Topic: KYC process and reasons for rejection: Is crypto still fair? (Read 327 times)
First they collect the most detailed personal information about you and then they give you a refusal. But your information is already received by them and you do not get anything for what you provided your data. This is not fair.
I do not know if this is "Know your customer", then there must be a relationship - a client and a service. There must be some choice - to provide data or not, and here - or you give data or we do not work, what kind of service is this?
KYC was introduced first for investors. However, it now for some reason extends to the participants of the campaign of generosity, in particular, to the campaigners of the signature campaign. Moreover, such a procedure, as a rule,
It is applied after the termination of ICO, when the certain work is executed and participants of the signature expect payment of the earned award. We at this forum are completely anonymous and this order completely violates this principle of anonymity. Moreover, it is implemented without any need, just for the sake of some people to abandon the earned tokens. I consider this a form of fraud.
It is applied after the termination of ICO, when the certain work is executed and participants of the signature expect payment of the earned award. We at this forum are completely anonymous and this order completely violates this principle of anonymity. Moreover, it is implemented without any need, just for the sake of some people to abandon the earned tokens. I consider this a form of fraud.
I strongly disagree with the KYC process. It is dangerous. Once again the government putting average citizens in harm's way in order to try and stop some "criminal" (read: political) threat. Tons of people's identities will be stolen. WILL BE.
Its becoming a nuisance. I honestly got into crypto and i think others too got into crypto because it offers an attractive feature which is or was privacy/ anonymity.
And there are lot of projects that do exactly that. The problem with ICOs is that there is almost always a single identifiable company behind them. Such company has to operate in accordance with local and international laws and regulations, otherwise it can be shut down very easily. In other words, ICOs are not regulatory resistant. Regulatory agencies hate privacy. For a project to be truly regulatory resistant in every aspect, it has to be open sourced, developed by anonymous developers and managed as decentralized autonomous organization.
I think the KYC regulations are ultimately going to help the space, But it all depends on if they do it correctly. Seems crazy for them to reject a customer's information if it all checks out, But that would imply that they are cross checking the info with other databases.
You should check your spelling, even 1 mistake in your name address, date of birth, ID numer will get you rejected. You should also look at the quality of your photos.
Its becoming a nuisance. I honestly got into crypto and i think others too got into crypto because it offers an attractive feature which is or was privacy/ anonymity. But now, we are or they are causing us to submit our identity just because we wanna get involve in projects. these issues of kyc is mind disturbing. its known that people can raise funds to do illegal works through ico, but what if they also collect and use user's documents to also do their illegal works. it could implicate people in crimes they know nothing about.
a simple example could be someone gets hold of the passport of like a korean and prints it then goes off to commit a crime in the city where the korean lives. at the crime scene, he then drops the printed passport. the police would need to invite the korean and if he doesnt have an alibi to prove he is innocent, he is gone. this KYC is heartily disturbing.
its a trade off between money and privacy
https://steemit.com/crypto/@yomarve/kyc-a-trade-off-between-money-and-anonymity
a simple example could be someone gets hold of the passport of like a korean and prints it then goes off to commit a crime in the city where the korean lives. at the crime scene, he then drops the printed passport. the police would need to invite the korean and if he doesnt have an alibi to prove he is innocent, he is gone. this KYC is heartily disturbing.
its a trade off between money and privacy
https://steemit.com/crypto/@yomarve/kyc-a-trade-off-between-money-and-anonymity
NOTE: This message was originally not posted by me, but instead by someone who compromised my account. I have deleted the content.
For me, just do not understand how they can combine two such different concepts - anonymity and KYC (know your customer). This destroys the whole concept of crypto currency - anonymity and transparency.
I'm against the whole idea of sharing my personal data to anybody but if they even rejects your ID ... that's really weird. What the point of this KYC then?
Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some people here will have to deal with identity theft in the near future.
It will be a long nightmare for them.
I agree,
somehow, submitting an identity to the stranger still dangerous. There is a high probability that identity will be sold by other people to get some profit. That's why until now i'm still not join any event (ICO, AIRDROP, BOUNTIES) that need KYC.
The security of personal data storage is ensured by their encryption and storage on the user's device. In the case of hacking KYC.Legal platform servers or another company providing user verification services in the KYC block, the data will not be affected.
In the financial industry, there are generally three reasons why you might fail KYC:
1. You live in an OFAC-sanctioned country (country that supports terrorism)
2. Your name comes up on a WorldCheck search as someone involved in terrorism or other illicit activity
3. There is a problem with your ID - expired, inconsistent name spelling, ID number is wrong, etc.
These are all legitimate reasons. I get annoyed when companies, for example, will only accept a passport and not other government IDs, or when they come up with other arbitrary requirements.
1. You live in an OFAC-sanctioned country (country that supports terrorism)
2. Your name comes up on a WorldCheck search as someone involved in terrorism or other illicit activity
3. There is a problem with your ID - expired, inconsistent name spelling, ID number is wrong, etc.
These are all legitimate reasons. I get annoyed when companies, for example, will only accept a passport and not other government IDs, or when they come up with other arbitrary requirements.
I did not know that some ICOs were rejecting documents submitted to the KYC process without a well-founded reason. The KYC process is conducted to reject individuals from certain countries who prevent their citizens from participating in CIUs. It is very strange that citizens of countries that do not have laws against ICOs have their KYC documents rejected. It really seems that demand is above supply and some people are being rejected randomly.
I'm against the whole idea of sharing my personal data to anybody but if they even rejects your ID ... that's really weird. What the point of this KYC then?
Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some people here will have to deal with identity theft in the near future.
It will be a long nightmare for them.
I agree,
somehow, submitting an identity to the stranger still dangerous. There is a high probability that identity will be sold by other people to get some profit. That's why until now i'm still not join any event (ICO, AIRDROP, BOUNTIES) that need KYC.
I also don't know what the purpose of this KYC procedure is, does this really want to improve their service to ICO participants, or select certain people through the KYC process, or to discriminate against certain people as you say?
If even I as a privileged German citizen am being rejected: How will new projects and their KYC-partners ensure that everybody gets a fair chance? I don't want to see people being rejected just because they wear a beard (Sikhs, muslims) or because they live in the wrong country (sorry though for USA and China)!
Yeah, I had also mentioned this on another thread earlier today, it's something most people don't even think about while it's a real danger.
You can never know for sure how good their security is, exchanges do get hacked quite regularly.
Though for most people, it's unavoidable if you want to trade at a popular exchange, so at least choose one that takes security serious.
Why do you think that someome needs your ID so much that he is ready to start fake ICOs in order to obtain your pics? The full KYC package in the dreknet kost around 10-40 USD with all pics needed for verification. And trust me, if it was that easy to sell a copy of your ID for at least 5$ then people that work on governmental services that issue those IDs could already be rich af. The amount of people that have access to your personal data is huge but no one realy needs it. The other point is that your ID is only valid when you are using it. Proving your identity is a job of a company that provides you services (or ICO in our case). If they made a mistake then they will have to pay for it from their pocket. If someone used your credit card to buy something in the shop then you will eyther get a refund or will be payed from your bank's money.You can never know for sure how good their security is, exchanges do get hacked quite regularly.
Though for most people, it's unavoidable if you want to trade at a popular exchange, so at least choose one that takes security serious.
The sourse of the problem that OP mentioned is that the people that check KYC are simply not qualified enough for it. If you can provide the document issued by your government then the bigest thing they can do is to ask for a verified translation if needed. ICOs still have enough audience to do what they want about KYC.
I'm against the whole idea of sharing my personal data to anybody but if they even rejects your ID ... that's really weird. What the point of this KYC then?
Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some people here will have to deal with identity theft in the near future.
It will be a long nightmare for them.
Yeah, I had also mentioned this on another thread earlier today, it's something most people don't even think about while it's a real danger.
You can never know for sure how good their security is, exchanges do get hacked quite regularly.
Though for most people, it's unavoidable if you want to trade at a popular exchange, so at least choose one that takes security serious.
I wonder as well if KYC crypto projects like Civis and SelfKey are gonna be used in the future for ICOs and etc.
"Is crypto still fair?"
Ummmm, since when was crypto "fair"?
Also, since when was any kind of market "fair"?
Startups have the right to accept or reject whoever they want.
It can be argued that allowing anyone to participate can build trust in the company, but seriously, that's not the case.
It's not that way because when you strip it down, it's a we're in it for the money scenario, on both sides..
With that being said, it honestly just seems to be a technical problem.
Most startups have only 10 to 20 employees. Going through thousands of KYC applications is likely to cause errors.
Although it does suck, it seems inevitable that there would be problems that pop up.
Best thing is to move on to another one. There are so many legitimately good startups and ico lately that you are bound to find another one.
Ummmm, since when was crypto "fair"?
Also, since when was any kind of market "fair"?
Startups have the right to accept or reject whoever they want.
It can be argued that allowing anyone to participate can build trust in the company, but seriously, that's not the case.
It's not that way because when you strip it down, it's a we're in it for the money scenario, on both sides..
With that being said, it honestly just seems to be a technical problem.
Most startups have only 10 to 20 employees. Going through thousands of KYC applications is likely to cause errors.
Although it does suck, it seems inevitable that there would be problems that pop up.
Best thing is to move on to another one. There are so many legitimately good startups and ico lately that you are bound to find another one.
It's not a market unless it's open to anybody. It's a common misconception that a market with entry barriers is anywhere near what a libertarian would call a free market. It's actually the opposite and quite interestingly, people who tend to be against a free market often are the same exact people who will come up with some kind of bureaucratic-socialist pseudo-solution to maintain fair chances for everybody.
I think it's hypocritical to come into this crypto sphere, build a company around an idea and then be picky about your community. And if that's what Dether or anybody else is doing, then they should be honest about it and say: Listen, guys, we want money, but we don't want anybody's money. Instead, these people show up and talk about decentralization and changing the world and helping people but implement a KYC-process that is exclusive as fxxk. That being said, yes, they can reject whoever they want but they should not pretend to be a community project.
This is why projects like Civic, SelfKey and Dapps on ICON, Stratis and etc. are being made. We might use them soon for KYC 
Jump to: