No need to do KYC. The most important thing is that they have received permission from the government that they will do the funding and the project has been verified so that we ourselves are sure that there is no fraud that will occur so that investors do not need to worry about fraud because the data from each team is already on the government and can do a report
Agree with you. actually the problem of Fraud can be overcome by the rules of each country that requires making reports so that each Team can verify in advance to be able to carry out the funding process and also continue the project. As we see shares after each country has supervision and permission all are more regulated and avoid scam projects 
Topic: All ICO Project Proponents Must Also Submit KYC (Read 615 times)
No need to do KYC. The most important thing is that they have received permission from the government that they will do the funding and the project has been verified so that we ourselves are sure that there is no fraud that will occur so that investors do not need to worry about fraud because the data from each team is already on the government and can do a report
The KYC requirement in many ICO projects has been the bone of contention of many investors and supporters with many thinking and feeling that this is not needed as this is the industry that proposes decentralization, anonymity and privacy. However, a project can argue that it is the law that requires them to know their customers and they are in fact just following the regulation. The problem is that KYC is not a guarantee that a project can never go down the coffin and run with the investors' money...maybe travelling to the "moon" and have an indefinite vacation in there until the victims can forget their misfortune of trusting them.
Now, if these project owners can require us to undergo the KYC process...should it not be rational that they themselves submit to the same so that we can be sure that we are dealing with real people with real address?
The KYC requirement in many ICO projects has been the bone of contention of many investors and supporters with many thinking and feeling that this is not needed as this is the industry that proposes decentralization, anonymity and privacy. However, a project can argue that it is the law that requires them to know their customers and they are in fact just following the regulation. The problem is that KYC is not a guarantee that a project can never go down the coffin and run with the investors' money...maybe travelling to the "moon" and have an indefinite vacation in there until the victims can forget their misfortune of trusting them.
Now, if these project owners can require us to undergo the KYC process...should it not be rational that they themselves submit to the same so that we can be sure that we are dealing with real people with real address?
They are imposing this system on us because they feel that we are the ones that needs it the most and that we are the ones under them, which is why the complains we have been having on this is really not shaking them, because when KYC started, many people were against this, but none of these project people even came out to appeal or defend why they are imposing it, so we need an authority to be able to impose this KYC too on them.
The KYC requirement in many ICO projects has been the bone of contention of many investors and supporters with many thinking and feeling that this is not needed as this is the industry that proposes decentralization, anonymity and privacy. However, a project can argue that it is the law that requires them to know their customers and they are in fact just following the regulation. The problem is that KYC is not a guarantee that a project can never go down the coffin and run with the investors' money...maybe travelling to the "moon" and have an indefinite vacation in there until the victims can forget their misfortune of trusting them.
Now, if these project owners can require us to undergo the KYC process...should it not be rational that they themselves submit to the same so that we can be sure that we are dealing with real people with real address?
Still there is a chance that ICO team members will abuse the KYC process by providing fake identities. There is no way how to restrict them without any regulations or licenses. It is problem of the free market and internet and it is up to you if you would like to play, or not. 
There must be permission to be able to limit and also know when forgery will occur. as in stocks when they are going to sell it on the market doing IPO is not just anyone who can do it and all of that is overseen by institutions that are specifically made by the government. but in cryptocurrency itself all seem free everyone can create projects and deceive people with various concepts 
Still there is a chance that ICO team members will abuse the KYC process by providing fake identities. There is no way how to restrict them without any regulations or licenses. It is problem of the free market and internet and it is up to you if you would like to play, or not.
Basically, requiring them to undergo KYC will be useless because they can easily submit a fake identity. No one will regulate and will filter if their submission is passed or not. If there will be any regulators to run KYC verification, it is possible to avoid the scam projects to even launched in the community.
what people need is profit. if ico use kyc and it can be sure that give you profit, im sure people willing to fill kyc for their profit. many scam project, if it not the project just waste time, problem come from team that not give you the token, though the exact date released by them. and there are many ico, no need to fill kyc but successful. the main point is about your information. crypto created to be anonymous
Still there is a chance that ICO team members will abuse the KYC process by providing fake identities. There is no way how to restrict them without any regulations or licenses. It is problem of the free market and internet and it is up to you if you would like to play, or not.
The KYC requirement in many ICO projects has been the bone of contention of many investors and supporters with many thinking and feeling that this is not needed as this is the industry that proposes decentralization, anonymity and privacy. However, a project can argue that it is the law that requires them to know their customers and they are in fact just following the regulation. The problem is that KYC is not a guarantee that a project can never go down the coffin and run with the investors' money...maybe travelling to the "moon" and have an indefinite vacation in there until the victims can forget their misfortune of trusting them.
Now, if these project owners can require us to undergo the KYC process...should it not be rational that they themselves submit to the same so that we can be sure that we are dealing with real people with real address?
Yeah sure, it would make sense that the devs and team members verify their identity before the token sale launch. But in the reality people are making their social media public, which is a sign of a living person. However, nowadays, real people can scam you as well.
They can do it, but the thing is they can submit fake ID too! To very their existence even though all the credentials arent true. The good thing I can suggest is, they need to conduct a live stream and propose their project as well as their professions and credentials in different social medias so that we can verify that it is true. I have a doubt in KYC of them, since I encounter a fake KYC of a team in my past bounty.
This is a good idea for the developers to submit their identification documents first before they request a KYC in their project because it will help the investors to gain confidence and continue their plan to invest. It is best if they will also get regulated by the government so we can really have an assurance that we are dealing with real project.
they should not only impose KYC to bounty participants and investors, they must first surrender their KYC as self-legality rather than DEV of a project.
Yes, you are right, they should also submit their documents because it will help the investors to keep cases on them if they start neglecting the investors. We have seen many ICO's scams which there is no real product after fundraising, this makes many people are afraid to invest in ICO's.
The KYC requirement in many ICO projects has been the bone of contention of many investors and supporters with many thinking and feeling that this is not needed as this is the industry that proposes decentralization, anonymity and privacy. However, a project can argue that it is the law that requires them to know their customers and they are in fact just following the regulation. The problem is that KYC is not a guarantee that a project can never go down the coffin and run with the investors' money...maybe travelling to the "moon" and have an indefinite vacation in there until the victims can forget their misfortune of trusting them.
Now, if these project owners can require us to undergo the KYC process...should it not be rational that they themselves submit to the same so that we can be sure that we are dealing with real people with real address?
they should not only impose KYC to bounty participants and investors, they must first surrender their KYC as self-legality rather than DEV of a project.
Yes, you are right, they should also submit their documents because it will help the investors to keep cases on them if they start neglecting the investors. We have seen many ICO's scams which there is no real product after fundraising, this makes many people are afraid to invest in ICO's.
KYC doesn't guarantee anything. It's getting too much attention, but if fact it's just additional trick to get more confidence that has no real ground. Instead of KYC, investors must estimate risk/reward ratio when they invest. On the other side, requiring KYC from clients is really ridiculous, even if developers completed KYC themselves. I think KYC will not be very important factor soon, now it's just overvalued.
Basically they will just need to put their real identity to their platforms since there's no sense in passing KYC to themselves, unless there will be a regulation that will track the progress of the projects. On the other hand, participants shouldn't also pass their KYC since the essence of a decentralized world of crypto is to stay anonymous while making transactions, there's no need for people to send their identity. Most of the times, these information are vital that we should not send to anyone as our safety might be compromised.
The KYC requirement in many ICO projects has been the bone of contention of many investors and supporters with many thinking and feeling that this is not needed as this is the industry that proposes decentralization, anonymity and privacy. However, a project can argue that it is the law that requires them to know their customers and they are in fact just following the regulation. The problem is that KYC is not a guarantee that a project can never go down the coffin and run with the investors' money...maybe travelling to the "moon" and have an indefinite vacation in there until the victims can forget their misfortune of trusting them.
Now, if these project owners can require us to undergo the KYC process...should it not be rational that they themselves submit to the same so that we can be sure that we are dealing with real people with real address?
Regulation will be needed to evaluate if their identification will pass and to know if this is legal information. If they will undergo KYC without anyone who will look for it, then it will be useless.
Yeah sure, it would make sense that the devs and team members verify their identity before the token sale launch. But in the reality people are making their social media public, which is a sign of a living person. However, nowadays, real people can scam you as well.
The KYC requirement in many ICO projects has been the bone of contention of many investors and supporters with many thinking and feeling that this is not needed as this is the industry that proposes decentralization, anonymity and privacy. However, a project can argue that it is the law that requires them to know their customers and they are in fact just following the regulation. The problem is that KYC is not a guarantee that a project can never go down the coffin and run with the investors' money...maybe travelling to the "moon" and have an indefinite vacation in there until the victims can forget their misfortune of trusting them.
Now, if these project owners can require us to undergo the KYC process...should it not be rational that they themselves submit to the same so that we can be sure that we are dealing with real people with real address?
I think it is a good suggestion, developers should pass KYC themselves. Of course it not give 100% guarantee, but i think it makes number of scammers much less. There are also should be legal responsibilities for those who launched ICO and collect money in case they fail. May be insure or something.
It depends on the reason why they fail, most business fall into bankruptcy in their first year and the number of business that survive for 5 years or more is even smaller, so I do not see why it should be different in this market, so if an ico fails that does not necessarily means it was a scam and you must accept your losses if you invested in that project, but if the developers never had the intention of creating something and they spent the money from the investors on stuff for themselves then they need to be prosecuted for fraud.but what can we do? which we do know that theres no such strong legal back up on punishing up this fraud projects.This is why we should really follow
strict verification on team members transparency but this thing wont ensure success because it would depend on how the entire team works and being dedicated into
their project goal.
Jump to: