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.

In the event that the project team is legal and sets ambitious goals, then the publication of the project team, if it includes members already known in the crypto community, adds credibility to such a project. In addition, it has been noticed that if a project does not publish information about the team, it may be perceived as a warning that such a project is a scam.

Don't you think if Bitcoin was made public that would have been the end of crypto since Government trying puting eyes on it but Satoshi Nakamoto remains "anonymous" and this have been the secret for cryptocurrency survival today but many don't think of it. Now saying many projects revealing their teams, Yes of a truth they we all believed on transparency and straightforwardness therefore for their project to be known they all have to be identifiable (Centralization) looking closely most of the DeFi projects back has no revealed team but presently revealing to build a total transparency.

Bitcoin was completely different case than the altcoin project. Altcoin like ethereum, terra and etc were coming from the funding by investors. They need to reveal their identity to create project to be trusted by the investors.


DId you aware before if some already tried to did the same like what bitcoin has done in the past? Bitcoin is bitcoin. It's the first crypto that is very different with the new coin that claimed to be anonymous coin like bitcoin. These days the new anon coin = scam coin.

The decentralization was only a gimmick except bitcoin.

The team of a project should indeed be presented publicly to avoid scams, increase investor confidence and increase the responsibility of the team members to ensure that the project will continue to grow.

Because Bitcoin is special, Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin is the father of cryptocurrency, and Bitcoin is trusted.
On the other hand, can altcoins do the same as Bitcoin? Can you guarantee that altcoins are trusted while there are so many scams in the crypto world so far? Bitcoin is not a scam, but altcoins, there are so many scam projects so far. That is why to pretend from listing or having shit or scam projects, it is better to make acceptance to gain more trust, isn't it?

It's not that they cannot do it. It's the public that wants transparent teams for their own protection or else they won't support it. I'm sure you know the abuses of projects with anonymous teams did in the past years.

Times have changed.

A chain can remain decentralized regardless if we know the developers or not. What this can affect is the innovation side. Any genius who prefers anonymity will be discouraged to create.

It had changed because of the what the market is asking.

And for the new investors, we do know that they're on it for the projects that have known names so they would know who's accountable if the project goes worse and names behind it did it on purpose.

Unlike for bitcoin and satoshi, it's entirely a different thing of being made and it's one of the perfect example for decentralization. It's a big deal before but it just had changed I think during the ICO days.

Times have changed, I have no doubts that if another genius like satoshi released a coin while remaining anonymous and the coin was in fact revolutionary and the developer behind the coin did not took a bunch of coins for himself then the community will support the project and it will eventually make it to centralized exchanges, but now a great deal of the coins being released are either scams, and as such people do not want to invest in a coin in which the developers are not made public, or the project has the backing of huge institutions, in which case the developers have to go public and reveal who they are anyway.

It gives a level of confidence to investors knowing the identity of the people behind the projects they have chosen to invest in. Investors have placed more emphasis on this aspect and it seems some project owners who want to be taken seriously have to reason with the demand of the majority.
Despite having a public profile some unscrupulous team still finds a way to do shady stuff and make it look like an attack. Do Kwon may be publicly known but what truly happened with terra luna still remains a mystery.

The barrier to creating new cryptocurrenices or tokens is extremely easy and quick, and some anonymous/pseudonymous developers taking advantage of it to create endless shitcoins. Consequently, it affects the user to look at a project who has a public team and also judge it by the development teams. In another hand, we can also say that the founder wants to take credit for building their own project.

Major projects like Ethereum, NEAR, and CNDL have doxxed teams. You shouldn't invest a lot of money in projects where the team isn't doxxed because it's easy for the devs to run off with your money when you don't know who they are.

The more they go public the more their project grows but it doesn't mean their idea and development in the future become true because I already experienced such kind of dirty moves by the creator of the NFT game called Cryptoblade where they decided to show their faces in the start and man investors came to play their pay-tp-play game but in the end they change their game into something trash when you look at their token history price you will know what I mean. so it's better not to rely on those kinds of moves and better not to rush to invest because not all of them are true to their roadmaps and also they have hidden motives when they see their coin's price is growing.

Even a doxxed team wouldn't be able to sustain it in the long term and there are several projects that proves that, having a team that is known in the space doesn't mean a guarantee, though these days only a selected one thrive. Can't say for sure if a pseudonymous project will be successful these days but that would depend on its use case I guess.

To be honest for me it is a good thing that most teams that are behind new crypto projects are now transparent and that you can check in what kind of positions they were working before and what they have done so far. I know that the inventor of Bitcoin is still unknown to this day and that is also a important factor why Bitcoin has become such a huge success because in the end Bitcoin was about giving the power back to the normal people and to not be dependent on a big company or a country.
The whole crypto industry has matured though since the introduction of Bitcoin and i don't think that you can except people to fund your project with a lot of money when you don't even tell them who you are.

I believe it is the new norm considering the way we are beginning to see fallen crypto projects in the eco system. I think it is a welcome Idea because if this is not so, the crypto space is already surrounded by too many negative assumptions and Crypto Project Devs would have just been rug pulling projects cos we have seen some other projects falling even when we knew who the Devs so, even if this might not totally resolve the issue but we know who to ask what happened. 

I think because people nowadays dont believe in words but rather believe previous experience. If in the past it was enough to create a good powerpoint presentation and start raising money for a project, then right now, investors dig deep to find everything about project. Public team is the best way to show what project will be capable of. If the team are bunch of no names with a background of some programs made during college study, then dont expect anything good from it. But if you see that projects team is full of google/microsoft like employees, whos experience hardly fit in A4 page, then these guys definitely would create something more than a pixeled tic-tac-toe game on blockchain.

Why measure the success of a coin by “listing it in exchange”? Those platforms demanded the identity of the primary Bitcoin developer? Or will ask for it in the future?
All of these projects are centralized and considered as an investment, not a truly decentralized cryptocurrency.

In short, whoever asks about developers to buy or list it, he is talking about economic aspects by accepting quick money, but it is not "cryptocurrency" and will not have value in the future (long term.)


as for rearson beacuse there is no new update that coins can provide in the code base (all of them is just a copy of others)

It's all about the safety of investing in new cryptocurrency projects. Satoshi Nakamoto did not raise money to make Bitcoin work. Therefore, this project was able to appear without the disclosure of the team of inventors. All the teams of current new projects first offer to invest money in their projects, and only then promise a profit from this. However, we know that there are a lot of scammers now and they all want to remain in the shadows so that no one knows about them and there are fewer clues to find them after the deception they have committed. Therefore, personally, I immediately associate with fraud information about all projects whose team members do not want to introduce themselves to their potential investors. In addition, cryptocurrencies are often created by people without any experience in this matter, and investors have the right to know how experienced the team they trust with their money is.

this inability of new projects to practice decentralization could be a disaster in the decentralized crypto industry in terms of violence and safety.
the CEO of terra Luna was a known individual and after the luna crash, a man who lose 2.4 million dollars got arrested for knocking on the CEO's door after his lost fund.

(rhetorical) my question is, what would the man have done with the CEO if not that he was arrested? maybe he would have been agresivly violent on the CEO. if decentralization means "nobody", then no name should be written on the paper as owner or CEO, that's how decentralization can be practice.

like Dr.Osh said, the movement of price of product is majorly base on need and want .

The goal of decentralization is that the project is not controlled by anyone, and also becomes anonymous, so that the movement of the price of the product is purely based on needs and wants. this greatly affects the principle of it, because with the knowledge of the team of the coin maker or the project, there will be big people, or investors who try to control them. however, the full power lies with the team.
it's just that, current conditions, such as demands from the government, and to maintain security, as well as the encouragement of investors to invest in projects whose team is clear, these things are enforced. it is also intended so that not many scammers take advantage of this technology. it's just that, even with such conditions and regulations, there are still a lot of scammers trying to suck assets from investors. however, crypto may have to adapt to world regulations in order to be accepted by the public.

It will not affect the decentralization of the entire crypto, with my reasons;

Point 1: Bitcoin stands as a symbol of hope and trust in the entire crypto industry. perhaps the founders of Bitcoin were just known as Satoshi nakamoto but real identity is not known till today, yet Bitcoin keeps pushing up. The only way the entire crypto industry would be affected is when Bitcoin is no longer Trading or the price dumps remarkably (maybe price dump to $10 or $100). Bitcoin holds the industry and only Bitcoin can pull it down.

Point 2: Every exchange list Bitcoin today without any application (LOL), what most of this current projects fails to understand is strategy!! (Strategy to win)

Point 3: In 2009 Bitcoin was $0, 2011 it managed to get up to $1.0 and so on. But today, an average investor can not buy up to 2 Bitcoin, again every exchange wants to list Bitcoin without application.

Team and project devs of this days are concerned with investment and quick growth of their project, that's why identity are not private again (they forget the true definition of decentralization).  The team behind Bitcoin did not fear anything, they were just concerned about the value they created which they wish will turn out a good virtue one day and it did. If current projects can adopt the strategy, it will be better. But definitely the decentralization of the entire crypto industry would not affected unless Bitcoin stops to shine light of gold..


These 👆👆👆 are my opinion sir, thanks.

Currently projects are no longer experimental. They depend on investments from VC companies, Headge fund and individual investors. They are coordinated by a foundation that has high costs.

These are not hacker projects. They are companies. With the amount of scams it is much more likely that investors are interested in projects where it is possible to know their maintainers and developers than projects conducted anonymously.

Bitcoin was revolutionary. And that's why today it doesn't matter who created it. A decentralized project has no owner.

I've noticed that most crypto projects have team members which are publicly known by the public. Projects like Ethereum, Cardano, Terra, and others have founders whose identities are known by everyone around the world. Wasn't Bitcoin designed by an unknown person (or group of persons) named Satoshi Nakamoto? If the pioneer cryptocurrency project has been widely successful without anyone knowing who the founder ever was, then why can't other projects do the same? I was surprised to see some centralized exchanges asking for the names of team members just to list a new coin. With ever increasing KYC/AML measures, I'm afraid the days where an unknown person launches a new crypto project are over.

What are your thoughts about this? Will this greatly affect the decentralization of the whole crypto/Blockchain industry? If not, why? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.