Topic: A new look to KYC, from a customer's perspective. - page 9. (Read 1389 times)

I think there is a need of an intermediary. A trusted intermediary which should receive the KYC of the applicants on the behalf of companies, verifies them and send the results to concerned company. I think there are already few websites providing this service but adopting them as intermediary is not a common practice among companies.
Such intermediary should work two-way, verifying applicants KYC one way and verifying the genuineness of company the other way. Everyone will be in win-win situation.

I made once an account that could easily been leaked on my time of low security passwords since it was same as of leaked mails.
Besides that accounts can also be farmed I think is nothing close to enough.

I think LinkedIn is doing a good enough job for that already. Profiles that have been live for decades are not exactly falsifiable, and you can always contact the CEO's connections and ask around.

Great, one has legs too in case is too susceptible to prices, however, how bad would be if these peoples identities become public if they really wish to progress through an ICO?

One should always do his researches aswell, and I cannot find trustable just a group of people either, thats why I recommend reading the second post I made aswell.

Everyone has a price.

Even trusted members of the community can be paid to write positive reviews.
And even if they are truly honest and do not want to do positive reviews for a few bucks, they could just make mistakes

So it's better to do your own research . .

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.

I'm generalizing but all or most I seen about ICO promoting sites cannot really prove the projects are legit, I did seen a good few of succeeding projects but that is not something that can be atributed to the site itself since they only promote it.
Most of the scams are pretty poor made and well, they just similar clones nowadays.

Then there's again as someone mentioned, we are facilitating our information to perhaps indesirable identities while investing so an eye should be keept from all sides.

First of all we have the problem of fake ID, we could complicate things for them a lot, I mean what kind of stupid verifications we get on "legal" sites?, wether it be gambling or, whatever that involves information, meet in person could be nice but also really easy to scam, cam?

Second is capability, before, one had to come with code first. I seen 80-90% of the team aren't really programmers on most projects, what are we looking for people to plaster our ideas into a currency or usefull service, recreation etc. Or hypists to spam our not even made brand.
I were very harsh here, there is involvement of a lot of people for a project to succeed but you cannot expect to be able to do something just by finding nicer and better ways to tell something, and well having a wider audience to do so.

I don't agree with taxes, but people accepts them and since we are paying taxes for benefits or "cashout", extreme ones in some countries, we should also be able to use aid from the government in verifying their identity and, well, mentionable doings of the team.

However with this measure I'm extremely concerned for other projects, projects mantained and developed as communities and exchanges asking for such things for listing, there is projects that are developed differently like bitcoin, monero, ethereum etc, such projects could have proven developers which identity wished to be wished shall be private .

I should agree with this one and this idea is actually needed to give more protection to the investors. These icos teams have no idea about what's the main purpose to implement KYC for investors. we don't need another idea because this is already the best one.

KYC means nothing to us but the developer can use of your KYC to be sold to someone or just using it for the verification purpose.

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 am a bounty hunter and also customers complain about this.
KYC in the customer's perspective is also very important to know the clarity of the team from the project.
Many ICO SCAMs place fake teams with unclear KYC status.
but to find out the project has a genuine team and has verified KYC can check it on the trusted site of icobench.com.
Many developers have joined and verified and they also help people who are competent in their fields so that they will be safer and more trustworthy.

I think you have a point with this, we as investors are the one that have something to lose if things go wrong and if the team of a project are proud of what they are doing without having bad motive they should allow potential investors to get to know them even before initiating the fund raising. This will increase the level of trust about the project.

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)