Update on the KYC Debates and Allowing Non-Accredited Bounty Hunters

[QlooQl]

As many of you already know, KYC has become a popular tool for airdrops and bounties. Although KYC does serve the purpose of weeding out bots and cheaters, it is the antithesis of privacy and decentralization. It is my opinion that blockchain projects that keep all their users KYC information are doomed to fail.

The good news is that the trend of requiring KYC for bounty hunters has abated somewhat. Additionally, I am seeing that large projects with big legal teams trying their best to follow regulations worldwide are allowing non-accredited "investors" to participate in high-paying bounties. (For those of you who don't know, an accredited investor according to the SEC has >$2.5 million in assets).

A good example of a project that is playing by the rules while not going overboard on regulations for bounty hunters is the Chimaera project. The Chimaera project initially banned US bounty hunters, but after a legal review, decided to again allow US-based bounty hunters.

If you know of any projects that are discussing issues facing bounty hunters, please leave a comment below!

[ZaynDale]

In my bounty hunting experiences, recently this KYC broke out and given confusions for most of the bounty campaign participants that they might needed KYC or personal identification in order to get our bounty stake tokens.
But, fortunately none of them really required us to do the same KYC as they require on ICO investors.
Good to know that bounty campaigns doesn't require KYC and only for ICO investors but otherwise, I am willing to forward them my identity just in case.

[boroda074]

I also think it's unfair, many people just do not want to give their data to someone else's hands and they do not pay for their work!