A new form of cheating teams ICO

[Rustamm]

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.

The right to change the terms of an agreement of any contract must be clearly stated in the conditions of accession. Moreover, these rules should be specified in what cases and what changes are allowed. Arbitrary changes of conditions at their discretion cannot be in nature, such is not allowed in the practice of contracts. If this is written, it obviously cannot be legally valid, since it contradicts the general principles of international law.
Although the ICO teams try to show that they are trying to comply with the norms of international law, by checking the KYC against bounty hunters they in many cases grossly violate it.

[houjinglong]

This way is stupid, ICO is essentially the market for technology and the practical value of coins. Instead of preventing bounty hunters. Usually such a project will fail. They can't find the key factors for success.

[missyqt29]

I, too, have a negative attitude towards the demand of KYC for bounty hunters by companies. In the first place, the product itself does not yet exist and it is not clear why verification is needed. And secondly, in this way, projects often recruit a database of documents and sell them. And where then your data is used is not clear.

KYC would be effective if it is applied when the bounty hunters will going to take their token price in the end of the campaign. But if you will take the KYC as a test without a strong and reliable reason, it is not needed. Maybe there's a plan behind it. So, we should be careful.

[i7claufe]

This may be right for some other things and stuff on the real world. Also this may be right for ICOs & Private sales but for bounty hunters & the bounty program. This is not right, because it's always, almost all the time stated on the bounty rules that the team can change the rules whenever & to whatever they want it to be. They can even disqualify and remove anyone from the bounty program with less to no sturdy proof and that's why bounty hunters are prone to more risks and frauds almost all the time.

[izay]

Bounty campaigns that required KYC to receive their rewards should be posted and announced for the participants to get aware and decided whether to join or not. Some hunters dont want to do KYC, if it is not stated as it begins the efforts that hunters exerted should turn nothing. Rules must be specified, it can be changed but need some limitations.

[various]

Bounty campaigns that required KYC to receive their rewards should be posted and announced for the participants to get aware and decided whether to join or not. Some hunters dont want to do KYC, if it is not stated as it begins the efforts that hunters exerted should turn nothing. Rules must be specified, it can be changed but need some limitations.

I totally agree with you. KYC should be said initially in the rules . For example i never participate in the bounty campaigns which want KYC. Imagine that the ico came out a scam and you gave them all your information. This is a nightmare for me.

[Andruha1993]

I am also embarrassed by the fact that you need to go through KYC. I still understand that they immediately warn about this and the bounty hunters themselves decide to participate in this bounty campaign or not. But when they start to scoff, for example, they ask me to go through KYC after the end of the bounty campaign, it annoys me greatly.

[beeelzebub]

Yeah asking kyc from bounty hunters without early notice is a way of scamming.

Also, worse way is giving out way less tokens than announced before. I saw projects giving out %5 of their initial announcement even they hit the hard cap.

[CryptoIyke]

So many explanations going on here and because of the hunger to earn makes one to fall for them. Personally I have decided to stay off any bounty that will require all those kyc details. Some good bounty managers inform you earlier if a bounty requires bounty or not then one will decide to participate or stay off

[khoapham89]

I appreciate your analysis. But, there are injustices with bounty hunters, and we are working in the hope that they will succeed and reward us. They are lawmakers, and we are just players. We still have to wait for an organizatiion to operate this crypto world.

[Argoo]

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!

The fact of the matter is that at first the ICO teams do not write anything about the need to go through the KYC check in the future, even they are silent on direct questions about this, and sometimes they say directly that there will be no KYC check. And after the end of the ICO suddenly declare that you need to undergo such a test. Already after the completion of our work, when we are waiting for payments of tokens, to leave, this means leaving them with earned tokens. This is what the ICO teams rely on. This is a common fraud.

[Ozero]

We really need to admit that an unspecified announcement after the end of the ICO to conduct a KYC audit is a fraud on the part of the ICO team. After the end of the ICO, there is no longer any need for organizing such a KYC check. If it is announced during this period, it is only in order not to pay the earned tokens to those bounty hunters who did not want or could not pass such a test, or they passed it, and they were declared, for example, that they were politically unreliable and therefore earned they will not pay tokens.
It is precisely because refusals to pay when passing KYC checks are sometimes very absurd that such checks should be carried out before joining bounty hunters in an ICO signature campaign, and not after its completion.

[dunfida]

Yeah asking kyc from bounty hunters without early notice is a way of scamming.

Also, worse way is giving out way less tokens than announced before. I saw projects giving out %5 of their initial announcement even they hit the hard cap.

I have experienced these things where in all circumstances it would leave you no choice but to accept such changes on where you would end up to comply
according on your risk management.

We still have to wait for an organizatiion to operate this crypto world.

Its fully contrary on why Cryptocurrency was created.We might need some bodies to handle this thing but it doesn't mean it would be generalized.

[Spaffin]

Yes, to require bounty hunters to undergo KYC checks after the completion of an ICO, especially without prior notice when joining their ICO project, this should be regarded as fraud. Even though such a KYC check on bounty hunters is generally illegal, because we are not investors, it should be carried out only before joining their campaign of generosity ICO. Bounty hunters should have the right to choose to participate in the ICO generosity campaign in connection with KYC testing or not.

[JeBro]

The market of ICO projects is the Wild West of nowadays. ICO teams don’t want to bear any legal responsibility. I was faced with such stupid refusal to pay rewards for bounty tasks. The same applies to the verification procedure for participants in bounty programs - KYC. Only investors are subject to verification. Therefore, I think about the need to streamline the conduct of ICO and bounty, as well as a ban on KYC for bounty hunters.

[kendra1107]

Fraud will always be present anywhere and everywhere. People taking advantage of every opportunity to con or steal from others. Which is why each hunter or investor should be aware and vigilant to minimize the chances of becoming a victim.

[joelsamuya]

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?

I maybe the disagree too, for the imposition of KYC. KYC we know that its a method to detect some accounts but it gives a burden to bounty participants since they are helping the project to succeed. Fraud is happening now in bounties because of using somebody else identity because of this KYC, i hope managers could understand this.

[Snaic]

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?

I maybe the disagree too, for the imposition of KYC. KYC we know that its a method to detect some accounts but it gives a burden to bounty participants since they are helping the project to succeed. Fraud is happening now in bounties because of using somebody else identity because of this KYC, i hope managers could understand this.

The KYC check was never intended to prevent the use of multiple accounts by bounty hunters. It is conducted primarily to prevent cases of money laundering and other uses of money with an illegal purpose. In parallel, this check is carried out to prevent participation of citizens of the United States and China at the request of the governments of these countries in the projects of ICO as investors.
KYC checks should not be carried out for bounty hunters, as they are not investors in ICO projects. Carrying out such a KYC check on bounty hunters is the arbitrariness of the ICO teams. If such a KYC check is carried out without prior announcement after the end of the ICO, this is a direct fraud of the ICO teams. No excuses for such actions are logical or legitimate.

[Gurjasmeet]

I think any ico launching with law, terms and conditions. KYC is not must . whenever project has not completely. if an ico could not complete  due to various reasons. then what will value of KYC.

[Ozero]

I think any ico launching with law, terms and conditions. KYC is not must . whenever project has not completely. if an ico could not complete  due to various reasons. then what will value of KYC.

Now the activities of the ICO by the states are not regulated yet, therefore the ICO teams themselves do not pass any checks. Therefore, there is such a high probability of fraud in this type of activity. It is just strange for me that states allow confidential information to be collected by people who have temporarily united to launch an ICO and do not have access to keeping confidential information of citizens. In general, this is a rather serious violation of the rights of citizens.