Topic: KYC for ICO, is it good or bad idea? - page 13. (Read 2017 times)

For me this is good, it means crypto is now being on main stream but this can also be used to invade your privacy and use it in illegal ways.

KYC is a good idea for an ICO, because this process will help to protect an ICO from people that are using multi accounts and from different scammers. It is good for serious investors that do not want to lose their money. KYC is great.

I am also against to require KYC to join or claiming the reward for bounty campaign because I do not want to give my info as we do not know what they are doing to every data after the ICO end. It make to delay to receive the reward and many participants struggle not to give info for their safety. Even you exert so much effort, you have to stay secure.

I think KYC must be a rule for investors which investing too much amount for example bigger than 5k or 10k dollar. Normally ico investors investing 3 4 eth to icos. So i dont know how can people make some money laundring with 3 eth.  so in my opinion that is really unnecessary thing to sending our special documents to these guys..

Nowadays in the cryptocurrency space is it for every project necessary to do a KYC, mostly project choose to let it do also to bounty hunters.

I refused KYC. If KYC is done, it is equivalent to exposing one's privacy. Encryption is built to protect privacy. This violates the original intention of encryption.

It's a hard question, for investors KYC in ICO looks very bad, bacause it won't allow to participate people from countries wich banned ICO, also KYC just causes additional inconveniences for all users wich take part in ICO.

There are five main reasons why this makes sense.

Firstly, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is reportedly preparing to prosecute ICOs which are held without KYC procedures. In fact, there have been cases where the SEC prosecutes and demands refunds for Token Sales that have not implemented KYC. In September, decentralized application Protostarr may have been the first token to cease operations due to communication from the SEC, signalling an intensification of regulatory scrutiny.

Secondly, cryptocurrency exchanges are beginning to exclude cryptocurrencies that did not properly implement KYC processes. Thus, not running such checks poses a long-term risk to a project. This month the Financial Times reported that New York Stock Exchange-backed GDAX says it “plans to list only a fraction of the hundreds of new digital coins that have been invented this year”.

Thirdly, if an ICO can demonstrate proper KYC then it will be possible for all parties to establish credibility with banks and follow Anti-Money Laundering regulations. Voluntary compliance thus gives a project and its participants a stamp of legitimacy with regulators and banks. This is the goal of DMarket’s proactive approach to KYC.

Fourthly, voluntary KYC compliance may help ICOs reach a larger global audience and expand the number of jurisdictions in which they can take place. Such compliance allows easier reach to investors in America, Britain, Canada and elsewhere. Even in the Isle of Man, which is seeking to become one of Europe’s most permissive regulatory regimes, KYC has been stated as a requirement by the island’s Department of Economic Development.

Fifthly, the US dollar remains the world’s reserve fiat currency and US regulators are not shy about punishing parties to any transaction that in any way uses a greenback. Even banks outside America treat US rules as inviolable as getting shut out of the dollar clearing system isn’t an option for any global bank.


If you want more : https://www.ccn.com/five-reasons-kyc-crucial-ico-investment/

For me kyc is not really use in investing ico. Because i think its not matter who buy in your token as long it will sold and its fine. Kyc is best for bounty because that way multiple account will be reveal.

There is nothing wrong with transferring KYC to participate in the project, and not so passed and received useless tokens

Yaap, scammers now very active and they are using multiple account for hacking token/coin/dollar. CEO of ICO always should be active, so they start for selling their token after finished KYC. KYC is most important for check identity of a person.
Identity is most important and they collect it and they published how many token sold to how many countries people. I think KYC still good.

Rather if it good or bad. KYC is mandatory in some country to comply with the law. If you want to join the ICO, you must pass KYC process to verify that you are eligible to join.

I believe KYC is very good for ICOs, because it is in the idea of knowing your customer, At least it helps one to identify who is real and who is fake.

KYC for ICO participants - investors is not an idea, there is no  question about KYC in this case.
If there is no KYC before getting the their tokens, than something is off  and you should not participate in this project at all.

But on the other hand, if they ask kyc for bounty hunters they clearly do not know what they are doing,sadly they announce for bounty kyc only after the job is done.

I never understand why a KYC can solve the problems you mentioned? Is this really the case? I don't think so, the project does not need to avoid being sued, who will go back to sue him? What is the use after the prosecution? I feel that it is not good to ask for KYC, which will make our information leaked.

Throughout the electronic money pursuit, I find that projects that have a Bounty campaign involving KYC participants are potential, potentially potent ICO projects and I'm always involved in projects like That is why I always support KYC, even knowing that KYC in the world of cryptography is not very effective, but it also speaks to the potential and sincerity of the project.

I think KYC has both advantages and disadvantages. For hunters, KYC is an extra step, isn't it? But for the project, KYC can effectively prevent the emergence of fraudsters!

Here, of course, a double opinion about KYC. On the one hand, this is good for the project from the point of view of legislation, on the other hand, not every person wants his personal confidential information to be used somewhere. I am more against KYC than for him

I think KYC is not good for ICO. I do not support kyc in ICO. When we create a KYC then we gave more information. Shearing informationis always bad.

KYC is one of the best alternative in order to filter out fake and spam accounts, of course this will redundancy on the part of the ICO management, but it can assure that the personality and investors are sharing their true identity by complying on the KYC as a part of the requirement. Also, this is also applied in bounty participants, so its gonna be fair.