Bitcoin Forum

I mean they're just covering themselves and playing it safe. I hate KYC as much as the next guy but it makes sense why they'd want to do it.

all probably know about ICO in which they asked to pass KYC in the end all passed, and they were told to pay extra for etherium

First, most of the bounty threads do not require KYC data.
Most people resist the need for a KYC bounty thread because it exposes privacy.

ICO with KYC is far away from the main purpose about why cryptocurrency being created
because there is no privacy anymore in cryptocurrency if KYC procedure will be implementated on every crypto project
just my personal opinion  ;)

Which makes sense why a lot of people dislike KYC so much. I wouldn't send someone a scanned picture of my ID either

Agree. Always ignore ICOs that ask for it.

Maybe if you trust them with your documents. This is unusual but if everything checks out, I'd consider it. Such ICOs are really rare though

I consider KYC positively a good protection for investors and I am not boycotting.  Anonimity is always the game of crypto and there are people who are taking advantage of it.  KYC protects crypto from being used for money laundering and illegal deeds.

I would never participae in an ICO or bounty that requires know your customer to do anything. I do not wish to expose sensitive information of mine to people that are not trusted and then having my information sold and then used by hackers to carry out illegal activities. Don't do it people, this is not right and they should find a way to curb this because they are getting more and more everyday.

Anonymity is not beneficial for the state. They will fight it. Therefore, more and more ICO will require KYC. After all, this is necessary for our security  ;D
For the bounty this is a good way (the most effective at the moment) to deal with multi accounts.

But,

Be careful, when providing your personal information. There is always a probability different from zero that tomorrow you will take a loan in a bank of some country or you will be involved in money laundering and so on.

At a minimum, check to whom you transfer your personal data, the name of the company, which have registered the company, to whom, and so on. There are ICOs, where there is not a word about it, but they are demanding KYC. Such projects should be treated with double attention.

I joined crypto community and I never agreed on KYC. I won't invest in any project which will enforce KYC but it seems that more and more projects are doing KYC and I think in future all projects will ask investors for identification.
Whole crypto is going into different direction.

The fact is that right now 90+% of legitimate ICOs are requiring KYC. Especially the ones that stands out from the crowd and where the most ROI can be made. So in boycotting these you basically loose most of the opportunity to make big gains (ofc if that is your purpose in the crypto space).

I don't like KYC requirements but as one said they try to play safe. Maybe they become more reputable project too by doing KYC.

The entire KYC aspect goes against what Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency market stands for which is anonymity. My primary reason for investing into this market was because I was able to conduct financial transactions online without any outside interference by banks etc. KYC goes against this entire logic which is why I don't support and never will. If you are willing to participate in such campaigns, do your research since your personal details are at stake here.

The legit ICO can't do anything about KYC because it was required by the regulation for the protection of both the ICO owners and the investors to ensure Crypto currencies investments will not be a scam and it will not be in used money laundering. If the regulation will not required ICO to facilitate KYC then the ICO will very happy to oblige because KYC reduce the numbers of investors but i support KYC because as long as ICO is legit and we have nothing to hide then this requirement will be peace of cake for me.

I think these KYC are just there requirements, the government is the one we should be blaming. If not because of their regulations, we wont be seeing these kind of authentications with our accounts.

Very interesting!

The KYC policy has its own good reason for implementing such rule. Besides, if it was announced earlier then investors nor bounty campaign participants have nothing to complain about. Also, complying to such rule is our own decision. The responsibility and the blame must not be shouldered by the team behind it entirely, maybe just 70%? Because 30% of it is the person himself deciding to risk his personal info despite of knowing that anything human-made is not completely secure.

It is very difficult to find ICOs that are not asking for KYC, this is the effect of having the US SEC invading the world with their own crap and threatining citizens all over the world.

Even if it is part of a regulation compliance, it is still scary to take part in an ICO with KYC because it is really risky to disclose your personal information especially if you are a big investor because your security is at risk. Cryptocurrency was created for anyone to be part of a big project at the same time being anonymous.

But crytpo is suppose to be anonymous though???

I am not saying all icos that demand KYC should be boycott but KYC aspect goes against what Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency market stands for which is anonymity. Investing in this market gives you the opportunity to conduct financial transactions online without any outside interference by banks etc. KYC goes against this entire logic which is why I don't support.

Yeah, I don't really feel comfortable giving out my private info to god knows who, but if ICOs are to become a mainstream investment tool, there will be no way around KYC anyways. I'd like information security to be something of primary interest to regulators. Abuses or hacks could potentially do a lot of damage to serial investors. At least one of the projects we invest is bound to cause private information leak.

That is true there is pros and cons to the KYC, as you have mentioned one of its pros is that it will add security to the potential users of the platform of the ICO. also it would be easy tracking to every transactions that you will make which will also serve a security to fraud. However its cons is that if its the information that you provide can also be used against you or can be used to be used for fraud that is why we should tread carefully in joining an ICO and we should investigate it first before joining.

I completely understand and agree with the inconvenience/distrust of any KYC procedures.  Unfortunately, depending on the country, you are required to perform KYC-AML procedures unless you wish to face stiff penalties such as fines/imprisonment.  

