Bitcoin Forum

I have seen many hunters talk about the kyc with utmost hatred. Many wants kyc removed, many thinks it's not fair for hunters, while some say it shouldn't be for hunters, because hunters are not investors.

But the point is, if the company or start-up project asks for kyc from hunters, they are not wrong in any way.

Kyc are not for investors only, as long as you will hold or holds a company's or start-up project equity share and have voting rights, you are a customer. What this simply means is that whether you bought the token or through bounty hunting but holds this token with the so called investors, there is no different between you hunter and an investor with cash.

Both of you holds the same token from this company and share equal right with them, which means that what an investor can do an this particular company, you as hunter holding the same token can do also.

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

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.

Kyc are not carried out just for money laundering only. You should read more about kyc. Even if the company issued the token for free, they could still require kyc from you depending on the kind of token they offer

My friends are getting scammed by participating in the bounty and airdrop which created KYC verification. OP never seen an ico which selling the stolen KYC documents on the darkweeb or even this forum.
Hdac already registered as a company in swiss and it has received no letter action from swiss government without doing KYC to the bounty participants while there are some other platforms are getting a big problem to be registered even they are implementing KYC verification to everything.

I don't have any problems with kyc yet, if I go into any project and I was asked for kyc, depending on the type of project and it's quality will determine if I will submit my documents or not.

It is quite simple actually, but some hunters are sensitive me as well, if I found some projects that are suspicious I think twice before I do the KYC process, cause I know it will ruined my life if fall in the wrong hands.

But it is really annoying when we provide KYC to receive free tokens, our Documents are very important and so we should not take such risks.

I think if the ico project is real and not a scam, kyc is ok then, it is in favor on the both sides the company and the investors andnbounty hunters. But if the project is just a fraud and scam, then it is dangerous on the side of investors and bounty hunters that uses their personal profiles and identifications that it would be steal by the thief and use their profiles identification for some malicious purposes.

The tokens purchased on the exchange where you don't have to go through KYC is this normal? Is this rightly for hunters and investors? For a penny many times less than the price of ICO. No, not fair.

Actually, in most cases, it is not about that you are investor, customer or bounty hunter, but just because of the law regulations in the place where ICO as company was registered. Sometimes when developers are not sure if they should to ask for KYC verification or not, they choos to do this to avoid future complications.

That's what we have to emphasize to those bounty hunters who always complain about KYC. Yes it would be inconvenient to always do the same procedure in every campaign we join but at the very least we can see that the project is doing it for the security of their precious platform.

actually you are the one who is misunderstandings things!

these so called "projects" are either purely scams who are set to make the most amount of money which means they will sell your identity on the dark market to make more money from you and call that "KYC" or they are created by newbie idiots who thought if they ask for KYC their shitty projects would look more legitimate so they can fool more people into giving them their money. and their databse is easily hacked and the KYC documents would still end up in dark market.

and that is the main reason why everyone has been complaining about it. it has nothing to do with being an investor or not.

Having a KYC has a good side to the project as always, we, the hunters or investors were always at risk if we do that KYC especially if the project is a scam. Well, we can't blame them because there's a legit project that still requires KYC to prevent bounty hunters who abuse their project. Bounty hunters can join multiple accounts or even how many as they can if no KYC required. So, in this case, we know which better to give our personal data ort trusted one or much better avoid a project that not have KYC.

I have seen hunters getting angry on ICO teams because of KYC verification and I do agree with them to certain extent.
The point is that the announcement of KYC is done after the ICO is over which I think is wrong. If an ICO wants a KYC then they should be announcing it before the ICO and campaign starts.
What is the point of announcing a KYC after the ICO is over ? It does feel like they are cheating us because many hunters don't like KYC or don't want to undergo a KYC.
Hence they loose their effort and time in the bounty campaign.

I never hate KYC, but I really hate the bounty asking for KYC. I was their victim, in December 2018 I worked hard for 3 months and I could not pass KYC from them. Although I provided all the information as requested

Many people do really have experiencing a lot of trouble in submitting their KYC for them to complete all of their requirements because the ICO teams are not that convince with their verification. We all understand the purpose of KYC for them to know their participants or to avoid money laundering.

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.

The problem is that KYC is not always done properly or securely. Uploading your full ID to a random company who often have not even done the KYC themselves is a huge risk and not one worth taking

Yes, there is nothing wrong with the bounty hunter, but many ico developers are convoluted in terms of distributing tokens, so as to the detriment of bounty hunters, they sometimes complicate the process of kyc, make policy kyc suddenly and in my opinion the things are wrong so that the bounty hunter gets annoyed with the presence of Kyc

KYC is only needed for a business that is regulated and is forced by the law to implement and enforce KYC on their customers. not a single ICO has ever been legal let alone be regulated or even be a real business so them enforcing KYC is not understandable under any circumstances!

I already did some KYC procedures and It is really annoying to send your credentials to people especially you don't personally know just to have the profit for bounty hunter and to invest on part of investors. Make sure to send your credentials to reputable projects, research their team if they have history of accusations or something illegal so you'll know and be comfortable when KYCing.

I don't like KYC for bounty hunters because I have seen thousands of project dead after a few months and you have no idea what happens to your vital information, there is a report that they are being sold in the underground this is putting your life in risk.

I feel it too. Many projects whose bounties are required to use KYC. And after that they disappeared. And the project is also dead. That actually often happens. But it is still a bounty hunter but it sends cyclets for tokens. And their identity is really threatened.

The question is clear, but if you do not understand, I think that you need to understand why this process is integrated. Do you really not understand that the SEC is now simply collecting a huge database of people who today use or are generally interested in cryptocurrency.

Every bounty hunter has a personal decision and that cannot be forced. I agree you need to understand about KYC. I often get KYC projects and I also graduated. But many don't give me tokens and worse their projects are no longer active.

This was the very basis why people who joined the bounty are not willing to take the risk of providing their personal information, as they are afraid
with this idea, who will take the risk of being harmed  for such a little amount of bounties which you are still unsure if the token will gained value
after it will be released or if the token will have any chance to reached good exchange to begin with.

You do not hold rights to vote just because you have a coin, there is a huge difference between investor and bounty hunter in that bounty hunter is not spending any money which means they can't be money laundering.

KYC started out because government wanted to know who was spending money on bitcoin, both buying and selling. This was done so they could see if someone was trying to launder drug money or any other illegally made money. Now, if you sell a coin that means you just happen to come up with it, however if you buy a coin that means you have found fiat somewhere to spend it on that.

Investors give x amount dollar and sell y amount of that token, bounty hunters do not spend a single dollar, they are just given that token for their work which means there is absolutely zero chance they are money laundering. That is why bounty hunters are against KYC since there is mathematically no way of them money laundering by way of bounty hunting which makes KYC useless for them.

When a registered company is there, as per their country rules, they need to show their token distribution and ICO sales in order to maintain the taxes and other things. That's why everyone is required to do KYC. But it's risky to provide information to unknown person. What if they somehow compromise our data?

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

OP, you made you a good point, but sometimes they don’t it the right way. What makes hunters to complain about KYC is because these campaigns never say it on time, rather they bring it up when it is time to make a withdrawal, and a lot of people don’t like that, they believe they should be informed earlier on. Then it’s no news that there are campaigns that are owned by scammers, you won’t get paid and they also have stolen your info.

That is the same thing with me, never had any problem with KYC, though I have seen lots of people discourage the use of KYC, but I do my research pretty well before choosing any campaign to work on. What matters most is that you don’t waste your time on the wrong campaign, cause some of them you wouldn’t get paid at last. So KYC is not even a problem .

KYC is for all the member of the PROJECT ICO.
Investors and Bounty participants, but please include team members.
KYC, if and only if can't be implemented well thanks, as this is for the TEAM ICO benefits only!

KYC is fine. It's a government requirement, lest you want them to have legal problems while the project is on its way. The real issue is the ICO teams should always be upfront about it from the start.

The misunderstanding is from your end, boss. Kyc is not carried out to know token holders, its done to checkmate and eliminate fraud and financial crime. From the definition its pertinent, only to investors and not bounty hunters. Bounty hunters work for several projects simultaneously and there's a greater risk, if we give out personal data to every project. The increase of scam ICO's have multiplied the risk of losing our data to third parties who utilise the information for illicit purposes. The tokens we receive are barely worth anything after getting listed, because the developers ensure that the investors take the chunk of the market and leave us with crumbs.

The main problem here is KYC which is asked at end of the bounty. Nobody has a problem with KYC. Some people do not want to give their personal information and we need to respect it. This does not make them cheaters. You would want to give your identity to a fraud project?

And did you try to ask the ICO team on what legal basis do they require to pass from KYC bounty hunters, that is, to request confidential data and copies of documents from us? You tried to ask them what they intend to do with the confidential information collected, how long and where they intend to store it? Ask them the most common questions and they will not be able to answer them. This is despite the fact that the activities of the ICO are now practically unregulated, the ICO teams themselves do not pass any checks and in many cases are fraudsters. To approve a KYC check for bounty hunters now actually means protecting scammers.

A simple KYC would still can be acceptable but if the KYC asking for too many personal information, that could be another problem for everyone, not just the bounty participant, but also for any investors. I believe many of them don't like their personal information to be easily attained by someone else.

Most ICO teams now request KYC verification after the end of the ICO, and until that time, they even often deny the possibility of such verification. What is the point of carrying out such a check, if not for the purpose of non-payment of earned tokens by bounty hunters. In any case, passing a KYC check should take place when joining an ICO bounty campaign, in any case, contain such a possibility. Especially now, when there is no uniform form for providing the requested information and copies of our documents and the ICO team, they are simply refined by inventing, at the end or after the end of the ICO, such conditions for passing the KYC test so that many of them simply do not pass.

When you are the ICO issuer, you need to comply with the rules of your local. That's why you have to show legal documents for your token or coin holder and kyc is there for that reason. Anyway, I am not a fan of kyc and I never had done this in my 6 crypto years.

I dislike KYC for bounty hunter but i agree KYC requirment to prevent cheating. I think its just matter of perspective. But the KYC should more easier to pass for bounty hunter. Because we are not investor after all. I hopes there is another way to claim reward for bounty hunters.

Even up until now after I have break down the misunderstandings pertaining the kyc you still find it very difficult to comprehend.  I am talking about scam projects and I never ask you to submit your kyc to any project that you see as a scam. What I am referring to is the fact that many even when the project is super real still hate kyc. Because they believe hunters don't need to perform kyc

KYC for me there is nothing wrong, maybe the problem is that referring to the bounty hunter is the difficulty in filling out the KYC and the security of personal data, from some people I asked like that, this is related to the policy of the developer and to debate fair KYC or not, I think the decision is in the developer, so it will be useless to argue if the developer has decided the rules.

I think KYC is not a problem because they want not to have many account users. And as long as they ask for KYC, we must check and be careful. But they also don't force you to do KYC. So you can also reject it, but as a result, you don't get tokens.

I think you're missing out somethings also. First of all, no matter what we say, KYC is completely reversed to the logic of blockchain and crypto money!
Suppose that they take measures against criminal activities with KYC. But does this process end only after ICO and bounty distribution? In other words, how do KYC projects follow the process after the distribution is completed? People can trade and exchange their cryptocurrencies without KYC!

Do people who have money laundering need ICOs? For example, Binance allows daily processing up to 2 BTC without KYC. Is there any way that the person who comes up to Binance can clear the money from there? Without any KYC? The answer is yes! I know dozens of other exchanges like this. Moreover, there are DEXs even though the volume is low. So let's not fool ourselves. The AML and Money Laundering event never will be solved with KYC.

Any alternatives to AML&KYC? Binance let the withdrawal up to 2 BTC without passing KYC procedure but they accept withdrawal request based on their personal view related to account activity.
If someone wants to send financial help to ISIS then which way he gonna to choose doesn't matter. Bitcoin is a digital form of money and it has the same power like cash for such kind of transactions. Big banks just apply KYC for bypassing the governmental regulations and they have inside connections with criminal people in my opinion.

Many bounty hunters refuse to pass the KYC taking care of the security of their data and they are right. I say this because I got into a situation where the startup collected data and disappeared. Because of this, there is a very strong disappointment, you are not only that worked for free for several months, and even sent their data to scammers. So before you require the passage of KYC bounty hunters, let the project will ensure the safety of our data.

Bounty hunters also own a lot of token supply and they have to pass KYC if there is the same rule for other investors. No exception is logical and acceptable, especially for bounty campaign participants.

I fully agree with you, regardless of whether you invest in the project or are bounty hunters, you also own tokens. There is nothing wrong with passing the KYC procedure, if you are not a fraudster, then there is nothing to be afraid of, it does not require much effort from you and does not take too much time.

In fact, I would make for bounty hunters a more simplified KYC walkthrough. I believe that it is necessary to create a single platform for the passage of KYC bounty hunters. It would be very convenient to upload all the necessary documents once and just log in to the project site for automatic identification.

I agree with your statement that KYC is not a  bad idea. Problem with KYC is that some of them are becoming increasingly difficult to pass even as an investor and not just a hunter. There should be some way around to make it easy to pass since people are sacrificing their private information in order to be part of a project.

Kyc to me isn't a bad idea but where I don't like it is when the company wants  to defraud  bounty hunters of their token through KYC by introducing it when the bounty campaigns have ended and the tokens are about to be distribu. Both investors and bounty hunters should be entitled to KYC as they are all in possession of the project token ted

I am one of those bounty hunters who oppose the introduction of KYC. Yes, we as investors receive tokens of the project, but the amount of these tokens is not so great to share their confidential information. I have no guarantee that the project will not use my data in the future and will not give them to third parties.

I find nothing wrong with KYC, Once you are going to hold a project token, you are already a Customer so passing through KYC shouldn't be an option but KYC should be done for a reasonable amount of token not when we are given peanuts

I agree , most hunters use a lot of accounts and then are unable to provide the documents , I think kyc it is a good tool to root out unscrupulous hunters

In my opinion, I think the KYC is useful for the investors who spend money to buy Tokens from the ICO project, the bounty members doing KYC is a waste time and not necessary because the token they earned is so tiny than total supply of token.

I might stand not to agree with you on this, I own a company and I included KYC because we don't want anyone carrying out heavy transactions on our platform that won't fall back to us since we deal with fiat and cryptocurrency, I think for my company it is okay to have KYC.

But, I don't see the reason why an ICO project carry out KYC for it's users when I am sure no one made payment using fiat therefore making it next to impossible to track a particular users transaction even if the government ordered the company to release the details of a user. ICO companies should do KYC for themselves and not actually the investors.

But who needs KYC for crypto projects?

Most successful crypto "bitcoin" didn't even asked for anything?

So why these team have KYC as a part in it.

The fact is that in the course of my entire practice of participating in Bounty companies, not a single successful project set conditions to provide personal data to Bounty participants. For the whole 2018, not a single project was successful,

The biggest problem is not KYC generally, but the fact that some companies say no KYC is required and afterwards they change it.

Now the big problem is that KYC verification is not used by ICO teams openly and before we join the ICO signature campaign. I personally can not provide some of the required documents regarding the confirmation of residence at the place of registration, as I do not currently live at the address of my registration. Therefore, I must first evaluate whether I can pass the KYC check, since there are no uniform rules for providing information and documents. However, a KYC check is usually carried out after the end of the ICO or the ICO team first asserts that there will be no KYC checks, and then, at the end of the ICO, they declare that they change their mind and such a check will be carried out. This is clearly an uncomfortable position, as they, in fact, force me to work for free.

Here is the reality why many are not in favor of KYC thing. We have to share our personal informations in which we do not want to share it with. Sometimes, they require you to show some IDs which is needed for verifications. Some may misuse our infos and i do not want that to happen. I am not attracted with these particular ICO which regulates KYC.

KYC is indeed the pros and cons of the bounty hunters. I think everything depends on the regulations of each Bounty project. But they often change the rules they make themselves. At the beginning of the campaign they said that they did not use KYC, but they were after Bounty was finished. Each participant is given a KYC form and must pass KYC. This made some Bounty participants disappointed.

It is just a tactic to steal investors money by saing that you didn't complete your verification.So if they need it really they have to ask for KYC initially then allow the investors to join on their projects.

