TerraGreen Bounty KYC-Scam - changed rules of their bounty and refused payments

[1miau]

TerraGreen is about to pull a KYC-Scam and refuse payments to all bounty participants which won’t pass their afterwards introduced KYC. When TerraGreen launched their bounty, they wrote that KYC is not required to receive rewards. Now, after TerraGreen bounty has ended and before paying rewards, TerraGreen made an announcement, that KYC is suddenly required due to regulatory reasons:

Important update!
TerraGreen Team is regret to inform that all Bounty participants must have to submit KYC documents. TerraGreen got audit report from a government body and there will be a requirement of KYC documents of TerraGreen users.
So, bounty participants have to submit KYC before 16 July via their TGN wallets here https://wallet.terragreen.io/dashboard to get their coins.

(As far as I know this is only the bounty manager and he's not related to the team)

Proof that KYC wasn’t required while the bounty was running: http://archive.is/HTBvg#selection-955.0-955.7

And it’s still in the title of the topic when I archived it yesterday.  


I consider KYC-Scams as an extremely shady move of a project to save costs when people don’t submit KYC or if the project is a scam to collect personal data and sell it to other scammers on the black market. Assuming that shitcoin ICOs don’t collect much funds right now, the personal data can be worth much more than the collected funds because the scammers can define which data they want to get.
I don’t know if TerraGreen is a scam but the way they put pressure on their bounty participants and refuse them a payment if they don’t pass KYC is at least scamming them.

It can happen that a company has to change some parts of their initial assumptions when legal things change and they get the information that KYC is required for all token holders. Although it’s far too much coincidence that such a change is always happening when the bounty is already finished.  

But that still can happen and I’m ok if TerraGreen pays their participants which don’t want to send KYC for receiving rewards (because it wasn’t required when they joined) with BTC or ETH instead. That would show that it’s really a coincidence and the intention of TerraGreen wasn’t to scam bounty participants and just to save costs / collect data.
But after I've asked that in their Telegram they denied even payments in BTC or ETH instead. That’s a clear abuse to me and I will give them a negative trust. Proof:




Profile link of the accused user: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2422222
Bounty thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5127694.msg50440871#msg50440871


I’ve not flagged them yet but I hope that a participant will bring up a scammer flag for violating a written contract because I can’t do that, I’m not a participant in their bounty.
The only thing I could do would be to create a Newbie flag which is less effective, so I’ll wait if someone creates a scammer flag. Tagged for now.


Update:

User Aveatrex has confirmed to be an participant of their bounty here and has created a flag against terragreen: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=454

If you agree to the points mentioned in this topic, it would be nice if you can support the flag.

[asche]

In most bounty threads it is stated that the bounty rules can change at any time.

Thus, it would not be violating any written contract.

Moreover, while in some cases it is a shady KYC scam as you say, it also can happen that they are not allowed to do the payout by their compliance team. This has happened before and is a real possibility.

I agree that the bounty participants shoudn't be the one bearing the cost of that, but it is a reality.

Best case would be that all bounties require KYC. No disappointment possible this way.


Here the main issue, as you highlight it, is the fact they wait for the bounty to be over to disclose the information.
The surely knew about it sooner, but decided to postpone to avoid loosing advertisement.

While I don't like it, it it not enough for me to support any scam accusation against them. Only solid proof of when that information was brought to the BM attention, or the proof that there is no such thing as the audit mentioned would make me flag/tag them.

I’ve not flagged them yet but I hope that a participant will bring up a scammer flag for violating a written contract because I can’t do that, I’m not a participant in their bounty.

You don't need to be the victim of the violation to create the flag.

XXXXX violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. XXXXX did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around date. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

[rosezionjohn]

This practice by ICO teams has been going on for a while now and this is also one reason why I stopped doing bounties.

Bounties like terragreen are hiding behind their "the has the right to change the rule as they see fit" policy. They don't disclose the KYC requirement at the beginning because many are not willing to disclose their personal info just to receive bounty rewards worth a few dollars.

I like the term KYC-scams btw.


EDIT:
It appears hunters have the option to sell their bounty stakes for ETH on an exchange. Those who bought those stakes will have to undergo KYC also before they can convert the stakes into tokens.

[JeromeTash]

They deserve a scam tag and flag(i will support the flag in any way)
This is just ridiculous. Why did they have to wait upto the end of the bounty to impose KYC?

Most people don't love to disclose their IDs over tokens and so when they see a campaign requiring KYC, they avoid it.
There is no excuse about changing terms and conditions at anytime here.

[asche]

They deserve a scam tag and flag(i will support the flag in any way)

Funny of you to say since you didn't make any of those.

Disclaimer: I do believe they are scamming and deserve the tags. I am only pointing out the lack of evidence here "devil's advocate"

[1miau]

In most bounty threads it is stated that the bounty rules can change at any time.

That's true but exactly this statement is used for them to "justify" their KYC-scam. They are adding that to their rules while they already know that they will change it after the bounty to save expenses.

In that case it's very clear because they said that all tokens of users who won't pass KYC will be used for advertising campaigns in the future. The reasons for shitcoin issuers to make a KYC scam is:
- get more participants
- scam them later to save parts of the bounty allocation
- (and maybe to get personal data to sell them for making more money if the shitcoin project is a scam)

Moreover, while in some cases it is a shady KYC scam as you say, it also can happen that they are not allowed to do the payout by their compliance team. This has happened before and is a real possibility.

That can happen, of course. Like I said in my OP I understand it that things can change and they are not allowed to issue their tokens to holders without KYC. But if that's the case they have to keep the promise to pay their participants without KYC. They can pay easily in ETH or in BTC if they can't pay in their tokens.
I asked that in their Telegram and they have refused it to pay them otherwise. That shows how their real intention was: saving costs, not regulatory reasons.

KYC scams are always shady because it's a tactic that we can see quite often nowadays. Important is to have a proof that:

- KYC was not required while the bounty was running
- KYC is required after bounty
- The team refuses also payments in BTC or ETH as compensation

=> there's a clear intention to scam and users dealing with that people are at high risk to lose their payouts they have to receive.  

Best case would be that all bounties require KYC. No disappointment possible this way.

KYC for bounty is at least useless but in most cases also dangerous.

Why dangerous?
We all know that around 95% of all shitcoin ICOs are scam. And if users are forced to give them their personal data for a few useless shitcoins the possibility to get scammed is very high. I can imagine that there are only Shitcoin ICOs, they don't plan to collect funds. They plan to collect personal data from bounty participants. And enforcing KYC afterwards while denying greedy shitcoin hunters to give them their tokens will lead them to do KYC. Shitcoin hunters are greedy and shitcoin scammers know that.

Besides from that, personal data will rise in value because the real scammers will purchase them on the black market to pass it on exchanges for real money laundering. KYC sounds effective? It isn't, it's quite the opposite and further, it's a risk for legit users.

Why useless?
It's useless because it's another question if KYCs for bounty hunters even make sense. KYC is supposed to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Is it possible to launder money via bounty? - no
Are bounty participants terrorists - I would say no although their comments are sometimes a bit strange.  
In addition, the amount of money generated in bounties is so tiny, bounties for terrorists would be a good measure to prevent them from collecting money at least halfways effectively.  

The solution is quite simple:
The team has to announce the rules clearly before they start. Or they should pay directly in BTC instead of their useless shitcoins but that would cost them "real" crypto.

But of course, if they want to save cost and pull a KYC-scam / collect personal data, the strategy of TerraGreen is the way to go.

I know, nobody is forced to participate in shitcoin bouties. But we have to step in here where cheaters, scammers or other shady people try to damage other users, take advantage from it and fill their own pockets. Scammers should know that they can't do their shit without getting trouble for it.

While I don't like it, it it not enough for me to support any scam accusation against them. Only solid proof of when that information was brought to the BM attention, or the proof that there is no such thing as the audit mentioned would make me flag/tag them.

I don't know how it should be more obvious that they are refusing payments even in other cryptocurrencies, not their tokens.

I’ve not flagged them yet but I hope that a participant will bring up a scammer flag for violating a written contract because I can’t do that, I’m not a participant in their bounty.

You don't need to be the victim of the violation to create the flag.

XXXXX violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. XXXXX did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around date. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance.

Source?
As far as I know I have to be affected for flags 2 and 3. Only a Newbie flag is also allowed when I'm not affected.

They deserve a scam tag and flag(i will support the flag in any way)

Funny of you to say since you didn't make any of those.

I guess he's not affected, so he can't create a flag 2 or 3.

Bounties like terragreen are hiding behind their "the has the right to change the rule as they see fit" policy. They don't disclose the KYC requirement at the beginning because many are not willing to disclose their personal info just to receive bounty rewards worth a few dollars.

Exactly that, they are using it as a strategy.  

EDIT:
It appears hunters have the option to sell their bounty stakes for ETH on an exchange. Those who bought those stakes will have to undergo KYC also before they can convert the stakes into tokens.

I don't know it exactly, I would guess that's only possible if you receive the bounty stakes in your wallet. And for doing so, you need to pass KYC. I can ask a participant if you want, I had a few PMs but he's afraid to create a flagg because he fears that the team will disqualify him.

Most people don't love to disclose their IDs over tokens and so when they see a campaign requiring KYC, they avoid it.

100% agreed here. There are still ( ) some people protecting their privacy (which is a valuable good) and if I join a bounty without KYC I have to be paid without KYC and not being blackmailed to send my personal documents to receive a bunch of lousy shitcoins. KYC for shitcoin bounties is encouraging scam and identity theft.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

TerraGreen is about to pull a KYC-Scam and refuse payments to all bounty participants which won’t pass their afterwards introduced KYC. When TerraGreen launched their bounty, they wrote that KYC is not required to receive rewards. Now, after TerraGreen bounty has ended and before paying rewards, TerraGreen made an announcement, that KYC is suddenly required due to regulatory reasons

All of this ex-post-fuckyou KYC BS is just that--bullshit.  And none of it surprises me.  What does surprise me is how many people do so much work for these scumbags when so many projects have ultimately screwed over their bounty participants.

The solution is quite simple:
The team has to announce the rules clearly before they start.

Yep.  Yep x 1000.  There should be no fuck-you surprises at the end or at any point during the bounty whereby KYC rules are implemented when they were not at the beginning.  That's unfair at best and is a means to scam bounty hunters at worst.

Or they should pay directly in BTC instead of their useless shitcoins but that would costs them "real" crypto.

Definitely.  I'm not a bounty hunter, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be paid in some shitty token that'll be worthless within weeks.  That's another thing that surprises me about bounty hunters.

[rosezionjohn]

EDIT:
It appears hunters have the option to sell their bounty stakes for ETH on an exchange. Those who bought those stakes will have to undergo KYC also before they can convert the stakes into tokens.

I don't know it exactly, I would guess that's only possible if you receive the bounty stakes in your wallet. And for doing so, you need to pass KYC. I can ask a participant if you want, I had a few PMs but he's afraid to create a flagg because he fears that the team will disqualify him.

They partnered with this exchange called Tokpie where hunters can trade their weekly/monthly stakes for eth while the bounty is ongoing. That's one option they can do to avoid KYC and still be rewarded (in eth). Those who bought the stakes can then convert it to TGN upon distribution. Anyway, their admin (terragreen) said those buyers aren't required to undergo KYC.

[TECSHARE]

This is starting to look like a standard practice for a lot of teams stiffing bounty workers. I looked over the bounty post, the only thing that I saw coming close to the terms stating they are subject to change is this:

"6. Information about the bounty can be subject to change by the project team, at their discretion."

This is very poorly worded. Considering these people are using an insufficiently written contract to try to fuck their contributors, I would say it is quite justified that same poorly written contract be interpreted to the letter, and that means they did not disclose CONTRACT TERMS were subject to change. I would say a flag for this case is more than justified. I would also suggest bounty workers start archiving and getting explicit statements from project managers from now on before starting work, as well as verifying that those terms are not subject to change. I would also oppose the flag if the project team made good on their bounty obligations, but I am not holding my breath.

[bob123]

[...] and that means they did not disclose CONTRACT TERMS were subject to change. I would say a flag for this case is more than justified.

I agree with this.

Since they don't pay out their bounties in another currency, this is an obvious scam to me.

We can't verify whether they really need to perform KYC to pay out their tokens. But if this is the case, payment in another currency is a must.
The participants did their work, and deserve their payment.


So, it is either a scam to pay less than they should or a scam to gather personal information. Or maybe both.
IMO this deserves not only a type3 flag, but a type1 flag too.

[timerland]

I consider KYC-Scams as an extremely shady move of a project to save costs when people don’t submit KYC or if the project is a scam to collect personal data and sell it to other scammers on the black market. Assuming that shitcoin ICOs don’t collect much funds right now, the personal data can be worth much more than the collected funds because the scammers can define which data they want to get.
I don’t know if TerraGreen is a scam but the way they put pressure on their bounty participants and refuse them a payment if they don’t pass KYC is at least scamming them.

I personally think that they should be considered to be scams, period. And they should be held to the same scrutiny as any other scam involving a blatant breach of contract.

Their interests are clearly in paying users as little funds as possible, as opposed to potentially upholding any sort of formal regulation that need to comply with. Otherwise, they'd be open to paying bounty participants in terms of BTC, or any fiat, since that would DEFINITELY not be a breach of any securities laws (from their perspective, they'd just be paying for a service with a currency).

But they're not open to that option, which also indirectly shows their own lack of trust within their own project.

I'm not sure why people don't demand funds to be escrowed in bounty campaigns the same way they demand sig campaign funds to be escrowed - even if the payment is in the token of the project.

[JeromeTash]

They deserve a scam tag and flag(i will support the flag in any way)

Funny of you to say since you didn't make any of those.

1. My tag would not make any impact since I am not on DT. All I can do is just act as a back up.
2. I never participated in the campaign, so me creating a flag would make no sense IMO. If anyone who participated created it, I will support it

[1miau]

They partnered with this exchange called Tokpie where hunters can trade their weekly/monthly stakes for eth while the bounty is ongoing. That's one option they can do to avoid KYC and still be rewarded (in eth). Those who bought the stakes can then convert it to TGN upon distribution. Anyway, their admin (terragreen) said those buyers aren't required to undergo KYC.

Are you sure how that process is working exactly? We had a few participants in the German local board and that option was mentioned by one of them but only that these conversions to ETH mean that someone has to buy these shitcoin bounty stakes (LOL, honestly, which idiot will buy that??   ) and surprise surprise, the option doesn't really work because there are no buyers / the orders are ridiculously low if there are any...

EDIT:
It appears hunters have the option to sell their bounty stakes for ETH on an exchange. Those who bought those stakes will have to undergo KYC also before they can convert the stakes into tokens.

Sounds like a "shift the shit to another person" strategy at best.  

I'll shoot the users from the German local board a PM again to check this and if all doubts are cleared I'll create a Newbie flag. Unfortunately they are afraid to create a scammer flag because they are feared to get disqualified...
One of them agreed to do it after the payouts (July 17).

I'm not sure why people don't demand funds to be escrowed in bounty campaigns the same way they demand sig campaign funds to be escrowed - even if the payment is in the token of the project.

Yes, that would be another great option to prevent unfair moves like from TerraGreen.


Furthermore, it looks like the Devs aren't interested in solving that issue similar to the Livecoin disaster. Sometimes it's so easy to pay honestly but they choose to go the hard way...  
No response from them here, always the same comments on Telegram...
And the best part: they were advertising "NO KYC" in the headline of their bounty campaign.  
[BOUNTY ROUND 4] ETH instantly+TerraGreen coin[NO KYC/4.6 icobench/MVP][ENDED]

[rosezionjohn]

They partnered with this exchange called Tokpie where hunters can trade their weekly/monthly stakes for eth while the bounty is ongoing. That's one option they can do to avoid KYC and still be rewarded (in eth). Those who bought the stakes can then convert it to TGN upon distribution. Anyway, their admin (terragreen) said those buyers aren't required to undergo KYC.

Are you sure how that process is working exactly? We had a few participants in the German local board and that option was mentioned by one of them but only that these conversions to ETH mean that someone has to buy these shitcoin bounty stakes (LOL, honestly, which idiot will buy that??   ) and surprise surprise, the option doesn't really work because there are no buyers / the orders are ridiculously low if there are any...

I haven't use that exchange yet (Tokpie), I only read that feature on their site. As you noted, hunters will still have an issue if there are no buyers or if buy orders are very low. Has any of the participants created a flag yet?

[bob123]

I'll shoot the users from the German local board a PM again to check this and if all doubts are cleared I'll create a Newbie flag.

I also already considered creating a type1 flag, but we shouldn't do this.

Upon creating a type2 or #3 flag, the following has to be confirmed:

[...]  3) no existing flag covers this same incident; [...]

Creating a type1 flag now, would cover this incident.
And since a type2 / type3 flag is 'more severe' i would actually wait for someone to create such a flag, to support it.

Unfortunately they are afraid to create a scammer flag because they are feared to get disqualified...
One of them agreed to do it after the payouts (July 17).

Getting disqualified because of that would just be another red flag and would IMO justify a second (type 1) flag.
Does everyone participating there want to send their ID and other personal documents to them ? Is there not a single one who doesn't want to sell his identity for a few bucks 

[susila_bai]

They partnered with this exchange called Tokpie where hunters can trade their weekly/monthly stakes for eth while the bounty is ongoing. That's one option they can do to avoid KYC and still be rewarded (in eth). Those who bought the stakes can then convert it to TGN upon distribution. Anyway, their admin (terragreen) said those buyers aren't required to undergo KYC.

Are you sure how that process is working exactly? We had a few participants in the German local board and that option was mentioned by one of them but only that these conversions to ETH mean that someone has to buy these shitcoin bounty stakes (LOL, honestly, which idiot will buy that??   ) and surprise surprise, the option doesn't really work because there are no buyers / the orders are ridiculously low if there are any...

I haven't use that exchange yet (Tokpie), I only read that feature on their site. As you noted, hunters will still have an issue if there are no buyers or if buy orders are very low. Has any of the participants created a flag yet?

Yes their was a trading on this coin from start of the bounty and lot of users have bought and sold their stakes in that site. So i think the tokpie site is genuine but cannot say about TGN token project about it.

[1miau]

I'll shoot the users from the German local board a PM again to check this and if all doubts are cleared I'll create a Newbie flag.

I also already considered creating a type1 flag, but we shouldn't do this.

Upon creating a type2 or #3 flag, the following has to be confirmed:

[...]  3) no existing flag covers this same incident; [...]

Creating a type1 flag now, would cover this incident.

Thanks for the heads up. I agree, it would be better to wait for someone creating a flag type 3. I PMed some users again if they are willing to create a flag from an alt to protect their main.

But I don't know if that's allowed to create a flag from your alt while your main was scammed. Would you consider that as ok? The only reason is to protect the main from damages like deletion of stakes or doxing because they have the personal data and it's linked to the account.

In their Telegram are some of them complaining and mentioning the Scam Accusation on Bitcointalk but I'm surprised that they don't create a flag. I PMed two of them (I guess shitposters). The first one don't know anything about flags and the second one never replied.

[logfiles]

In their Telegram are some of them complaining and mentioning the Scam Accusation on Bitcointalk but I'm surprised that they don't create a flag. I PMed two of them (I guess shitposters). The first one don't know anything about flags and the second one never replied.

Most of those users don't even know about the scam accusations board or the use of the flag.
They are usually locked up in the bounties section making weekly social media reports. I really appreciate what you have tried to do and i do hope one of the comes up here and creates a flag.

Many have been scammed off in this manner and all they do is complain in the telegram group for months after which they have just gone quiet without reporting anywhere or in the forum.

[bob123]

But I don't know if that's allowed to create a flag from your alt while your main was scammed. Would you consider that as ok? The only reason is to protect the main from damages like deletion of stakes or doxing because they have the personal data and it's linked to the account.

As far as i understand, this forum does not necessarily distinguish between different accounts.

For example:
1) If one account scams, all known alts will get tagged.
2) Being banned does not mean the account, but the person is banned.

Therefore i would say if an alt creates a flag and some reputable and trusted member does confirm that the alt does belong to an damaged user, it should be fine.

I, for example, trust you. So if you confirm that the alt is from someone who was damaged, i trust that statement and therefore can support that flag in all conscience.


However, i'd still like to hear the opinion from others regarding this topic.

[1miau]

But I don't know if that's allowed to create a flag from your alt while your main was scammed. Would you consider that as ok? The only reason is to protect the main from damages like deletion of stakes or doxing because they have the personal data and it's linked to the account.

As far as i understand, this forum does not necessarily distinguish between different accounts.

For example:
1) If one account scams, all known alts will get tagged.
2) Being banned does not mean the account, but the person is banned.

Therefore i would say if an alt creates a flag and some reputable and trusted member does confirm that the alt does belong to an damaged user, it should be fine.

I, for example, trust you. So if you confirm that the alt is from someone who was damaged, i trust that statement and therefore can support that flag in all conscience.


However, i'd still like to hear the opinion from others regarding this topic.

I agree, especially if the use of the main account could lead to damages when the team refuses to pay that account or they have already the personal data and there's a high risk of getting doxed when the main account is known.

However, i'd still like to hear the opinion from others regarding this topic.

Same here, if there's another confirmation of an user on DT1 I would ask the KYC-scammed user to create a flag from his alt.