Topic: Explaining the consequences of KYC (Read 476 times)

Yes, KYC are working well with the trusted exchanges but we can't fully know the reason for them to ask the KYC, as long as you are ok and doesn't make any bad result to you I believe you can still trust them and beside you can't do anything once you've done sending your details. KYC is not the real purpose of cryptocurrency but because of the government regulations, we have to follow it and trust only the good projects.

indeed until now I have never had any negative impact after I gave KYC documents on many projects, it seems they only need them to minimize those who participate in multi-account bounty campaigns, and do not intend to use KYC to be misused.

Of course KYC can be dangerous, but in some cases it is necessary. The crypto community has become very large and fraud cases have increased. For some companies, this is just a forced measure.

KYC is important for identity sake but remember everything has its pros and cons. In as much as KYC is important to phish out the fraudsters, its also a means of exposing ones identity to the public which might invite scammers or fraudsters.

You should be aware on the company your are trusting to comply with the KYC, not because they are private sectors they cannot be trusted, these private sectors as long as govern by the authority they will face the consequences of their actions in case they will leaked the information we provided.

It is dangerous if it is leaked or put in the wrong hands and that's what most people are scared about since it is not a government sector. But if you believe that it is not worthy to share your personal information to someone behind the internet or you are just too VIP in real life then you shouldn't pass your personal details to someone that you don't know. It's just that simple.

Exactly! I guess regulations will be embraced by most companies doing business with cryptocurrencies and its a kind of dilemma and irony but I think there is nothing we could do about it. If we want crypto adoption to prosper, then there must be a compromise between Government regulations and users privacy. Imho.

As for me, I am a little worried when submitting KYC documents. As much as possible, I would really avoid sending images of my passport or even driver's license. Identity theft is getting common nowadays. Anyone who has access to that personal information could use it for some illegal purpose.

And who will guarantee us that these data on their hands are safe? For all we know, even wallets could be hacked. How much more to personal data which are not as protected as coins?

That's our decision anyway and we are not forcing someone to do such thing that it only be hurting inside. Only we have just been affected by that news that our KYC has been used into illegalities which are not.

Well, I'm doing it also(KYC) but tell now I don't see that it was used by illegalities. Of course, we don't do that to questionable sites.

That's right, it depends on the project you're dealing for. Its mandatory on one project and if you don't want to submit it then you have to leave that project and look for other project. I made a lot of KYC on the exchanges, and until now I feel my safety, so I believe if you really need to submit it then try to comply with that.

if you believe in some ico that require kyc, just do it. if you doubt about it, just leave it.
im sure if kyc is good for company. they know if crypto is different with bank, or the other company, so they will use your information as far as it important. ans you are right kyc is good if the company is big, it will keep company itself from unwanted things

All of this are valid points but the problem is that most people who wants an entry point to cryptocurrencies often needs to pass a KYC procedure on their local exchanges to cash in and cash out so that they can buy and trade crypto and consequently take profits from it so in effect, they have no choice but to abide with it even if they are somewhat hesitant to do it.

Agree, those platforms are very greedy that they all wanted to conquer a lot of personal information. If that is the case, find something that doesn't require KYC so you can freely trade your currencies. Obviously, personal information can be used in fraud and the worst case is to be stolen by some anonymous hackers. You aren't sure about the platform itself if they have really maximum security, your life is at stake too.

Your identity is at stake and at risk of misuse of data on the internet. Some cases occur and it is proven that personal data can be misused by someone to carry out illegal transactions.
Do not give your data if there is no guarantee of security.

KYC should be discouraged within the blockchain space. It saddens me that more exchanges and platforms keep requesting it. User privacy and anonymity is something we shouldn't have to bargain for. With increasing data breaches, the security of personal information is something that is often taken for granted; that an exchange was hacked and no funds were stolen doesn't mean nothing was stolen, user data could have easily been stolen.

The "nothing to hide" argument is quite an old one, but I don't buy it. Important figures such as Snowden have already talked in depth on the subject, but think of online privacy as the ability to own yourself and your data. No one is saying the government shouldn't investigate these types of crimes, but willingly giving them power over our data only leads to disasters like the Patriot Act. Even on this forum you will see people selling KYC documents of strangers, often obtained illegally, which shows how unsafe our data is at the moment. It would be naive to think that the government just wants to make sure you're not committing a crime, it is about control over civilians. Would recommend a reading of the early ideas on which Bitcoin was founded.

For me, I really don't see anything wrong with KYC if we wanted clean transactions and campaign. This will keep the scammers and criminals away. This will also can convince the government that we are not doing anything wrong but a legit means of acquiring profit or income. It can also help them to track anything (if needed) legally that can help us to prepare for regulation. They can also give us protection if someone will steal our identity when the regulation was implemented. If we are not hiding something, then we should not have any problem with KYC.

You are missing the OP's point that small, incremental changes are being made to current technologies that will only cause problems further down. I agree with this, we need to protect our privacy, and one of the ways to do so is through decentralised platforms which cannot be taken down/subpoenaed etc which give the individual liberty to buy cryptocurrency anonymously or without KYC.  You say otherwise states will ban the currency, but how can that be done? With decentralised platforms all someone needs is a wallet, which can easily be found anywhere. He is saying Bitcoin and others are a protection against ridiculously powerful surveillance states, something much bigger than whether regulation is needed on exchanges or not.

OP, I agree with a lot of things you said and have voiced similar concerns; if I had the resources/knew how, I would be making a decentralised exchange now, but they need to be easy to use. One thing I wanted to ask you is why you think Bitcoin is an illegalist idea. After all, many of the early founders were  libertarians or at least strong supporters of capitalism and the use of Bitcoin as a way to increase liberty ("cypherpunk movement" etc). And Satoshi did not seem to have anarchist leanings.

Cryptocurrency will be whatever its users do and want with it. And sadly a lot of public opinion needs to change before the value of the ideals you have espoused are truly appreciated. For now, people will still think KYC on centralised, power-hungry exchanges is good for them without realising the real consequences.

Would love to talk to you on these topics further, and merited the post, I think there needs to be more discussion/reflection in the community that is not about how to make more money.

So I agree with you. The KYC check must be made if the transactions in the cryptocurrency exceed a certain minimum amount. Recently, the FATF determined that such a minimum amount is one thousand dollars. Therefore, if as a result of participation in ICO bounty companies, bounty hunters receive tokens worth less than a thousand dollars, they should not pass any KYC checks.
At the same time, I disagree with the fact that we need everything decentralized when working with cryptocurrency. We need decentralized exchanges, but a significant part of them must obey the general rules of states. Otherwise, the states may unite and completely ban the decentralized cryptocurrency.

In the field of KYC application, reasonable government regulation is needed. First of all, it is necessary to clearly define and restrict the subjects who are entitled to demand to undergo such testing from other persons. Now anyone who has decided to create his token can collect our confidential information from investors and participants of the ICO bounty campaigns. And they themselves do not know how and how long to store it and where to use it. This is extremely dangerous.
You also need to set the minimum transaction size, below which no KYC check should be conducted. The FATF recommendations for setting $ 1,000 as such a minimum amount are acceptable.