After being in a campaign that ‘surprise’ KYC’ed their members after the campaign was completed, I have to say, the KYC was worth it.
People do have a valid complaint about the 'surprise' KYC only being mentioned after the work was done, but from the looks of it, the manager has ID’ed hundreds of “spam syndicates”, duplicate accounts, people registering under other people’s BCT user name, etc … and at least half of the members didn’t bother to KYC. It means a lot more for the rest of us.
And I can tell you first hand, from what I’ve witness, the bounty manager is taking this very serious, doing his best to eliminate cheaters and give the people who actually cared about the project a larger share.
Now, I get the complaints, especially when the KYC isn’t mentioned in the announcement, but it worked like it was supposed to. So far, the most common objections to KYC itself I’ve seen are:
Crypto is supposed to be private: Yes, it could be, but every other investment I’ve been involved in has required much more info than what the KYC asked for…. Social Security numbers and the names of my heirs, for example. KYC asked for my name, address, phone number, and a picture ID. Really, not much more than you can find on a government website about me, or my business Facebook.
I can’t trust an ICO with my personal data: Really? You are promoting the ICO and asking people to invest their hard earned money in it, but you can’t trust them with your name and address? This is only a valid concern if you are a professional bounty hunter retweeting every campaign out there without regard for quality. If you engage in one bounty at a time, you have the luxury of researching the crap out of it before you get involved.
I hope in the future that more bounties include whether or not they KYC in their announcement. I know the merit system was just introduced, but I think KYC for signature campaigns will cut down the spamming and duplicate accounts much more. It will discourage the “spam syndicates” from getting involved right from the start, and probably make the campaign manager’s job easier.
I would absolutely get involved in another project that KYC’s if they check out, so I hope they will start making that part of their announcement. In fact, if I were a campaign manager, I would put “we reserve the right to KYC our members” in every announcement, just to discourage the multi-account spammers.
KYC isn't bad but the problem is is trust. Depending on what documents to submit etc, it can be very risky.
You have to trust that the party receiving the verification doesn't have malicious intent such as selling it on the darkweb. Might get rid of cheaters, but who knows what the receiver will do with that information? Who knows how secure that information is, is it not going to get hacked?
I know an ICO that had KYC and ended up scamming the investors + selling the emails right here on Bitcointalk whilst trying to convince the investors they were not exit-scamming, now thats fucked up.
It doesn't protect for multiple accounts as people can register on two different campain to avoid that. 
