If the ICO team claims that they have the right to demand that the KYC be checked by the participants of the ICO bounty campaigns, let them indicate which law and which country or union of states gives them this right and preferably refer to the text of this law. It turns out to be a paradox - everyone talks about it and no one knows such a right in reality, or is it an invention of ICO teams, who are very profitable to carry out such a check after conducting an ICO so that for a variety of reasons head hunters do not pay tokens earned by them. If someone can indicate here that he knows such a law and that it concerns precisely the participants of ICO bounty campaigns, please indicate here.
do not be shy.
I think that there is no such law.
Topic: All ICO Project Proponents Must Also Submit KYC - page 4. (Read 659 times)
I fully support the opinion that I also put forward on many ICO projects. The fact is that they, too, can provide some kind of incorrect documents to inform investors, so I think that video fragments are needed there.
If you don't feel comfortable giving your identity to strangers you should stay away from those ICOs, you should also stay away from ICOs that do not required identification.
Plenty of good projects to put your money in.
Plenty of good projects to put your money in.
Different thought from high rank member. No one believing the ICO projects recent days because of increasing scam ICOs. SEC needs to take good action against the scam projects. To launch the ICO some norms needs to implement.
If they does not start such action then interest towards ICO investment reduce, no one cannot stop it.
I think this should be the new standard for all projects in the industry. Project team should be able to come out let us know the full details which will includes kyc before they can tell us to invest in their startup and with this, it will be very easy to make them fully accountable
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?
It is illogical when team couldn't go through kyc but asking for kyc from investors. As far as i am concern that is a red flag, i don't see why a genuine team will be running from kyc.
This is seriously needed and I think this is one of the reform we need in this space. An ICO team don't have any right to ask investors to do KYC if they are not doing. Come to think of it, they're even the one that needs to do kyc because we are the one risky our money and skills as bounty hunters into their business startups that they are yet to prove its chance of going big.
Failed ICO projects I've seen in the past are mainly the ones requesting for our IDs but even if projects owners start going through KYC themselves these doesnt prove to safe investors funds anything can still happen
In my opinion this has become a reasonable procedure. because what is feared is the funds that they invest in laundering funds. and this is why KYC is treated to avoid this because the team knows data from investors. I am not too concerned about this but it is clearly not misused by the team of data from investors.
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?
if people can trick bounty KYC thru passing fake ID's then the team behind the bounty can also did that if they really wants to scam people, the only thing that can make bounty great again I think is the intercede by the government to the team behind bounties.
Also one main reason why banks and other organizations keep contradicting on supporting crypto is its prone to scammers use due to its anonimity transactions. Its not that I'm against the idea of not having a KYC, I just hope there will be another solution to this matter aside from implementing a full KYC method for every investors.
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?
if people can trick bounty KYC thru passing fake ID's then the team behind the bounty can also did that if they really wants to scam people, the only thing that can make bounty great again I think is the intercede by the government to the team behind bounties.
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?
If you are not comfortable with ICO that requires KYC then better not invest or participated, we have seen so many ICO caught faking their profile, they always have a way to fake the identity and so do the KYC, it is a proven and a fact that there is no guaranty in ICO even if they are telling us that they are compliant.
I understand your idea but in my opinion I think its better to do sensus voting for all crypto users to have a vote on who'se infavor of having KYC and don't.Maybe there will be a specific voting site where all participants are undergoing KYC to avoid double vote or cheat.And of course this site is a certified site by google or backed by any licensed organization to ensure our information is safe by our KYC. I recommend this since there are many also who are infavor of implementing KYC just like me to avoid spammers like in exchanges.
Personality check makes me more suspicious than positive emotions. Staroniki of this procedure will be in trouble for many times. Identity checking should be done only by developers. And do not collect our documents. It's not safe. When you are attacked by another hacker.
im agree with this one, so we as investor know well the person whos running that project was a real person, not a fake one, so we can avoid being cheated by them.
Actually, there are some ICO review sites that offer that and do KYC on the reviewed projects, however, we can not be sure if they did that KYC for real or it is just a paid one so we need a really trusted service that can do that for us and at the same time be sure that there work is legit, something maybe something like Civic can be the answer for this I tried them before and it was very easy and smooth verification.
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?
Jump to: