Is KYC For Bounty Hunters Good? Lets Share Our Views!

[MOProgress]

In recent times there has been several ICOs introducing KYC for bounty hunters, and that has made many Bounty hunters to feel bad.

I would like to share my opinion over this issue. I never see KYC as a bad idea, KYC will actually reduce scammers from using multiple accounts for one bounty and that will also give the genuine hunters the space to earn more in their bounty hunting.

The place I have issues with ICO projects running bounty programs is the idea of some projects that introduce KYC at the end of the bounty program which I really feel it should not be so. It is the same thing as those who used multiple accounts during the bounty because it will still reduce the amount the genuine hunters will earn.
If KYC should be introduced at the end of bounty, the left over coins/token should be distributed among the genuine hunters otherwise I see it as the same scam to the genuine bounty hunters:

Anyway, this is my own view, If you have a contrary view, please share it. I would like to know more also.

[1714992114]

1714992114

[1714992114]

1714992114

[1714992114]

1714992114

[DeKingCrypto]

In recent times there has been several ICOs introducing KYC for bounty hunters, and that has made many Bounty hunters to feel bad.

I would like to share my opinion over this issue. I never see KYC as a bad idea, KYC will actually reduce scammers from using multiple accounts for one bounty and that will also give the genuine hunters the space to earn more in their bounty hunting.

The place I have issues with ICO projects running bounty programs is the idea of some projects that introduce KYC at the end of the bounty program which I really feel it should not be so. It is the same thing as those who used multiple accounts during the bounty because it will still reduce the amount the genuine hunters will earn.
If KYC should be introduced at the end of bounty, the left over coins/token should be distributed among the genuine hunters otherwise I see it as the same scam to the genuine bounty hunters:

Anyway, this is my own view, If you have a contrary view, please share it. I would like to know more also.

To be honest, you made some good points here, Many ICOs will wait until the end before telling the hunters that there will be KYC, whereas any body that is unable to complete KYC or refuses to go through KYC, they project will collect those token.

[Brawnsugar]

There's been several talks and discussions about the introduction of KYC requirements by bounty managers at the end of the campaign and this a lot of people have a problem with. Certain bounty hunters decide not to participate in bounties that require KYC. So, introducing it at the tail end of the campaign is against their will and for me, it's wrong.

[adzino]

In recent times there has been several ICOs introducing KYC for bounty hunters, and that has made many Bounty hunters to feel bad.

I would like to share my opinion over this issue. I never see KYC as a bad idea, KYC will actually reduce scammers from using multiple accounts for one bounty and that will also give the genuine hunters the space to earn more in their bounty hunting.

The place I have issues with ICO projects running bounty programs is the idea of some projects that introduce KYC at the end of the bounty program which I really feel it should not be so. It is the same thing as those who used multiple accounts during the bounty because it will still reduce the amount the genuine hunters will earn.
If KYC should be introduced at the end of bounty, the left over coins/token should be distributed among the genuine hunters otherwise I see it as the same scam to the genuine bounty hunters:

Anyway, this is my own view, If you have a contrary view, please share it. I would like to know more also.

Announcing KYC submission requirement at the end of the bounty is actually an unethical thing to do. If they wanted users to fill the KYC form,  they should have been warned before the users join. Some users like to stay anonymous and hesitates to share their identity online. So, legit bounty hunters like them might end up suffering. Again, those project that turns out to be scam, might also scam your identity by selling it at the black market. KYC has both its advantage and disadvantage.

[MOProgress]

Announcing KYC submission requirement at the end of the bounty is actually an unethical thing to do. If they wanted users to fill the KYC form,  they should have been warned before the users join. Some users like to stay anonymous and hesitates to share their identity online. So, legit bounty hunters like them might end up suffering. Again, those project that turns out to be scam, might also scam your identity by selling it at the black market. KYC has both its advantage and disadvantage.

Good point also, scam projects can sell your data to third part, so we should be careful on how and where we submit our KYC information.

[Gabri]

If KYC should be introduced at the end of bounty, the left over coins/token should be distributed among the genuine hunters otherwise I see it as the same scam to the genuine bounty hunters:

Anyway, this is my own view, If you have a contrary view, please share it. I would like to know more also.

In fact, holding the KYC procedure at the end of the company's bounty is a Scam. Even if the participant had several accounts, it does not give the right to companies to announce the KYC procedure at the very end. For some reason, the hunter may not want to go through this procedure or the company may not accept his documents ( I had one that did not accept my documents ). It turns out that the company hired hunters and just refused to pay them. I believe that the announcement of the KYC procedure at the end of the bounty company is a scam and unwillingness to pay bounty tokens to hunters.

[rosezionjohn]

The place I have issues with ICO projects running bounty programs is the idea of some projects that introduce KYC at the end of the bounty program which I really feel it should not be so. It is the same thing as those who used multiple accounts during the bounty because it will still reduce the amount the genuine hunters will earn.

KYC requirement should be clearly stated from the very start whether it is required or not AND that should never be changed even if managers reserve the right to modify some rules. Requiring KYC only at the end of the campaign is very unfair to all genuine bounty hunters that prefer to maintain their anonymity.

Imagine yourself joining a campaign because there's no KYC requirement only to be changed at the very end and you have to give up all those months of work. That feels like being scammed.

[Vanderbleek]

I think it is a great idea that ICOs have a KYC process. It helps to protect the project from fraud and scammers. But on the other hand, the safety of our personal data cannot be secured, if the ICO fails to meet its soft cap.

[Andruha1993]

I noticed that if ICO projects ask to go through KYC, then these campaigns always paid me awards. Therefore, in the passage of KYC, I do not see anything wrong.

[Maknae09]

In recent times there has been several ICOs introducing KYC for bounty hunters, and that has made many Bounty hunters to feel bad.

I would like to share my opinion over this issue. I never see KYC as a bad idea, KYC will actually reduce scammers from using multiple accounts for one bounty and that will also give the genuine hunters the space to earn more in their bounty hunting.

The place I have issues with ICO projects running bounty programs is the idea of some projects that introduce KYC at the end of the bounty program which I really feel it should not be so. It is the same thing as those who used multiple accounts during the bounty because it will still reduce the amount the genuine hunters will earn.
If KYC should be introduced at the end of bounty, the left over coins/token should be distributed among the genuine hunters otherwise I see it as the same scam to the genuine bounty hunters:

Anyway, this is my own view, If you have a contrary view, please share it. I would like to know more also.

To be honest, you made some good points here, Many ICOs will wait until the end before telling the hunters that there will be KYC, whereas any body that is unable to complete KYC or refuses to go through KYC, they project will collect those token.

For greedy bounty hunters well, it is not good. How did I said that? it is because only one account per campaign is allowed and it is not good for bounty hunters that always tries to join multiple accounts just in one bounty campaign. Maybe if it is allowed, it still bad for me since my information is needed and I do not trust them.

[igor.vanyutin.83]

Kyc is great method to protect bounty hunters and the project in general from different scammers. It helps to identify people that are using multi accounts or trying to scam the managers. Generally, you will get more rewards as a honest bounty hunter, when you pass the KYC.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Good point also, scam projects can sell your data to third part, so we should be careful on how and where we submit our KYC information.

It continues to absolutely amaze me how willing people are to send their documents to a completely unknown entity. You have absolutely no idea who you are sending your documents to - you have no way of knowing if the person is who they say they are. It is trivially easy to launch an ERC20 token and set up a website and a bounty campaign. Almost anyone can do it. And given that the vast majority of ICOs are scams, you are almost certainly sending your documents to a scammer/criminal.

Having your identity stolen is no laughing matter. It can ruin your life. Financially, you will spend months talking to police, banks, etc. trying to get it all cleared up, and even then, it can take years for you to repair the damage done to your credit, all the time being unable to get credit for anything - house, car, credit cards, even mobile phone contracts. Criminally, you can end up with a criminal record you didn't know you had and being summoned to court for crimes you didn't commit. You can have your driver's license suspended and be fired from jobs for things you didn't do.

I won't even participate in a KYC for an exchange. There are not enough tokens in the world to make me willing send my documents to a stranger.

[carrigan]

I definitely think that the KYC may be important for those who buy the tokens or coins from ICOs, because they are called as customers. but for the bounty hunters, I don't think so.
Moreover, some bounties explain about the ways to fulfil the KYC after the end of the bounty and those who cannot pas it will not get any reward, even after working about more than 3 months. that's so bad. I think it will not be a matter when the BM tells us at the first campaign that they need KYC. But, rule is the rules, not to be broken.

[kramchers]

Anything about KYC is not good to anyone.
It is just good for the ICO team,
But if the ICO requires the investors to do KYC why not to participants on their bounty?
Remember that we need to follow the rules.

[0t3p0t]

In recent times there has been several ICOs introducing KYC for bounty hunters, and that has made many Bounty hunters to feel bad.

I would like to share my opinion over this issue. I never see KYC as a bad idea, KYC will actually reduce scammers from using multiple accounts for one bounty and that will also give the genuine hunters the space to earn more in their bounty hunting.

The place I have issues with ICO projects running bounty programs is the idea of some projects that introduce KYC at the end of the bounty program which I really feel it should not be so. It is the same thing as those who used multiple accounts during the bounty because it will still reduce the amount the genuine hunters will earn.
If KYC should be introduced at the end of bounty, the left over coins/token should be distributed among the genuine hunters otherwise I see it as the same scam to the genuine bounty hunters:

Anyway, this is my own view, If you have a contrary view, please share it. I would like to know more also.

Announcing KYC submission requirement at the end of the bounty is actually an unethical thing to do. If they wanted users to fill the KYC form,  they should have been warned before the users join. Some users like to stay anonymous and hesitates to share their identity online. So, legit bounty hunters like them might end up suffering. Again, those project that turns out to be scam, might also scam your identity by selling it at the black market. KYC has both its advantage and disadvantage.

I definitely agree. I think KYC is only for investors not for bounty hunters. Bounty hunters are anonymous workers that helps the project to spread the news. It does not makes any sense for bounty hunters to undergo KYC bevause based on my experiences on bounty hunting most of those projects that requires KYC are  majority that pays shitcoins. Though KYC has it's good side to counter cheater but still not good for us bounty hunters. Bounty hunters still prefer nonKYC bounty programs.

[mayan251]

My view is that I do not advocate bounty hunters to introduce KYC. How to ensure the safety of personal information? Can you ensure that your personal information will not be sold to dark net? Do you guarantee that there will be no fraud? Many personal data can be purchased at dark net. How do you ensure authenticity? In addition. This will reduce the enthusiasm of many bounty hunters. The propaganda efficiency of the project will be greatly reduced. Encryption is built to protect privacy. This violates the original intention of encryption.

[Gatsby club]

KYC is a completely unnecessary procedure. Bounty hunters are not investors, they are people who do work to promote the project. They should not be subject to the requirement to pass an KYC.

[Vektrum]

Yes, they have been writing about it for a long time. The KYC check against bounty hunters, which is announced at the end of the ICO, is unequivocally aimed at preventing certain part of the bounty hunters who for some reason are unable or unwilling to undergo such testing not to pay the tokens they earned. By that time, steaks or even tokens are already distributed, and those who fail the test lose their tokens and they are simply assigned by the ICO team or even the bounty manager if he distributes the tokens.

However, a KYC check should not be carried out due to the fact that some ICO bounty campaigners may use multiple accounts. To violate our right to own confidential information because of this, they are not entitled. In vain, some in this forum support KYC precisely because of this. The fact is that the requirement itself to pass such a check from bounty hunters is illegal. Such an audit should be carried out only in relation to investors who make their money. Tiebayte from the ICO team providing information on the basis of what document they require to be tested by bounty hunters and what exactly is written in such a document. They will not give you this, because it is not.

[bastian466]

Filling in KYC is a rule that must be obeyed, not all projects have a KYC charge, but my own opinion when sending personal data is fear in my heart with the data submitted, fear of being misused and I feel no need to send KYC to be a gift hunter

[Vaflia]

I think KYC is required for participants in the bounty of the companies to avoid multi-accounting and other possible violations of the rules.