yeah, indeed we must be more careful in giving our personal identities to others. we don't know what they will do with our identity.
before giving our identity, it is indeed a good idea to recognize "who they are" if they are people who work with responsibility and can truly be trusted i think it doesn't matter to follow their rules.
Topic: A new look to KYC, from a customer's perspective. - page 6. (Read 1323 times)
Some time we need KYC not only for investor or customers but also we need KYC for owner and ICO team, they are really trusted person or not because almost of ICO owner never could be trust with their promise.
There are several ICO projects that I follow that use real Teams. And the project can be successful and continue to grow. And I think the Team must also pass KYC so that investors and bounty hunters can check. And I think that can also increase trust.
it is important enough to avoid project scams. when the team is also required by Kyc, they will not dare to scam because their identity is very clear and can be reported.
Often them team is just a profile picture purchased from photostock linked to a made up linkedIn profile. A formal verification system needs to be done on the CEO and senior members of the team to ensure that they are real, this would safeguard the investors from scammers
I agree and this method is I often do when I participate on an ICO. I literally trying to make in contact with them through video call to see if they are the people on the website link and unfortunately only few agree to do it. So Im surprise that many projects are scam. They saying they are busy with stuff, what is a 2min video talk. If you're a legit project then you dont need to be scare on people verifying you on method like this.
on the one hand KYC helps to weed out any dishonest,but on the other we still understand the policy for what is it to high to control people and track who's doing what and who has what money and who can influence which processes,that impose KYC and not for fighting crime though!
So, what does KYC mean? I always hated that thing, mostly because I feelt it is an unnecesary leak of information.
With these times and all the shitcoin scams and real waste of time and money I came to the resolution that we need a new meaning for KYC.
Know Your CEO.
The best way we could prevent or atleast act in the case (most certain) of one of any new project being a scam is selecting a number of trusted users of the community to verify the "Team" of any coin just the same way we are verified in most sites.
Since most of the new coins claim the "Team" is the people shown in the pictures they shouldn't mind verifying it to this peculiar non snitch trustworthy gathering of users.
In the case a project is to be compared to bitcoin or ethereum and the team crave anonimity you shouldn't need an ICO or could provide code before launching and provide a service.
Any ideas? Would anyone actualy ask for this before investing? and keep the word and not invest without the check?
I think it is more than a fair price for trusting someone with perhaps thousands of bitcoins.
Edit: I has another interesting post few ahead for (for the ones that read op only)
I can't agree less with you on this team members especially the CEO of project should be verified and ready to be accountable for investors fund should anything go wrong, many team have used fake identity to scam ico buyers kyc the CEO before giving them fund is a welcome idea. With these times and all the shitcoin scams and real waste of time and money I came to the resolution that we need a new meaning for KYC.
Know Your CEO.
The best way we could prevent or atleast act in the case (most certain) of one of any new project being a scam is selecting a number of trusted users of the community to verify the "Team" of any coin just the same way we are verified in most sites.
Since most of the new coins claim the "Team" is the people shown in the pictures they shouldn't mind verifying it to this peculiar non snitch trustworthy gathering of users.
In the case a project is to be compared to bitcoin or ethereum and the team crave anonimity you shouldn't need an ICO or could provide code before launching and provide a service.
Any ideas? Would anyone actualy ask for this before investing? and keep the word and not invest without the check?
I think it is more than a fair price for trusting someone with perhaps thousands of bitcoins.
Edit: I has another interesting post few ahead for (for the ones that read op only)
that's a good idea, we're turning things around. if previously the CEO demanded our data, now we also have to do it to be a draw. so nothing is hidden because Kyc for 2 parties will create a project that is open to each other.
I have been suggesting something similar for a while now to avoid fake and scam icos, it should be a rule that the project that intends to raise funds should post company registration documents alongwith team's kyc documents verified from government agencies and i think this is the only way to filter out scammers from ico community.
Now you can fake any documents and show them on the Internet as your own. We experimented to create a new document on the basis of any other document, changing the information and photo in it, and then print, put in a special cover and present it for verification by KYC. Such documents are tested by KYC, they are very difficult to distinguish. I think that the publication of documents and other information about yourself by members of the ICO team will not solve the problem of fraud. We need government regulation of ICO activities, only authorized state bodies are able to qualitatively verify the documents provided in the original and completely eliminate the problem of fraud in the ICO. 
KYC is essential for compliance and for startups to prove their team consists of authentic professionals who have the skills required to get their idea off the ground and achieve success, and it's also important for investors who are committing capital to be able to verify who they are investing in and what qualifications and experience they have so it's wise to check if this has been approved before you invest in any new ventures
It's time to introduce KYC for those who make ICO. Investors need guarantees that the project will be successful.
I wonder if any of them will be able to give more order than the whitepaper they present to us which are sometimes misleading, the only one we can still rely on for now are the projects some of these big exchange are listing under their IEO, hopefully that can guarantee us at least 80% of the genuinely of the project and the success of it because no exchange too will like to promote a coin that will make people loose trust in such exchange after promising to cater for the assuring part of the project. KYC was created to comply with the fiat world and its laws of centralization and is enforced by the government to mainly prevent money laundering but also to keep track of what people are doing with their money so that they can tax them.
at some point in last years when ICOs started failing and could no longer fool enough people to rob them, they started coming up with weird ways to look legitimate and one of the many ways used was KYC. then immediately afterwards they realized since they are not really regulated and there is no law that they abide by, they started selling all that information to make more money.
the worst part is that KYC and its problems is not even an ICO related issue. there are exchanges that have done the same thing! like bittrex selling user data on darknet...
that is KYC from customer perspective.
I think KYC used to be done because both company and government demands it towards user so they don't launder money bla bla , but if it was done from us towards unknown people AND taxes are paid then it should be surveilled/identified by whatever entity recieves the taxes (treasury I think it is called) , not a company that hasn't proven itself and has chances of going shady.at some point in last years when ICOs started failing and could no longer fool enough people to rob them, they started coming up with weird ways to look legitimate and one of the many ways used was KYC. then immediately afterwards they realized since they are not really regulated and there is no law that they abide by, they started selling all that information to make more money.
the worst part is that KYC and its problems is not even an ICO related issue. there are exchanges that have done the same thing! like bittrex selling user data on darknet...
that is KYC from customer perspective.
Shouldn't treasury take care the creators are legit since all this shit is taxed?
that could have been the case if they were only accepting fiat but 99% of the ICOs have been accepting cryptocurrencies (mainly ETH) so there is no anti money laundering involved in it anyways! not to mention that almost all of them have no "company"! a group of people on the internet who code are not a company hence they are not subjected to any laws.
I had similar feelings towards KYC earlier, but when I wanted to participate in a sale I finally did the KYC. After it I have passed it I told them " now you know me, it is time for me to know You as well" and put a bunch of questions. At first they were surprised but responded politely. One of the criteria I judge a project is how accessible their leader is and how he is responding to the community.
So, what does KYC mean? I always hated that thing, mostly because I feelt it is an unnecesary leak of information.
With these times and all the shitcoin scams and real waste of time and money I came to the resolution that we need a new meaning for KYC.
Know Your CEO.
The best way we could prevent or atleast act in the case (most certain) of one of any new project being a scam is selecting a number of trusted users of the community to verify the "Team" of any coin just the same way we are verified in most sites.
Since most of the new coins claim the "Team" is the people shown in the pictures they shouldn't mind verifying it to this peculiar non snitch trustworthy gathering of users.
In the case a project is to be compared to bitcoin or ethereum and the team crave anonimity you shouldn't need an ICO or could provide code before launching and provide a service.
Any ideas? Would anyone actualy ask for this before investing? and keep the word and not invest without the check?
I think it is more than a fair price for trusting someone with perhaps thousands of bitcoins.
Edit: I has another interesting post few ahead for (for the ones that read op only)
This is good suggestion because it's important that we know who is team in every project so we can have assurance that what we invest will not take away. And if the there's no motive to scam the people they will agree to this so it will fair to their investors. With these times and all the shitcoin scams and real waste of time and money I came to the resolution that we need a new meaning for KYC.
Know Your CEO.
The best way we could prevent or atleast act in the case (most certain) of one of any new project being a scam is selecting a number of trusted users of the community to verify the "Team" of any coin just the same way we are verified in most sites.
Since most of the new coins claim the "Team" is the people shown in the pictures they shouldn't mind verifying it to this peculiar non snitch trustworthy gathering of users.
In the case a project is to be compared to bitcoin or ethereum and the team crave anonimity you shouldn't need an ICO or could provide code before launching and provide a service.
Any ideas? Would anyone actualy ask for this before investing? and keep the word and not invest without the check?
I think it is more than a fair price for trusting someone with perhaps thousands of bitcoins.
Edit: I has another interesting post few ahead for (for the ones that read op only)
But many projects also abuse this procedure. They may steal your personal information. So I can not say that I also have a good attitude to KYC. I very carefully examine the project before going through this procedure.
At first, I also had a negative attitude to this procedure. I did not participate in projects where it was necessary to pass it. But now I've reconsidered my view of it. I understand that this is a good way to protect against fraud.
Well, the truth is that there are some project here in this forum that was managed by some trusted forum member here and at the end they all turn out to be scam. So, i think your recommendation may be also difficult for it to s÷ the light of the day.
Well, thing is all they do is accepting a ridiculous amount of btc for managing and promote it, perhaps they should specificaly say if they endorse the project or not , not leave it in a limbo of conveniency where you misguide people and earn without a penalty. So even if they promote they should atleast admit they endorse it, it is still a factor left in cause for the promotion but a bit would be mitigated.However promoting obvious scams this way should also be punished somehow.
Also, we really need to see and talk how we will start demanding this kyc.
Note: While I wouldn't usualy just change the subject like this I feel that since I already have signature I could do no harm in metioning LIF , or even more important, windingtree.com, It is one of the most legit projects I seen out there after an ICO with constant development. Price is on one of it's ATL's however it raised a bit.
https://kydcoin.io/ someone forwarded this to me in an alternate site.
Well, the truth is that there are some project here in this forum that was managed by some trusted forum member here and at the end they all turn out to be scam. So, i think your recommendation may be also difficult for it to s÷ the light of the day.
So, what does KYC mean? I always hated that thing, mostly because I feelt it is an unnecesary leak of information.
With these times and all the shitcoin scams and real waste of time and money I came to the resolution that we need a new meaning for KYC.
Know Your CEO.
Know Your CEO? With these times and all the shitcoin scams and real waste of time and money I came to the resolution that we need a new meaning for KYC.
Know Your CEO.
Mate, you made my day.After all these scam projects I am tired and want to do something different than passing the pre-determined barriers by CEOs. Now revenge time!
~snip
You are absolutely on point, this is one of the great ways we can use in knowing a good project by verifying the team directly, at least a very good project should not be afraid of displaying its location and location of the team members which any of community members residing in same country as the team can verify and give feedback.It will really be great if groups can be created generally for people to join other than the ones created by the projects, whereby people can come and discuss generally about any form of ICO for verification purpose by any member residing in the country of the project team.
Jump to: