the reason for the KYC for the ICO is to prevent the restricted country from participating, of course the organizers of IIC do not want any country that is banned from participating in the ICO program, but what else is it, this has become a regulation of the country, and organizers of ICO do not want to risk
if it is indeed true to use KYC in the ICO, the ICO will automatically become a smaller ICO investor and there will be many ICOs who are underfunded. and it also affects not only the ICO but also the bounty hunter because if many ICOs fail or the sales result is small, the income of the bounty hunter will also decrease. so this not only affects the ICO but also affects others. 
Topic: KYC for ICO, is it good or bad idea? - page 4. (Read 2017 times)
It's not a bad thing because KYC prevent investing someone from a single entity do that no one can manipulate the price. But as an investor, I would never invest in an ICO which requires KYC for investing.
the reason for the KYC for the ICO is to prevent the restricted country from participating, of course the organizers of IIC do not want any country that is banned from participating in the ICO program, but what else is it, this has become a regulation of the country, and organizers of ICO do not want to risk
There are some external ico listing websites like icobench and co that conducts kyc for the sellers or team. How genuine is it is what I don't know. So even with this, buying the ico is still a risk. Also I don't like the idea of kyc for buyers.
Very good reason for laundering money. There are many countries that have bitcoin enemies due to money laundering. so no one can launder money if kyc.
surely something has a positive and also negative impact. in the presence of KYC, a project will have important data about its investors. and for the negative impact there is no more privacy and what we fear most is that our data can be used for abuse
Like all of the majority of users here KYC is a big no-no in a decentralized world, they told us to protect their investment when in fact some of the devs are faked and there is a big possibility that some projects will cease or stopped and so there go your personal details there's a possibility that they are going to sell it to third party.
i believe investing in ICO that requires KYC is reasonable,because this is for investors safety
But if you’re referring in bounty hunters that the project requires KYC is unreasonable,because this may use to abuse participants
But you still have to take into account the fact that there are a lot of scammers in the Eco companies market and in the current situation fraudsters can use the registration requirements circle in order to give their project more importance and prospects. That's when many users of cryptocurrency, including participants of the Bounty company and investors, must be alerted, because I do not know where their personal passport data goes. But if you’re referring in bounty hunters that the project requires KYC is unreasonable,because this may use to abuse participants
i believe investing in ICO that requires KYC is reasonable,because this is for investors safety
But if you’re referring in bounty hunters that the project requires KYC is unreasonable,because this may use to abuse participants
But if you’re referring in bounty hunters that the project requires KYC is unreasonable,because this may use to abuse participants
This is the business of the team itself. Developers are trying to work in accordance with the law. But it is completely incomprehensible to me why teams introduce mandatory KYC passing for bounty participants.
Cryptocurrencies (mainly Bitcoin) were created to be free to use, pseudo-anonymous, decentralized.
But with KYC and AML - you are loosing all of these features. So it is good?
But with KYC and AML - you are loosing all of these features. So it is good?
yups when talking with that context it is clear that kyc and aml are not relevant to cryptocurrency technology which they had from the start
but if we talk about ecosystems that I feel that it doesn't hurt to use KYC in every ico project
KYC is needed to avoid anti money laundry (AML) but which idiot people that wants to transfer their money to ICO? because the value fluctuations their will not transfer the money to ICO but to assets that have a stable value
in addition they said would not sell or publish investor data to third parties but in fact after filling KYC in some ICO now my email always get spam message, so my answer is BAD idea
in addition they said would not sell or publish investor data to third parties but in fact after filling KYC in some ICO now my email always get spam message, so my answer is BAD idea
I think its not good for me.becouse when you given your all information then you can't control your privacy too. So it is harmful for me.still my government against of bitcoin. So this is risky
Hi, everybody. With the development of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology,not only good ideas and projects began to develop,but also those who want to get a lot of money on the HYIP, use new technologies for their personal purposes. Projects began to carry out the KYC procedure for investors, airdrops, bounties to protect their projects from prosecution by the authorities, to improve security, to know their investors in person. But maybe we can use the KYC procedure not only for buyers but also for sellers. If we introduce such a procedure for new projects, it will increase the level of investor confidence, as well as deter many fake projects from collecting our funds, protect our crypto assets from fraud. This procedure can be entered in this forum to host projects or in special platform. The project developer will have to provide his personal and contact details.
Do you think this is a good or bad idea? Express your opinion.
This is just a great idea that will eliminate a certain percentage of bad projects, I support this initiative. Do you think this is a good or bad idea? Express your opinion.
Cryptocurrencies (mainly Bitcoin) were created to be free to use, pseudo-anonymous, decentralized.
But with KYC and AML - you are loosing all of these features. So it is good?
well, it all depends on the project developed. Sometimes things like this are used as a means to wash money, because sometimes projects require KYC to find out who their investors are. Well, I don't think it's bad, but on the other hand it will eliminate other important points. But with KYC and AML - you are loosing all of these features. So it is good?
Cryptocurrencies (mainly Bitcoin) were created to be free to use, pseudo-anonymous, decentralized.
But with KYC and AML - you are loosing all of these features. So it is good?
But with KYC and AML - you are loosing all of these features. So it is good?
KYC for investors is a necessity that has a legal basis. In many countries, suppliers of any products are required by law to clarify the data of potential customers. I think this is normal.
As an ordinary investor,it's bad for me, it's a big waste of time and the risk that your documents can be stolen.But I think if introduced KYC,it is required by the laws and it is unlikely to be around
KYC sounds great but that means no more privacy. Which defeats the purpose of decentralization.
KYC is not good idea for crypto users. KYC should send ID card copy, in fact cryptocurency principles is protecting ID, so what is for KYC for cryptocurrency. I think later time ICO should be free from KYC. Becaue more people will send data to a central server. It is very fragile to get hacked.Yes this is not really need for us here in cryptocurrency , in some country there's a Data Policy which requires not to expose I D and all personal data in the internet , but it can builds confident of the investors .
As I'm looking at this KYC issue I guess it will be a must in the future ,for example electroneum has implemented kyc for fast lighting payment from our phones ,chasing after PayPal abilities ,without KYC it would be impossible so I think in the future many won't have choice than to follow every kyc procedure and to me its not that bad
Jump to: