Bitcoin Forum

I think this flag is very cool we can flag and give warnings to potential investors ICO that has a bad reputation and people can support that flag.
Do these ICO's deserve to get  flag if they change their rules from no KYC to asking KYC after the end of the bounty campaign
locked their tokens for several months with no prior notice that they will do it
refusing to distribute bounty hunter's stake  campaign after the campaign was over

What do you think?

I totally agree, to give a flag for scammer projects who not pay bounty hunters or change their KYC rules. but, mostly bounties end few days after/before ICO. so, how do we know if they will scam us?

Providing certainty to the bounty hunter must take precedence. I'm worried that some scams have made the hunter's job look easy. Bounty hunters are always victims even though they have worked well.

Your topic is related to this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5165178.msg51824246#msg51824246

That should be the best way to give a warn for such a scam campaign. We have real evidence if that was not creating such a good cooperation with the bounty participants and we can give awareness to the potential investors. This is much better rather than try to take any other complicated way agains such a scam campaign or ico.

I think it will be very good and helpful if participants can raise flags for ICO projects that change KYC rules,this have been around for long time now and many have been cheated because of this

Flags are might for specific serious cases like a situation involving actual scam and not for mere discomfort like asking for kyc or delay of distribution of tokens. Now if the project doesn't distribute the token entirely or lock up bounty allocation, that's refusing to pay participants for their work (time and effort) then it can be considered a scam which should result to them be flagged but in a situation when due to some circumstance they ask for kyc or delay distribution every affected user can make use of the feedback option to leave a feedback on their account with neutral or negative feedback as they deem fit.

I have observed some projects change their bounty terms and conditions for a good course like delay in distribution or kyc requirements to fetch out cheaters, farming same campaigns with alt account so the genuine participants can recieve a fair share of the bounty allocation. Those cases don't deserve been flagged.

YES YES YES. i am in total support for projects that changed their mode oparandi at the end of a successful bounty campaign. they should be flagged and also adviced investors to say off.
i will even sugguest that reversed campaigns should be conducted for awareness to potential investors to stay away.
Hunters are not considered anymore this days.

Of course, we have done that for many projects so far. Projects looking for reasons to refuse to pay bounty hunters after finishing bounty are present in the Scam Accusation board, and then will be tagged with red trust.

for me as a bounty hunter it will of course mark projects that do not pay bounty hunters and report that the account is affected by redtrust. the most important thing is to receive tokens and not make it difficult for bounty hunters. I refuse if there is KYC at the end of the distribution, it should be announced at the beginning when the bounty starts.

Of course, I agree with this proposal. And this seems to have started to be done in several bounty programs that have not distributed rewards for so long or in bounty programs that are suspected of being scams. This can also be aimed at Bounty Managers so they can be more careful in promoting new bounties. We are often harmed, with the Flag probably not going to have much effect, but at least we have tried.

I totally agree with your opinion! Bounty hunters are like cheap workers. They work monthly and get back is nothing by scam projects, or not paying for bounty hunter. But what effect will flagging have? Do we take more time to flag scam projects?

Yes, there are lots of ICO that hold bounties and do not pay.

I suggest to share the list of reliable bounties. Personally, I'm a member of this bounty for now https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5156163

P.S. Do not consider it as a promotion

If many members of this forum will support that flag the project will have a warning sign on their announcement thread, and they are going to lose potential investors, it's time that bounty hunters unite and give this project punishment for scamming bounty hunters, if not for bounty hunters they will not reach success.

A flag has already been created for on campaign for changing the rules and refusing to pay hunter unless they comply. Review this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=454  and see if there is enough evidence for you to support it.

Most projects have a disclaimer of rules change. I think rules are subject to change except the forum will no longer allow projects change their bounty rules after the campaign. I also think kyc should be abolished for hunters as they're not investors.

The forum will not prohibit changing regulations because changing regulations can be. Because that is the right of every manager and project team. And for KYC like it can't be eliminated for bounty hunters, if you can't do KYC, of course you don't participate in the project. really simple.

