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

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?