Well... this condition ("bounty manager and project owners have the right to male changes to the bounty tool at any point in time") is extremely unfair to the bounty hunters and I don't know why it is being allowed here in Bitcointalk. I have seen the campaign managers misusing this condition very frequently. Sometimes they make KYC mandatory in the end, after not mentioning about it in the beginning. And sometimes, they extend the duration of the campaign, without increasing the bounty pool proportionately.
It may seem unfair, but a warning for a change in rules has been set at the beginning, so inevitably we have to accept all the risks. Was not from the beginning, we decided to join despite statements like that?
Well, this phenomenon often arises since the market conditions are less favourable. Many projects failed to achieve ICO sales targets after listing. So promising projects with good strategies even experience difficulties, so that inevitably make some changes, including the bounty to keep their projects at a safe limit. Sometimes allocations are cut, distribution is delayed, etc. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, lately it has been misused, such as the application for KYC. Over time it's like bullshit to delay the distribution process because it has to do the KYC evaluation, ironically.