Bitcoin Forum

The ICO teams are now applying to bounty hunters a new form of fraud, with which something needs to be done - this is an unspecified earlier test of KYC after the end of the ICO.

As a lawyer, I can say that the conditions for joining the ICO generosity campaign are in fact one of the types of contracts with so-called implicit, that is, silent actions. The fact that we further fill out their form of accession means that we have agreed to their terms of the contract.

In any contract there are so-called essential terms of the contract, which must always be specified. If at least one of them is not specified, the agreement on the decision of the court may be invalidated. The contract price, that is, the amount payable to bounty hunters, is one of the essential conditions of the contract and must be clearly stated. If it can change, it should be indicated in what cases and by how much. Otherwise, such a contract will be invalid. If in the terms of accession it is only generally indicated that any conditions may be changed, then such a piece of paper cannot be recognized as a contract and will in any case be illegal.

If the contract is made and executed, one of the parties is not entitled to declare additional substantial payment terms that were not previously agreed

In this case, this should be considered an ordinary fraud, and the ICO team should bear the material, and in the case of the intention of such actions, the criminal liability for fraud, that is, the seizure of another's property by deception or abuse of trust.

What do you think we need to do in this case with such fraud?

I, too, have a negative attitude towards the demand of KYC for bounty hunters by companies. In the first place, the product itself does not yet exist and it is not clear why verification is needed. And secondly, in this way, projects often recruit a database of documents and sell them. And where then your data is used is not clear.

You're wrong. Because almost all projects indicate such an item. The team can change the rules at any time. What does this mean? That the law of law does not help here.

Yes, now the announcement of the KYC check at the end or after the completion of the ICO is one of the biggest problems of bounty hunters. We have been working for several months and after finishing work on us they begin to simply scoff. They come up with various forms for entering our confidential information, which does not want to be accepted in all cases and it costs us very big nerves, however, despite our efforts and desire, it is not possible to pass such a test by KYC in all cases. That is, it turns out that we conscientiously fulfill the stipulated conditions, and then we are simply deceived. Instead of paying for our work, we come up with various reasons for refusing to pay. Of course, this should be regarded as fraud, because, as a result of this, the ICO teams illegally assign our tokens.

maybe this is the latest method so that there is no error in the transfer in a project carried out by the dev manager. so in my opinion it is very necessary for every project that runs.

Fraud in ico projects has been and will continue to flourish for many years. All who are involved in cryptocurrency want to benefit from this also it works with ico projects. If it is profitable for them to demand kyc they will do it because they have thought of everything in advance. The market for ico projects is the wild west where the strongest survive.

KYC must be specified at the very beginning. The team should not change the rules. I think so.

Many companies/projects agree to pay for cypto enthusiast database for their next fraud/scam actions. because almost ico which ran bounty in past don't request participants do KYC but now most of them event not exist project can post a bounty campaign and ask for kYC to collect personal documents. But most people from 3rth countries don't care about their document they can easily submit just for few dollars from a bounty

Do you think that ICO teams should not abide by the laws of most states? So why do they comply with the US and Chinese orders for KYC verification? Moreover, it is so zealous that they demand to pass such an inspection by KYC not only in relation to investors, but also in relation to bounty hunters, in relation to whom they should not conduct such an inspection?
Do you think that ICO teams have the right to ignore the laws and at the same time deceive us?
I wonder why you are protecting the obvious scam?

First, I left the project no matter what I was doing, because for me, personal data is the most important thing, unless it has become a rule from the sta

However, this is not a method - to work for three to five months and then quitting our work for KYC without pay, because such a form of fraud of ICO teams appeared in us. Moreover, such fraud is now becoming a mass phenomenon. With such a fraud, you need to do something. It is possible that the administration of the forum forbade them to do this, so that the KYC check would be carried out only when joining in generosity. They should worry about the forum member?

Nice to meet you. I am also a lawyer. In our country, such forms are called "Formatted clauses".
This means that all the items in the contract are formulated by Party A, and Party B can only Yes or No. The law has clear rules for such formatted clauses.
1. If the party that provides the format clause is exempt from its liability, aggravates the other party's liability, and excludes the other party's main rights, the formatted clauses is invalid.
2. If the formatted clauses and the non-formatted clauses are inconsistent, the non-formatted clauses shall apply.
3. In accordance with the usual interpretation of the terms of the formatted clauses, which have two or more meanings, an explanation should be made that is not conducive to the provision of the formatted clauses.

For The ICO teams, they are the provision of the formatted clauses. Once they differ from whit the bounty participants of the understanding of the formatted clauses , should tend to benefit the bounty participant.
Since the bounty participants come from different countries in the world, the legal regulations may be different. Even if the law of the country where the ICO team is applied, I don’t think that the laws of the country where the ICO team is located will have different regulations. The laws of many countries are such a consensus.

Unfortunately, I have seen many such ico and it is almost impossible to influence their decision. The problem is that there is still no normal regulation of ico, based on this, it is far from always possible to find leverage on such fraudsters. I believe that one of the existing levers is to massively declare deception. Sometimes it worked and the ico administration paid all the promised rewards, but it was not always. So until there will be an organ of control over the holding of ico, investors and participants in the bounty will always be concerned about the complete fulfillment of conditions by the ico administrations.

Thanks for this, I agree with what you are saying. This is most definitely a form of contract. I think projects will keep trying their best to get around things like this. Regulation needs to come to this space fast

I propose to the author, as a lawyer, to file the first lawsuit on the basis of the above stated thought. This will be a rather extraordinary case in a court case that can bring you great fame.
And now all your non-obedience absolutely nothing. As long as ico will not pass the hard registration and their tokens will not be recognized as a security, I will not be any kind of kyc

If the project team cuts the bounty pool for no good reason, then Yes it is a scam.

Unfortunately very few ICOs have any legal personnel at such an early stage and overlook such things. And at the same time there is little that can be done to stop it. I just submit to the fact that if I have to do some KYC then I will but it's still an annoyance and something I would much rather not do but at the end of the ICO the power is always with them instead of the bounty hunters. We don't fill in the form, we don't get paid.  :(

KYC should be specify before the start of the bounty campaign else the sudden change of the law do not stand; which is tactically fraud in legal terms. Let all bounty hunters rise up with one voice to fight for their right. Observing KYC when many of these campaigns are scam with dead token is awkward, lets go back to the former when all laws (ie) terms and conditions are spent out before the start of the bounty campaign.

Of course announcement of kyc after ico is unfair and illegal. But for now there's nothing we can do. This should be absolutely obligatory to define and announce whether kyc is compulsory or not before ico starts.

Now I find that bounty hunters are on the weak side. Bounty hunters have no legal rights to protect them. The project team and the bounty manager can unconditionally modify the rules and extend the bounty time. This market needs regulation to ensure that the rights of bounty hunters are protected.

That should be materialized to protect the bounty hunters, it seems that due to a bear market, many Ico are doing this kind strategy to give difficulties to the hunters and backing out.

Though there is no legal requirement for KYC for bounties for KYC AML reasons since no payment for tokens actually takes place. It has nonetheless become ubiquitous as ICO's try to weed out the increased incidence of people signing up to bounties using multiple identities. I would say that if you are not prepared to identify yourself you should probably not do anymore bounties.

Kyc is like two sides of a coin, where on the one hand it is used to avoid fraudsters who try to make a profit, on the other hand if it falls into the hands of irresponsible people, it will be misused
We never know until a project that requires Kyc to turn into fraud or legal

The team has been putting the agreement if the team can change the rules anytime as they want. Remember about the contract is undercontrol by the team and so many times the boun participants are getting scammed by them all. it's the fact and i can't be denied.

I think KYC for bounty hunters puts more emphasis on preventing the use of multiple accounts, even though it doesn't really matter, but at least can reduce these actions, I myself still agree with KYC use as long as the conditions they want are not too complicated, and the rights of every bounty hunter to choose if indeed KYC is very risky towards privacy, then choose bounties that do not use KYC, because even if they use KYC, they do not guarantee their project runs well

if it does require KYC, participants should be notified from the start. I personally have no problem with or without KYC, but telling participants to do KYC when the campaign ends is like a lie and I don't like it. but apart from all that the bounty participants were always harmed. if we reject KYC we don't pay.

Most of the projects that require KYC are scam, and they will have bad intentions with our information. I have always suspected they would take action to buy our information to make more profit

If they pay the promised amount of tokens, it is not a scam. I know that lot of people here care about their identities, but you cant fight with it. These things are ereqired by governments, not because ICOs invent it.