I think there are two main reasons why icos ask for kyc. First is cause they are obligated by the laws of the country where their headquarter is, second is cause they wish to stop using multiple accounts for their promotion. What ever reason they have its the company policy and we cant do much about it, if we dont like we can go to other place. We have a choice to do it or not, I dont like them but if I like the project I do kyc cause I need it to participate in their developing.

We all know that KYC is never a problem if your intention to do it at first is in you. Many Bounty Campaigns and Exchanges will not at first require your KYC but whenever they intend to payout their tokens to the participants then they ask for KYC including your Pastport and ID's, also, most exchanges will not demand KYC when making your deposit but demand when you request for withdraw. This is what i called "conflict of interest".

Whatever the reason, it has become their company's policy, of course, as participants, we must follow the rules. Many projects use KYC and Bounty hunters get tokens because they can pass KYC. KYC is not a big problem in my opinion and the most important thing is that the project can succeed.

KYC is mandatory in regular ICOs and passing KYC is a requirement in order to get your tokens from the team. Bounty hunter is another side of the coin and they don't care about the development of the project. That's why project runners don't like them and they are blocked by telegram admins. Just my 2 cents.

If they are going to stop multiple accounts then they can do it while joining so it is not the primary reason.

If you are ready to give your personal documents to someone is okay but you need to be caustious as well because it is going onto the hands of someone who you found on internet.

They put a gold rule about dynamic conditions on terms of the campaign in the bounty thread. KYC is not good for anonymous projects but bounty hunters are forced to cross it for having the rights to accept the bounty tokens.

I agree, they should do their verification in the beginning and either allow or disallow a participant. However, the problem with this is that you give away data and if the project doesn't raise enough and gets cancelled you gave your data for nothing.

You know, I did not have problems with passing KYC, but sometimes it happens that you face some problems with KYC passing because of the different reasons. But in case the real team want the project to be successful and in order not to loose the investors and appreciators of the platform they do their best to help you to pass it and do their best to help you to solve the problem. So I quite agree that it depends on the situation.

The spirit behind of every law or principle is to solve a problem but what if the law or principle becomes a problem of what essence shall it be to the citizens? The so called KYC is bureaucratic and opposed to the spirit behind decentralization and worst of it all ICOs now use it as an opportunity to rob unsuspecting bounty hunters of their hard earned fortune 'their token'.

As the name suggest shows that the team wants to know the person they are dealing with due to the high rate of money laundering and many other negative vices that goes on in the digital world. KYC is not made for any target group and there if only you want to be a token holder you just go through. There is nothing to be scared of, nothing scary at all.

I have nothing against the KYC procedure. Now the projects have to introduce this procedure. Fraud has increased not only among the projects, but also among the participants of the bounty. Therefore, you just need to choose a good company to participate and not be afraid of the KYC procedure.

The reason why so many hunters are clamuring for the removal of KYC requirement is because many of them uses alt account in participating in the bounty campaign and they don't want to be cut since they know the implication on their account. To some people, they don't want to give out their personal information and is why they are against KYC.

Choosing can be so hard for now, and I won't able to trust anymore for legit companies to choose for this time. I am tired to providing kyc's but it turned out failure of expectations and sadly after the project it was so hurting to be disappointed after all efforts made. I considered myself a victim of that fraud like projects, that's why new upcoming projects was too hard to offer or gather legit kyc because of that reasons.

I may agree on with that. Company do kyc to protect company from fraud or people who invest money came from bad doings. However when it comes to bounty hunters. I think they have right to not like kyc because first of all they are not investing money. They invest time and effort to promote the project. Having a kyc also is not a guarantee that the bounty hunters get paid for their work. There are a lot of ico asking kyc but in the end they just gone.

The bounty of the company for quite some time do not bring profit to the bounty hunters, so take KYC to participate in the bounty becomes less appropriate.

Definitely true! some projects are not worth it to give your own information because they might be a scam or not successful one so bounty hunters must be very attentive with regards of picking bounties especially if the project require KYC.

There is much misinformation in your OP, I will give it a short sum up:

It is not fair because Bounty hunters are not investors. They don't put money into it they only get free coins.

Of course they are wrong. They are enforcing a high risk to bounty hunters to send kyc to scammers.

No, there can't be money laundering because there can't be money invested if you are only bounty hunter.

Yeah, you wrote it here, why don't you get it???!!! Bounty hunters don't invest money so it can't be laundered.

Your advice is misinformation and a shame for someone being in crypto. It's like the politicans making laws and don't know the shit what they are doing. Exactly like your BS text.

I think that many times for the bounty hunters they demand their KYC, not only for investing their time in some task to obtain the tokens, but for the fact, that there are many  who want to take advantage of the system, that is, they create multicuentas and want to take tokens inappropriately, that way I interpret the reason for demanding the KYC.

For this reason, in the ICO, or STO, there must be a special KYC verification team that is very strict, only so that possible cheats are not leaked.

The part that many people do not like, is that many operators, like to remain anonymous, and do not like to reveal their personal data, because if the project turns out to be SCAM they will have their data in some database, being something very delicate.

In those cases, it is necessary to see if the bounty hunter risks giving his KYC or not, it would be a very personal decision.

I dont have objection about KYC because i think its good to comply government regulation. If we join in the campaign, we should be trust the project is good and i think its not a problem if we give information about us because government regulation on ICOs

If the information stays with the projects and the projects are serious, it shouldn't be a problem. But what happens if they leak the data?

LOL and scammers are celebrating this to steal your IDs and sell it for criminal actions. Just LOOOL. Plz make at least a somewhat decent post instead of such useless shitposts without any appropriate sense. Same goes to mega spammer LUCKMCFLY.  ::)

This!
That's why KYC is an extreme danger for everyone who must submit it. Nobody need KYC.

Not that nobody needs KYC if it is a legal requirement, but the risk can't be ignored that the data gets abused or leaked.

In my opinion, KYC is a good procedure. KYC for Bounty arises because many people violate regulations. ICO companies don't want their coins to fall on people who cheat. KYC is a procedure that must be done even if you oppose it.

You are fast to judge those who don't want to pass KYC or do not accept KYC, well if you are participating in all the ICO that you are investing and promoting and pass the KYC don't be surprised if you find all your personal details sold in the black market, let's admit it, these ICO's come and go and who do you ask what happen to your personal details, when the ICO that you've got in is already nowhere to be found.

KYC is indeed a problem in every Bounty program. Many Bounty participants don't pass KYC and don't get tokens. Those who qualify for KYC can get tokens. But what's interesting to me is that every time KYC is used rarely the project can succeed. And I see that every time the token is entered in the Exchange the price immediately drops. Could this developer be unprofessional in doing his job.

The KYC system often makes bounty hunters reluctant to join the project, in the end they always think that KYC is not commensurate with their work, whereas on the other hand I think KYC can also help reduce many accounts.

the only problem with KYC is the risk that might you get from passing your KYC to the team, imagine they can used it to their own purposes like they pretend that they were you and used it for some legal or illegal purposes without your consent, that is what people are avoiding. Since sometimes KYC was announced after the campaign then the scammers are the team behind it because they were not transparent from the start, although they had the authority to change the rules but the image of them will be broken.

Silly reasoning. The KYC check is carried out in order to prevent dirty money laundering and to combat the financing of terrorism. Conducting it for another purpose is illegal. The guillotine (clipping head) also treats headaches. But is it worth it for this to apply? Checking KYC with unregulated activities ICO does cryptocurrency and participants of the cryptocurrency market more harm than good.

I agree that KYC is only used for bounty hunters, but unfortunately at the moment there are many ICO projects that require KYC so that investors don't like it, crypto is anonymous so anyone who has crypto doesn't need to know their identity.

KYC is not a bad idea but I believe it should be stated before the start of the bounty. I have been denied some tokens from projects I did simply because of KYC which wasn't stated before I started the bounty campaign

Absolutely agree with you! If a KYC is needed for bounty hunters, please report it at the start of a bounty campaign. I also came across cases where the need for a KYC was reported at the end of a bounty campaign, and it was not always possible to successfully pass a KYC later.

I do understand your point, KYC is a must for everyone as it is for the protection of the ICO team as they dont want to participate a restricted citezen of a specific country.
Though, what most bounty participants want, is to announce the KYC at the beginning of the campaign and not after it.
We all want to be transparent so people who can't do KYC will not join the bounty anymore.

Makes sense if they want to do KYC for bounty hunters, it should be done before the start of the campaign, some campaign run for 5 months to 8 months and you can imagine the frustration of not getting your 8 months work because you did not pass their KYC.

I agree with you and think that KYC process is a must for every investor as well as for all bounty participants, because as soon as they have got their tokens, they have the same right as investors because they are also holding their tokens.

Well any project that requires kyc for people to be part of shareholders or something is not really a true blockchain project. A real cryptocurrency that needs unique identifications could get it  without having direct access to them nor keep them on centralized platforms .
 I think all projects that require kyc should probably go through STO to raise funds and get all the identification they need. It is a bit confusing to portray cryptocurrency space as anonymity/privacy friendly space and then doing different thing entirely in violation of the principle.

Yup that is true. Some of them will only ask for it when it is time for you to withdraw your earnings. That is very wrong, they should state it that you will need KYC at the beginning and not when you’re about to withdraw, that’s very wrong cause they are doing what’s not of the agreement. But one thing I do know is that KYC is important , just that they are doing it the wrong way.

KYC is not really bad as some people think, but the thing is that some ICOs are now using it as a way to kind of play tricks on hunters or something. But I do know for sure that KYC is a very important thing to be done in every ICO, but you should also be aware of those that are doing it for the purpose of stealing your info and selling it on the dark web.

It also should be handled extremely professionally by a dedicated third party provider. Do you feel comfortable giving your ID to 2 guys running an airdrop for a coin? That's the problem. Nobody on this forum should ever do that. It is not worth it.

I understand your points that you have made. Anonymous owners of a company you are working in? That does not sound like a good idea. However, all participants should be aware of those requirements before they have joined a particular bounty. Many feel betrayed when they do not receive what belongs to them just because someone has changed requirements at last minute. A deal should be as clear as it can be before any action is taken. Otherwise, you will not attract many people with an unstable attitude  ;).

You have to make difference between STOs and ICOs. STOs are a different animal and asking for KYC there is legally a must. Asking for KYC in ICOs for hunters is a nonsense. They are getting a small amount of tokens which is not worth for risking your personal data. Many ICOs doing the KYC process themselves which is not secure at all.

KYC almost becomes the issues that never loses in the crypto world. The presence of KYC has positive and negative sides. ALl about these have been told by the members in this thread.
Well, I personally don't mean to fulfill the KCY process as long as the project is trusted, they have trusted and professional team, and big rewards for it.
However, what makes me feel worried is that we offer our identity, our private card to someone that we really don't know whether they are real or not, trusted or not. I'm sure that not all KYC processor is a scammer, but, there are also some projects doing KYC and it is a scam, so for what our identity? That is what makes me worried, to offer my identity to the KYC process, because I cannot put my trust fully to them.

i dont mind if the bounty asking about kyc
but the problem that not happend on first time, it happend when bounty end then we need to complete kyc before distribution
many bounty didnt ask kyc at first time then at the end they did
not all people join bounty can pass kyc

Maybe this regulation must be changed and KYC informed at the beginning of the campaign. So Bounty participants who want to join must pass KYC. So the Bounty participants who joined also went through a rigorous election. And some projects also have KYC at the start of the campaign.

I believe there is no misunderstanding in KYC even I would say there are some hunters that wants to remain anonymous on the other hand there are some people whose personal data has been misused so they will remain against it because they do not want to make the same mistake again that's the reason some people are afraid to give their personal details. Personally I don't have any issue to pass KYC to get the coins even we all know very well some project has to follow their country rules and regulations that's why they ask KYC.

For honest if in case there's real chance for developers to know if they are trustworthy, but considering the risk KYC still being questioned by many hunters who's joining the campaigns, as they doesn't like to complete this task as potential of risking your personal information.

KYC will still unclear for people who didn't bothered to weight  the real essence and reason behind, developers / bounty managers are still in control
about how to handle things like this,.

I also consider it fair to prevent multiple accounts, because all participants have the same rights and cannot be greedy.