Topic: KYC for ICO, is it good or bad idea? - page 16. (Read 2017 times)
if all projects were decent and did not use your data - then yes it would be the right decision, but since many projects turn out to be fraudulent, then unfortunately there is nothing good in this because you transfer your data to the scammers
The community is divided on these issues if only this technology is not decentralized everything will be regulated if there is a KYC it defeats the main purpose of cryptocurrency but in the end, there should be a point where we all meet halfway to protect this technology.
Kyc for utility tokens? this is complete nonsense. I still understand for security tokens, but now I’ll give my data to some scammers ...
For me kyc is good for ico. Cause it is very need to cought scammer and verifying real investors. By this we can invest very safely.
Maybe, one of us can create a decentralized system or platform for passing KYC, and when new ICO starts first of all the ICO team have to pass KYC on that platform before selling they tokens. All project CEO have to pass KYC before sale starts. This proccess will show us the high level of project , it will show us that the project team is not hiding and can be responsible for their actions.
well. it is ridiculous to demand private personal data from investors. i risk enough to investing money on icos, why would i risk being leaked of my personal datas. they can sell my personal information to other people easily.
I think the best idea of kyc is for a team. I hope in the nearest future every team will have a profile on the regulator database and the data will be available for all. Name, photo country of living at least.
Most of you think and talk about KYC for investors, for bounties, for airdrops, but I offer KYC for ICO, for all CEO and founders of projects we follow. Tthis will increase our level of confidence to the projects.
Now many projects require to pass the procedure of KYC from their participants, but we can also introduce the passage of this procedure for the founders of the projects. If the team wants to enter the market with its own token and a new project,then let the KYC go like everyone else. Yeah, that sounds like control. But even in a decentralized world, we can make a platform that will be independent of the state.
Now many projects require to pass the procedure of KYC from their participants, but we can also introduce the passage of this procedure for the founders of the projects. If the team wants to enter the market with its own token and a new project,then let the KYC go like everyone else. Yeah, that sounds like control. But even in a decentralized world, we can make a platform that will be independent of the state.
For me it is good to have a KYC in the ICO because they knows of which investor invest in the ICO. And can avoid to those people are trying to invest even if they are not invested. Even in the bounty campaign making a KYC was better for me because the are have some participant wants to steal or copy some link of the bitcointalk account.
The reason why those have potential projects will undergo KYC on their investors as they wanted to get listed on big exchanges. Seems that the team had no choice but to process KYC if they are targeting to get listed in binance or on those top exchanges.
Kyc is good but for investors alone, so that they can know those that bought their coins (investors). But I don't buy the idea of doing kyc for bounty hunters.
In most of the cases bounty hunters don't like KYC, because they have many multiple accounts in bounty campaigns, but I do not see any problem to buy this documents ).
I think it is not a good idea, many people do not want to show their documents, because very often you can find them at the black market after ICO )).
I think it's good because the purpose of kyc is to avoid money laundering and fraud and kyc is very necessary for investors because to be an investor data is needed
This is certainly a good thing. with the KYC report distribution certainly makes clear her arena has customer data. Perhaps many who fear their data to be misused and I also like that. but at least as long as it is good and worth to ICO followed then take a risk is also not a big problem.
I think identity verification is bad for us all. After all, we do not get $ 10,000-100.000$
For me kyc is a bad idea, it tainted the purpose of crypto currencies that prmoise anonymity feature, and I dont feel secure to submit my data over to unknown site, many people against the kyc procedure and some used the fake id, the one that need kyc actually the developers and the teams, it can prevent scam project
Kyc is good but for investors alone, so that they can know those that bought their coins (investors). But I don't buy the idea of doing kyc for bounty hunters.
I think that kyc is not really very important to sign up for any project in cryptocurrency, Because you can't defend your identity because there are so mamy identy thefts going on and some people may sell your KYC information for money. In my view, KYC can't play any role for making your investments in ICO projects worth taking the risk of losing your identity. Cryptocurrency was introduced so that people can stay unanimous but this KYC procedure makes it look like not so much of what Satoshi dreamt of cryptocurrency.
I really think this is for the protection of the participants, investors And even members of the ICO, this may certainly affect the certain views for a decentralized and anonymous feature given in cryptocurrency I really think the safety for each and everyone who take part in it was the priority after all, I really think this will ensure its purpose, Even though a lot of participants are against this it is the only way in trusting certain ICO for investors to rely their money with.
If the ICO project in which I invest will require to pass the KYC, then I will do it, since I chose this particular project. Providing your data to airdrop and bounty companies is complete nonsense. Okay, I'm ready to take the KYC with the bounty companies, but airdrop???
Jump to: