Topic: A new look to KYC, from a customer's perspective. - page 7. (Read 1389 times)

Well, this is not something that allow us to see competitiveness but yes however cataloguize their capabilities if they actually do a job. Also, there is always more people, and time, we aren't against chronometer right now all real hurry is eagerness for profits or timing because of speaking too early.
Indeed most successfull projects were either done without any coin raising or the code was provided right after the raising, so, done before.


More funnily, with their identity known they might think twice before doing a run after the ICO.

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.
Shouldn't treasury take care the creators are legit since all this shit is taxed?

Also, whoever claim's an ICO is trusted just because is on icobench or whatever site might be a shill or holder, I agree it might give a better insight or even can help prevent scams but one is also easy to be influenced, just look at yobit and their own shittokens coins all day, everyone profits. Shitcoins, we don't even get those nowadays and if they were easy to create then an ico is a term of 2 months where you hype and raise.
Not having a whitepaper before even mentioning an ICO says a lot already.

And for the end, how and when the hell we start making it a crave and deny doing it otherwise?

Most of them (team that created ICOs were not verified) we can take how bittrex was refusing to launch its IEO caused by the bittrex team has discovered a shady things from the team. KYC should be mandatory for the team.

I mean, I just outright refuse to invest in any sort of ICO, just because they usually have absolutely nothing to show for it and the chances of getting burned are just too great.
Think about it, there are enough projects that manage to get things done, before even raising a single dollar of funding.

Verifying the team behind an ICO might mitigate some of the risks, but in the end it's always possible that they do not reach the goals they've set out.
No matter who they are...

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.

The only KYC we need is a KYC for a team) They taking our money. They must give us some guarantees that they will be working for the project and that they will finish the project or return the money.

It also depends on their own method of verification and selection, there is no system that does not have loop holes, if an hacker can break into United State of America fund to steal, which system cannot be broken ? Even with Binance Launchpad, we don’t expect 100% perfection.

Remember that we are operating a decentralized system even though we have centralized exchanges but even with that, the projects in question, the team are scattered all over the continent, Binance cannot one by one verify each of them individually but will still be system verification, so I don’t see Binance not still having one or two challenges with the system,and that should not make them imperfect.

I agree with this thread. Perhaps many bounty hunters doesn't agree with kyc verification, i think kyc is for the investors but not for bounty hunters and some good projects states that they will be having kyc on the starting poibt of their campaign, but some aren't telling kyc, they would just surprise you if their project is done already.

I think this would be a great idea and it would definitely help crypto industry to grow a lot since people could invest only in project they trust. Honestly I don't know why someone else didn't thought about this before since the industry of ICOs would have been completely changed now. Every new project that claims to have a team with dozens of years of experience in cryptocurrencies should prove it to their users first before asking them for money.

I know a platfrom called kyd (know your developer), they check and review the developer of a coin/token. but i don't know if their review is authentic or not.

Honestly i only invest in a project that have a video showing their team's face

Inasmuch as ICOs need investors kyc information, it's also important that the investors know who they are actually giving their money and he/she is ready to be held accountable.

Definitely, the new meaning for KYC should be know your CEO. There are a lot of scam projects all over the crypto ecosystem which is making investors lose huge sums of money and also driving out serious investors away from real crypto projects. I think I support this new name and direction.

I have also thought of this many times, but most of the project teams will not want to reveal their identities to just some chosen set of people in the community, because they too do not trust just anybody, just like investors I'll not trust just any CEO. This is why we need platforms like Civic and others to help in this process.
ICO listing sites should also come in to help, but the case is, how many of them can be trusted?

I'm very tired and cannot make a post right now, after I sleep and wake up well I will make a new post erasing this one and making a  new one or something.

I just had to note that  one must be very careful on notes about people around a project, shills and such.

It is hard to obtain genuine infos regarding ceo's, the easiest way is to make a black list with all the projects (and the team behind it) that has been proven to be scam.

I recently done KYC on Binance because I would like to participate in Celer ICO. And I have to say that their ID verification is the best one, fastest and the safest.

I agree fully with you. I believe KYC is introduced to eliminate scammers because there are fake people joining cryptocurrency though it can be stressful.

Kyc for developers! This is a good idea, agree scammers a lot. But the question is whether they want to do it. After all, it is easier for them to enter kyc for us, not pay.

I fully agree with you. I think that while there is no regulation in the world of cryptocurrencies, such tools for team verification are necessary.

KYC has its advantages and disadvantages, giving away vital Information to a total stranger could sound queer most times, but we have already gotten used to the trend, that today people do not even think twice before giving up their identity.
Your suggestion is a good one and will aid in getting hold of exit scam ico owners and also reducing the rate of exit scams

This was my challenge in every ICO projects that asking for KYC to its customers and bounty workers.

I always them, I show you mine if you show me your's Their most common defense are, they already completed KYC verification in icobench and also in other ico listing websites and they don't need to undergo KYC to its users.