplicate the joining of the ICO team.
The KYC check is used to prevent the possibility of laundering dirty money and cannot be used against bounty hunters.
 Therefore, if a KYC check is carried out at the end of the ICO, then it is only with a fraudulent purpose not to pay the earned tokens to the bounty hunters.

It depends actually on the ICO youve joined in or youre invested in. It is good to have kyc for the ICO or managers to know who are really their customers or participants if theyre not bot or anyelse. Just so to know what are their intention. To earn greedily or to earn but honest. Its a matter of equality also.

The KYC check for participants in the ICO generosity campaign is a very convenient reason not to pay bounty tokens to bounty hunters. Such a test does not require any state for bounty hunters; restrictions on participation in the ICO campaign of citizens of the United States and China are imposed only on those who invest their money in ICO projects. There are no restrictions for those promoting these projects.
The ICO teams abuse this right, applying it for selfish purposes against bounty hunters.

I generally treat the KYC procedure very negatively. cryptocurrency is originally designed to be anonymous, and here we are must to send all our data. Even the residential address is now needed in order to receive your tokens. it is completely wrong

While I do not personally agree on bounty or airdrop hunters being required to pass KYC, I also understand the reason for doing so. We all know that there are some who will always try to abuse these campaigns just to get more bounty rewards.

I think you're absolutely right. KYC for bounty hunters is a sign of dishonesty of the project.

Yes, this is to eliminate the chance of same participant receiving more reward than others by multiple entry. But I think that the best is that the kyc should be done at the beginning of the project.

me too  i was wondering about this uprising issue and i really dont know why this KYC is introduced to the policy of this newly uprising icos they should really think about that because so many participants appose this policy.

I am sure you aren't happy with the new system and many bounty hunters aren't happy either with it, i discover majority of project demands for kyc these days, as it stands, in as much you want to earn from bounty, you're left with no choice but to adhere to it.

IMO, KYC is a must for any ICO and exchange.
In fact, that is the whole point of KYC.

KYC for generosity campaign on the other hand, is pretty much useless and worthless.
Especially with the tiny amount of free token that they give, it is too much of a hassle.

In order to resolve an issue with multiple accounts, it is not necessary to violate our privacy rights. To do this, simply check the accounts by IP-address. The KYC verification does not solve this problem all the same, since you can use the data of your relatives and friends with their consent and some help.
In fact, KYC checks against bounty hunters are now being conducted to a greater extent so as not to pay the tokens we earn.

I, just like you, the author, I do not think that it is right that we should go through this stage of verification as it is illegal

It may be wrong that projects carry out KYC verification for bounty participants. But they too can be understood, they want to protect themselves, both from multi-accounts, and from legal problems. I don't refuse to verification if I like the project and I believe in it.

I agree. The KYC check is now used by ICO teams to a large extent in order not to pay bounty hunters earned tokens. Especially if such a KYC check is applied after the end of the ICO. Logically, there is already no other meaning in such a check, except to deceive the bounty hunters.

I have also noticed the trend, but we cannot be forced i to any kyc. Which is why before you join any, you must be sure if it will be needed by asking the manager.
Do do not be generous with your personal details. Hence, guide it gelously. Gelous

Yes, of course, because we can thus reduce the number of scammers who participate in bounty programs.

I think all these things is to frustrate the activities of cryptos but in the end, cryptos will win these whole trials, I don't see any reason why KYC should be needed, cryptos is meant to be open the ledger to the public and keep the individuals privates

I don't think there will be require KYC for utility token. But if the ICO company want distribute the security token, all of the holders will have to submit their KYC due the regulations of the company's country. If you are a hunter, you must do your research before choose a project to participate.
Otherwise, you will only giving your KYC to the scammers for free because the project is fake.

Why they want it to specific people, if they want adoption they should cover a lot of people not just specific and besides they cannot do a KYC when their coin hit the market, it's anything goes there, people who do not yet go through a KYC on those exchanges can easily avail their coins.

Just to be honest, I still feeling uneasy with the implementation of KYC. What i'm afraid of is that our data can be used for something bad.
That is something to be worried about, especially if we got scammed and we already put our KYC for it.

This is what actually happens just check the dark web millions of data are being sold, if they didn't hit the target funds, there is another way to do it, and this is by selling your personal information on the dark web, once you sold yours there is no way to fix it, it will always be there as long as the internet is existing.

The KYC procedure is indeed used for all investors and this, in my opinion, is very good. However, if the KYC procedure is used for bounty hunters or Airdrop, in my opinion, it is very bad. We can see that doing this prize campaign only gets a few prizes. But to get a prize they must submit personal data.

I believe that KYC demand is principally for defense of project founders from existing or future government rules. several ICOs originally ne'er planned to want KYC from generosity campaigners however got to modification rules for an equivalent reason I already explicit .

Since the beginning of the implementation of KYC, i'm already disagree with it.
In my opinion it against the idea of cryptocurrency that are anonymous.

This is easy. If you don't want to earn from the group because they are requiring KYC then better to leave them and find other ICO that KYC is not needed but i doubt that there is as every ICO is now KYC compliant except for the bounty. For me, there us nothing wrong with KYC as long as you and the ICOs are legit.

This is well noticed. Therefore, we need to avoid all these KYC checks and, if possible, not to participate in those ICO projects that require KYC checks for bounty hunters. I consider conducting a KYC audit against bounty hunters in general illegal, since we are not investors in ICO projects.

I think KYC is a great process to protect the ICO investors from different cheaters that want to scam or to trick other investors or the team members. But on the other hand, it is very risky to send you private info to a project, because nobody knows what they are doing with this info.

I try to avoid projects that require Kyc from bounty hunters. Bounty hunters are not clients of the project, so it has nothing to do with the legislation.

Yes, but kyc is most important to indroduce yourself. KYC (know your customer) is provide that you are a legal customer. And government legality want to get People's identity to know them. KYC proved that which country's citizen you. So I think KYC is good. And one mkre things that many people used fake/multiple account for doing bounty.

Something I can not understand how a KYC check can protect investors from scammers or can the ICO team protect them? In my opinion, there is no correlation between the KYC verification and the protection of the rights of investors, as well as the ICO team. So far the biggest scammers here are ICO teams that cheat both investors and participants in the ICO generosity campaign.
 In our case, the KYC check is used by the ICO teams in order not to pay the tokens earned by us. How should I regard the behavior of the ICO team, when after the completion of the ICO the KYC check is announced, I indicate my confidential data, and in response I get a message that I did not pass the KYC check because I am a minor. At the same time in checking KYC, I indicated my age of forty. Isn't that a scam?

I have had a similar argument before with a friend. I can't possibly fathom the idea of going through a strenuous kyc in other to perform my generosity tasks. It should be left for investors of specific countries who require it under their AML laws

KYC is a personal matter, someone hates KYC, but I have a neyutral position and if I like the ICO and inspires confidence, I will pass KYC without problems, but I do it very rarely.

I understand that KYC required by bounty campaigns are reducing number of participants (fake and but also real participants) and that cause that ICOs dont have to send all allocated bounty tokens.
But I do not understand why ICOs want to reduce fake accounts, I thought that they need as many investors as possible to collect enough money for their projects.

I consider this check to be absolutely normal, we either agree with the conditions set by the team, or not.
When we read white paper, we do not ask to change this or that item. If you do not agree with the procedure of identification, then choose another company. But in such companies, the payments are more.

I think no, I don't think it's fair. Why? because on several occasions, we are very difficult to verify. I am very disturbed by that, and I don't think you should be obliged too much.

I believe that your arguments are absolutely correct in the first place because the participants in the bounty program are not buyers, they provide a project promotion service and do not spend their money on the purchase of something, therefore, it is silly to require them to pass authentication.

I don't understand for a project that needs kyc as a condition to be able to participant in campaign.
cause not everybody wants to give his personal information to someone he doesn't know.
Because they were also worried that the data was misappropriated.

KYC is needed as material for documentation and administrative evidence of a project, and of course if the project is real, but if only fraud they only make it a cover for their lies

I'm not very good at this procedure at all, because you never know who you're giving your personal data to or if it's going to be confidential. There is no guarantee .

I think they are just trying to be formal and do not want to sell their tokens to same people that's why they required KYC for people who buy to them and provide a limit . Doing also KYC is use for their promotions to be fair for everyone .

that what exact point and project founders don't want to ruined their project due to government regulation decisions on ico funding that's why ask kyc information and put country restrictions so they are safe and don't get any regulation problems later.

right, actually I am still confused by the way they ask for kyc, and in my opinion it is not a problem if they can guarantee we will get a profit or at least guarantee a good project

Well in my opinion KYC would still be the best way to lessen up fake bounty hunters and this would maximize the tokens you could get since fake ones can not do KYC's except they have already planned it and know what to do and has back up plans.

I think that KYC is needed. See how many scammers in the tables, as well as double registrations. In good projects, I’m happy to go through the KYC, because I know that I’ll get what I’ve earned, but fraudsters do nothing)

do you mean a bounty campaign? For some campaigns, KYC  are required, and for some, not. There are a lot of factors on what it depends

It is not a ICO " generosity" , it is ICO "Bounty" , stop using google translate! PLEASE.
If the project is emitting utility tokens ,then it ther is no legal basis for bounty token distrobution kyc if it is a security then it is a legitimate to ask.

As for me, I don't care about having the KYC for investors or for generosity campaigns. There is absolutely no need for KYC in any aspect of cryptocurrency.

it is very important that all projects needed by KYC to maintain security and become a government decision, in selling ico investors will be happy with there kyc

Sometimes KYC is necessary to be done in order to take a part become a legit token holder in companies that paying you share or dividend.
But i don't think it is required for ICO companies that using only utility token to operates, weird if they want their project supporters to submit KYC.
If you are a hunter, then you must carefully choose a project to support if you don't want your KYC documents used by scam ICO companies.

Everything depends on each individual because there are people who argue that KYC is indeed needed in the Bounty program. So many fraudulent accounts can be reduced and can even be lost. But some people do not approve of this KYC procedure. Actually, it's easy, if you don't want KYC you can look for projects that don't exist KYC. Because there are still many good projects and don't use KYC.

Yes, some people do not approve of Kyc, maybe because of the confidentiality of their documents. but is there a problem that has arisen because of the document we did to the project? I have not seen it yet. if you really don't like kyc, you can look for a project that doesn't require you. but I myself like Kyc, it makes cheating accounts manageable.

This is the problem now that many ICO projects do not say anything about KYC verification or even deny it, and only when we have been doing our job for several months in the ICO signature campaign, then the ICO team says that it is necessary to pass the KYC verification. This is deception. If, under the terms of accession, they wrote that they would need a KYC check and immediately gave a link to its form, everything would be fair.
I do not live at the place of my registration and cannot submit documents confirming the fact of residence at the place of registration. There is no violation on my part. However, in these cases I cannot pass the KYC check. I have been working for several months in the ICO signature campaign, and then they declare to me that, because I cannot provide this document,
 I will not be paid earned tokens. Adherents of KYC, is that fair?

Nowadays, the bounty hunters are becoming smart , they asked first if the project needs a kyc , so they have an option to join or not and so the campaign managers they are now very clear from the  beginning. It's a personal choice  I guess if you are willing to share your personal data and you are aware the risk.

this is a good question and i am not sure what am i supposed to answer sp i will gladly read somebody other s point of view

you nee to be sire taht your economy and your money are safe so be careful there are many viruses right now

Yes, I think that sometimes KYC is needed, but the requirements of KYC reach the point of absurdity! I give my data myself and sometimes I can hardly get through KYC

I am not agree using kyc in my own opinion how can make sure bounty participants gives true information sending legal documents identification are easy to copy paste and edit from the computer to use as kyc requirements.

I think that if you found a good project and you are confident in it, but there is a condition that it is necessary to pass the KYC, then I would personally take part in it.

Well, i respect each other individuality to agree with kyc requirements or not, but for me the team should look for other alternative way which they can make a follow up contact with the participants information not the whole data personality with the individual because that is a foul against the security of a person.

