A new form of cheating teams ICO

[Astermony]

Now I find that bounty hunters are on the weak side. Bounty hunters have no legal rights to protect them. The project team and the bounty manager can unconditionally modify the rules and extend the bounty time. This market needs regulation to ensure that the rights of bounty hunters are protected.

That should be materialized to protect the bounty hunters, it seems that due to a bear market, many Ico are doing this kind strategy to give difficulties to the hunters and backing out.

[iconoclast]

Though there is no legal requirement for KYC for bounties for KYC AML reasons since no payment for tokens actually takes place. It has nonetheless become ubiquitous as ICO's try to weed out the increased incidence of people signing up to bounties using multiple identities. I would say that if you are not prepared to identify yourself you should probably not do anymore bounties.

[Reinz12]

Kyc is like two sides of a coin, where on the one hand it is used to avoid fraudsters who try to make a profit, on the other hand if it falls into the hands of irresponsible people, it will be misused
We never know until a project that requires Kyc to turn into fraud or legal

[Westfiled]

You're wrong. Because almost all projects indicate such an item. The team can change the rules at any time. What does this mean? That the law of law does not help here.

The team has been putting the agreement if the team can change the rules anytime as they want. Remember about the contract is undercontrol by the team and so many times the boun participants are getting scammed by them all. it's the fact and i can't be denied.

[auroboros]

I think KYC for bounty hunters puts more emphasis on preventing the use of multiple accounts, even though it doesn't really matter, but at least can reduce these actions, I myself still agree with KYC use as long as the conditions they want are not too complicated, and the rights of every bounty hunter to choose if indeed KYC is very risky towards privacy, then choose bounties that do not use KYC, because even if they use KYC, they do not guarantee their project runs well

[No Pain No blood]

if it does require KYC, participants should be notified from the start. I personally have no problem with or without KYC, but telling participants to do KYC when the campaign ends is like a lie and I don't like it. but apart from all that the bounty participants were always harmed. if we reject KYC we don't pay.

[profitgenerator212]

Kyc is like two sides of a coin, where on the one hand it is used to avoid fraudsters who try to make a profit, on the other hand if it falls into the hands of irresponsible people, it will be misused
We never know until a project that requires Kyc to turn into fraud or legal

Most of the projects that require KYC are scam, and they will have bad intentions with our information. I have always suspected they would take action to buy our information to make more profit

[dearbesz1219]

The ICO teams are now applying to bounty hunters a new form of fraud, with which something needs to be done - this is an unspecified earlier test of KYC after the end of the ICO.

As a lawyer, I can say that the conditions for joining the ICO generosity campaign are in fact one of the types of contracts with so-called implicit, that is, silent actions. The fact that we further fill out their form of accession means that we have agreed to their terms of the contract.

In any contract there are so-called essential terms of the contract, which must always be specified. If at least one of them is not specified, the agreement on the decision of the court may be invalidated. The contract price, that is, the amount payable to bounty hunters, is one of the essential conditions of the contract and must be clearly stated. If it can change, it should be indicated in what cases and by how much. Otherwise, such a contract will be invalid. If in the terms of accession it is only generally indicated that any conditions may be changed, then such a piece of paper cannot be recognized as a contract and will in any case be illegal.

If the contract is made and executed, one of the parties is not entitled to declare additional substantial payment terms that were not previously agreed

In this case, this should be considered an ordinary fraud, and the ICO team should bear the material, and in the case of the intention of such actions, the criminal liability for fraud, that is, the seizure of another's property by deception or abuse of trust.

What do you think we need to do in this case with such fraud?

If they pay the promised amount of tokens, it is not a scam. I know that lot of people here care about their identities, but you cant fight with it. These things are ereqired by governments, not because ICOs invent it.

[inesterdd]

Why participate in a project where KYC is required, if you also doubt the legality of the ICO and its team. I always pass by such projects, as my reputation and time are more important!

[fcklife]

The ICO teams are now applying to bounty hunters a new form of fraud, with which something needs to be done - this is an unspecified earlier test of KYC after the end of the ICO.

As a lawyer, I can say that the conditions for joining the ICO generosity campaign are in fact one of the types of contracts with so-called implicit, that is, silent actions. The fact that we further fill out their form of accession means that we have agreed to their terms of the contract.

In any contract there are so-called essential terms of the contract, which must always be specified. If at least one of them is not specified, the agreement on the decision of the court may be invalidated. The contract price, that is, the amount payable to bounty hunters, is one of the essential conditions of the contract and must be clearly stated. If it can change, it should be indicated in what cases and by how much. Otherwise, such a contract will be invalid. If in the terms of accession it is only generally indicated that any conditions may be changed, then such a piece of paper cannot be recognized as a contract and will in any case be illegal.

If the contract is made and executed, one of the parties is not entitled to declare additional substantial payment terms that were not previously agreed

In this case, this should be considered an ordinary fraud, and the ICO team should bear the material, and in the case of the intention of such actions, the criminal liability for fraud, that is, the seizure of another's property by deception or abuse of trust.

What do you think we need to do in this case with such fraud?

kyc's must not be required for bounty hunters because we are an extension of the projects marketing arm to promote the product and we are not customers. i am voting for more strict ico projects. they must be regulated.

[Utyg]

Fighting fraud in ico projects is meaningless. Since it all happens on a voluntary basis. All investors seem to me to know and realize that investing in new projects is risky. So they are aimed at collecting money. There are no well-developed tools for tracking and punishing people who deliberately create a company with the purpose of subsequent deception of investors. There are no institutions of punishment and tracking. Since all coins are decentralized. And not protected by the law of any state.

[aligator2017]

The ICO teams are now applying to bounty hunters a new form of fraud, with which something needs to be done - this is an unspecified earlier test of KYC after the end of the ICO.

As a lawyer, I can say that the conditions for joining the ICO generosity campaign are in fact one of the types of contracts with so-called implicit, that is, silent actions. The fact that we further fill out their form of accession means that we have agreed to their terms of the contract.

In any contract there are so-called essential terms of the contract, which must always be specified. If at least one of them is not specified, the agreement on the decision of the court may be invalidated. The contract price, that is, the amount payable to bounty hunters, is one of the essential conditions of the contract and must be clearly stated. If it can change, it should be indicated in what cases and by how much. Otherwise, such a contract will be invalid. If in the terms of accession it is only generally indicated that any conditions may be changed, then such a piece of paper cannot be recognized as a contract and will in any case be illegal.

If the contract is made and executed, one of the parties is not entitled to declare additional substantial payment terms that were not previously agreed

In this case, this should be considered an ordinary fraud, and the ICO team should bear the material, and in the case of the intention of such actions, the criminal liability for fraud, that is, the seizure of another's property by deception or abuse of trust.

What do you think we need to do in this case with such fraud?

"As a lawyer" you should use more justified wordings than "I can say". Provide us codes of laws you rely on.
Also this is not new type of fraud(if we can call it so) and there is nothing anyone can do about it still. Maybe you got fresh solution??

[Sifon]

You're wrong. Because almost all projects indicate such an item. The team can change the rules at any time. What does this mean? That the law of law does not help here.

I'm sorry but KYC is such a sensitive item as it involves doling out personalized documents to unknown online entities whose real intentions with those documents can not known. While I agree that the bounty manager reserves the right to change the rules at any time, I'm still of the opinion that bounties should state it ab initio as a requirement for participation and claim of earnings.

[seo-maestro]

I think bounty campaigns are dead because ICOs are dead - look for statistics about ICOs funds raised here: https://www.coinschedule.com/stats.html
I don't see reasons to join bounty campaigns and invest in ICOs now.

[bitcoinmar]

Now I find that bounty hunters are on the weak side. Bounty hunters have no legal rights to protect them. The project team and the bounty manager can unconditionally modify the rules and extend the bounty time. This market needs regulation to ensure that the rights of bounty hunters are protected.

That should be materialized to protect the bounty hunters, it seems that due to a bear market, many Ico are doing this kind strategy to give difficulties to the hunters and backing out.

Not only does it make it difficult for the bounty hunter, and it is very difficult for the project team and investors at the moment. Bounty hunters do not have as many as the number of investors, so their impact is not as great

[boranes]

You're wrong. Because almost all projects indicate such an item. The team can change the rules at any time. What does this mean? That the law of law does not help here.

Team can't change contract after bounty. There are rules that they can change contract during bounty but that raise legit questions too, lowering rewards in middle of ICO and sending lower rewards to bounty participants can only be applied to rewards after this was changed but every other reward before  it was changed should be what was arranged in original contract.

[slashz9]

really, i dont agree, so you think they hire some people and make cooperation to cheating and make fake project/ico ??

[Tylev]

I think KYC for bounty hunters puts more emphasis on preventing the use of multiple accounts, even though it doesn't really matter, but at least can reduce these actions, I myself still agree with KYC use as long as the conditions they want are not too complicated, and the rights of every bounty hunter to choose if indeed KYC is very risky towards privacy, then choose bounties that do not use KYC, because even if they use KYC, they do not guarantee their project runs well

Firstly, here we are talking about cases where the ICO teams from the very beginning are silent about the upcoming KYC audit, or even claim that there will be no such test, and announce it only after the end of the ICO. And after a certain time, somewhere in the telegrams and bounty hunters may not even know about making such a decision. In any case, such a test cannot be avoided, because it is not talked about before joining the campaign of generosity, when we really have the right to choose, but face the fact after the end of the ICO.
Secondly, the task of checking KYC is not to prevent multiple accounts, and its direct task is to prevent the laundering of dirty money. Bounty hunters are not investors and therefore are not subject to such verification by KYC. Violating my right to confidential information, even for filtering out several accounts, is not the best option; there are much better and more effective methods for this, even on this forum.

[Dilireba]

As individual bounty participant, we can not make any change to this condition. They're cheating us and we can't do anything  other than complain. When we join their campaigns, we default accept the bounty rules but most of us don't read it. But although we read, we still join because all of bounty campaigns has same rule such as they have right to disqualify any of us without explanation, reduce bounty rewards, add/change rules. So, at the end of campaign, don't want to pay, using the rule "add/change rules" to require KYC. Smart legal scam

[Ayomiqueen]

I think this issue will continue and if care is not taking will even get worse than now as there is no legal bidding in the contract that we are signing with any project we are applying for and they can't be sue ,
So for that reason once the team is a fraud oriented type then they will use all sort of method to scam the bounty hunters even the investors because their is no regulation body that really require the kyc of a thing and having the "we can change the rules at their own discretion" means fraud as no contract that is bidding will have such clauses , so I think the best thing is regulation and every ico companies must be sue and can sue as well and also must be a registered company in any country they reside in with a legal document backing it along with their team which can be sue also and if they are stating any rules then it will be bid in the law.