KYC for ICO buyers and bounty hunters? Better KYC for ICO & Bounties issuers!

[Kavallo]

The tendence is rising to legally impose a KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure to people willing to buy tokens at an ICO. At the same time there have been rumors a KYC possibly to be imposed also to bounty hunters taking part to bounty campaigns. Polymath has already imposed a KYC procedure to anyone willing to receive its airdrop.
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?

[1715659972]

1715659972

[1715659972]

1715659972

[1715659972]

1715659972

[kipozer]

Very interesting topic in fact, because already many bounty hunters asked this question, even probably not only bounty hunters but also investors. I believe that we (bounty hunters and investors) should not share their personal data with anyone, because this is only our personal data.

[Brunus]

Ouch, what bad memories... actually I partecipated in "C" campaign and I'd like very much to know who was behind it, just to have some small talk - face to face of course - and to explain  convincingly to him how to behave...

The tendence is rising to legally impose a KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure to people willing to buy tokens at an ICO. At the same time there have been rumors a KYC possibly to be imposed also to bounty hunters taking part to bounty campaigns. Polymath has already imposed a KYC procedure to anyone willing to receive its airdrop.
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?

[Teraboy]

THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?

I know that, the only party can take the advantage through the anonymity is the developer itself https://cointelegraph.com/news/dont-believe-the-hype-the-five-largest-ico-exit-scams-expert-take
Opair, Plexcoin, Ebitz and other scam coin that had made by scammers through use the anonymity and try to issued fake idenditity. This should become another problem.

[icol333]

Oh, I remember exactly how the infamous "C" project on the first time it introduced to the forum, which I knew it would be nasty in the end
For me, KYC is not a bad thing for someone who wants to invest in some ICO but as long as the project itself is a transparent and from trustworthy developers (who already started some success project before). That is why we need to do some research on the ICO progress and the team itself to avoid being scammed.

And for the bounties, I agree with you to not using the KYC as they are only helping to spread the words about the project. They are not "directly" invest a large amount of cash into the project, so why even bother with using KYC?

[ZaoXhou]

The tendence is rising to legally impose a KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure to people willing to buy tokens at an ICO. At the same time there have been rumors a KYC possibly to be imposed also to bounty hunters taking part to bounty campaigns. Polymath has already imposed a KYC procedure to anyone willing to receive its airdrop.
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?

You can probably make a good amount of money by selling passport scans and accommodating info to the right people, bad development overall.

[y3v63n]

The tendence is rising to legally impose a KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure to people willing to buy tokens at an ICO. At the same time there have been rumors a KYC possibly to be imposed also to bounty hunters taking part to bounty campaigns. Polymath has already imposed a KYC procedure to anyone willing to receive its airdrop.
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?

I think this will happen eventually as I now see more and more investors telegram groups where people decide against pumbing their money into projects without due diligence first.

[Leocrypto da Vinci]

KYC for ICO bounty hunters -  and much in airdrops - is just a lazy way to verify that no one uses multiple accounts.
(actually no a so efficient way: you can make plenty of passports with photoshop, I don't think they can check their authenticity... )
Btw, it's normal that the market will be more and more regulated, so it's better to accept this fact.

[Daria_daria1992]

In fact, this is a very serious topic.  And scammers can use confidential information.  I wonder how you can protect yourself?  Just do not participate in such projects?  But in some bounty company about the need to pass KYC report only at the end of the company.  Can I put some watermarks on the photo documents?  Or this action will not protect against scammers?

[cryptocue]

I also dont like risking my IDs with these KYC ICOs i would rather invest to another ICO instead of giving my identification to these people,because if some happened in our identities for example the IDs were sold others and then used it to identitfy thefts that would be the worst case scenario which i wont take it to happen,joining these KYC ICOs has more risk.

[heritage35]

This new idea that has been adopted by some projects or that some are about to adopt is not the best. I feel this will even encouraged where fraudulent acts, where people use fake identities to claim numerous rewards. This is getting unbecoming, how will KYC will adopted for bounty hunters. Why such at this time? Something that was not in the system and things went on well.

[Praesidium]

For me, I really dont like the idea of KYC in ICO, bounties and etc etc. Because why we give our identity information to the one's we don't know or ever meet? This is quite dangerous for the ones who filled up the KYC form since there's a chance that your info might get fraud and use for bad purpose. So for my KYC must not a requirement for Investing nor joining bounties or airdrops.

[kaloloy]

KYC (know your customer) had been in the most businesses worldwide even in my country to eliminate bogus clients and customers because one of the crimes were started into scams and fraud (that's what I believe in my own opinion)
In my case I never have a problem with KYC requirement because I am a legal citizen who deserves to get what I supposed to get from joining on signature or any bounty campaigns conducted by ICOs and other forms of bounty offers.
I have no intention to protect myself from KYC because it is one of the most effective way to avoid scams and bogus ICOs.

[waorana]

It would take more transparency and clearer rules from each team of a project, their KYC could be a guarantee, but I think it is an absurd procedure for those who want to participate in an ICO and especially for the bounty hunters

[slaman29]

The tendence is rising to legally impose a KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure to people willing to buy tokens at an ICO. At the same time there have been rumors a KYC possibly to be imposed also to bounty hunters taking part to bounty campaigns. Polymath has already imposed a KYC procedure to anyone willing to receive its airdrop.
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?

Those aren't rumors, they are happening everywhere. Partly because bounties are full of scamming hunters but partly because the ICO projects all need to be more compliant in future, so they have to start collecting data and Kyc info on all participants. After all, some bounty hunters earn even more than ICO investors, and if they don't need kyc, then it would cause a lot of outcry from the investors.

But you have good point. ICO owners need to do kyc For the investors, if they require it from investors. It's only fair. But that's actually part of due diligence which ICO investors ignore.

[aurorabitcoin.96]

The tendence is rising to legally impose a KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure to people willing to buy tokens at an ICO. At the same time there have been rumors a KYC possibly to be imposed also to bounty hunters taking part to bounty campaigns. Polymath has already imposed a KYC procedure to anyone willing to receive its airdrop.
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?

Those aren't rumors, they are happening everywhere. Partly because bounties are full of scamming hunters but partly because the ICO projects all need to be more compliant in future, so they have to start collecting data and Kyc info on all participants. After all, some bounty hunters earn even more than ICO investors, and if they don't need kyc, then it would cause a lot of outcry from the investors.

But you have good point. ICO owners need to do kyc For the investors, if they require it from investors. It's only fair. But that's actually part of due diligence which ICO investors ignore.

First, i dont believe ICO will store my data safely also it will broke anonimity of my address. Bounty hunters just advertise with coin payment. So, it is not B.H responsibility to send their data, but Investors do.

[Benarand]

As we began to notice that for investors ICO increasingly began to introduce the procedure for passing KYC. I think that soon there will be a tendency to go through the same procedure for participants in bounty campaigns. It was good, it would allow to fight with scammers and bots, but on the other hand we send our data to outsiders who do not give any guarantees. The whole dilemma!!!!

[September11Myth]

KYC for ICO bounty hunters -  and much in airdrops - is just a lazy way to verify that no one uses multiple accounts.
(actually no a so efficient way: you can make plenty of passports with photoshop, I don't think they can check their authenticity... )
Btw, it's normal that the market will be more and more regulated, so it's better to accept this fact.

I agree, there are smarter ways to verify things like that. And most of simple verifications with KYC can be easily forged with photoshopped IDs. However, there are also very accurate KYCs done with live operators who watch at you holding your document in a webcam which are more difficutl to cheat. This is just a technical remark. Going to the issue, I am against this nowadays obsession of identifying everyone. In a just society that would be good. But in an orwellian society like ours is becoming more and more, you never know how that information can at some point be used against you.

[coinmgnet]

The tendence is rising to legally impose a KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure to people willing to buy tokens at an ICO. At the same time there have been rumors a KYC possibly to be imposed also to bounty hunters taking part to bounty campaigns. Polymath has already imposed a KYC procedure to anyone willing to receive its airdrop.
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?

The KYC for Bounty Hunters will pretty much ruin the very meaning and intention of the crypto currencies. We will slowly go to a place when there won't be any differences between Crypto or Centralized money...

[Lupus Solitarius]

"Crypto" it's from ancient greek, and it means "hidden".
So, to take off anonymity to something "hidden" is a contradiction. Of course the power will try everything to connect cryptoaccouts to people, so we need to act very carfully.

[qazgroup]

I fully agree with you, the projects team who is raising funds for their projects should be more transparent by providing their ids this will not only legalise the projects but also give more confidence to investors to invest big amounts.

[Brunus]

Like it or not, we need a more controlled place to move. We want freedom, but - when someone scams us and we don't have an authority to complain with - we understand that freedom can be abused.
Actually, it seems to me correct that - if someone asks for my ID - I have the right to ask for HIS ID.

[entr]

I can't really understand the KYC procedure for bounty hunters. It's related to money laundering and anti terrorist activities. Since, no one making any deposit to bounty programs its totaly unneccessary. Some of them says it's for preventing multi-acc submission to bounties but it not that hard to find multiple identities. 

[jbautistangina]

KYC isnt a good idea for the bounty hunters because we are just promoting the ICO itself,we are not making any investments from it.KYC are being use to detect those people who are abusing the ICOs,and these ICOs are doing these verifications to protect themselves fromt he SEC's regulation because if they didnt comply they will get sued by the SEC especially when U.S citizens have joined their ICO which is prohibited in the U.S.

[pharaon]

The problem is that when investing in an ICO project, almost everyone needs to go through KYC. We can not give them our data, but what remains for us? Projects dictate their own rules and have the right to change them in the course of behavior at any time. I believe that investors need some sort of guarantee ...

[awazieik]

The tendence is rising to legally impose a KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure to people willing to buy tokens at an ICO. At the same time there have been rumors a KYC possibly to be imposed also to bounty hunters taking part to bounty campaigns. Polymath has already imposed a KYC procedure to anyone willing to receive its airdrop.
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?

Now a lot of bounty hunters have been asking the reason why KYC is necessary . I believe that as long as bounty hunters are not scammers, they should share their information because they are also part of a project even though they don't pay any amount of money. Regulations are hard on ICOs that don't  perform KYC so bounty hunters should be ready to fill many KYC

[DAOfan]

The rise of KYC in ICOs is inevitable and will only increase. You will see almost no legitimate ICOs without KYC in the future and that already is mostly the case.

As far as bounties go, it is very difficult to be part of bounty if you are from the US or China these days. You will constantly lose bounties that do a surprise KYC for bounty hunters at the end of the project. While giving someone my personal info does bother me, the main problem I have is that so many projects do not announce their intentions ahead of time. I understand they want to limit bots and multi account and KYC is a great way to do that, however it is totally unfair to put in so much effort and then not receive anything because you don't feel like sending your passport to some random company for like .001/btc worth of tokens.

[CryptoRobert]

"Crypto" it's from ancient greek, and it means "hidden".
So, to take off anonymity to something "hidden" is a contradiction. Of course the power will try everything to connect cryptoaccouts to people, so we need to act very carfully.

I guess this will be the endgame of the powerful circles, every wallet of every cryptocurrency linked to a phisical person, by law, and perhaps even by Windows. I would not be surprised if the next release of Windows would do that automatically, continuously scanning the PC for wallets and linking them to the owner of the Window license.

[goinmerry]

KYC isnt a good idea for the bounty hunters because we are just promoting the ICO itself,we are not making any investments from it.KYC are being use to detect those people who are abusing the ICOs,and these ICOs are doing these verifications to protect themselves fromt he SEC's regulation because if they didnt comply they will get sued by the SEC especially when U.S citizens have joined their ICO which is prohibited in the U.S.

As far as the law is concerned, KYC will not be implemented if only SEC rules doesn't get on the way.

I don't see any sense that bounty hunters should also be put on KYC since they aren't investors. Let's watch how this KYC thing will be more bloom on ICO industry. Right now, majority of new ICOS are requiring KYC for their investors.

[mrcastelo]

I think KYC would protect investors as well as bounty hunters to  illegal or fraud ICOs. Because whos icos would make additional work of getting information to his investors if the fraud /scam ICO just want to take money out of the pocket of anyone.

[Kavallo]

In my OP I am speaking of "rumors" that bounty hunters may be asked to undergo a KYC to be able to receive bounties, but this is actually already a fact. I've got to know that for example the Live Stars campaign, after having run for SIX months and finally completed their ICO, has suddenly required their bounty hunters to undergo a KYC if they want to see their money. This is very clearly an abuse, since this was not stated in the OP rules the bounty hunters had agreed upon and now people who have promoted them for six months have to stand the blackmailing of revealing their identity or getting stolen their deserved money. This is especially bad since the Live Stars project is about sex and pornography, and for obvious reasons people may well wish not to be "officially" involved with that. In some countries it may even be forbidden to have anything to do with that. With such a "rule" coming out of the blue in the last minute, the Live Stars team may well succeed in stealing the money of many of the bounty hunters who have promoted them for half a year, at the same time keeping an aura of pseudo-legitimacy, since mainstream brainwashing has given to the concept of KYC a layer of sacrality.

[Nalbo]

YEs! if the company wants to know about the real identity of the investors, Investors should too be able to know whom they are trusting their hard earned money (and time).

[Vaflia]

I think when it comes to ico token projects, you need to forget about your anonymity because now tokens are the assets of young blockchain companies as stock. I believe that KYC is required, because then the ico start-UPS will have fewer problems with the law. IMHO

[Cryptodux]

KYC is very irritating, over all when it's unilateral and they ask for it at the end of a campaign.
But you know, they make the rules...

[chansss30]

In my side, I guess if they pursue to implement KYC to Bounty Hunters, maybe the Managers of that specific ICO project should make a documents like KYC, for example KTD ( KNOW THE DEVELOPER) (my opinion) just to make fairness from hunters - investors- developer.

[Nivelir]

Who will explain to me that in the end you will solve the process of know your customer? What in the end? Well, will you see a man in the eyes? And how do you know if he really shows you these documents? After all, this process should identify fraudsters? But in this way, this process only abducts and creates a large database of people who are related to crypto-currencies.

[cryptotitan]

Not necessary for the bounty hunters because the SEC regulations prohibits people from U.S of joining any of these ICOS because most of these projects are potential scams,Bounty hunters are only promoting these ICOs so more people would invest to the project,they are being rewarded after the ICO sales has ended,so why would any bounty campaigns will require KYC? answer would be because they dont want you to have your stakes.

[Magister Magus]

We like to have freedom, but when we are scammed we complain about the lack of control and we ask for authority.
When authority starts to control us, we complain about lack of freedom.
Actually, all our all civilization is a compromise between freedom and control, and we can't have both.
Now, after years of far west, the crypto world begins to have some rules.
That's all.

[cryptomngr]

That is a scam,those managers wants you to get nothing because if they have announced it before the campaign has started many wont join,because not all the people has passports and IDs and im sure without the bounty hunter's help they wont achieve success,these are greedy bounty managets corruption is all over here.

[javadsalehi]

Since ICOs are not regulated, I don't give my documents to any one. I don't know who will receive my documents .I don't know if they keep them and if they won't use my documents for something else.

[sotoshihero]

Since ICOs are not regulated, I don't give my documents to any one. I don't know who will receive my documents .I don't know if they keep them and if they won't use my documents for something else.

This is the main issue here, security. We know that information and data are the new goldmine today and in the future. It is the new oil. With the huge data analytics and so forth, this is a big advantage to them. Some are buying data but for them its free, and the sad part they can get it through airdrop. 

[habaratbu]

Since ICOs are not regulated, I don't give my documents to any one. I don't know who will receive my documents .I don't know if they keep them and if they won't use my documents for something else.

This is the main issue here, security. We know that information and data are the new goldmine today and in the future. It is the new oil. With the huge data analytics and so forth, this is a big advantage to them. Some are buying data but for them its free, and the sad part they can get it through airdrop. 

Yeah,the security of the people who sent their IDs to these unknown people,im sure anything can happen with our IDs and it might sold to some cindicate,that will use our IDs into illegal activities and we will wake up one morning facing identity thefts that is why i dont really joining any of these projects,the bounty managers shouldnt require this because the SEC doesnt include bounty hunting with their regulations.

[Tutankryptos]

A little more order in the cryptomarket wouldn't be a bad thing, but it can't be an unilateral one!
If I'm forced to identify myself, I want to know who is asking for my papers!

[swetka]

Since ICOs are not regulated, I don't give my documents to any one. I don't know who will receive my documents .I don't know if they keep them and if they won't use my documents for something else.

This is the main issue here, security. We know that information and data are the new goldmine today and in the future. It is the new oil. With the huge data analytics and so forth, this is a big advantage to them. Some are buying data but for them its free, and the sad part they can get it through airdrop. 

Yeah,the security of the people who sent their IDs to these unknown people,im sure anything can happen with our IDs and it might sold to some cindicate,that will use our IDs into illegal activities and we will wake up one morning facing identity thefts that is why i dont really joining any of these projects,the bounty managers shouldnt require this because the SEC doesnt include bounty hunting with their regulations.

The fact is that some projects suggest giving your name a surname and a patronymic, plus a photo and to scan the passport. At least this is enough buying information that you are afraid to provide. I do not think that you can be harmed, If someone finds out your name and see your photo.

[chukaday]

OP thank you for addressing something that will probably go unaddressed for years! Now while I want this idea to happen and believe it is fabulous beyond all believe, trying to implement this seems like it would be a pain in the ass. For that reason I would say lets get rid of KYC and AML altogether in this space because in the end it hinders more than it helps and we don't want to stifle growth in this space. To me KYC AML will always be a plague, a plague that grew from the horrid practices of the traditional banking system.

[terible.hunter]

The trend of integrating the KYC process for investors and bounty hunters is developing very rapidly today. A lot of projects today are forced to go through the KYC process for everyone. But how do you think this is normal? I am sure that this is not normal, this should not be.

[muncuss]

The trend of integrating the KYC process for investors and bounty hunters is developing very rapidly today. A lot of projects today are forced to go through the KYC process for everyone. But how do you think this is normal? I am sure that this is not normal, this should not be.

me too. crypto is about anonymous but ppl required to give their data, even for bounty hunter. unbelievable.
But business in crypto (ICO) indeed need KYC, and i support that. trust is important in business, so all participant (investor and DEVS) need to open their identity to build trust (we talk about business bro, so let's forget anonymity)
and i, unless the devs/team are very clear, who and where they from, i not invest in any KYC ICO. better to buy in exchange later

[aussiesloth]

I think it is simply a matter of crypto becoming part of the mainstream currency market and being accepted by the masses.  When crypto was just a fringe concept, anonymity was the norm.  There will still be privacy coins and there will still be ways to stay anonymous, if that is important to you. 

But, I think more and more new coins and tokens, which are becoming increasingly relevant to industry and mainstream commerce, will obviously have a more stringent process of KYC in place.

A perfect example is the recent GBX ICO for their RockTokens (RKT)... as a new branch of the Gibraltar Stock Exchange, it is fairly obvious that there will be stringent KYC/AML processes in place, because of the nature of the ICO and their business associations.

As for the ICO Teams proving KYC themselves... if you aren't comfortable with the information particular ICO team has provided about themselves, then avoid it.

[Omnia Vanitas]

I agree; of course I prefer to keep my anonymity, but - if we are moving toward a more controlled market, this must be true for everyone, starting exactly from commercial operators.
So, let's identify who is asking for bog money, and THEN we'll focus on who is just working for it.

The tendence is rising to legally impose a KYC (Know Your Customer) procedure to people willing to buy tokens at an ICO. At the same time there have been rumors a KYC possibly to be imposed also to bounty hunters taking part to bounty campaigns. Polymath has already imposed a KYC procedure to anyone willing to receive its airdrop.
I'm not entering here the discussion, which has already been made in countless other threads, if those KYC are a good or a bad idea.
But I'd like to open here a discussion whether it wouldn't be more appropriate to start instead with making KYC a mandatory procedure for people who are actually launching an ICO and/or a bounty campaign, rather than for those who take part to them. This is in fact the case where most scams and more damage are happening. Anonymous teams are now and then still scamming investors and bounty hunters luring them into projects which are only a simulation of projects. The infamous ICO & bounty campaign "C" just a few months ago, just to name one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2494912). But I could make a long list.
Personally I'd rather endlessly defend the right of anyone of staying anonymous in the world of crypto as well as in the world in general. But IF one decides to introduce limitations to this right (which I don't approve), THEN wouldn't it be more fair to start the other way round, prioritizing the verification of identity of those who are in the position to take advantage of their anonymity to scam or damage the public?

[Kavallo]

As for the ICO Teams proving KYC themselves... if you aren't comfortable with the information particular ICO team has provided about themselves, then avoid it.

Of course one would avoid a non convincing ICO team, not to speak about most of the anonymous ones. However there are cases where bounty hunters are asked a KYC only AFTER that they have done all their job, with the blackmailing that if they refuse they will not be paid. LiveStars has just done that. Like that, Bounty Hunters had never a choice, since they were not told in advance. They are basically getting abused, and there should be a way to avoid that. Like a class action, for example, if the bounty hunters had some balls and would not close to always be such whiners.

[CryptoNewbie18]

As for the ICO Teams proving KYC themselves... if you aren't comfortable with the information particular ICO team has provided about themselves, then avoid it.

Of course one would avoid a non convincing ICO team, not to speak about most of the anonymous ones. However there are cases where bounty hunters are asked a KYC only AFTER that they have done all their job, with the blackmailing that if they refuse they will not be paid. LiveStars has just done that. Like that, Bounty Hunters had never a choice, since they were not told in advance. They are basically getting abused, and there should be a way to avoid that. Like a class action, for example, if the bounty hunters had some balls and would not close to always be such whiners.

In the Russian local section tried to raise the topic of the trade union for bounty hunters, but it was not very popular. In the main section of the forum there are similar ideas?

[maremostro]

How about a Crypto Police ICO . Through a tokenised mechanism a bounty is placed on a a reported and confirmed scam and most importantly there is an insurance mechanism as well so maybe 80 % of invested money is returned from the insurance fund that all holders of the tokens are entitled to claim proportionally ( i dont know how would it work .... maybe if i invest 100 usd then i buy 10/5/2.5 usd of tokens from the insurer and lock them hmm?)

[maremostro]

As for the ICO Teams proving KYC themselves... if you aren't comfortable with the information particular ICO team has provided about themselves, then avoid it.

Of course one would avoid a non convincing ICO team, not to speak about most of the anonymous ones. However there are cases where bounty hunters are asked a KYC only AFTER that they have done all their job, with the blackmailing that if they refuse they will not be paid. LiveStars has just done that. Like that, Bounty Hunters had never a choice, since they were not told in advance. They are basically getting abused, and there should be a way to avoid that. Like a class action, for example, if the bounty hunters had some balls and would not close to always be such whiners.

In the Russian local section tried to raise the topic of the trade union for bounty hunters, but it was not very popular. In the main section of the forum there are similar ideas?