KYC verification has never had the goal of eliminating multi-accounts in this forum. This is not a problem at all for the ICO teams, for them there are how many accounts you have, just to write quality messages with their advertising for the ICO project. And in order to reduce the number of multi-accounts, it would be wrong to violate our privacy rights. Now massively, ICO teams, under various far-fetched pretexts, conduct KYC checks against bounty hunters after the end of the ICO with the aim of not paying the tokens we earned. This is still a big problem.

I think it was a necessary measure. Just look how many bots and multi-accounts involved in the bounty companies. The introduction of the KYC procedure at least a little, but helps to deal with it. But I believe that about the introduction of this procedure it is necessary to warn at the beginning of the bounty that the participants made decisions whether or not to participate.

Of course no one wants to send their personal data to just anyone. It is especially bad when the KYC procedure is announced at the very end of the bounty of the company. I think that this procedure is not always necessary, but if you are involved in projects from Amazix, there is no need to be afraid of this procedure.

I think it really depends on the kind of project that you are investing in and how much that you are willing to invest into the said project and how much you trust them. Personally I would never do kyc for any kind of new project no matter how legit they look because that is my entire identity I am giving out and I would hate to have it used against me

You want to give your data to people for a reward that you may be able to get in a few months, and in a falling market, I generally doubt that it will be distributed to bounty hunters.

Yes, I agree. There shouldn't be KYC for bounty hunters. What for? They are only working in exchange for a small amount of token but afterwards received lesser than expected. You see your personal information too in exchnage for less than a dollar value of tokens? It's not fair.

For me, it is unreasonable for a bounty campaign to require KYC in order for the bounty participants to receive the tokens. Because at the first place, they dont really need that information. And some bounty campaigns announce it in the end of the campaign which pretty irritating for I.

it seems not, because Kyc is only for investors. but there are some projects that require cyc for bounty participants. it all depends on the policy of the project team.

More and more it looks like a hoax. To give the data is not known to whom. I do not like this procedure. Today I just studied an article about this. These are all of the procedures that give this opportunity.

KYC for bounty hunters most likely entered because of the very large number of multi-accounts and bots that occupy most of the pool.  On the one hand, KYC eliminates fraudsters, and on the other hand, sending screenshots of their documents to everyone in a row also has no desire.  Admins say your business is to pass KYC or not.  But if you do not pass KYC, you will not get anything.

KYC now has no meaning for bounty. For bot or fraud cases, KYC is not required to remove those people. I think they want KYC because they can sell that information

Before collecting our data projects must go to the stock exchange. Do your work . Most of the projects just collect our data with you. Then use them for their own purposes. I hope everyone understands this.

Once and for all we should put KYC into it's rightful place in the crypto industry, it should only for those whales who are buying big shares of the tokens and not bounty hunters who will just get a few dollars worth of token.

I sincerely do not go with that premise. Kyc(know your customer) was introduced as an AML(Anti money laundering) law requirement of specific countries to ascertain the financial spendings of an individual and to monitor appropriately

Or, we need a platform on which will become an intermediary between ordinary users, like you and me, and projects requiring the completion of the KYC procedure; this platform must also be decentralized to ensure the maximum level of security. Alas, so far no project in this area has achieved proper success, but this is only for the time being.

KYC is made to detect cheaters and people that want to exceed the personal cap, to get more profit. I think that such a process is pretty fair and it should be done for security reasons to protect honest investors.

Yes right, according to its use to protect cheating hunters by participating with many accounts. But this is different from what we discussed about the distribution of tokens by hunters who have to be asked to KYC so that data about hunter data is known to consumers. I think this is a bit strange but if it's not off track and it's safe it's not a problem.

Well yeah if you are trying to help and just want to be an anonymous then just like what you said that this is totally stupid. Yet, if all just becuase your endeavors on helping someone with the team that are promoting then setting aside about the KYC should not be a hindrance in giving help. One should do the KYC.

