Topic: what do people think about all the ICO's now requiring KYC? (Read 221 times)
In my opinion, this will not prevent scam ICO's and fraudulent transactions at all. I am not going to participate in any KYC ICO in future because I do not want to hand over my personal information to anybody if it is not reasonably necessary.
The crypto sphere had to become a place of freedom of action and anonymity but now we are watching how they want to limit and regulate this sphere of life. Scammers this is unlikely to stop.
进行KYC程序的苛刻要求，保证KYC不会泄密是很难的一件事情！
如果KYC的资料流出会给投资者造成困扰！
如果KYC的资料流出会给投资者造成困扰！
again thank you all for your valuable points i see that i was thinking about KYC a bit different than other people.
Well I think there is nothing bad about it unless and until you don't want to show your identity or transactions to the government itself. Otherwise the identity is not shown to the peers that are surrounding to you or in the crypto space. I am sure that ico founders will be taking all the important steps to preserve your identity in that way. It's just being presented to the company so that they can know you are one real person and who is eligible for the tax stuff and nothing much.
I think KYC is really important stuff and beneficial thing for us as we see the crypto scams everwhere. So its betterment and not the negative thing.
KYC really is a good idea and it will be beneficial for it will lessen the act of fraudulence but we know that many people engages or is happily using and earning bitcoin because of the identity preservation. By implementing KYC, many people are now double-thinking on whether to participate in ICOs especially the potential investors because if they do, they will have to give away their identity. I consider it also as hassle and I think that ICOs should put their focus in making their ICOs more attractive and productive because many are looking like scams now which is not good.I think KYC is really important stuff and beneficial thing for us as we see the crypto scams everwhere. So its betterment and not the negative thing.
exactly. i have a few ico's i would like to invest in but i don't want my ID flying around on the internet.
yes i can watermark it but that does not really solve any major issue.
i could fake my id obviously. but that is not the smartest to do...
Although I understand the concern many people think of, but I think it is good for the market in the long run. At the end of the day if you agree or not, governments and financial institutions have a huge influence in the market and following some of the requirement would keep them away/quite for a bit.
I have a contradictory opinion.
They want to see our documents and save them to some database, but we do not see the passports of all the team members, the company's accounting documents, etc. It's like something stupid in my opinion. The project basically has nothing that could be shown legally. But the investor should give them both documents and money, and a blood test and the number of children. And then they can refuse you. "Sorry, your documents were not verified."
They want to see our documents and save them to some database, but we do not see the passports of all the team members, the company's accounting documents, etc. It's like something stupid in my opinion. The project basically has nothing that could be shown legally. But the investor should give them both documents and money, and a blood test and the number of children. And then they can refuse you. "Sorry, your documents were not verified."
I agree.
In addition, KYC is the beginning of regulation. This will result in the destruction of the true idea of Bitcoin and crypto currency in general. Scammers will be out, taxes will be paid, our data will be known.
I have a contradictory opinion.
They want to see our documents and save them to some database, but we do not see the passports of all the team members, the company's accounting documents, etc. It's like something stupid in my opinion. The project basically has nothing that could be shown legally. But the investor should give them both documents and money, and a blood test and the number of children. And then they can refuse you. "Sorry, your documents were not verified."
They want to see our documents and save them to some database, but we do not see the passports of all the team members, the company's accounting documents, etc. It's like something stupid in my opinion. The project basically has nothing that could be shown legally. But the investor should give them both documents and money, and a blood test and the number of children. And then they can refuse you. "Sorry, your documents were not verified."
I figure KYC is necessary from the legal standpoint for companies, and more will come as regulation draws it’s claws deeper into this world.
What would be good is for a global KYC Secure register to exists, and for that register to render KYC clearance to solicitating ICOs on behalf of their investors-to-be. I believe that I’ve seen various projects with this goal recently.
We probably wouldn’t converge on a single centralised KYC register, but if it were down to a handful of them then if would be better to render your personal information to these than to each and every ICO that you participate in. Data would need to be updated periodically, but that shouldn’t be too cumbersome.
The object would be to avoid investors having to provide their personal information for every ICO they invest in, thus narrowing possibilities of identity thefts derived from our personal information being sent directly to ICOs (and what’s even worse, for many bounties be them as small as they may). The whole process would also be quicker end-to-end.
What would be good is for a global KYC Secure register to exists, and for that register to render KYC clearance to solicitating ICOs on behalf of their investors-to-be. I believe that I’ve seen various projects with this goal recently.
We probably wouldn’t converge on a single centralised KYC register, but if it were down to a handful of them then if would be better to render your personal information to these than to each and every ICO that you participate in. Data would need to be updated periodically, but that shouldn’t be too cumbersome.
The object would be to avoid investors having to provide their personal information for every ICO they invest in, thus narrowing possibilities of identity thefts derived from our personal information being sent directly to ICOs (and what’s even worse, for many bounties be them as small as they may). The whole process would also be quicker end-to-end.
I do not want my identity bought. I am afraid to follow ICO as it is better I do not participate than my identity is misused
I think it is ery good that the most ICOs starting to use KYC. It will help to kick out some scammer that are gambling with stolen money or something else. I really would like it to see it on all upcoming ICOs in the future!
thank you all for the information. i see that i did not think about every aspect of the KYC.
There are many ways to taxevasion using ICO, so KYC helps to catch the crimes
If some governments require the conduct of KYC from citizens who invest their money in the ICO campaign, there is nowhere to go. There is a fight against money laundering. However, I am against the need for ICO companies to pass a KYC test in the generosity campaigners who do not invest their money. Especially if such a test is carried out without warning even after the end of the ICO campaign, when the meaning of such a check is completely eliminated. This is already similar to fraud on the part of the ICO campaign, they thus do not pay the already earned tokens to those who refuse to provide their identification data and copies of passports
I would have to skip that kind of Ico if the project is very good and will be profitable in the future then I will just have to wait for that to get in exchange, where they have no control people holding their coin, it's not worth to share your identity it's a big no no to me.
some people say that KYC will have a good impact, this is to prevent criminal acts, such as criminals of money laundering and theft.
if a wallet is hacked or stolen, it may be tracked by looking at the identity of the owner of the thief wallet.
if a wallet is hacked or stolen, it may be tracked by looking at the identity of the owner of the thief wallet.
Well there is an alternative.
Instead of participating in the ICO and giving some unknown developer all your details, sit on your hands and wait. The coin will eventually get listed on some exchanges, including some decentralised exchanges. It will undergo a pump and then a dump.
If at the dumping stage you still feel the project has potential, that is the time to buy, cheap, and without revealing your personal details.
Instead of participating in the ICO and giving some unknown developer all your details, sit on your hands and wait. The coin will eventually get listed on some exchanges, including some decentralised exchanges. It will undergo a pump and then a dump.
If at the dumping stage you still feel the project has potential, that is the time to buy, cheap, and without revealing your personal details.
So. i have been interested in the new Neonexchange ico that is about to be announced today. however, they made a tweet that KYC is mandatory.
now i am a guy that loves the crypto space because you can invest without anybody really knowing who you are.
but as more and more coins/services require your id to even pay you for what you have bought i feel like we are losing some of what crypto is.
i have even seen bounty campaigns that require your id to pay you.
how are peoples thought about this? i really dislike the direction that icos are taking. at this point i will only buy when a coin hits an exchange and even that seems to have id requirements coming up...
That will be suitable for those ico because they are working with government regulation. They are try to avoiding the risk by accept those investors from those countries are banned icos. Just like US, Iran and many other countries. But KYC for bounty looks a terrible idea. Some times there is a bounty that only paid some dollars to the participant and does it worth? It doesn't. KYC purpose is working on preventing investors from countries ban ico. now i am a guy that loves the crypto space because you can invest without anybody really knowing who you are.
but as more and more coins/services require your id to even pay you for what you have bought i feel like we are losing some of what crypto is.
i have even seen bounty campaigns that require your id to pay you.
how are peoples thought about this? i really dislike the direction that icos are taking. at this point i will only buy when a coin hits an exchange and even that seems to have id requirements coming up...
KYC Policy, in my opinion, will lessen scam or fraudulence. I believe it should be adopted since its primary purpose is to KNOW-YOUR-CUSTOMER. Illegalities will be tracked and this will result to non-occurence (lesser occurrence) of scam.
Well I think there is nothing bad about it unless and until you don't want to show your identity or transactions to the government itself. Otherwise the identity is not shown to the peers that are surrounding to you or in the crypto space. I am sure that ico founders will be taking all the important steps to preserve your identity in that way. It's just being presented to the company so that they can know you are one real person and who is eligible for the tax stuff and nothing much.
I think KYC is really important stuff and beneficial thing for us as we see the crypto scams everwhere. So its betterment and not the negative thing.
I think KYC is really important stuff and beneficial thing for us as we see the crypto scams everwhere. So its betterment and not the negative thing.
Jump to: