As many of you are aware, a majority of bounty campaigns are now requiring KYC from us bounty hunters before releasing their tokens due to supposed regulations or "pressure" that the banks are placing upon them. This is fine for bounty campaigns that declared this before we contributed to their bounty campaign, however for bounty campaigns that didn't inform us KYC would be required, this is in my opinion against our rights. In essence, these companies derived free advertising from us without paying a wage by misleading us, which could fall under humans rights abuse or at the very least breach of advertising law.

For serious bounty promoters who are willing to help contribute to a legal fund so we can begin taking legal action against these campaigns so they can pay us our legal costs in pursuance of such action, plus the tokens that are owed to us, please do PM me. I'm not a scammer, those of you who know me know I own ICOVeteran.com - a respected ICO review site that I used to run during the ICO boom.

We cannot stand by idly whilst tokens that are owed to us are withheld behind KYC. The reason I personally refuse to participate in the KYC is because I've experienced identify theft in the past, and some of these ICOs are actually part of crime syndicates which I don't wish to share my personal details with.

Anyone else who shares my views, is willing to help contribute financially so we can pool our money together in a legal fund, do contact me.

Thank you.

[The Bounty Scam]

I am the owner of the Sapien Community channel (George Cunningham), the unofficial telegram channel for bounty hunters of Sapien - http://t.me/sapien_community

I am not a representative of the bounty campaign, which was run by TokenSuite. TokenSuite has since disappeared once the bounty campaign finished, and did nothing on our behalf to ensure the promised bounty supply was issued. I am just a community volunteer.

The Bounty Scam
I could write a long, multi-paged post about how the team are outright scammers and did not issue their promised allocation of bounty tokens, but instead of doing all that I'll just let the evidence speak for itself. In summary, 5% allocation was promised (25 million tokens), however only 0.5% allocation was issued. After much community uproar and my talks with the team, the bounty was increased to a paltry 1%. An additional bounty campaign was run (there was no indication it would be in the original post) where an additional 0.25% of tokens were distributed, for a total of 1.25% tokens (6.25 million). The token sale/ICO ended long ago, and those tokens have already been distributed, hence no need for any further bounty campaigns to promote the ICO. The team has absolutely and staunchly refused to issue the full 5% for bounty promotional services rendered up to the time of this post, so arbitration is pointless. There is no excuse for not issuing the full 5% of the tokens due to the simple fact that the HARD CAP of the token sale was reached.

EXHIBIT 1
Note the "6 weeks". Combined bounty campaigns went well in excess of 6 weeks. "Up to 5%" - A complete lie, even with hard cap.


EXHIBIT 2
Bounty hunters sought clarification on bounty payments for the signature campaign in the official telegram chat. A team member confirmed 7.5 million tokens for the signature campaign alone.


EXHIBIT 3
Even after compromising and allowing the team to go back on their promise to issue 5% in a single bounty campaign as was originally advertised, we still, to this date, have only received 1.25% bounty pool over two separate bounty campaigns. This total amount (6.25 million) allocated to all bounty hunters in all bounties over 2 separate campaigns is still less than even the signature campaign that was originally promised for the initial bounty. Keep in mind the crowdsale has finished months ago and ICO & bounty tokens have already been released, so reserving bounty tokens serves no more purpose for promotion of the ICO.



And now for the slippery slope crawling from the CEO himself:





I hope this serves as sufficient evidence that the Sapien project is in fact a scam and may be blacklisted from BitcoinTalk accordingly. Hopefully such a reputation will follow it. I am just one volunteer so no doubt missed out on many things.

This post may be updated with future evidence that I did not include, as there is a lot of it.

Sign here if you will also agree to boycott all bounty campaigns that do not pay in BTC or ETH.

I've noticed a concerning trend lately with ICOs that the number scams has increased drastically. A lot of these scams fail to reach their soft caps or simply run away with investor funds. Nearly all of them have one thing in common: no KYC passed team members at ICOBench.

Lately I've only been promoting ICOs with KYC-verified team members. The number of failed bounty distributions has gone down drastically. This saves time and money for both investors, and bounty hunters.

My recommendation for the community: If you're a serious bounty promoter that puts time and effort into your promotions, don't bother with any ICO that hasn't got KYC-verified team members. There's a lot of bounty campaigns now with hundreds of replies in the Altcoin section that are obvious scams, yet have immense hype. Ignore these and stick to KYC-verified teams and I'm sure you'll notice a lot more positive results, and a lot less disappointment. You also owe it to the people you promote to.

Disclaimer: There are still scams with people willing to use their real persona, however these are much, much rarer than a fake or anonymous team. Always research an ICO first before promoting it to make sure it's legitimate.

Afraid of your soft cap not being reached? Many bounty campaigns do not promote to English speaking audiences because their content campaign articles are not written by native English speakers. I write reviews and featured reviews for various ICOs on my website - ICOVeteran.com which is read by mom & pop investors. I'm a professional copywriter and publisher. English is my native language. Go to my website and read some of the reviews to see the quality for yourself. People like my reviews since they're impartial, listing both the positives and negatives of each project. However there is an overall positive tone to my reviews because if I don't believe in a project I won't promote it or list it on my site.

All the content I publish is syndicated on my Medium and SteamIt accounts with 1000 combined real followers. My website receives 200 hits daily on average.

If you're a team interested in gaining some exposure to my readerbase and you'd like me to write a Featured Review for you (these will appear at the top part of the website with all advertising removed), then I will do so for my current rate which is 2 ETH. I may optionally choose to accept staking in your project token if I believe there's a good chance it won't crash in price. Due to the risk I take on for doing this, I'll accept the equivalent of 10 ETH in token ICO value at the initial bonus level. So you have two options for payment.

Feel free to PM me here or message me on telegram if interested (@jlaren1). Please note I will only write about projects that look legitimate and preferably have a verified team member on ICOBench. I will not promote a project if I believe it's a scam, no matter how much ETH is offered. It's best you allow me to examine the project first. I require half payment up front, and the other half after publication.

Currently, no bounty management teams properly represent the interests of bounty hunters. We are paid in project tokens that usually go to 10x below ICO value at the time of release. We need to form a bounty management team that only accepts ICOs that will pay in ETH. In fact, to list with us, bounties need to be paid in ETH.

Who would be willing to join such campaigns with this restriction? If there's enough interest I might create something since it seems there's not any bounty management teams interested in representing us hunters fairly.

I cannot count the number of times my content article has been the only one in the spreadsheet that's been written by a native English speaker. Most of the time (80% or so) my articles are rejected outright or receive the lowest staking award. When I then contact the team to clarify the staking received, they usually agree it is too low and they subsequently correct the bounty managers staking decision.

The only explanation I can think of as to why bounty managers would give broken English articles maximum staking, yet high word count native English articles that actually have a little character to them no/lowest staking, is that they themselves aren't that familiar with the English language. To them, they can't tell the difference.

So my advise to project teams is this: Hire bounty managers that can at least tell the difference between high quality and shit English articles, so they can allocate staking correctly. Heck, I'll offer to manage bounty campaigns personally if you're interested since I cannot get over how vastly incompetent and idiotic every bounty campaign manager here on this forum seems to be, perhaps apart from the established leaders here. The rest? Utter shit.

So if you're a new team, consider me. Or if you don't, at least make sure your bounty manager isn't a complete moron.

Obviously they shut down the exchange, however they said in a press release that they'll do their best to continue promotion of the BCC coin and build products to support it in future so it can regain its price. Do you believe this is possible or not?