Topic: Why most crypto projects' team members are made public these days? (Read 356 times)

Wasn't Bitcoin's blockchain technology created under the premise of "don't trust, verify"? If that's so, then why do other altcoin projects need investor's trust to succeed? If Bitcoin became widely successful without ever revealing its creator, so can any other altcoin on the market. I see this nothing more than an agenda from mainstream governments in order to enforce KYC/AML as much as possible. With a publicly recognizable developer team (and/or founder), it's easy to prosecute each person to shut down the project for good. That cannot be said about Bitcoin, since there's no one to hold accountable for his/her actions.

Consider how the Terra's price crash put the South Korean government under Do Kwon's (the founder) tail. That and the fact that someone went to Do Kwon's house to complain about his loss of money, tells us the dangers of making crypto project's team members publicly known to everyone worldwide. That wouldn't had been possible if Terra's team members (including the founder) were all anonymous. Nowadays, money talks so it's very unlikely crypto projects will change their stance anytime soon. As long as there's lack of anonymity among team members, it'll be impossible to achieve true decentralization and censorship-resistance. Just my opinion

I do not think of it as hypocrisy, if the rest of the developers were like Satoshi then I would not feel any kind of need for them to reveal their identities, I would be curious as I am of the identity of Satoshi but I would understand their desire to remain anonymous, however as you say a great deal of the projects being released now are scams and as such if the developers behind a project decide to remain anonymous or use a fake identity then this is automatically a sign for me to never invest or even give any attention to such project.

Unknown people launching projects is far from over.

Satoshi did not ask anyone to invest in the currency they had created. But every altcoin needs investment from capital funds in order to have a market edge over others. Hence people need a trustworthy face to be able to step forward in investing in the same.

With growing hype about crypto and its sideways things like altcoins and shitcoins, every project wants to get some of that hyped cash into their pocket and not just a name.

But this does not affect decentralization in my opinion. The algorithm running in the back does not depend on the creator being public or anonymous.

The crypto industry has changed a lot since Bitcoin's inception and is constantly evolving. Nowadays, if the creators of a project want to remain anonymous, for me that is a big red flag and 99% of that cases are scam. In this case, I'm probably a bit of a hypocrite, because I don't like KYC myself and avoid KYC whenever I can, but I think that the creators of projects should be known and be responsible for their works.

There are also such cases, in order to make the project legal, a fake team with fake profiles on social networks is published. Therefore, the presence of a team in the project does not guarantee its legality and in such cases it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive research of the project in order not to become a victim of scam.

As you probably very well know, most Cryptocurrency investors are not thoroughly researching projects before placing their bets on it.  It turns out there are trends that people are desperately moving after.  KYC'd teams are now the trend.  They think projects with KYC'd teams are automatically worth investing into since they are 'serious'.  Truth is, KYC does nothing much other than creating a false image of sincerity.

The days when unknown developers are creating a coin are over because nowadays it is not about the lines of code but about how well the Whitepaper lies to you and what breed of dog your Token has been named after.  A decade ago, it was mostly developers who got into Bitcoin and they were impressed by the lines of code and ideas they have seen.  Now, it is the figures that impress the future investors.  500 percent profit in a week?  Sure, let me just pour the savings of a life time into it.  This is today's mind set.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

The number of scam projects this space has encountered in the past several years is more than enough to distrust any projects with an unknown team and people should be wary because they are collecting money in the name of creating a project. So if you are raising money you should be public.

I have seen some are asking why Satoshi was anonymous and still BTCitcoin reached this position, the answer is simple. Satoshi never raised money to create BTCitcoin and the code was everything.

In my opinion decentralization occurs in bitcoin and transactions all coin only on the blockchain network. It is completely private and cannot be tied or recorded by anyone. However, it is also transparent and recorded in a checking account in each of its cryptocurency networks.

---

---

especially the founders, for example Terraform, ETH (the first to introduce the owner), Solana etc. Maybe they think that knowledge is important and part of the project's marketing to encourage new fans.

Of course, if something unexpected happens (happens with various kinds of assets) we can know the mastermind and the latest information from the founder.

indeed this may not be a concept in decentralization, at least we can get to know and know the latest info on certain coins or networks.

The positive result of being anonymous like this satoshi can also be for the sake of protecting the founder, for example, investors cannot blame and criticize anything. also social security for founders.

Times are changing its better that we know who are the developers of one project because there's too much scamming going on, Bitcoin's case is very much different it's the one that started it all, and besides these projects have done ICO and since we are in adoption stage the regulators will not allow them if they are not compliant with existing rules.

Part of the success of adoption is the regulation and compliance, many industries are creating their own token or adopting them for investors' protection we should know who the people we are dealing with are and are they capable of realizing what's on their roadmap.

Most members of the crypto project team are made public these days and the reason is simply because of the spread of many scam projects with unknown people behind them. strong projects want to be legitimate to win the trust of investors. The factor of trust and credibility is an important matter in forming the investor base. How will potential investors trust your project and believe in your expertise and the expertise of the team working with you while you are anonymous?

I think it's a natural thing for a project to feature their team where there is a guarantee that we know who the owner of this coin is and what the CEO looks like.  and I think for a satohsi it's better not to give his real identity because it can make the world commotion

Regulators dictate rules to exchanges, governments dictate rules to regulators, and governments will never support anonymity, they need control. Team anonymity in the crypto world is already rather synonymous with scam, just remember the anonymous developer SushiSwap who left the project and withdrew 38,000 ETH from the project. Yes, he got it back, but many anonymous creators are just stealing liquidity and exchanges don't like it, because their reputation is threatened and also they get too much attention from regulators. They don't want to get involved in listing potentially problematic projects. Therefore, KYC teams are a kind of guarantee that the project will not become a scam.

I believe that the first reason is that because the altcoins are not Bitcoin that has the major focus and trust from the crypto community. Many people are scammed these days by new projects of altcoins. Many of them used fake team members. Based on the experience, it means that when we are going to choose a team, we will better choose the one that is clearly showing the real person than a fake one, right? Because if they are real, at least we know where they are, who they are, and they may be responsible. Additionally, if we know the team clearly, does it mean that we know their capacity to develop a project right?

this is what distinguishes between Bitcoin and Altcoins, that's the identity of the creator...

I also once thought that, why most altcoins founders today show their identity, the reasons I think are = (1) because they want to be known (their names are recorded in crypto history), (2) because they want a product (token/coin) ) they are known to investors, (3) so that there are no claims from others IMO.

Security might be the issue here since investors wants to know the identity of the developer so they can know if that person is serious on this project or not. Look at those project with anonymous developer, most of them turned into a scam project and this is why this has been a big concern for the investors. You can still be anonymous by using those altcoins, its just that the developers are expose to the public and that could also be part of their marketing strategy.

From this alone, we can see that the goals between Bitcoin and altcoins are far different. The existence of Bitcoin is the only one to support user anonymity, while altcoins including ETH, SOLANA, and others are centralized in order to be accepted in the eyes of investors due to influential developers. The story is very different now with no clear developer identity being considered an obscure project.

That is the idea, to add more credibility to the project, consequently raising investors' confidence when investing on the cryptocurrency. But if we think carefully about this matter, it doesn't make much difference anyway to know who are the people behind a project. Knowing Do Kwon is behind LUNA didn't prevent people losing hundreds of thousands dollars. It probably has even made people lose more money, since they felt too confident because they knew the developer and invested more than they should.

Furthermore, almost every ICOs have a developer team section, displaying a picture and social medias of each of them. And once more, it doesn't prevent some of these projects stopping at the middle of the development and most of them being useless and unprofitable after the launchment.

After all, the effect is more at the marketing field than anywhere else.

I believe that the unknown developer era had been long gone since most projects nowadays are asking for money.  Seldom we can see projects today that never asked for initial sales of their zero-worth tokens.


My thought is, that if someone asks for money, he must prove himself and investors should know the eligibility of the developer to deliver the promised roadmap, that is why investors need to know the people behind the project before investing.  I don't think the developer will affect decentralization if the project itself aims to be decentralized.  Just check the BTC network, developers aimed that BTC  has a decentralized blockchain so regardless if the developer is known or unknown, their goal is to preserve the BTC blockchain's decentralized nature.  The same goes for other blockchain projects.

There were a ton of "e-money" attempts way before bitcoin, just because it was the first one to actually succeed, doesn't mean that it was the first attempt ever, there has been others before and they all failed to gain any attraction because they all lacked blockchain part of it.

However, I agree with the part where you say that new coins with anonymous team look like scams, and I have to say that most of them are doing the wrong thing. I wouldn't personally prefer a coin that has a team that is known, I rather have a coin that has no team at all, fully decentralized, that would be a lot better and would play into the decentralization of crypto very well.

That unfortunately is the main reason why most of the projects that scam people come from nations that will not chase the criminals. Obviously even that is not a problem, because people who are in high criminal jailed rate end up still scamming people, like you could be in the UK which will jail you a long time for a financial crime and still scam people.

But mainly, all these scammers end up from the southeast Asia nations such as Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore and all of that. If you see a project made from those nations, I highly suggest you to be careful about it because there is a good chance that you could be getting scammed from it. This isn't anything related to their race, it doesn't mean they are scammers, it just means their government is more lax about scammers, if governments were laxed in other nations, those people would have scammed more too.