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

[42K]

Now many bounty managers have seen that most hunters are using multiple accounts thereby cheating in campaigns so the only way they could do that was to introduce KYC into the bounties. It's a good idea and I like it.

[rodskee]

Generally bounty hunters as i know don't disagree about requiring kyc
because kyc requeing the valids ids which ine of the dangerous
Bounty hunter want to anonymous their identity for the security reason

[kaya11]

It is okay for the sake of credibility and avoid certain scam accusations. Some bounty hunters out there have alt accounts, so if they were able to join those accounts in certain bounties they would have a hard time proving them real and not only just alts. Not only we can remove the abusers but also we can make this forum clean of account farmers so I guess KYC is a good idea.

[ezbreezy08]

KYC is good for the following rules that promote security tokens- Bounty hunters hates KYC coz we all know that the government authority wants to control every identity of a person who can able to hold huge amount of money and this is really a bad situation for us.

[w33man]

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.

I think that it is bot really secured to give your personal data when investing or doing bounties in crypto. It is dangerous, especially to investors since you are not aware on how will they keep your personal information safely. It can be used in illegal activities.

[Mysteryla]

Whatever has advantage also has its own disadvantage. KYC can help to reduce scam rate, which invariable reduces the rate at which people cheat during bounty campaign. Then if a scam project collects your personal data through KYC, that might be a risky thing to do.

[Ultimist]

Well, maybe the idea of KYC for bounty participants is not bad, but it is necessary to warn about it at the beginning of the company. People should know all the conditions of participation and choose to agree with them or not. I try to avoid such bounties where KYC is required.

[Ziskinberg]

Whatever has advantage also has its own disadvantage. KYC can help to reduce scam rate, which invariable reduces the rate at which people cheat during bounty campaign. Then if a scam project collects your personal data through KYC, that might be a risky thing to do.

Right.There are really advantages and disadvantages a KYC brings.But let's face the fact that almost all of the bounties today require KYC so we have no escape but to face them if we really want to still gain profits in bounty.

[LordShanken]

The decision regarding the KYC process for bounty hunters does not only depend on the dev team. This kind of decisions are reviewed by lawyers and project developers, just have to do everything in accordance with the law of the country in which the project is registered.

I think you are giving far too much credit to the ICO market to suggest that lawyers are making decisions regarding KYC. I very much doubt the vast majority of ICOs have even considered the legal challenges of their project, let alone consulted a lawyer about them.

The majority of ICOs are scams, and the few that aren't usually have a completely unprepared and unknowledgeable team behind them that struggle to produce a coherent whitepaper or roadmap. They try to pay everyone in their worthless tokens because they want to spend as little money as possible on their trash project because they know it is likely to fail. There is no way they are going to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to have a lawyer look through their project and advise them on the intricacies of KYC requirements for bounty participants.

KYC for bounties is almost always so they can avoid paying or so they can steal your data.

What you write scares me. In my opinion, it is quite the opposite - most ICOs are legit projects and even have to cooperate with lawyers. Of course, I respect your opinion, but I absolutely disagree with it.

I can agree that most ICOs require KYC verification but from tokens sale investors, not from participants of bounty campaigns, is a very small percentage of ICO that requires this procedure from bounty hunters.

Anyway, I agree that ICO attracted a lot of scammers - definitely too much!

[smyslov]

We all have different views about KYC but you are right ICO campaign manager should not change the rules at the last minute because some bounty hunters do not want to share their personal information with anyone, this is a sure sign that the project and bounty manager is not honest and transparent on how they are running their bounty campaign.

[VeeraS]

actually this is contrary to the anonymous crypto itself, but the ico developers claim that KYC is required by the procedure of their legal team, even though the actual bounty hunter is not needed.

[hastag_80]

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.

Actualy my opinion about this KYC to the bounty partcipants is not good because,this is only means that they would not trusted to us,and they want to prosecute to us to claim our bounty rewards,threfore my conclusion about this are everythings is under control to the ICO project campaign that we partcipated either they want to proposed an kyc or not,and we as only bounty partcipants we must follow on what instruction they stated.

[Agozyen]

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.

I'm neutral on the whole KYC issue as long as it's fully disclosed at the beginning and not added after I start a bounty.  They could be using KYC to avoid payment at that point.

[asus09]

there are many who object to KYC for bounty hunters. but if you don't do it then you will never get a reward from the ico project token. I understand this is confusing but there is no other way just by registering KYC

[Sundaey]

It's an act of stupidity, and if you check well you will also find out that is either the project host the bounty their self and trying to find a why out to reduce what to pay or the bounty managers who usually receive the whole token left for bounty to be distribute to the participants trust me they will find the possible means to reduce to their own benefit.  End time introduction of KYC is scam by the project itself

[shaheer001]

KYC for bounty hunters is bad practice but for investor is good,But now a days many projects first don't tell about KYC for bounty hunters and at the end of ICO they ask for KYC. This is also very bad practice.

[cryptoman1ac]

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.

Nowadays the trend is, ICOs require KYC at the end of campaign. They do not post or announce it before or during the start of the bounty campaign. So for those who do not know know how to use photoshop, like me, are at risk of identity theft when we decide to submit our personal identification. I mean, we have no choice, I have alloted my time and effort for the camp for months and it would be just wasted if I do not take the risk and I find it unfair, really unfair. Well the world is unfair anyway so I can't do anything about it.

Someone teach me how to do photoshop please.

[xonecoinlovers]

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.

So am I, A project that asking KYC for their bounty hunter doesn't seems right, after all of our struggle to help on promoting their project, we are asked something that i think isn't necessary, especially when the coins has a little value after it got listed in the market.

[BigBos]

KYC for bounty hunters is bad practice but for investor is good,But now a days many projects first don't tell about KYC for bounty hunters and at the end of ICO they ask for KYC. This is also very bad practice.

Well, I don't think it's a problem ... KYC is used to find out the identities of their supporters. well, but maybe some bounties don't require that, because sometimes bounty hunters are just those who help support the development of the project through advertisements. yeah, but it all depends on the project.

[EscrowService28]

I hate that fact as well that some projects implement KYC at the end without informing at the start of the campaign. Some hunters are conservative on giving up some important info due to identity theft and frame up. I understand this, but KYC has also good point to limit the campaign to legit participants. The problem here arises if the project was a scam and you already did the KYC. This is dangerous as your data can be used on fraud activities.