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

[Muhammad Muneeb]

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.

they make a database by collecting the data from the kyc and then sell them to diferent projects and these projects flood your email with their spam emails.. i will never ever share my personal information with any bounty.. it is not the thing to share

[Badboy[BTC]]

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.

On the one hand it does not entail any consequences but on the other hand there is a possibility that your data will be sold on the black market which is not good because this information can be used by attackers in different ways. There are many cases when people found and stole their cryptocurrency, and this is the target audience

[Faroxx]

I do not think that KYC is necessary for the bounty participants, but when KYC is in the company of generosity - it adds confidence that the project will not be scam. IMHO

[miyaka26]

My concern to this KYC compliance to the bounty hunters is that the devs must announce this rule right from the start of the campaign, I encountered some projects that change the rules of their bounty that the participants must comply, some participants can't submit it for some reasons well that person will not be getting his/her designated tokens, the campaign might be getting more participants but in the latter part they will not be getting paid because as they can't submit KYC docs or they failed to pass it.

[Kool5]

I think that KYC should be held at the beginning of the company, and not at the end of it. Because at the end of the company, many people are forgotten about the passage of KYC. As a result, it turns out that although all the way is passed. But for some reason you did not enter at the end of the KYC company, for that you will not receive tokens.

[Monro3000]

The only plus from KYC is that 70% of bounty hunters do not want to go through it and, accordingly, do not participate in this bounty company. Which of course increases the reward for company members.

[wendiar19]

The KYC that is given to bounty campaign participants is actually a very terrible risk because with the existence of KYC it is the same as your identity will not be safe anymore and surely there will be someone who uses your identity for actions that are not good and that is a risk when you do KYC

[Scientest]

Well, from the view of a bounty hunter, I can't agree to promote a project which asks me for my personal documents. But, it is also true that, if you consider from ICO owner points of view, KYC must be done for the sake of their legal business.

[ryker6688]

Why would the bounty hunters have to kyc? It's just bullshit, it's just that the bonus managers want to make it hard to make a profit on themselves.

[acaciosc]

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:

I completely support your view on this issue, KYC procedure is what we need to reduce scammers, and I think this should be specified at the start of bounty campaign. However, we take risks when providing our personal data.

[danherbias07]

Yes they should have said it at the first place.
They must have known already what is the rule of their country before even starting a large company which will take large amount of money from offering.

But what else could we do? Maybe they didnt really know also that their ICO will be completed or even get a large sum of money for their soft cap.
So for them to continue, they must abide with the government rules. That is KYC.
I know we all want to be anonymous here but in order to get your tokens just for once take the KYC.

[ralle14]

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.

It's great if it's only for investors since they're the ones risking more while bounty hunters doesn't except for their own time. You mentioned  KYC having pros and cons but in this situation the cons outweigh the pros for the bounty hunters because they only gain a small reward for this while they (people who have your info) can do whatever they want with it(sell, dox, etc). It's not that easy to trust people you don't know with your personal info.

Look at the signature/twitter/facebook campaigns in the service section you'll rarely see any cheaters/abusers involved and all of them don't have KYC.

[Vektrum]

The KYC check for bounty hunters is completely illegal. We should not pass such a check, because we are not investors in their projects and we can not launder dirty money.
Such a check can not be justified by the fight against multiple accounts. Especially since the ICO teams themselves are in many cases fraudsters and we voluntarily, believing them only to the word that they have the right to demand from us to undergo such verification, pass on our confidential information and copies of our passports. This is a complete absurdity.

[tanvir232]

There is no meaning of implementing KYC for bounty hunters because most of us don't want to reveal our identity because cryptocurrency is not legal in our country. It's true that it would lessen the spammers enrolling by alt accounts.

[thichtieuthuong]

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.

The current situation in the crypto market and the money campaign is usually to KYC. I always wondered if the original campaign see the rules of participation do not need KYC but then forced KYC to accept the token.If To be fair about KYC i will agree, but I'm very scared of using our KYC to sign up for other campaigns, what are we going to do?

[Noobaru]

There are several other means to eliminate scammers that don't require the need of personal information, which can be very annoying and dangerous, especially if info gets leaked to black market as the project turns out to be scam. I would be fine with one KYC provider and one-time verification for all bounties, but that is probably a utopia.

[Adunni6758]

To be candid, your points are valid. I have seen instances and situations like that and i feel it is still cheating on the part of the project team and i can't say if the manager is also involved in it.
One thing i would recommend is that, even if KYC will be introduced for those who are comfortable with participating in such project, not at the end, but before the start of the project, the token allocated should be disbursed entirely to those whole passed the KYC.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I would be fine with one KYC provider and one-time verification for all bounties, but that is probably a utopia.

A utopia for hackers.

One KYC provider for all ICOs would have a huge database of people and their information. Given the sheer number of ICO spammers on this forum, I would wager it would be at least in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands.

If you consider the fact that many large and well established crypto exchanges have poor security, and many new exchanges have even worse than that, then I have no doubt a new site ran by some unknown entity to serve mostly scam ICOs would have awful security.

Hundreds of thousands of KYC information coupled with awful security = a perfect target for hackers.

[michael23]

I do not perceive KYC as something bad, but on the other hand this year there were a lot of fraudulent projects and many of them required to pass KYC and people sent their personal data. I think it's still very risky.

[Brawnsugar]

We all have different sentiment about it, but there are instances that we need to weigh the situation if the company beed to comply on some regulations in their country then we must accept it.

Again, me thinks it's more ethical to let people know from the get go. As a company, you should know the regulations governing your operations and activities before even starting off. So, they should as well include that as part of their prerequisite for joining their public sale or participation in their bounties. But it looks as though these guys deliberately keep that information from bounty hunters and lure them into participation and then they don't have no choice than to do KYC eventually since they must by all means claims their tokens.