Perfect Example for a case for Cryptopolice
(it could mean a goon squad ... but that would be a warning (and would make the bounty campaign owners have second thoughts just because they dont feel untouchable anymore) ... cause whenever there is a will therre is a way ... lets say ok u wont pass kyc procedure i ll get you a figure head that will as long as you are wiling to forefit 5 % of your bounty or 25 usd

[Kavallo]

As for the ICO Teams proving KYC themselves... if you aren't comfortable with the information particular ICO team has provided about themselves, then avoid it.

Of course one would avoid a non convincing ICO team, not to speak about most of the anonymous ones. However there are cases where bounty hunters are asked a KYC only AFTER that they have done all their job, with the blackmailing that if they refuse they will not be paid. LiveStars has just done that. Like that, Bounty Hunters had never a choice, since they were not told in advance. They are basically getting abused, and there should be a way to avoid that. Like a class action, for example, if the bounty hunters had some balls and would not close to always be such whiners.

In the Russian local section tried to raise the topic of the trade union for bounty hunters, but it was not very popular. In the main section of the forum there are similar ideas?

I am not aware of this topic having been raised. But given the anonimity and heterogenity of most bounty hunters it may not be easy to do. Moreover, many bounty hunters are from third world countries where the concept itself of an union of workers is basically meaningless. Many of them are just pathetically submissive towards bounty managers, alwats buttlicking and/or whining, a total lack of human dignity. They wouldn't join any union I guess.

[Snaic]

This is really a very big problem right now. Last year about a third of the ICO projects turned out to be fraudulent. We handed over our personal data and copies of our passports directly to the fraudsters. This is very bad. Scammers collect any of our personal data on the site on which we are anonymous. This is also absurd, since the generosity campaign participants do not invest in ICO projects, and therefore it makes no sense to require them to provide identification information, the meaning of which is to exclude the possible attraction of money obtained illegally. If any authorities authorized these ICO campaigns to conduct KYC, then first of all it was necessary to check these ICO teams to exclude fraud on their part. The need for such a verification, as well as the very regulation of the conduct of the ICO has long been ripe.

[Kavallo]

This is really a very big problem right now. Last year about a third of the ICO projects turned out to be fraudulent. We handed over our personal data and copies of our passports directly to the fraudsters. This is very bad. Scammers collect any of our personal data on the site on which we are anonymous. This is also absurd, since the generosity campaign participants do not invest in ICO projects, and therefore it makes no sense to require them to provide identification information, the meaning of which is to exclude the possible attraction of money obtained illegally. If any authorities authorized these ICO campaigns to conduct KYC, then first of all it was necessary to check these ICO teams to exclude fraud on their part. The need for such a verification, as well as the very regulation of the conduct of the ICO has long been ripe.

Yes, I am not in favor of many regulations in this field, since regulations often are made just to penalize little players. But one single regulation is necessary, and this is a KYC for any entity who is asking investors for money, so that if they are scammers they can be brought to trial.

[CryptoNewbie18]

As for the ICO Teams proving KYC themselves... if you aren't comfortable with the information particular ICO team has provided about themselves, then avoid it.

Of course one would avoid a non convincing ICO team, not to speak about most of the anonymous ones. However there are cases where bounty hunters are asked a KYC only AFTER that they have done all their job, with the blackmailing that if they refuse they will not be paid. LiveStars has just done that. Like that, Bounty Hunters had never a choice, since they were not told in advance. They are basically getting abused, and there should be a way to avoid that. Like a class action, for example, if the bounty hunters had some balls and would not close to always be such whiners.

In the Russian local section tried to raise the topic of the trade union for bounty hunters, but it was not very popular. In the main section of the forum there are similar ideas?

I am not aware of this topic having been raised. But given the anonimity and heterogenity of most bounty hunters it may not be easy to do. Moreover, many bounty hunters are from third world countries where the concept itself of an union of workers is basically meaningless. Many of them are just pathetically submissive towards bounty managers, alwats buttlicking and/or whining, a total lack of human dignity. They wouldn't join any union I guess.

Returning to this topic.

Trade unions in offline, too, didn't immediately take root. Maybe, those users of the forum who have enough human dignity should set an example?