This can protect us from the scammers who make ICO. But this does not protect us from the fact that the ICO may simply be unsuccessful for you. And to whom does the developer provide KYC at all, how do we know that it is real.
Topic: All ICO Project Proponents Must Also Submit KYC - page 2. (Read 659 times)
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.
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. 
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.
that their own project , their own rules, when you join that mean you aggree with all of the rules there
you don't have right to complain about that. developer have authority to know who their costumer or investor
you don't have right to complain about that. developer have authority to know who their costumer or investor
actually that your own choice , if you think that wrong when you submite your identity you just can skip and join other ico with no kyc requirement. i think many ico out of there don't need kyc to purchase
This is the right decision when the team passes the KYC and becomes transparent for its investors, but for this to happen, there must be appropriately regulated bodies that will not issue a project for ICO without KYC for the team.
Everything is much easier than it seems . I think everyone will agree that if development team and other people around the project wish to remain anonymous, it makes you wonder about the goals they pursue. In order for such projects to cease to appear, there is no need at all to create regulatory bodies that will monitor such projects. it is just necessary that none of the investors would invest their money in these projects, that's all. If they do not receive a penny for their efforts, they will not even waste their time on it. This will be a long debate if that will happen in the future. Many of the project owners for sure will not agree on this but this will help investors to gain some trust in the project. Staffs of the said project should also pass a KYC. There should be another name for it because KYC is for customer specifically.
From my own judgement, I actually prefer projects whos team are revealed on their social media accounts. Like the CEO having an AMA to its community or making a video-info at youtube. That way we can see the name and person posted on the website are the real faces. And that it will be difficulty for them to just abandon the project or go into an exit-scam. But whenever there are projects there that does not show faces or using cartoon character profiles are very suspicious. And most of the time are just fake and scamming projects.
This will be a long debate if that will happen in the future. Many of the project owners for sure will not agree on this but this will help investors to gain some trust in the project. Staffs of the said project should also pass a KYC. There should be another name for it because KYC is for customer specifically.
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?
Passing a KYC check by the team itself will not have any effect, because fraudsters will provide false information and fake documents. They should be checked by government agencies before launching the ICO and the documents should be submitted by them and in the original.
These people wants to protect themselves and yet they don’t consider the protection of people that they need their money and services more, it really does not make any much sense with these KYC scheme and should be abolished as soon as possible.
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 only bitcoin talk that can make this happen, since most of them come through bitcoin for bounty hunters, before this developers can push the campaign out through this thread, they must do KYC before their ANN paper can be published.
You offer some elements of regulation. On the one hand, crypto is a free environment. On the other hand, people want external protection.
Even cryptocurrency exchanges do not necessarily require KYC. In this context, KYC for bounty hunters looks redundant.
Even cryptocurrency exchanges do not necessarily require KYC. In this context, KYC for bounty hunters looks redundant.
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?
Passing a KYC check by the team itself will not have any effect, because fraudsters will provide false information and fake documents. They should be checked by government agencies before launching the ICO and the documents should be submitted by them and in the original.
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.
If not because of the issues of scammers that has hijacked the whitepaper, I think the whitepaper should have been enough to pass judgment on them, because they have a section in the whitepaper where they put all the details of the teams and developers, so one can make a research using their details on the whitepaper to know them.This is no longer useful as scammers now fill their whitepapers too with fake faces of people that knows nothing about the project or even exist, but we can still do something, if we investors and bounty hunters can all agree on one thing, maybe we all design the type of information that needs to be on the whitepaper and any whitepaper that does not have the information should not be read or paid attention to.
I do not think that someone should confirm their identity. Let's say a cryptocurrency for everyone. And there are countries in which people and passports do not have. I met these here. So you push them out of the market. And revealing your identity put yourself in jeopardy.
Whenever i see a project that requires KYC, it get me scared and that will prompt me to make thorough research, but that is if at first i like the concept of the project.
Submitting personal details, details that are to be confidential to unknown persons can be quite risky.
I also support the idea that the project team submit theirs too and be verified. As a matter of fact, they should do video recordings of themselves to prove that they are truly the ones behind the project.
Submitting personal details, details that are to be confidential to unknown persons can be quite risky.
I also support the idea that the project team submit theirs too and be verified. As a matter of fact, they should do video recordings of themselves to prove that they are truly the ones behind the project.
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.
I agree with you, mate. Hopefully the projects will start to abandon KYC soon. This causes too much inconvenience. 
Guess you want fund-raisers to also present some sort of KYC , KYD may be? (know your dev) to investors and bounty hunters. Lots of devs/fund-raisers already provide some information about themselves. though not sufficient when compared to the very sensitive identity documents from other side.
I do not support both ways though. Submiting sensitive documents to strangers on the Internet for some rewards is just not worth it
I do not support both ways though. Submiting sensitive documents to strangers on the Internet for some rewards is just not worth it
I think it doesn't a problem when we required to fill our KYC because it is for our safety. Even if they are going to give any true information it is better because we have a reference. As long as we do and have a not illegal transactions like illegal gambling or a drug transactions I think KYC doesn't an issue and does not have any effect in every transactions that we have.
This is the right decision when the team passes the KYC and becomes transparent for its investors, but for this to happen, there must be appropriately regulated bodies that will not issue a project for ICO without KYC for the team.
Jump to: