Topic: KYC Is not for cryptocurrency users (Read 178 times)

Yeah, there are too many scams ICOs, they also need KYC. WHat is our data for? Do the keep savely or sell it to third party. That is very disgusting. Anonymity is the cryptocurrency itself. No anonynmity is not cryptocurrency. They just whale who want to make profit from ICOs.

yes, I agree with you. KYC is very disturbing for some investors. Perhaps their intention is to avoid fake investors, but they only need with his funds, not with his identity. Sooner or later an ICO project that uses KYC will be lonely because too many rules are made

KYC and cryptocurrencies are different poles. If one is North pole then another one is south. The key rule of cryptocurrencies is broken by KYC i.e. decentralisation of power and anonymity.

I'm scared to be involved in campaigns, where there are KYC. I do not know the organizers, for what purpose they are asking for my documents. There is a high probability, that the documents will be on the black market for sale. And then a lot of scammers will be able to use my documents.

I also support the same point of view. No state has the right to require investors through ICO to pass a KYC check until it itself provides transparency of the ICO, excludes the possibility of fraud from the ICO team. This is possible only if the public authorities, or on their behalf, public organizations, will not carry out an appropriate verification. Because the situation is really wild and paradoxical. The state actually forces investors to transfer their identification data and copies of passports into the hands of potential fraudsters, thereby trying to discredit the ICO process and, in every case of fraud in the ICO, warns citizens that investing in ICO projects is rather risky. How not to say in this case that the state bodies do this intentionally?

KYC won't be left. In the future, it is going to be transformed into a new form. Companies will have our submitted KYC and show to governments, ICO developers etc.

It is already being left, as we can see investor interest plunging, those were mainly people who already had crypto to invest, and they are not interested in giving the information about them away. KYC is not good for crypto, it was not meant to be that way.

Why do you think like that? I think KYC is very important in ICO, it is to prevent crime, but if an ICO using KYC is so tight it will also make the investors uncomfortable. But I think all ICOs are currently using KYC Methods for their investment and if you do not want a KYC then you just do not participate, simple

Cryptocurrency means protect privacy, while KYC ask your privacy to unknown institution. It is stupid idea of KYC. I agree with you that KYC is lack of centrality. When you submit your personal Data to others, It has destroyed wht we call "Decentralization"

However, as more and more countries start to restrict ICO, KYC is the basic requirement.
These ICO teams may face legal problems if KYC is not required.

The problem with KYC for ICOs (and bounties and so on) is an obvious one.
Customers in these cases also require a KYS (seller) ... we have no idea which ICOs are on the level,
which exchanges aren't scams, and so on. Although I'm not keen on providing info to exchanges -- assuming they at least appear to be on the level and working within the law --
(Bittrex, GDax, Gemini, etc), I can live with it.

Some coin offering an ICO can be anyone... a group of hackers in some far away country for all I know. There the risk of KYC is too great for most customers.

While I fully understand your point, and I am personally wary about giving out details and such,
I'm not sure what the issue is in the big perspective?

Exchanges demand KYC because of laws; there are other ways like buying p2p.
however, as OP mentioned: ICOs - but, they are also regulated by law,
but what does it matter if one participates and provides KYC?
You can simply stay away from ICOs if you don't like the KYC part,
or otherwise, just participate and then send your tokens/coins somewhere else and don't leave a trace, then it doesn't really matter?

I guess what I'm asking is what the issue with ICO KYC actually are.
Yes, we have to identify ourselves, and if we assume it's to a legitimate party, at one point or another, someone could find out that we invested in this ICO?
at that point tho, does it really matter if there's no trace of the crypto?

It's another discussion about crypto as a whole.
Sadly, currently it appears to be rather easy to identify a wallet and a user aslong as they've at some point gone through an exchange that demands KYC.
since the majority of people don't really bother with making their funds untraceable, it's kinda easier for illegitimate parties to find out a person's crypto value, compared with using a regular bank that is watched.

Not saying that I think people should break the law.
There's a saying which I guess applies in a way to this, something like if one has nothing to hide then it doesn't matter?
I disagree, surely it's very important to retain our privacy, even if we're not breaking the law.

this is a dilemma we experience, one side we must obey the rules and the bad side is the security of our personal data. pros and cons always happen, but I think it's better KYC be removed, before there is an authority or regulator that can hold or arrange an ico and can be a place to sue if at any time fraud occurs on ico.

For fraudulent projects, they will surely sell all user information for monetization purposes. Most of me just KYC on good ICO projects and limit KYC to unknown projects. I personally have had a lot of trouble with KYC but in general if you want to be an ICO investor then you should accept this

Most of the investors of  ICO projects now are required to do KYC and some of ICO are also bounty hunters should apply too. Yes it's disturbing and loss of freedom of investors. But I'm pretty worried about the information that I give because there's possibility to use it, maybe in illegal.

KYC is nothing to do with the anonymity of a token because KYC is introduced due to some of the countries have banned ICO sales. So ICO investors need to prove that they do not belong to those countries so that they can participate in the ICO sales. This was introduced for some reason but ICO owners may misuse this information or if someone hacks their system then investors information will be leaked. If you want to invest in ICO then you need to take this riks or just wait until these coins list in exchange to buy without providing your personal details.

I agree with you, for me KYC is not an important thing to do in crytpo currency specially in ICO. One of the platform of crypto currency is by being anonymous of the token holders and investors thats why , Why KYC really need to do ? its a waste of time.

A lot of people enjoy Investors/Bounty Hunters or just some people who tend to use cryptocurrency on transactions the anonimousity of crypto.
but with KYC feeding personal information, is absurd and denying the fact that crypto was meant for anonymous and smooth transactions.
not to mention some Fake ICO's that tend to gather personal information. or even worst phish.
I agree KYC is not for cryptocurrency users. this should be stopped.

Well in my opinion there is nothing wrong with KYC because they are also avoiding that the tokens could be use in a different way like terrorist group funding their illegal activities. So their tokens could be use for it if they will not require KYC on it. I know the feeling of bringing a project which you are doing your best and giving an effort for the good of the community and you do not want to be drag on a mess when someones using your tokens in an illegal activities.

This news information about Hashcard is very disturbing because it portray the crypto environment in a bad light. I think the KYC concept negate the principle of anonymity of in the blockchain technology world. It should be eradicated totally in all ramifications.