Topic: All ICO Project Proponents Must Also Submit KYC - page 5. (Read 659 times)
I thought it was obvious that if the team members require to pass the KYC process from investors and bounty hunters, they must be verified as well, I mean it is a regular process that should not be met in every project, but if so, everybody who is involved should undergo this process.
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 strongly agree that it would be fairer if all the teams involved in ico also participate in doing kyc, because by doing this, maybe if ico were a scam / might fail if they left the project just like that, investors "might" be able to hold accountable or maybe "refund" but if it's not done by the investor, the investor might also be able to do it but it's just a little difficult because surely they will hide or maybe some of them are actually fictional people
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.
And most of the time, these KYCs are a complete waste of time // mostly because many people try to avoid them as much as possible since they wouldn't want to be exposed as someone with big money. The risk/reward really is a great thing to consider but most of these people also promise the security of what they are collecting from people.
I would definitely say that transparency for project creators/developers should be of the utmost importance. It's very hard these days to know whether a project is a scam or not and I think KYC would help avoid that.
Well, what if the project is a scam and I already sent my documents for the KYC? In this case, I forgot my documents forever and it will be sold on the dark web. KYC is not for only avoiding scam.
I would definitely say that transparency for project creators/developers should be of the utmost importance. It's very hard these days to know whether a project is a scam or not and I think KYC would help avoid that.
As you know in past various cases about money laundering occurred Liberty reverse is example and FATF also strict about KYC, you will see in future everyone will ask about KYC, so KYC submission is risk those projects are scams.So we needs to very careful about KYC.
Money laundering is not the main thing that needs to be considered as a problem. ICO creator must have uploaded their KYC to verify if they are a real person. Remember there was a lot of scammers are using fake identity and that should be the main problem 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?
Why are you hanging out with the KYC thing so much? Many projects already have their token on the ETH network. And you can buy them all from DEX. Other than ETH, NEO, XLM and DEXs are available in some platforms. Moreover, the majority of the projects fall below the price sold in the ICO.
If the problem is for Bounty and Airdrop, there is nothing to do for it. You will accept the terms, or you will not participate in the bounty. The only thing that matters here is that the conditions have been explained in beginning.
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.
they would be lying then because nothing about this market is regulated specially ICOs, the only regulations ICOs saw was a big ban hammer. so anybody asking for KYC is already scamming double times.Quote
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?
that would be the case if there were regulations in place which meant they first had to register what they call "company" before raising funds.
The KYC requirement is unnecessary and it should be banned by small projects. KYC is not safe to pass on the smalle ICOs due to safety issues related to the known problems. Bounty hunters need to prove their work with other tools, KYC is not for this.
In my opinion, KYC is just a requirement that allows the project owner to really do the right thing and the data that can be held accountable even though in fact it might not be so useful for now
We cannot force them to do KYC but if they are very transparent and active in joining events, KYC is not needed. BTW if you think that the projects are not trustworthy about your identity then don't do KYC and find another project you think are legit and you can trust.
Yes this is the need of the hour and i have suggested this more than a year ago as their were many scam icos now IEOs are somewhat covering this issue as i expect exchanges to properly interview and kyc team members and understand and confirm the viability of the project before listing it on the exchange this will cover most of credibility issues.
Agree they should give their also real info by verifying like a live video chat including their government IDs to make sure that they are real people so that we can trust their project.
I don't like to give my sensitive information like IDs from a scam project because they can use it for scamming purposes in the future.
Like they will use some collected data to make a new scam project so that they were look legit because they can submit the data pretending that they are KYC verified.
I don't like to give my sensitive information like IDs from a scam project because they can use it for scamming purposes in the future.
Like they will use some collected data to make a new scam project so that they were look legit because they can submit the data pretending that they are KYC verified.
I will not trust my documents to anyone. Scammers here 99%. Give the passport in their hands? no thanks. Create a platform for holding a bounty with kitty. What would go 1 time on the platform. And do not give your data all in a row.
Maybe if we don't come directly to his office we can't make sure the Team is real or not. But the name of investing in an ICO project we must have strong confidence and trust.
As you know in past various cases about money laundering occurred Liberty reverse is example and FATF also strict about KYC, you will see in future everyone will ask about KYC, so KYC submission is risk those projects are scams.So we needs to very careful about KYC.
I have never view kyc as a negative development in the cryptocurrency industry because the cryptocurrency space is growing and at that there is a need for individual identification by the team in other to avoid negative usage of the token or coin even down to bounty hunters in that way no body can have double registration. But I support the suggestions that projects owners should also be subjected to some form of regulations and identity verification also so all parties could be protect against fraud.
I drink coffee this morning. And on the news stories about identity verification. And endless loans from fraudsters and lawyers. Something I have revised my policy regarding the passage of this procedure. Probably today I will have to give up all the projects that require it.
A lot of scam projects required their supporters (like bounty hunters) to pass KYC to make them looks real. In my opinion, it's not necessary for them, either it's a serious project or a scam one to ask KYC from bounty hunters as they don't invest any fund so that they won't do money laundering.
Jump to: