Topic: Is KYC bad for crypto? - page 5. (Read 1162 times)

That's an adequate point of view. We all should understand that KYC basically is not a bad thing and was made to protect us, but things turned out way wrong.
It is a personal decision either to pass kyc or not.

The first thing that we need to know if if the team running a crowdsale is legit or not, because if they are legit they are registered to the authority and the authority can go after them in case they cheat, and therefore we will not worry passing our KYC for compliance.

Now, let's look at the reality, the fact that people believe that majority of the IEO and ICO are scams, then our information are at risk now so I think passing the kYC information is quite riskier compared to investing with little amount as your information can be sold online.

I also don't understand why new projects now require KYC from bounty hunter, they are not part of the project. They only perform promotional work here and social networks to get paid. It is the most ridiculous request that I disagree from new projects, they overused it to collect people's personal information

I am the same, I only do KYC on the exchanges I participate in. I have never done KYC to receive a small amount of money from bounty, it is really too dangerous because if the project is scam, they will surely sell my information to others people.

KYC is one way to avoid cheating in everything, including in the cryptoqurrency industry. KYC needs to be applied to project developers, teams, investors and other important parts that cover the crypto industry. my advice is simple, never do KYC carelessly and make sure you don't do it just to get a free token. reconsider

The only one who should provide KYC are those people or companies that wants their projects to be promoted, bounty hunters and investors doesn't necessarily need to provide such as information since we're just wanted to adopt and promote their projects, simple as that. KYC doesn't harm crypto, the truth is, the people who provides KYC on a certain project because it is required to receive their bounty are the one who is in danger.

Its both Good and Bad, Why bad? because bitcoin and cryptocurrency should be anonymous, that's it. It is for our security and privacy. But enable to be adopted in the community some exchanges and wallets needs KYC to verify its customers to avoid fraud/scam/abuse/illegal activity/etc. and it is to comply with the regulations. I guess we need to accept the fact that KYC is needed now. Not for cryptocurrency but for those platforms using crypto. But the downside is what if the platform got hacked our data is not safe.

because this is why KYC is quite dangerous. The bounty manager is not responsible for the project, so I don't think they know which team is really serious, and which team is greedy. however, I also avoid using identity if I feel it's really unnecessary.

Kyc is the total opposite of what crypto represent when it comes to anonymity and privacy, before the introduction of kyc, using crypto is suppose to give users some level of anonymous and privacy to transact but that features has been greatly reduced with the help of kyc, however, we can not overlook the many security issues associated with crypto, although I think kyc should be restricted to exchange only and not from the project,
Because we have many different project in the market by the time people are required to do kyc for any project they intend to participate in will mean submitting personal information to too many unknown people which is not healthy and very risky, so the issue of kyc has it good and bad side, but at the end security is important.

You seem right, it is really needed to protect a project from fraudulent! I don't see any other option that can replace it. I have no problem of giving my documents to Binance team, but I can't give my personal data to the IDAX, EXRATES exchanges, right? So, people shouldn’t hate the KYC system rather everyone need to be careful before giving data to any project!        

In my own opinion, kyc is good if the bounty or project is handled by a trusted manager and staffs, but if the project has a fraud team, it would be definitely dangerous to undergo kyc into their project. Identity theft would be get for you if you have done through their kyc. So we should be careful upon joining kyc programs.

Well, i don't really mind to KYC IF the platform is genuine and legitimate
Some platform are forced to KYC their customer due to AML regulations

Somehow its fine but yeah like what you pointed out
If one platform got hacked, our privacy are breached and its quite risky for our personal data to be leaked because our identity are not change-able/reversible like how we create Crypto addresses 

To be honest I really hate exchanges with the KYC procedure, which can be detrimental to users. Because our personal data can be used
for illegal activities, so KYC is bad for cryptocurrency. We recommend looking for other ways to overcome the problem of crime in the crypto
world, don't immediately apply KYC. This is very unfair to users, because crypto is supposed to protect the user's privacy.

hacking was mostly unpredicted and kyc datas are not the only one that is exposed here but also money  . people should be care more of thier money more than their kyc . if a service ask for a kyc , i still dont consider it as simillar not unless if your dealing with simillar to banking  services .

 if kyc is bad for crypto then they shouldnt have put it in the first place but no they insist it , luckily there are others service that is optional and  can be used with or without a kyc

we should not generalize all kyc requested by bad person or exchanges. we must filtered which is the right place to give our personal identity. for example if reputable exchanges such as huobi or okex request our data due the local regulation , we must follow them if want to use their services. i think kyc still debatable is it needed or not for crypto.

KYC is sometimes required due to regulatory reasons. I see no problem verified if it is conducted by let's say a certain group or department trusted to keep personal information. The risk that requires KYC provide is serious because information provided through participants can be used for illegal activities.

both transactions are great, it is hard to select if which of these two is perfect without doing anything wrong, which is KYC and Crypto has a good combination, and its a part of a trade team and every group has a good goal with principles and policies, however, it is not possible to prevent a mistake, because their abilities cannot be equaled, due to each one of them has weaknesses, if any damage occurs it is caused by lack of protection.

I think KYC is bad for crypto. If I talk myself I don't want to give my personal identity for security reason and bitcoin is created to use money anonymous but if I give my identity I am not anonymous. Also there are lot of incidents of stealing personal information. I always try to avoid KYC.Overall in my thinking KYC is bad for crypto.

That same thing is my concern when it comes to KYC (Know Your Customer) way back when I have experienced one into one of the bounty campaigns I have joined way back 2017-2018 wherein they are requiring me to do a KYC so that they can assure that I am a real person that is having just one account joined into their bounty campaign. I get the point that they are just doing it to assure that there is no alt account being joined into the campaign so that everyone will be given a chance to have an opportunity to earn through it. But with such way, we cryptocurrency users are exposing our real identity which is supposedly to remain anonymous. Doing KYC can have a big disadvantage like people might stole your identity and use it into fraud or scams since providing identification cards which is already a legal document to identify your real identity can be used. For me this is not good because the privacy of our identity is being put into stake.

Completely agree with you, mate. For a technology which promises freedom and liberty (Blockchain), KYC does more harm than good to the entire crypto industry. Blockchain is meant to be free from middleman for a very good reason. Adding third parties to the system will minimize the security of users' assets. While at some point KYC manages to reduce fraud, it brings many risks with it that are not worth taking. Being anonymous is the way to go, for Blockchain to work as intended. Centralized exchanges may have greater liquidity than decentralized ones, but they're easily targeted by hackers worldwide. Your identity will be at risk, just like in the traditional banking system of today.

We've seen how many exchanges have been required to comply with KYC laws by the government. Shapeshift was once a good instant exchange which required no account to use it (hence no KYC). But it felt obliged to comply with KYC/AML regulations in order to maintain its business. Of course, decentralized exchanges are an option to take if you're considering avoiding KYC altogether. But their lack of liquidity, higher learning curve, and low popularity is what makes them highly inferior to their centralized counterparts.

Nonetheless, we'll see what happens with the crypto industry in the future as governments continue to enforce KYC/AML laws. If we see more hacks as a result of this, people will be forced to look into other alternatives that are safer. This could lead to the increase of decentralized exchanges and P2P exchanges in the crypto space as we know it. If developers focus on ease of use within DEX solutions, people will be able to use them more thoroughly. Only then, liquidity will rise making centralized exchanges a thing of the past. After that, there will be no reason to require KYC in a completely decentralized world secured by Blockchain technology. Just my thoughts