KYC as a Scam

[monkeyking03]

There are a lot of projects that need an KYC of course it is a good idea also to protect their project so that they will know who's dealing with them.But there are some projects that starting from beginning they don't have an KYC required but when it come to the time that they need to distribute the stakes of bounty hunters they are asking for KYC,if the bounty hunter can not comply this where is their stake goes?if the project require an KYC they must announce it from the beginning not in distribution time.

[DeepChipolino]

Apparently, you encountered this problem. This question has been raised repeatedly. This is the bounty hunters curse. But all we can do here, on the forum and on social networks, is to inform investors that this project is playing a foul game.

[Lerikaweb]

Sometimes projects have to add the kyc procedure due to some legal issues. We can only see the top of the iceberg above the water, but its biggest part is hidden deep under it. We can be unhappy with the new rules, but sometimes it is the only way to pay the stakes out.

[Everglow]

Yes it's easy to have our personal information and sell it to the needy party, while paying us just a few cent. It is ridiculous that the bounty hunter, who does not invest in the project, must also perform KYC.

[Ria Sakurai]

It is a foul way that shit project use to stole bounty hunter token. And those tokens are not paid to bounty hunters are add to token pool for project team. Unfortunately we can't do anything to that shit project. They're done, collected enough money and forsake bounty hunters.

[Vaniaayu]

KYC has a positive and negative impact, with KYC going to be more secure, but in the absence of KYC it is a little insecure. actually I myself really disagree with the existence of KYC because it will make participants complicated, and for dev or bounty manager it will add to your work

[caex]

On the one hand, it is a protection against fraud and the negative thing is that nobody knows what happens to our personal data, I bet that they are sold to third parties.

[Irvinn]

KYC has a positive and negative impact, with KYC going to be more secure, but in the absence of KYC it is a little insecure. actually I myself really disagree with the existence of KYC because it will make participants complicated, and for dev or bounty manager it will add to your work

If an ICO team wants to conduct a KYC check, even if it is illegal for bounty hunters, this should be clearly stated in the conditions of joining the ICO generosity campaign. Without this, announcing the KYC verification after we have completed our work is simply an ordinary fraud. Why do we have to do something else after we have done the agreed work? Such a KYC check is simply aimed at not paying out the tokens earned by us.

[Ozero]

There are a lot of projects that need an KYC of course it is a good idea also to protect their project so that they will know who's dealing with them.But there are some projects that starting from beginning they don't have an KYC required but when it come to the time that they need to distribute the stakes of bounty hunters they are asking for KYC,if the bounty hunter can not comply this where is their stake goes?if the project require an KYC they must announce it from the beginning not in distribution time.

It practically appeared another form of fraud on the part of the ICO team. A KYC audit must be explicitly stated in the terms of joining the ICO generosity campaign. This is a significant condition, because not everyone can pass it for various reasons. Moreover, the KYC check on bounty hunters is generally illegal, we should not pass it, because we are not investors.

[khoapham89]

Do you read their rules before joining their campaign? Almost it has: "Team project and bounty managers reserve the right to change the rules"

Even changing percentage of allocation for each bounty section. So, if they will distribute rewards afer doing KYC, I think it's ok. It's only problem with cheaters.

[Aleh777]

There are a lot of projects that need an KYC of course it is a good idea also to protect their project so that they will know who's dealing with them.But there are some projects that starting from beginning they don't have an KYC required but when it come to the time that they need to distribute the stakes of bounty hunters they are asking for KYC,if the bounty hunter can not comply this where is their stake goes?if the project require an KYC they must announce it from the beginning not in distribution time.

That is very frustrating on the bounty hunters side since the rules has been change when the bounty campaign end. This scenario occurs due to cheaters abusing the bounty campaign. KYC is one way of catching them off guard by implementing it in the end of the campaign.

[Bennix]

As for me,Kyc is an embodiment of scam depending on the intention of the companies asking for it.We all know that bounty managers have software they used to identify cheaters.The question still remains ,why are some set of companies requesting for kyc,especially from hunters advertising their projects.The question is,are the companies requesting for kyc from hunters incompetent enough to detect bounty cheaters?some of these companies are placing hunters in the position of bounty  beggars, and it is unacceptable.
On the other hand,some companies are not stating categorically that kyc is compulsory ,and they deprive the hunters that worked for five  months or more  their rights and benefit.Some masked fraudulent companies use the kyc details of the hunters to involve in fraudulent activities,thereby making the gullible hunters to face the crime they never committed.This ugly trend needs to be given urgent attention.investors should be mandated to do kyc not bounty hunters.I pointed this ugly situation out because anyone can be victim.

[Argoo]

Do you read their rules before joining their campaign? Almost it has: "Team project and bounty managers reserve the right to change the rules"

Even changing percentage of allocation for each bounty section. So, if they will distribute rewards afer doing KYC, I think it's ok. It's only problem with cheaters.

That you more carefully read the conditions for joining the campaign of generosity ICO. There are surely indicated specific conditions that can be changed, this is the order, terms and amount of payment of generosity and some others. Otherwise, why then draw up rules if any conditions can be further changed. Any lawyer will confirm to you that such a document will be illegal.
As for the announcement of the KYC check only after the end of the ICO, this is just a new form of fraud by the ICO team so that the bounty hunters do not pay out the earned tokens.

[nreal]

In the rules of most bounty, there is a rule "We reserve the right to adjust the conditions of the bounty campaign." So the bounty hunter should prepare KYC for all the projects they join. Unless they are cheaters with multiple accounts.

[petrcoin]

It is mostly using to give out less bounty.

Think about this, you are announcing 500k $ bounty campaign.

At the end you say only people with kyc done get rewarded. So lots of people won't do kyc because their token doesn't worth it.

So at the end they can end up giving out less than 100k $ with this method.

[Script3d]

i would be pissed if they only annouce KYC at the end of the campaign i would ditch them right away its better to keep your personal information safe rather than your information get sold to advertising companies, if your joining a campaign you should go to ask their bounty manager if there is a KYC for the bounty hunters to avoid this type of problem in the future, KYC is there to catch criminals trying to launder money but i hate it when they sell your information instead of keeping it to themselves.

[pinoyrichkids]

I never encounter like this situation, as far as i know, KYC has been notified in the beginning of the bounty campaign, and its been reflected on the rules before starting the bounty campaign, however if this situation happen, which is for me a some kind of rare, i think bounty tokens will go to the manager or it depends on the situation maybe, if the project team is responsible for distribution, then its up to them how they would manage the tokens left after the distribution.

[l10no]

If this is the case, it is a project error in terms of socialization, because it cannot be like that even though the project controller has full authority, so many hunters lose their shares. in my opinion it harms many parties

[sanacaks]

This is not the best technical way to get out of multiple accounts. Projects needs to be more careful when they are selecting bounty participants from the beginning not at the end. Projects must be reliable otherwise they can not stand this crazy crypto world.   

[manfredmann]

But there are some projects that starting from beginning they don't have an KYC required but when it come to the time that they need to distribute the stakes of bounty hunters they are asking for KYC,if the bounty hunter can not comply this where is their stake goes?if the project require an KYC they must announce it from the beginning not in distribution time.

Actually I do not like doing KYC but if I like the project I will comply on doing it. But, announcing it later on the ICO period is way better than announcing it ahead of time because there are many cheating bounty hunters. Some of them had joined two or more of their account to a single ICO project. Probably this will teach them a lesson for they cannot do KYC on the other account they joined in that project. Good for them to have gone that way.