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.

Now, it seems that the ICO teams themselves are trying to make money for us as bounty hunters. They first admit us to the signature campaign, we work for three to five months, but in the end we are told that now, instead of receiving tokens, we must pass a KYC check that sometimes is almost impossible to pass. As a result, we simply do not pay already earned tokens. And what do we do with such fraudsters?

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?

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?

While the ICO teams behave as if they really want to become a thing of the past and are now trying to deceive everyone around them, including the bounty hunters. If deception is not direct with fundraising from investors and the subsequent flight, then after the end of the ICO, they suddenly declare that all participants of the ICO generosity need to pass a KYC check, and try to make sure that more bounty hunters do not fail. This is practically a new type of fraud and must be dealt with.

In addition, now the ICO teams have started to conduct a KYC check for both investors and participants of the ICO generosity campaign. At the same time, they behave as if they are trying not to allow either investors or bounty hunters to the project. With regard to bounty hunters, they came up with a new way of fraud - to require the KYC to be tested after the end of the ICO. It seems that ICO teams do not want investors to buy their tokens from them and bounty hunters to advertise their projects. Maybe, really, such ICO teams need to arrange a boycott and not join their projects so that they at least stop deceiving us?

Yes, the state authorities should regulate the conduct of ICOs at the place of registration of the ICO team. I just do not see any other way out. Until that time, you can simply boycott those ICO teams that will not guarantee that there will be no KYC checks at the end of the ICO. With the participation of the administration of the forum this issue can be solved. The forum administration should protect the interests of the forum participants. Altcoinstalks is already deciding whether to carry out verification on the forum itself, which will mean passing KYC checks for all ICO teams that will launch ICO projects on this forum.

I do not see any problems with the number of bounty hunters in this forum. Sometimes ICO signature campaigners are valid for some ICO campaigns too much, but for some.
  there are almost no others. Due to difficulties in acquiring ranks, the number of forum participants is unlikely to increase. In principle, I was negative about the introduction of restrictions related to the emergence of merit, but sometimes I think that maybe it is right. If this forum is overloaded and there is demand, other similar forums will develop.

The fact that people cannot see and touch with their hands will be poorly implemented in practice. Moreover, it concerns money. Therefore, cryptocurrency is so difficult to enter our life as a payment system. I think that there will be a certain part of people who do not want to switch to the use of cryptocurrency at all.

These general phrases about building a state without a territory for walking Bitcoin cannot be used in practice. However, even if we assume that a separate state with its territory would be created, this state hardly existed for a long time. No economy of any state can operate on a decentralized cryptocurrency. There will be no relationship between cryptocurrency and the economy of this state; they will exist by themselves. Such a state cannot survive for a long time.

Yes, it would be much better if the market traditionally began to grow in the last two months of this year. If this does not happen yet, the recovery of the market may take a long time, because the new wave of cryptocurrency owners will be disappointed and leave this market, selling their coins and tokens at these very low prices. Then the forecast that the bear market may be delayed for another 12-18 months will be quite real.

The price of ethereum has really dropped for some time, even compared to the price of bitcoin. However, this is all temporary. Such a fall has already stopped, and taking into account the expected improvements, ethereum should soon gain its popularity. If the market gradually recovers, ethereum will very quickly begin to gain its value even in comparison with other types of cryptocurrency.

The impression is that ethereum intentionally recently wanted to lower the price. It began a massive attack with criticism, where it is deserved, but most often undeserved. Recently, it seems to have already stopped after the information appeared about what improvements are waiting for this coin in the near future. Ethereum should soon take off again in its popularity and after improvements, and after even wrapped bitcoins in the form of tokens will be in its platform.

Now such a state of the market, that in the near future it should grow vseravno, Kskoye, would not have made the decision SEC. This decision may speed up or slow down this process a bit. For now, the whole intrigue is whether Bitcoin will grow before the New Year, which would be desirable for a quick recovery of the cryptocurrency market, or as early as 2019, but the stagnation of the market may then still be delayed, and taking into account various processes - for a long time.

My mind says that for Bitcoin and cryptocurrency as a whole it will be much better if Bitcoin is slow, without large price spikes. We have already seen why such a surge in December last year led the cryptocurrency market.
However, sometimes such a significant surge still want. Therefore, let the cryptocurrency develop as it turns out. Vseravno we can not affect this process.

National money of the states will not disappear anywhere. They will exist as long as the states themselves exist. States will sweep away anyone who tries to hinder the circulation of their local money.
On the other hand, a decentralized cryptocurrency can never replace the national money of the states, they are simply not adapted for this. First of all, they have no interaction with the state economy and have very high volatility.

We already want sustainable growth of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. We have already seen the consequences of a sharp rise in bitcoin prices. In the end, what did he give? Some managed to sell it at a high price? And nothing more good. Of course, if you do not take into account that at this time almost all altcoins are also.
If bitcoin grew in price more moderately, now for a whole year the market would not be in such deep stagnation. In addition, now he would have a price much higher than its current price and the holders of cryptocurrency would not be in such shock.

Bitcoin cannot be stable in nature. It will either be an unstable bitcoin, or it will not be the bitcoin we already know. In order for Bitcoin to become stable in its price, it must be regulated as national centralized money is regulated. Such a path is not suitable for decentralized cryptocurrency.

Anyone who is engaged in illegal activities, probably has its well-established and proven channels for the passage of money. Cryptocurrency is still a relatively new phenomenon and many criminals do not trust it. They use proven methods, including transferring money through offshore zones. It is more reliable. Cryptocurrency still needs to be able to use and no one can give any guarantee. But often the amount used is large.

This dollar in us is so special that it is not supported by gold and has no other property equivalent of value. In general, the economies of all normal states are built on the principle that paper money at face value is issued for the sum of gross national product, that is, the value of all material values ​​in the state and its gold and foreign exchange reserves. Over the year, the state has the right to print as much money as GDP has increased, that is, gross national product.
Cryptocurrency can not work on this principle, so it can never replace the national money of the states.