Bounty hunters have little choice. They can only adapt to changes in project team rules. I think we should set up a bounty project distrust section in the forum, and let it be exposed in this section for projects that have changed the rules many times.

Might be the right time for bounty hunters to work together not to waste their time and efforts while participating from any bounties if this will workout teams that ain't paying attention with bounty participants will see the effect of this move and like what you have said it can reflect  to their business.

locking of tokens for bounty hunters should be stated on the thread of bounty rules. this is not fair for the participants.
There are many projects who went on this decision and tell that the bounty tokens will get the price dump once listed ( why they pay in tokens? why not in BTC then? )
But what we can really do as bounty hunters on the team that do that? if they have the full support of the investors?

I don't know why it wasn't done before.In principle, everything is possible to do.But please note that the power of the word will still remain with the project team that conducted the ICO.Regarding KYC, I am also against the participants of the bounty to pass it.I don't see the point.Just because I'm carrying a project signature doesn't mean I'm a fraud or a terrorist.

partial distrust of communication will adversely affect the development and market project. following the belly of the material, it can be done by everyone. but the cooperative attitude of the developer and manager is also important to foster good trust from the community so that they continue to support their project.

This is a cool and amazing idea which will be a warning sign to big investors how as to the project even cheated its bounty hunters and lure them in promoting their project without getting any payment form it. It will always alert project and bounty managers to act accordingly without breaking the rules themselves and this for sure can bring back the respect hunters had. This flag is what hunters need most because it will save us from cheating.

The idea is definitely good, but the main problem here is that all these projects pay bounty hunters after the ICO has ended... Usually in a month after the end of the crowdsale. It's too late then.

At least in bitcointalk there is trust flag system on members of bitcointalk.
When you visit an ann thread which the OP has red trust flag, the warning will appear at the top of the thread.
This will makes hunters or some new comers more careful and very caution before supporting their ICO.
Therefore, i really recommending all hunters to watch their ann thread closely.

If you have evidence of fraud in any project, you can submit them to a special sections:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=83.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=129.0

If bounty hunters do not get rewards or something like that, then investors are not very worried. In addition, as a rule, the bounty campaign ends approximately simultaneously with the end of the project ICO. Therefore, changes in the rules at the end will not help many investors.

there are many ico projects like you say.
even some of the ones I followed from the signature campaign are not currently distributed. more than one year.
very difficult it seems to choose a campaign that is quite good and smooth.
it looks like the campaign period like the bounty will end soon.

It's well deserved flagging those projects, terms and conditions should be kept from the beginning to the end of a campaign changing the rule midway or at end is fishy.

true too, it's still the same as it will hurt the bounty hunter. I think bounty managers must have regulations on the projects they handle, bounty managers must use escrow in the form of project tokens, if the manager does not use escrow then the manager must guarantee a red flag for him, if at the end of the campaign fraud occurs then the bounty manager in charge of this. I think Escrow is the right way for now or with the guarantee of a bounty manager's flag.

I'm okay with flagging them for asking KYC after bounty and for refusing distribution of the rewards but flagging for locking coin will not be a good one. Because it may include various reason. Locking rewards may have good affect in the market as well.

Which investors are you talking about again, the major investors that they need  are the ones that has raised the hardcap fund for them, and once they have that money, every other investment is secondary, so the solution you  are proposing really would not do anything that much, it will only stop few investors from investing, .

The people that really needs to be protected are people that are participating in their pre-ICO, they are the ones that usually commit very big money into these projects, and before these developers gets to the stage of changing rules or locking tokens, they must have collect the fund already, so what happened to those other investors, if peradventure such project end up being a scam project, because it is only a scam project that has the tendency of locking token and changing rules.

That's worst I guess, the bounty campaign should give a final information/requirements when bounty campaign is began. Moreover for KYC thing because there is just a few bounty hunters who willing to give their KYC to join with one project. Expect when bounty campaign is began and they ask the participant identity then the participant must comply the requirement to get the token when bounty has ended. You opinion is right, you can make a flag when the bounty rules changed when bounty end.