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?

[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.