I think kyc is needed for bounty participants , due to the fact that many people use multi-accounts , and it may reduce the participants in the program and keep it honest

It is not the main reason why KYC is implemented,the team want to get free promotions from the members if they are not interested on multiple accounts then can ask for KYC while joining asking at the distribution is clearly shows what is their intention.

Never thought the KYC mandatory for hunters. Yes, in the beginning it protected from scammers, and now scans of documents can be bought almost at every step.

lol  :D no  .  kyc is not made because of that   . if a campaign is willing to detect abusers , they can do it in a more easier way  . than requiring this kyc .  kyc  in a nutshell is made  for a more important purpose   .

for the question about  [ do we really need a kyc ?  ]  no we dont  . just ignore those kyc related projects or kyc related campaigns and your all good to go .

I think you should take into consideration more before submitting any KYC document.
If your reward is not too worth, better if you don't give any data of your identity because scammer can using your data.

If the requested KYC is for investors that purchasing coins, that would be no problem, but if it's for the bounty participant and it's not mentioned at eh beginning of a campaign, then that would be really big problem, the bounty participant will surely scream for that.

Is unfortunate to see that this kyc thing has started rolling into bounties and signature campaigns, it is time wasting. Time wasting because it is just a few box that you could be getting but you are melt to expose your life identity. I think it should be for a certain investor, investing a particular large some of coins.

There are many bounty hunter earned from several hundred to thousands of dollars. So KYC is normal for them, because they will have a good amount of money

It is very difficult for me to name those Bounty companies that gave me the opportunity to earn good money and at the same time I provided my personal data. Today and everything happens to the exact opposite. I send my KYC, and there are no results at the end of the Bounty company.

they just don't want one person with a double account, so that the ico participant slots are met fairly. so kyc is very important to them.

Since long ago, i still not fond with KYC, even if the reason is to filter any scammer of something like that. But the thing is all the bounty participant already doing their hard work promoting the project, so it's natural for them to get the reward they deserved without needing to do something complicated to have their right received.

KYC has been a lot of complaints from bounty hunters. The Bounty project that uses KYC is considered unfair because Bounty hunters work for 2-4 months but because they don't pass KYC, they don't get tokens. I personally prefer this KYC pattern to be changed and KYC placed at the beginning of the campaign.

I think we do not need to give our very confidential data just for this test? It is very much worthy if you join a campaign that needs KYC rather to just give it all the way. What might happen is unknown.

If you are an investor what for have submit KYC and better keep run away from ICO needed KYC for investor, maybe as bounty hunter participants is good and better for submit KYC around of their bounty campaign joining.

I really don't want to give any personal information about me but as I participated in a projects that needed a secure method of participants I allow myself to provide it. And also to support the ICO is participated just like other investors we want to ensure our investments that it won't get scammed by othe people just like what they are doing to secure the projects.

Using KYC is no guarantee that the ICO project can succeed. And I think KYC will only waste time and many disappointing results. I personally also experienced this. I have done KYC, but until now I have not received a token.

       I consider KYC very useful because it is a measure of protection for project managers to stop creating false accounts, which is correct. But I think the KYC, which is asking more and more often, wants too much personal data from the participants, and that's not ok. It would be ok if this policy exists on both sides. The project team should also make their personal data public. Thus, there would not be so many SCAM projects on the crypto market, and investors would be much more open to investing.

KYC asking for ICO investment is good, as money laundering problem is occurring and to stop it is good, but asking KYC for bounty participation is not correct as bounty hunters are not investing any money , they are just advertising the ICO and in return they are getting reward and i dont think that anyone is asking details about the bounty participants details.

In some countries, cryptocurrencies are equated to financial assets and according to the legislation of the country you must provide information about yourself for the possibility of obtaining them. But if this is not the case, then perhaps the developers are trying to collect your data to sell them.

In my opinion, KYC should be for only investors, which invest large amount of money in ICO to prevent money laundering at the minimal level, in the case of bounty participant that help in promoting ICO projects to the general public in order to create awareness, I don't see any reason why they should also participate in KYC. They get only a small percentage of reward for promoting ICO projects, making  KYC compulsory for bounty hunter is not expected.