Well that is good if the team already KYCed and yes this can help to boost their confidence to investors but there is no guarantee that they will success their project, it may be fail or will turn scam in the end. There is a high risk investing in the new project so be careful do your own research.
KYC is not about the success of the project or not, but to see the authenticity of the project team members who hold the project or who will run the project later, so this has nothing to do with the success of a project.
Topic: Would You Prefer a KYCed Team? (Read 211 times)
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
Project teams who show themselves are not a reference for a project to be successful, but if they do, they want to directly tell that they are serious about running their project, because if something happens to the project (eg failure, etc.), the investors can make complaints to legal parties to process them.
I'm aware of some projects where the team exposed themselves and then the project failed, apart from that I also know the project whose team was anonymous but then the project went really well. What example? PancakeSwap, do you know the team behind Pancakeswap?
Having the team pass a KYC process is a step in the right direction. This is a concept or strategy that could boost the overall confidence of the investors. The primary issue why investors are sceptical about investing in new projects is because they sceptical about the intension of most developers who should not be trusted. It's even possible that the developers could also run away irrespective of whether their kyc is passed or not.
KYC'ed team will only give you a bit of trust and still this doesn't mean they are 100% reliable, I've seen projects with KYC'ed team members that still exit scam on their investors, anyone still remember bitconnect? In that era in time many projects with real team members still fled with investors money
Buddy, it is possible to get a bunch of KYC documents for $100 or even cheaper in the black market and you can't actually verify the credentials provided by the team is true or not so for me this doesn't add any score to their security of the investors funds.
Yes, this should be a new standard in protecting our rights as investors from a new project, it will certainly make us more comfortable in investing, although it is not a guarantee that they pass with a good predicate in their KYC, nor is it an absolute guarantee. that their project will bring profits to investors, but at least there is some hope of our trust in the company.
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
Yes KYC and doxxed team gives more confidence to investors, they can easily invest on the project and sleep at night but I still prefer getting KYCed through IDO platforms like DAO Maker and others because they have other strict rules that will protects investors even more
Regardless of your liking for something or Dao Maker or IDO, what is clear is that if KYC can be applied to all projects for teams in particular, it will be very good for anyone when every investor wants to get to know the project team more closely.
Yes KYC and doxxed team gives more confidence to investors, they can easily invest on the project and sleep at night but I still prefer getting KYCed through IDO platforms like DAO Maker and others because they have other strict rules that will protects investors even more
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
Yes! A million times yes. What is the benefit of having a team without KYC? This doesn't mean that I will not invest into any project that I do not know the team of, it just means that if you ask me which one I prefer, a team that is KYC'ed or a team that is not, then the question should answer itself. We are talking about something very clear here, doesn't have to be KYC'ed for me to put money into, but I rather if they did. Because with a team that we all know, I can search for who they are and where they are coming from and how they are planning to make money, without that in sight then I am just trusting my gut and hoping that they are legit people.
not really ! proof is that satoshi is unknown and although now his whereabouts are also unknown but bitcoin is successfully trusted by all of us in this industry ,but the KYCed team can help strengthen will be a better structure organizational
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
It is not something that determines the success or failure of the project but becomes an added value and increases the level of trust of the community or potential investors in the project. If I find two good projects, one anonymous dev team and the other KYC, maybe I will prefer KYC team.
A kyced team can give a certain level of trust even though it is not a guarantee to success which is not the sole aim of doing the kyc in the first place, it shows the team are ready and willing to do their best to gain investors trust and be at ease, if investors can be subjected to kyc, I don't see why teams shouldn't.
But I very often find the opposite, when the team hides their identities, and investors are required to pass verification. In such cases, you just need to skip such projects and direct your investments to where the team is more open. And if the team has been verified by a specialized service, this will increase the confidence in the project among investors.
Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
No. Like what you said, KYC does not guarantee a project is not a scam / success. This kind of thing is not really needed in assessing a new project. 
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
I start exploring the project from his twitter and those people who follow this project. Serious investors and well-known developers will not follow scam projects.
And then you need to study the initial investors of this project
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
I mean a lot of projects demand the investors to do a KYC in order to be able to invest into their project so it just makes sense that the Devs and Team members also do a KYC just to prove that they are not just using maked up names in their whitepaper and fake linkedIn accounts and stuff like that. To be honest i have not seen a project that is advertising with a team that has done KYC yet but it definitely would be a plus in my book if a see a team doing that. Then again you have to make sure that the KYC is done in a proper way with video calls and all of that and maybe even a proof of how the KYC has happened because there i also a lot of fraud going on with KYC's too.
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
so there are nothing to expect best on this.
A kyced team can give a certain level of trust even though it is not a guarantee to success which is not the sole aim of doing the kyc in the first place, it shows the team are ready and willing to do their best to gain investors trust and be at ease, if investors can be subjected to kyc, I don't see why teams shouldn't.
That's it, there might be others that will fall on this but me? nope I'll pass.
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
Yeah, I think it's with a 3rd party verifier. And I guess this is good instead of the team running anonymously and then going exit scam after they have manage to raise millions from investors.
And I think this has been practiced since 2018, but if I'm not mistaken there are still projects who still scam even if they have been KYC so I guess we are still not safe even if they exposed themselves to investors.
True, regardless if they are KYC'd or not, if the people behind are greedy and blinded by money, they are going to pull an exit scam.
There's a lot of those cases, and most of them are hiding and moving from places to places and using all the money they loot and enjoying life. But hopefully the law will catch up on those kind of people.
So still, we should be very careful on what project we are going to invest.