Why participate in a project where KYC is required, if you also doubt the legality of the ICO and its team. I always pass by such projects, as my reputation and time are more important! ;)

kyc's must not be required for bounty hunters because we are an extension of the projects marketing arm to promote the product and we are not customers. i am voting for more strict ico projects. they must be regulated.

Fighting fraud in ico projects is meaningless. Since it all happens on a voluntary basis. All investors seem to me to know and realize that investing in new projects is risky. So they are aimed at collecting money. There are no well-developed tools for tracking and punishing people who deliberately create a company with the purpose of subsequent deception of investors. There are no institutions of punishment and tracking. Since all coins are decentralized. And not protected by the law of any state.

"As a lawyer" you should use more justified wordings than "I can say". Provide us codes of laws you rely on.
Also this is not new type of fraud(if we can call it so) and there is nothing anyone can do about it still. Maybe you got fresh solution??

I'm sorry but KYC is such a sensitive item as it involves doling out personalized documents to unknown online entities whose real intentions with those documents can not known. While I agree that the bounty manager reserves the right to change the rules at any time, I'm still of the opinion that bounties should state it ab initio as a requirement for participation and claim of earnings.

I think bounty campaigns are dead because ICOs are dead - look for statistics about ICOs funds raised here: https://www.coinschedule.com/stats.html
I don't see reasons to join bounty campaigns and invest in ICOs now.

Not only does it make it difficult for the bounty hunter, and it is very difficult for the project team and investors at the moment. Bounty hunters do not have as many as the number of investors, so their impact is not as great

Team can't change contract after bounty. There are rules that they can change contract during bounty but that raise legit questions too, lowering rewards in middle of ICO and sending lower rewards to bounty participants can only be applied to rewards after this was changed but every other reward before  it was changed should be what was arranged in original contract.

really, i dont agree, so you think they hire some people and make cooperation to cheating and make fake project/ico ??

Firstly, here we are talking about cases where the ICO teams from the very beginning are silent about the upcoming KYC audit, or even claim that there will be no such test, and announce it only after the end of the ICO. And after a certain time, somewhere in the telegrams and bounty hunters may not even know about making such a decision. In any case, such a test cannot be avoided, because it is not talked about before joining the campaign of generosity, when we really have the right to choose, but face the fact after the end of the ICO.
Secondly, the task of checking KYC is not to prevent multiple accounts, and its direct task is to prevent the laundering of dirty money. Bounty hunters are not investors and therefore are not subject to such verification by KYC. Violating my right to confidential information, even for filtering out several accounts, is not the best option; there are much better and more effective methods for this, even on this forum.

As individual bounty participant, we can not make any change to this condition. They're cheating us and we can't do anything  other than complain. When we join their campaigns, we default accept the bounty rules but most of us don't read it. But although we read, we still join because all of bounty campaigns has same rule such as they have right to disqualify any of us without explanation, reduce bounty rewards, add/change rules. So, at the end of campaign, don't want to pay, using the rule "add/change rules" to require KYC. Smart legal scam

I think this issue will continue and if care is not taking will even get worse than now as there is no legal bidding in the contract that we are signing with any project we are applying for and they can't be sue ,
So for that reason once the team is a fraud oriented type then they will use all sort of method to scam the bounty hunters even the investors because their is no regulation body that really require the kyc of a thing and having the "we can change the rules at their own discretion" means fraud as no contract that is bidding will have such clauses , so I think the best thing is regulation and every ico companies must be sue and can sue as well and also must be a registered company in any country they reside in with a legal document backing it along with their team which can be sue also and if they are stating any rules then it will be bid in the law.

The right to change the terms of an agreement of any contract must be clearly stated in the conditions of accession. Moreover, these rules should be specified in what cases and what changes are allowed. Arbitrary changes of conditions at their discretion cannot be in nature, such is not allowed in the practice of contracts. If this is written, it obviously cannot be legally valid, since it contradicts the general principles of international law.
Although the ICO teams try to show that they are trying to comply with the norms of international law, by checking the KYC against bounty hunters they in many cases grossly violate it.

This way is stupid, ICO is essentially the market for technology and the practical value of coins. Instead of preventing bounty hunters. Usually such a project will fail. They can't find the key factors for success.

KYC would be effective if it is applied when the bounty hunters will going to take their token price in the end of the campaign. But if you will take the KYC as a test without a strong and reliable reason, it is not needed. Maybe there's a plan behind it. So, we should be careful.

This may be right for some other things and stuff on the real world. Also this may be right for ICOs & Private sales but for bounty hunters & the bounty program. This is not right, because it's always, almost all the time stated on the bounty rules that the team can change the rules whenever & to whatever they want it to be. They can even disqualify and remove anyone from the bounty program with less to no sturdy proof and that's why bounty hunters are prone to more risks and frauds almost all the time.

Bounty campaigns that required KYC to receive their rewards should be posted and announced for the participants to get aware and decided whether to join or not. Some hunters dont want to do KYC, if it is not stated as it begins the efforts that hunters exerted should turn nothing. Rules must be specified, it can be changed but need some limitations.

I totally agree with you. KYC should be said initially in the rules . For example i never participate in the bounty campaigns which want KYC. Imagine that the ico came out a scam and you gave them all your information. This is a nightmare for me.

I am also embarrassed by the fact that you need to go through KYC. I still understand that they immediately warn about this and the bounty hunters themselves decide to participate in this bounty campaign or not. But when they start to scoff, for example, they ask me to go through KYC after the end of the bounty campaign, it annoys me greatly.

Yeah asking kyc from bounty hunters without early notice is a way of scamming.

Also, worse way is giving out way less tokens than announced before. I saw projects giving out %5 of their initial announcement even they hit the hard cap.

So many explanations going on here and because of the hunger to earn makes one to fall for them. Personally I have decided to stay off any bounty that will require all those kyc details. Some good bounty managers inform you earlier if a bounty requires bounty or not then one will decide to participate or stay off

I appreciate your analysis. But, there are injustices with bounty hunters, and we are working in the hope that they will succeed and reward us. They are lawmakers, and we are just players. We still have to wait for an organizatiion to operate this crypto world.

The fact of the matter is that at first the ICO teams do not write anything about the need to go through the KYC check in the future, even they are silent on direct questions about this, and sometimes they say directly that there will be no KYC check. And after the end of the ICO suddenly declare that you need to undergo such a test. Already after the completion of our work, when we are waiting for payments of tokens, to leave, this means leaving them with earned tokens. This is what the ICO teams rely on. This is a common fraud.

We really need to admit that an unspecified announcement after the end of the ICO to conduct a KYC audit is a fraud on the part of the ICO team. After the end of the ICO, there is no longer any need for organizing such a KYC check. If it is announced during this period, it is only in order not to pay the earned tokens to those bounty hunters who did not want or could not pass such a test, or they passed it, and they were declared, for example, that they were politically unreliable and therefore earned they will not pay tokens.
It is precisely because refusals to pay when passing KYC checks are sometimes very absurd that such checks should be carried out before joining bounty hunters in an ICO signature campaign, and not after its completion.

I have experienced these things where in all circumstances it would leave you no choice but to accept such changes on where you would end up to comply
according on your risk management.

Its fully contrary on why Cryptocurrency was created.We might need some bodies to handle this thing but it doesn't mean it would be generalized.

Yes, to require bounty hunters to undergo KYC checks after the completion of an ICO, especially without prior notice when joining their ICO project, this should be regarded as fraud. Even though such a KYC check on bounty hunters is generally illegal, because we are not investors, it should be carried out only before joining their campaign of generosity ICO. Bounty hunters should have the right to choose to participate in the ICO generosity campaign in connection with KYC testing or not.

The market of ICO projects is the Wild West of nowadays. ICO teams don’t want to bear any legal responsibility. I was faced with such stupid refusal to pay rewards for bounty tasks. The same applies to the verification procedure for participants in bounty programs - KYC. Only investors are subject to verification. Therefore, I think about the need to streamline the conduct of ICO and bounty, as well as a ban on KYC for bounty hunters.

Fraud will always be present anywhere and everywhere. People taking advantage of every opportunity to con or steal from others. Which is why each hunter or investor should be aware and vigilant to minimize the chances of becoming a victim.

I maybe the disagree too, for the imposition of KYC. KYC we know that its a method to detect some accounts but it gives a burden to bounty participants since they are helping the project to succeed. Fraud is happening now in bounties because of using somebody else identity because of this KYC, i hope managers could understand this.

The KYC check was never intended to prevent the use of multiple accounts by bounty hunters. It is conducted primarily to prevent cases of money laundering and other uses of money with an illegal purpose. In parallel, this check is carried out to prevent participation of citizens of the United States and China at the request of the governments of these countries in the projects of ICO as investors.
KYC checks should not be carried out for bounty hunters, as they are not investors in ICO projects. Carrying out such a KYC check on bounty hunters is the arbitrariness of the ICO teams. If such a KYC check is carried out without prior announcement after the end of the ICO, this is a direct fraud of the ICO teams. No excuses for such actions are logical or legitimate.

I think any ico launching with law, terms and conditions. KYC is not must . whenever project has not completely. if an ico could not complete  due to various reasons. then what will value of KYC.

Now the activities of the ICO by the states are not regulated yet, therefore the ICO teams themselves do not pass any checks. Therefore, there is such a high probability of fraud in this type of activity. It is just strange for me that states allow confidential information to be collected by people who have temporarily united to launch an ICO and do not have access to keeping confidential information of citizens. In general, this is a rather serious violation of the rights of citizens.

KYC has always been a problem. It is against the basic idea of cryptos and that is to free it from the govt and institutions and to have some anonymity while making fast transactions but it seems that KYC has been put there to tackle the growth of cryptos.

The majority of the tasks that need KYC tend to be a rip-off, and they'll possess poor motives with this info. I've usually thought they'd do something to purchase the info to create much more revenue.

this can be a scary thing, I also disagree with KYC. wasting time and I'm worried about the data we provide. maybe we are watched by them. this is scary. I hope not.

I also share the suffering. There is this coin that I joined in its bounty campaign. Just a week ahead before the bounty campaign ends when they demand passport for kyc in order to redeem the tokens. But unfortunate, I don't have any. So after months and months of doing bounty campaign, it all ends with nothing.

I am ok with passing KYC. It is usual measure to make sure that participant is legit. I have no problems with it.
Moreover sometimes it helps me to receive more profit,because cheaters don't pass KYC and I get their reward

In this case law doesn't mean because ICO is out of law, they have right to require KYC at anytime without anyone permission. KYC is not difficult and those who do not have passport or bank account, i don't know what are you doing in this world.

this has happened a long time. most of the ico currently available are just fraudulent projecks. and indeed we should be able to be wise if we want to invest in ico. see that there is a lot of fraud now

Yes I agree with you, the team has no right to change the terms after the end of the bounty program, it is not professional and not fair. We as hunters performed work for them and then expect to get rewarded for it, and any obstacle on the part of the project team should constitute fraud.

I am ok with KYC but KYC should be stated in the beginning of the campaign only a lot of projects announce KYC required in the last stage which I feel is wrong because we dont kn ow what documents they will consider for KYC. Also the allocation of the bounty campaign should not be changed as they dont change allocation of team members. Now a days KYC are necessary to most of the project to list on the good exchange as big exchnages go through a lot of paperwork before listing.

Thank you for a detailed analysis of this issue. I agree that when we see a KYC at the end of a campaign, it is cheating. Practically in all the bounty campaigns where I participated, there is a clause in the conditions about the possibility of changing the rules. I do not know what we can do  it and how to change.

I also don't like things like this. a bounty hunter like being cheated. but we cannot protest if we find this, the only way we can be paid is to follow all the rules he made.

You do not receive remuneration of those who for some reason did not pass the KYC check, if such a check was carried out after the end of the ICO, when the shares were calculated or even the final number of tokens was set. After all, it takes a long time to check KYC, and during this period the tokens are already counted and if someone from the bounty hunters does not pass KYC, then their tokens are simply assigned by the ICO team.
In addition, in order to prevent multiple accounts, you do not need to violate our privacy rights .. To do this, it is enough to check accounts by IP address. Yes, and checking KYC after the end of the ICO is in any case fraudulent, if it has not been agreed upon before.

new method with the same goal, I think this is very cheating. KYC is just a form of new fraud in the ICO and I will not be fooled a second time. KYC is a big fraud in crypto so we must avoid it.