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

[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?