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
Yeah, I think it's with a 3rd party verifier. And I guess this is good instead of the team running anonymously and then going exit scam after they have manage to raise millions from investors.
And I think this has been practiced since 2018, but if I'm not mistaken there are still projects who still scam even if they have been KYC so I guess we are still not safe even if they exposed themselves to investors.
A kyced team can give a certain level of trust even though it is not a guarantee to success which is not the sole aim of doing the kyc in the first place, it shows the team are ready and willing to do their best to gain investors trust and be at ease, if investors can be subjected to kyc, I don't see why teams shouldn't.
KYC for the project team is actually only to make them want to be responsible and not immediately let go when the project has failed or when the project does not reach the sales limit they want, so in general it should actually be mandatory for those who want to be part of the team projects.
It depends on who is doing this team review and how it is done. One of the main prerequisites should be proper verification of the identity of the team members and their previous experience in cryptocurrency. At the same time, their personal documents should be checked for forgery and their copies should be taken, as well as certain measures should be taken to check the documents for their belonging to the person with the data indicated there. Doing this should dramatically increase the credibility of the team and their project.
There are lots of projects out there that failed even though they show everyone behind the project but it didn't work because they can't find some solid supporters especially on the funds to use for developing their project into reality or it seems like they are only good on their roadmaps but in reality, they don't have the necessary equipment or resources to claim what they can do. So even though they show themselves but their lack of talents causes them to fail because the outcome of their project is like what is shown in the picture.
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
A KYCed verified team is certainly going to help with minimizing the risk of investment. If you can see the background of the team and their prior experience in handling past projects, then you can see for yourself they are really worth the investment or if they can really pull off the plan that they are going to do. It also lessen the risk of being scammed or rugpulled.
From experience. In the spring, I invested in a coin, it was a pretty hefty amount of about $ 380k.
In the middle of summer it was already 38k, on July 13-15 they were hacked and it became 0.
Their CEO - Brandon conducted AMMA sessions and went live, talked with the stars about the creation of NTF.
It didn't help anything, as they say, Brandon kept the private keys in an email.
Simply put - the more self-promotion and colorful statements, the more likely it is to fail after some time.
I don't look at the team, but I look at their code, at the product. This is my personal opinion.
In the middle of summer it was already 38k, on July 13-15 they were hacked and it became 0.
Their CEO - Brandon conducted AMMA sessions and went live, talked with the stars about the creation of NTF.
It didn't help anything, as they say, Brandon kept the private keys in an email.
Simply put - the more self-promotion and colorful statements, the more likely it is to fail after some time.
I don't look at the team, but I look at their code, at the product. This is my personal opinion.
Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
As far as i know the KYC requirement will always be implemented by the 3rd party that will be running IDO or IEO for the project team. This should become the new standard in the crypto and then the 3rd party can give guarantee to the investors about the team and project that will be launched through IDO or something else. Remember that so many scam projects were always created by anonymous developers. once they will be revealing their identity and then investors can know easily about who has been running the project. Sometimes when it was getting a problem and investor can create a report against the team and regulators can help the investors easily to jail them all. This is an important step that must be considered to become the new standard by those launch pad platforms. 
As you said, it's not a guarantee but it strengthens trust with their investors.
One good example are NFT's being created now, their reasoning behind non-KYC/anonymous is to protect themselves from future attacks.
What attacks? No answer.
This kind of activity creates a wall for a possible big investor that would like to buy a big chunk of share with your project. Not that I am against anonymity but creating a business needs a face and a name. You are not a regular guy anymore that needs privacy because you are looking for people to trust your service and buy it.
One good example are NFT's being created now, their reasoning behind non-KYC/anonymous is to protect themselves from future attacks.
What attacks? No answer.
This kind of activity creates a wall for a possible big investor that would like to buy a big chunk of share with your project. Not that I am against anonymity but creating a business needs a face and a name. You are not a regular guy anymore that needs privacy because you are looking for people to trust your service and buy it.
A kyced team can give a certain level of trust even though it is not a guarantee to success which is not the sole aim of doing the kyc in the first place, it shows the team are ready and willing to do their best to gain investors trust and be at ease, if investors can be subjected to kyc, I don't see why teams shouldn't.
That still does not guarantee if the project is legit as we are living on the internet which they can easily change their identity to other people or use the other people identity to convince their target. You need to search for more info about the team and get closer to them if you want to invest in their project. But maybe that can be a new standard for the team projects to try to convince their potential investors so the investors are not doubting the teams.
There is one way for this to improvise. I think these so called crypto projects should be registered legally in the local jurisdiction just the way they register for shops, small businesses or large scale industries. I’m talking about the licenses which are issued by government. The first step for these project should be the same. It must have offices, proper team their and be registered with their authorities to prove their identity.
I think this is enough to identify any project as legal one. I mean imagine, no fake team, or scammers would dare to operate like this because they know if they scam they will be caught right away by local authorities and May get raided by the police and court as they will have offices too.
So yeah such team is must and would prefer above strategy too.
I think this is enough to identify any project as legal one. I mean imagine, no fake team, or scammers would dare to operate like this because they know if they scam they will be caught right away by local authorities and May get raided by the police and court as they will have offices too.
So yeah such team is must and would prefer above strategy too.
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
Recently, I am seeing some good altcoin projects that boast of having the project and the whole team passing some form of KYC. I am not, though, familiar how the whole team KYC is done but I guess this is in conjunction with a known third-party verifier. Of course, there is no guarantee that a project and team that got its own verifiable KYC will not never run away or fail as there are many variables to be considered but then again this can be helping in boosting confidence on the part of the investor. Should this be the new standard when looking for a new project to support?
Jump to: