~snip
I think you right, do KYC i think can reduce from Hacker yo steal your assets if you are investors. Bounty Hunters need KYC to do bounty i think this is very good idea. KYC can reduce bounty hunters who cheat with using multiple account.
Topic: All ICO Project Proponents Must Also Submit KYC - page 3. (Read 636 times)
Bounty Hunters need KYC to do bounty i think this is very good idea. KYC can reduce bounty hunters who cheat with using multiple account.
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 agree with you
but this is what we must do in investment or bounty hunters
almost all ico projects require KYC even though we don't know how they do and process our data safely. especially if only for useless ico and a scam
this problem is so very serious and continues to be a long discussion that there is never a solution.
and I think we really need regulation for this
Simple. If you are not comfortable giving your personal to these stupid scammers then don't give it.
Do you think that these scammers will give their true information to the investors and everyone out there whom they don't know. I don't think so. One thing more, KYC from the team doesn't mean that they will not scam the investors already because they can give fake information to public.
Do you think that these scammers will give their true information to the investors and everyone out there whom they don't know. I don't think so. One thing more, KYC from the team doesn't mean that they will not scam the investors already because they can give fake information to public.
That is why I think its high time now that the entire crypto community should rally on this cause and address it accordingly. Ideally it should be standard that project proponents should also submit themselves to a KYC process in order to show good faith to the community and if they shy away from it, we should be alarmed in the first place and should treat it as a red flag.
Simple. If you are not comfortable giving your personal to these stupid scammers then don't give it.
Do you think that these scammers will give their true information to the investors and everyone out there whom they don't know. I don't think so. One thing more, KYC from the team doesn't mean that they will not scam the investors already because they can give fake information to public.
Do you think that these scammers will give their true information to the investors and everyone out there whom they don't know. I don't think so. One thing more, KYC from the team doesn't mean that they will not scam the investors already because they can give fake information to public.
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.
That is why investors must be careful before investing. Because a lot of projects whose teams don't do KYC even the identity is all fake. With that, maybe the project in the future could be a scam. I agree if the project team has to do KYC. In that sense they really develop the project later.
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 dont think right now all crypto are decentralized. Many of altcoin are centralized and just want to collect fund from investor to developing the project. I think KYC could applied for the project like this because developers team must comply to government regulation.
I think we have to be careful before doing KYC because now there are a lot of fraudulent ICOs and also I see scam projects that have succeeded in cheating bounty hunters to do KYC and they have got the bounty hunter data for sale so we have to be careful
Did you read it properly and he was talking about the developer and it's not about the bounty or investors need to pass KYC but the developer should do the same to avoid the fraudulent project. Please read it carefully. It looks like you don't even care about that. 
This is no guarantee that anyone will be deceived, maybe will make it more difficult. Isn't impossible but, could decrease the amount of "Shutterstock" teams. 
Too many kyc is more or less turning crypto into some centralized economy,Cryptos was suppose to give users some sorts or anonymity and freedom. Project teams are entrusted with peoples funds, so their identity should be not be in secrecy
Many people have raised the issue of this kyc and nothing has been done differently despite all the kicks against it but I think no ICO is forcing anyone do kyc except for the few dubious ones that introduce kyc in the middle of the ICO or after the ICO to cheat some people. If you feel you don't feel safe don't release your documents
snip
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?
Requesting for kyc is now the order the day by many existing and upcoming projects. Wonder if half of them are actually real and legit. Well, giving out your information and data is entirely a thing of choice. I do participate in kyc only if I trust the project.
KYC For the makers of the projeck or team it should be done by an institution that regulates the issue of cryptocurrency. in this case the country in which they are developing the project, of course, they must have a business license. and this is where they certainly do data verification etc. to get permission
I think we have to be careful before doing KYC because now there are a lot of fraudulent ICOs and also I see scam projects that have succeeded in cheating bounty hunters to do KYC and they have got the bounty hunter data for sale so we have to be careful
That is the importance of KYC for all project team members. With that they are always trusted by investors. I think KYC for the project team is one of the requirements to find out whether the project is done by a professional team or not. Because I have seen a lot of projects with a team that is less clear and in the end the project died. I understand KYC for the project team is not one of the successes. But that is one of the investors' trust in the project itself.
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 think the op is still right about that, maybe there should be a body that takes care of that and verify ICO for investors and supporters to know which one is legit and which ones are owned by scammers. Some of them are fond of setting up fake team and it takes a lot of research for you to find out what they have done there.But, this is not going to be possible because a lot of people here don’t like regulation to be in this and having such means that regulation is slowly coming in. The only thing is just to keep off from those that needs KYC and go for other ICOs.
Indeed they should do a kyc and someone to verify their kyc, because maybe only on that way they will not run away with funds, but making a kyc will not guarantee that once the project reach and exchange and after some time people who invest will make a profit.
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 think the op is still right about that, maybe there should be a body that takes care of that and verify ICO for investors and supporters to know which one is legit and which ones are owned by scammers. Some of them are fond of setting up fake team and it takes a lot of research for you to find out what they have done there.But, this is not going to be possible because a lot of people here don’t like regulation to be in this and having such means that regulation is slowly coming in. The only thing is just to keep off from those that needs KYC and go for other ICOs.
Project managers should go through KYC so that as much information as possible is presented on them freely available to investors. The more transparent the system, the greater the confidence in it. Providing information about yourself should be bilateral.
Jump to: