New type of ICO team fraud

[Fenix]

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?

[Alcor]

Yes, lately the problem of checking KYC after the end of the ICO is a big headache for bounty hunters. Now a lot of ICO steel. conduct KYC checks on bounty hunters after the end of the ICO. It turns out that you can advertise them without checking KYC, and when it comes time to get tokens for the work done, then you need to check for this. I agree that at this stage it is already being conducted to a greater extent in order not to pay the earned tokens.
A very good initiative on this forum from the administration of the forum that needs to be supported is the verification process here on the forum, which will serve as a KYC check for all ICO teams that will launch their ICOs on this forum.

[ZionRTZ]

It sounds fraudulent as they are adding more conditions that is not included in the original Terms and Conditions.
One thing I also do not like is that once it's already stated at the beginning of the campaign that KYC is not required, they still reverse it at the end of the campaign.

I think what's giving them the courage to do all that is the rule which states that "The team has the exclusive right to change......." They probably put that rule to protect themselves from future complaints or lawsuits and also to allow them to adjust from possible changes in government regulations like KYC.

[dentolas]

I have noted these KYC facts some time ago, when I've finnished and ICO and was asked for KYC when there was no previous mention of such need... since then I always ask before I join the bounty... kyc for bounty hunters is nonsense and besides, nowadays sharing personal information with a dozen of projects is the first step to find yourself in trouble, and in exchange for a handfull of tokens that most of times will never be valuable ... cybersecurity is a wide problem... and there are also examples I've seen in which the bounty hunters do kyc to reveive the tokens, but in the end the project fails and they receive nothing...
The changing of the amount to be paid, is also a wide problem...
In the end, without regulations, we can't be speaking of contracts and law...(unfortunately) so we must check if they include something like "we reserve the right to change...", ask about kyc before hand (it doesn't always work as they can change their mind in the end and you have your hands tied)
At this point I consider a risk margin when joining a bounty
these are serious matters to address...

[ComeBack]

Wow nice details and information buddy, I'm thinking about what you said now we're always doing those forms to join on their bounty which is really like a contract.

[Zed0X]

It really sucks to know that this has been the trend lately among bounty campaigns. I have written something about having to declare whether KYC is required or not at the beginning of the campaign. There is also a forum rule that requires bounty campaigns to include rules on KYC but not many are following it. The best thing that could be done is to quarantine those who violate but somehow violators are being allowed by forum moderators (or maybe there was an update that overrules that policy).

On whether fraudulent or not, @Zion03 made a good case though so I am not really sure if imposing additional requirement can be called as such.

[whitenem]

Yes to require bounty Hunters to undergo kyc checks after the completion of an ICO , especially with out prior notice when joining their ICO project,this should be regarded as fraud.Even thought such a kyc check on bounty Hunter 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.