Topic: KYC for ICO, is it good or bad idea? - page 6. (Read 2031 times)
I am not at all interested in participating projects that require KYC. I don't support it. As there is no guarantee that your data would be safe and it wouldn't get leaked by any third person. There days data is also very important and it can be traded with money.
I think it is a good idea, because I hate scammers, that are using multi accounts to cheat the community or the manager. Everyone should earn what he deserves. KYC will help to identify these people and kick them out.
To me KYC for ICO is a good idea, the only bad thing about KYC is when the company you submit your KYC information to, now turn scam, that will put all those who participated in the KYC in danger, because their data can be misused.
KYC for ICO is not a bad idea,it has alot of advantages when it comes to security and it will also aid the confidence of investors in that particular project.
we are divided in KYC isssue,its a bad idea for those who involve in money loundring and good idea for those play fair. but in my opinon its a good idea.
play fair play safe with KYC.... thanks. its decentralized technology but goverment want to control via KYC.
play fair play safe with KYC.... thanks. its decentralized technology but goverment want to control via KYC.
This is a fairly common procedure that exists in banks and other financial institutions. I have nothing against identity verification in ICO, but here in airdrops...
I like ICO projects or Bounty campaigns that capture us KYC, because now many fraud projects are coming out, if KYC will limit those scams that exist in this market, I know is not entirely against them, but also somewhat reduced, 
kyc for ico can be a security step for investors before getting coins, because it can identify anyone who participates and that can be used as a way to avoid using coins for crime. that's a good idea
When large payments are made, KYC is very much needed so that the same person does not participate in bounty and in ISO. But I do not understand when the payment of a penny, and a difficult KYC have to take a very long time
This is a fairly common procedure that exists in banks and other financial institutions. I have nothing against identity verification in ICO, but here in airdrops...
I'm currently working on my master thesis about ICO ratings (also considering KYC procedures). For this purpose I prepared a short survey (about 4 minutes) for ICO investors. If you could help me out here I'd be delighted. Your financial situation and behaviour will not be enquired and the results will solely be used for academic purposes.
Thanks a lot in advance!
http://grenoble.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d4gMcVoRSMHkMZv
Thanks a lot in advance!
http://grenoble.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d4gMcVoRSMHkMZv
It is a bad idea!!!
Why do developers need it?
Is that the law is necessary.
I'm not sure, they really need it. The main reason regarding citizenship (maybe). But does it cause significant loss, if someone from a country they don't wanna be their investor? shouldn't investors have to send their funds at the beginning? Why do developers need it?
Is that the law is necessary.
I have already written on this subject on this topic. KYS is needed only for registration in the company, and at the end IKO is no longer needed. The fact is that IKO lasts a long time after the end of the subscription company and KYC is forgotten. Even if you wrote posts for half a year. That is still half a year to wait for KYC.
In my opinion, for ICO KYC it is necessary for investors to really see who they are dealing with and whether this or that project will succeed!
For me it is a good idea to prevent money laundering and bots and multiple accounts to acquire a reward.
I can not give a definite answer. on the one hand, this is good because dishonest users cannot earn more than they should be, but on the other hand, this is very bad because the developers themselves are starting to cheat
I think KYC for ICO is very bad idea. How many final products do you know? why must I send docs then?
KYC is good for the security of sellers and buyers,investors Yes it increases investor confidence,but violates privacy in the decentralized world of cryptocurrencies.I do not support KYC in ICO and bounty.
I personally against introduction of KYC for participants of bounty of the program. These people do advertizing to the project and why them still to provide the personal information. I wouldn't want to give someone data on myself.
i think its correlated with SEC commision rules.and the developers team make prevention action to their project and investors.they just worry if someday regulation againts them.
As long as there is nothing wrong (used for important things or completing documents), I think KYC really needs to be used in documents. As long as it's not used incorrectly or for improper use, I don't think it's a problem. 
KYC alone is already a bad idea, IMO. Sending your sensitive information to them which might be used against you as your ID contains vital information that would help them hack your account. Rumors has it too that the information you send to them will be sold in the darkweb and they will earn money from your data.
Nah… I know a lot of people will be against the idea of having KYC for ICOs, so am I, but they are important for ICOs and I read that the US SEC is preparing to prosecute ICOs that are being held without KYC. Things can have advantage but there will also be disadvantages, cause some stupid will always try to find a way of misusing that good thing. I’ve also come to know that it is fake ICOs that don’t require KYC. Majority of the legit ICOs require KYC for it. Jump to: