The misunderstandings in KYC (know your customer)

[Oceat]

What I believe the reason for KYC is , is to avoid double standard. That is to represent yourself twice like cheating the ICO. They introduced it in bounty campaign to avoid alternative accounts

However, ICO announcing kyc after campaign is bad.

I believe that is the most reason for most exchanges and ICOs, though development can't really stop those cheaters if they don't do anything such as KYC verification that's why it exists in most ICOs these days. And i also agree to those ICOs that changing rules after the campaign is not that good because they never consider someone that doesn't like KYC at all.

[Nanagyasi]

I personally don't think the information they require from bounty hunters, some passport etc, match up with the tokens they give. What I mean is, it is absolutely not necessary since these information/ data they collect all in the name of kyc can get into the hands of wrong people

[terra_vival]

I am not a supporter of KYC not for bounty hunters not for investors. After all, there was a time when ICO was held without indefication of the identity of the coin owners and everything worked. And now this KYC is imposed under various beautiful pretexts. But think about the security of personal data, in whose hands may be your personal information and how it can be applied later.

[CoinCollect]

I do not think that the KYC procedure was introduced for this purpose. It was just a forced measure to get rid of a large number of scams and multi-accounts that participated in the bounty. And as we can see now almost every project requires to go through this procedure.

[tippytoes]

You do not understand the essence of KYC verification. This check is carried out to prevent cases of money laundering and to combat the financing of terrorism. The ICO teams themselves do not do this. They receive information and hold it for a certain time in case the relevant state bodies turn to them for the necessary information. ICO teams actually do not need this information. What difference does it make for them whether a citizen of one or another country will have their token? If this absurdity with the passage of the KYC test develops, then it will be possible to install KYC checks in all outlets. Imagine, you go to one store to buy cigarettes or juice, and you are told, pass before this check KYC. Fill out forms, attach copies of your passports, certificates of residence, and so on. Come after this to another store - the same thing. Do you think this will be normal?
One should not confuse the state program of combating crimes and the simple, unjustified interest of ICO teams to our confidential data.

I like the idea that you presented. I for one, doesn't like to go this kyc process and sometimes before that, you need to download their app and complete the kyc on that app. That's really absurd. Some apps are not really useful in your daily life so why force a user to download one and then be inactive afterwards? And yet, we don't know where will they use those collected info, and if that ICO project is really legit.

[Huntler1993]

One way or the other you are right, every project comes with it own rules and intentions and what they think its safe and secured for them. KYC if necessary only the project could tell so just conform to it. I always say if you have nothing to hide why the worry.

[HappyCaptain]

i don't disagree with KYC verification if needed but the problem is sometimes the ICO owner is asking KYC after the bounty campaign which is very unfair for the bounty participants because not all of them have the required documents. my point is KYC must always indicate at the start of the campaign so bounty hunters will have the option if they will join or not.

[fathur01]

That is why there is a proposal to pay bounty hunters not in tokens or coins of the project, in whose bounty company bounty hunters participate, but in Bitcoin or Ethereum or in some stable coin. In addition, it would remove the unnecessary talk that it causes a price dump.  This has been discussed many times, but everyone prefers to turn a blind eye to this issue.

[wuvdoll]

OP, you made you a good point, but sometimes they don’t it the right way. What makes hunters to complain about KYC is because these campaigns never say it on time, rather they bring it up when it is time to make a withdrawal, and a lot of people don’t like that, they believe they should be informed earlier on. Then it’s no news that there are campaigns that are owned by scammers, you won’t get paid and they also have stolen your info.

I don't have any problems with kyc yet, if I go into any project and I was asked for kyc, depending on the type of project and it's quality will determine if I will submit my documents or not.

That is the same thing with me, never had any problem with KYC, though I have seen lots of people discourage the use of KYC, but I do my research pretty well before choosing any campaign to work on. What matters most is that you don’t waste your time on the wrong campaign, cause some of them you wouldn’t get paid at last. So KYC is not even a problem .

[cherryganda]

KYC is for all the member of the PROJECT ICO.
Investors and Bounty participants, but please include team members.
KYC, if and only if can't be implemented well thanks, as this is for the TEAM ICO benefits only!

[ePesoInitiative]

KYC is fine. It's a government requirement, lest you want them to have legal problems while the project is on its way. The real issue is the ICO teams should always be upfront about it from the start.

[jumiapaul]

I have seen many hunters talk about the kyc with utmost hatred. Many wants kyc removed, many thinks it's not fair for hunters, while some say it shouldn't be for hunters, because hunters are not investors.

But the point is, if the company or start-up project asks for kyc from hunters, they are not wrong in any way.

Kyc are not for investors only, as long as you will hold or holds a company's or start-up project equity share and have voting rights, you are a customer. What this simply means is that whether you bought the token or through bounty hunting but holds this token with the so called investors, there is no different between you hunter and an investor with cash.

Both of you holds the same token from this company and share equal right with them, which means that what an investor can do an this particular company, you as hunter holding the same token can do also.

The only difference is that the investors invested their cash and you invested your time and both of you holds the same token and shares equal rights.  So if you say that you can't pass through kyc because you are a hunter, then you are the cheater

The misunderstanding is from your end, boss. Kyc is not carried out to know token holders, its done to checkmate and eliminate fraud and financial crime. From the definition its pertinent, only to investors and not bounty hunters. Bounty hunters work for several projects simultaneously and there's a greater risk, if we give out personal data to every project. The increase of scam ICO's have multiplied the risk of losing our data to third parties who utilise the information for illicit purposes. The tokens we receive are barely worth anything after getting listed, because the developers ensure that the investors take the chunk of the market and leave us with crumbs.

[various]

I have seen many hunters talk about the kyc with utmost hatred. Many wants kyc removed, many thinks it's not fair for hunters, while some say it shouldn't be for hunters, because hunters are not investors.

But the point is, if the company or start-up project asks for kyc from hunters, they are not wrong in any way.

Kyc are not for investors only, as long as you will hold or holds a company's or start-up project equity share and have voting rights, you are a customer. What this simply means is that whether you bought the token or through bounty hunting but holds this token with the so called investors, there is no different between you hunter and an investor with cash.

Both of you holds the same token from this company and share equal right with them, which means that what an investor can do an this particular company, you as hunter holding the same token can do also.

The only difference is that the investors invested their cash and you invested your time and both of you holds the same token and shares equal rights.  So if you say that you can't pass through kyc because you are a hunter, then you are the cheater

The main problem here is KYC which is asked at end of the bounty. Nobody has a problem with KYC. Some people do not want to give their personal information and we need to respect it. This does not make them cheaters. You would want to give your identity to a fraud project?

[Ozero]

I have seen many hunters talk about the kyc with utmost hatred. Many wants kyc removed, many thinks it's not fair for hunters, while some say it shouldn't be for hunters, because hunters are not investors.

But the point is, if the company or start-up project asks for kyc from hunters, they are not wrong in any way.

Kyc are not for investors only, as long as you will hold or holds a company's or start-up project equity share and have voting rights, you are a customer. What this simply means is that whether you bought the token or through bounty hunting but holds this token with the so called investors, there is no different between you hunter and an investor with cash.

Both of you holds the same token from this company and share equal right with them, which means that what an investor can do an this particular company, you as hunter holding the same token can do also.

The only difference is that the investors invested their cash and you invested your time and both of you holds the same token and shares equal rights.  So if you say that you can't pass through kyc because you are a hunter, then you are the cheater

You do not understand the essence of KYC verification. This check is carried out to prevent cases of money laundering and to combat the financing of terrorism. The ICO teams themselves do not do this. They receive information and hold it for a certain time in case the relevant state bodies turn to them for the necessary information. ICO teams actually do not need this information. What difference does it make for them whether a citizen of one or another country will have their token? If this absurdity with the passage of the KYC test develops, then it will be possible to install KYC checks in all outlets. Imagine, you go to one store to buy cigarettes or juice, and you are told, pass before this check KYC. Fill out forms, attach copies of your passports, certificates of residence, and so on. Come after this to another store - the same thing. Do you think this will be normal?
One should not confuse the state program of combating crimes and the simple, unjustified interest of ICO teams to our confidential data.

Kyc are not carried out just for money laundering only. You should read more about kyc. Even if the company issued the token for free, they could still require kyc from you depending on the kind of token they offer

And did you try to ask the ICO team on what legal basis do they require to pass from KYC bounty hunters, that is, to request confidential data and copies of documents from us? You tried to ask them what they intend to do with the confidential information collected, how long and where they intend to store it? Ask them the most common questions and they will not be able to answer them. This is despite the fact that the activities of the ICO are now practically unregulated, the ICO teams themselves do not pass any checks and in many cases are fraudsters. To approve a KYC check for bounty hunters now actually means protecting scammers.

[Nggedebus]

A simple KYC would still can be acceptable but if the KYC asking for too many personal information, that could be another problem for everyone, not just the bounty participant, but also for any investors. I believe many of them don't like their personal information to be easily attained by someone else.

[Irvinn]

I don't have any problems with kyc yet, if I go into any project and I was asked for kyc, depending on the type of project and it's quality will determine if I will submit my documents or not.

Most ICO teams now request KYC verification after the end of the ICO, and until that time, they even often deny the possibility of such verification. What is the point of carrying out such a check, if not for the purpose of non-payment of earned tokens by bounty hunters. In any case, passing a KYC check should take place when joining an ICO bounty campaign, in any case, contain such a possibility. Especially now, when there is no uniform form for providing the requested information and copies of our documents and the ICO team, they are simply refined by inventing, at the end or after the end of the ICO, such conditions for passing the KYC test so that many of them simply do not pass.

[Pffrt]

A simple KYC would still can be acceptable but if the KYC asking for too many personal information, that could be another problem for everyone, not just the bounty participant, but also for any investors. I believe many of them don't like their personal information to be easily attained by someone else.

When you are the ICO issuer, you need to comply with the rules of your local. That's why you have to show legal documents for your token or coin holder and kyc is there for that reason. Anyway, I am not a fan of kyc and I never had done this in my 6 crypto years.

[soramon]

I dislike KYC for bounty hunter but i agree KYC requirment to prevent cheating. I think its just matter of perspective. But the KYC should more easier to pass for bounty hunter. Because we are not investor after all. I hopes there is another way to claim reward for bounty hunters.

[Sacramentus]

actually you are the one who is misunderstandings things!

these so called "projects" are either purely scams who are set to make the most amount of money which means they will sell your identity on the dark market to make more money from you and call that "KYC" or they are created by newbie idiots who thought if they ask for KYC their shitty projects would look more legitimate so they can fool more people into giving them their money. and their databse is easily hacked and the KYC documents would still end up in dark market.

and that is the main reason why everyone has been complaining about it. it has nothing to do with being an investor or not.

Even up until now after I have break down the misunderstandings pertaining the kyc you still find it very difficult to comprehend.  I am talking about scam projects and I never ask you to submit your kyc to any project that you see as a scam. What I am referring to is the fact that many even when the project is super real still hate kyc. Because they believe hunters don't need to perform kyc

[nasipadang]

I have seen many hunters talk about the kyc with utmost hatred. Many wants kyc removed, many thinks it's not fair for hunters, while some say it shouldn't be for hunters, because hunters are not investors.

But the point is, if the company or start-up project asks for kyc from hunters, they are not wrong in any way.

Kyc are not for investors only, as long as you will hold or holds a company's or start-up project equity share and have voting rights, you are a customer. What this simply means is that whether you bought the token or through bounty hunting but holds this token with the so called investors, there is no different between you hunter and an investor with cash.

Both of you holds the same token from this company and share equal right with them, which means that what an investor can do an this particular company, you as hunter holding the same token can do also.

The only difference is that the investors invested their cash and you invested your time and both of you holds the same token and shares equal rights.  So if you say that you can't pass through kyc because you are a hunter, then you are the cheater

KYC for me there is nothing wrong, maybe the problem is that referring to the bounty hunter is the difficulty in filling out the KYC and the security of personal data, from some people I asked like that, this is related to the policy of the developer and to debate fair KYC or not, I think the decision is in the developer, so it will be useless to argue if the developer has decided the rules.