A different perspective on KYC for bounties

[HashFace]

After being in a campaign that ‘surprise’ KYC’ed their members after the campaign was completed, I have to say, the KYC was worth it.

People do have a valid complaint about the 'surprise' KYC only being mentioned after the work was done, but from the looks of it, the manager has ID’ed hundreds of “spam syndicates”, duplicate accounts, people registering under other people’s BCT user name, etc …  and at least half of the members didn’t bother to KYC.  It means a lot more for the rest of us.

And I can tell you first hand, from what I’ve witness, the bounty manager is taking this very serious, doing his best to eliminate cheaters and give the people who actually cared about the project a larger share.
Now, I get the complaints, especially when the KYC isn’t mentioned in the announcement, but it worked like it was supposed to.  So far, the most common objections to KYC itself I’ve seen are:

Crypto is supposed to be private:  Yes, it could be, but every other investment I’ve been involved in has required much more info than what the KYC asked for…. Social Security numbers and the names of my heirs, for example.   KYC asked for my name, address, phone number, and a picture ID.  Really, not much more than you can find on a government website about me, or my business Facebook.

I can’t trust an ICO with my personal data:  Really?  You are promoting the ICO and asking people to invest their hard earned money in it, but you can’t trust them with your name and address?   This is only a valid concern if you are a professional bounty hunter retweeting every campaign out there without regard for quality.  If you engage in one bounty at a time, you have the luxury of researching the crap out of it before you get involved.

I hope in the future that more bounties include whether or not they KYC in their announcement.   I know the merit system was just introduced, but I think KYC for signature campaigns will cut down the spamming and duplicate accounts much more.  It will discourage the “spam syndicates” from getting involved right from the start, and probably make the campaign manager’s job easier.

I would absolutely get involved in another project that KYC’s if they check out, so I hope they will start making that part of their announcement.   In fact, if I were a campaign manager, I would put “we reserve the right to KYC our members” in every announcement, just to discourage the multi-account spammers.

[SungkZ]

I would put “we reserve the right to KYC our members” in every announcement, just to discourage the multi-account spammers.

Very well said, I'm just not sure if it will matter to other ICOs out there. This is actually a good explanation as to why KYC should be implemented to all Signature Campaign, it will be a big help for this forum to have a more secure environment full of competent people.

[shinratensei_]

Open this link
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2436192.msg24947473#msg24947473

FYI, UAHpay is confirmed scam project and already dump all of the pre-mined tokens to the market, and then the developer was running with all of ethereum that has been reached through the crowdsale.

I see one or more projects that have the similar case with UAH.

[MoonIsBlue]

After being in a campaign that ‘surprise’ KYC’ed their members after the campaign was completed, I have to say, the KYC was worth it.

People do have a valid complaint about the 'surprise' KYC only being mentioned after the work was done, but from the looks of it, the manager has ID’ed hundreds of “spam syndicates”, duplicate accounts, people registering under other people’s BCT user name, etc …  and at least half of the members didn’t bother to KYC.  It means a lot more for the rest of us.

And I can tell you first hand, from what I’ve witness, the bounty manager is taking this very serious, doing his best to eliminate cheaters and give the people who actually cared about the project a larger share.
Now, I get the complaints, especially when the KYC isn’t mentioned in the announcement, but it worked like it was supposed to.  So far, the most common objections to KYC itself I’ve seen are:

Crypto is supposed to be private:  Yes, it could be, but every other investment I’ve been involved in has required much more info than what the KYC asked for…. Social Security numbers and the names of my heirs, for example.   KYC asked for my name, address, phone number, and a picture ID.  Really, not much more than you can find on a government website about me, or my business Facebook.

I can’t trust an ICO with my personal data:  Really?  You are promoting the ICO and asking people to invest their hard earned money in it, but you can’t trust them with your name and address?   This is only a valid concern if you are a professional bounty hunter retweeting every campaign out there without regard for quality.  If you engage in one bounty at a time, you have the luxury of researching the crap out of it before you get involved.

I hope in the future that more bounties include whether or not they KYC in their announcement.   I know the merit system was just introduced, but I think KYC for signature campaigns will cut down the spamming and duplicate accounts much more.  It will discourage the “spam syndicates” from getting involved right from the start, and probably make the campaign manager’s job easier.

I would absolutely get involved in another project that KYC’s if they check out, so I hope they will start making that part of their announcement.   In fact, if I were a campaign manager, I would put “we reserve the right to KYC our members” in every announcement, just to discourage the multi-account spammers.

KYC isn't bad but the problem is is trust. Depending on what documents to submit etc, it can be very risky.
You have to trust that the party receiving the verification doesn't have malicious intent such as selling it on the darkweb. Might get rid of cheaters, but who knows what the receiver will do with that information? Who knows how secure that information is, is it not going to get hacked?

I know an ICO that had KYC and ended up scamming the investors + selling the emails right here on Bitcointalk whilst trying to convince the investors they were not exit-scamming, now thats fucked up.

[Murloc]

I hope in the future that more bounties include whether or not they KYC in their announcement.   I know the merit system was just introduced, but I think KYC for signature campaigns will cut down the spamming and duplicate accounts much more.  It will discourage the “spam syndicates” from getting involved right from the start, and probably make the campaign manager’s job easier.

Thats gona be another small step for losing privacy in crypto market. It might be fine if the bounty hunters will have to whitelist their addreses but if 3rd parties like campaign managers will have an access to KYC (without this access it will be hard af to hold a campaign) then it is definetely gona be bad. I've always been saying that there is nothing bad in KYC and it is not that horrifying if someone steal it. Hundreeds of people have access to your ID and everything is fine for many reasons (ofc unless someone will find out that you have 100k btc and you live in this particular adres, then it is better to mix your coins once again).

[rehydrogenated]

You just liked how there were people who didn't complete the KYC requirement so you got more stakes. So for you it was free BTCBTCBTC

I have no problem with KYC if it is stated at the start of a project. But I sign up for lots of small bounties. I'm not going to send my personal info to a dozen or so different ICOs and pray they will keep my private info safe. That is my choice. I shouldn't have my stakes stolen because I was not informed from the start of the requirements.

KYC can reduce botting or multiaccount, but so can a hundred other strategies that don't involve my passport.

[pranazzs]

You just liked how there were people who didn't complete the KYC requirement so you got more stakes. So for you it was free BTCBTCBTC

I have no problem with KYC if it is stated at the start of a project. But I sign up for lots of small bounties. I'm not going to send my personal info to a dozen or so different ICOs and pray they will keep my private info safe. That is my choice. I shouldn't have my stakes stolen because I was not informed from the start of the requirements.

KYC can reduce botting or multiaccount, but so can a hundred other strategies that don't involve my passport.

I agree with you, but there is a guarantee of our data is safe? we do not know our data is used for anything!
very dangerous if it gets misused.
still use anonymous data,

[stan_]

I agree the bounty manager need to start to make KYC for bounty hunters, because in a lot of the campaign now there are a lot of multiaccaunts in twitter and facebook campaigns. Also a lot of bots and only bounty profiles, who need such members in campaign?

[oddwh]

I would say requesting KYC at the end of the bounty campain is a scam itself, so I wouldn't give any documents to a company that start their business by hiding their conditions.

KYC is NOT useful in bounty campain. I don't even understand how people here feel happy to give their personal informations to unknown people who can steal them   It doesn't protect for multiple accounts as people can register on two different campain to avoid that.

[mariaana]

Everyone have their own point of view when it comes to KYC.  I am still confused on the term "Know Your Customer" (KYC for short) until now for bounties.  In my own perspective bounties are not customers but advertisers who work for the project.  Maybe this is the cause why many bounties were not able to fill the KYC form.  I hope there will be a change in the name of the form.  However, the content of the form is truly helpful in eliminating cheaters and scammers.  KYC could truly help to curtail the uses of crypt money to terrorism because the person identity is exposed and verified. 

[Spaffin]

The whole problem is that some members of the subscription campaign do not want to send their personal information to little-known people, let alone copies of their ID cards and they have the right to adhere to it. Therefore, these persons count on honesty in that the requirement for providing certain information was indicated at the beginning of the campaign, before joining the signature campaign, and not after the work done, when such people no longer have the right to choose. If such a claim is claimed at the end, in fact it will be a fraud, because people will have the right to either provide personal information when they do not want to do it, or refuse and do not receive earned tokens.

[jezus]

Kyc info should be info big red size text.

[styca]

People do have a valid complaint about the 'surprise' KYC only being mentioned after the work was done, but from the looks of it, the manager has ID’ed hundreds of “spam syndicates”, duplicate accounts, people registering under other people’s BCT user name, etc …  and at least half of the members didn’t bother to KYC.  It means a lot more for the rest of us.

Yes, it is a bit unnerving when we are used to the anonymity of crypto, but anything that stops multi-accounting is good news. KYC is another step on the road to mainstream adoption.