As mentioned in the article, companies can choose to incorporate themselves outside of their own jurisdiction to circumvent such restrictions but then how can you trust them as well with your btc/eth?  What if your company is already established and wishes to continue to use their own trademarks/branding?

For us, being a company incorporated in the USA, we are required to conduct KYC/AML to prevent money laundering and terrorist activity as listed on the http://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/

If privacy is a huge concern and you don't trust in the company/team behind an ICO, I suggest staying away from them and sticking to Zcash/monero transactions.  If not, do your due diligence because you can easily give away your personal info to the wrong people.

I'm not sure anonymous can be matched with assets. The majority of those investors are investing in the ico try to take all of the things at their own risk.

Remember there is some news are discussing the possibility of anonymous coin still exists in the centralized crypto exchange site. It looks possible the anonymous to be erased through regulation.

They may be free to make rules, but sometimes KYC notifications are announced when going to the distribution of tokens, no prior notices. It's feared that our personal data is not maintained and abused.

I agree it is being forced in many icos now but they have a justification, according to them kyc of each investor is required to be compliant with the regulators and the govt authorities otherwise they can block the project, so i think investors do not have any other option and they send their identity documents.

I agree to boycott the ICOs who demanded the KYC. It is our personal identity and it should not be given to anyone. Because it can be used for illegal activities. We do not know that we are one of those who are looking for foreign affairs.

same here, I hate kyc, we're not even an investor to require kyc, so why should we have to do kyc? we are bounty hunters that must stay anonymously since we're here in crypto world.

I think, actually KYC is very important in a company, very useful for the development or support for the company, I think we must give, this answer, I reply in the context of bounty hunter crypto, they give us tokens, and we only promote, they only want their prises or tokens to be recognized by the world, and they give us a working wage with their tokens, so what matters when they ask KYC from us, I think we belong to the category of the ungrateful man for the crypto company , where we look for sustenance in bounty hunter crypto. That is all and thank you.

In a bounty campaign yes, I also dislike having kyc in it. But when it comes to investing, it is better to have kyc and serve it as a guarantee that the ICO is legit and having a good reputation toward their project.

I completely agree with you. I do not understand that when we participate in the Bounty of the company, what kind of money laundering and terrorism can there be? The meaning of the anonymity of the crypto currency is lost. Another thing, when there is a conversation about investing here, yes, there is an investment of large sums of money. Investors need guarantees. Well, recently, state structures have decided to take everything into their tenacious hands, so KYC is inevitable, and whether or not to participate in companies with all the consequences is everyone's business.

This is a very good article and I fully agree with it. That's why I'm glad when I see ICOs witch do not want these mildly "st**id" things.  :) :)

What a great offer for 1,000,000 CPC.

for its cons because KYC usually requires Passport while in Indonesia not everyone has the same passport is still under age (because ICOS players are free all ages old and young), well from there is why KYC must be in BOYCOTT from ICOS.
the pro is that it will add security to prospective users of the ICO platform. it will also be easy to track every transaction you are about to perform which will also serve security for fraud. However, the disadvantage is that if the information you provide can also be used against you or can be used for fraud, that is why we must be careful in joining ICO and we should investigate it before joining.

Most countries in the world do not like anonymous people. They need KYC to understand your identity information. They want to control you. For any person who yearns for freedom, this kind of control is unacceptable.

I will never give my Kyc files for this ICO that are reqesting from me Kyc files , because they can sell in the dark amrkets for illegal activité

I also don't like KYC cause I don't wanna put my identity in risk. There are a lot of ICO projects require KYC for their investors and how if you guys invest in a scam ICO require KYC? I can ensure that you identity will be sold on the dark market very soon right after you finishing your KYC.

What are the alternative to the KYC? I learnt of some other medium of investment through an organization but don't have enough details on this medium

I agree with you. KYC is contradicts main principles of cryptoworld. This is the influence old of traditions from of banks system.

Actually I`m doing bounty for a quite long time, and I have not passed even one KYC in bounty, if I face KYC, I just go away.

KYCs are generally boring to me. I feel sad when my KYC gets rejected when it has been accepted by another before. But sometimes you have to understand that they equally need these processes to handle other legal issues somewhere.

Yeah, those damn banks KYC have already made you bored. Now the cryptocurrency is starting to look like this. I really don't know what else can protect our KYC.

I don't think most ICOs demand it's investors to go through KYC, and although there are several reasons to boycott these ICOs, as stated in the article, I don't think that we should see this as black or white. In the end I think it will all depend on the ICO. I agree with our right to privacy, but that doesn't necessarily need to be broken through KYC. For instance, banks need to collect all your information so you can open an account, but you don't really lose your privacy because even governments need a very good reason to get access to that data. So basically I believe that if the ICO is good, your data will still be safe, because they can't just ask for it without good reason. At the same time, ICO teams protect themselves from criminal activities. Of course that if the ICO is a scam you will probably get your information sold or something like that, so it's always a risk.

We should ask ourselves, why we are enter the cryptocurrency in first place? for me main reason is cons of centralized system. so when some projects on cryptocurrency switch to centralized system then those not a cryptocurrency  project anymore. for who agreed to insertion KYC in cryptocurrency for money laundering. there are hug money laundering every moment in centralized system.

i really agree because blockchain & bitcoin comes with idea of desentralisation, unfortunatly many ICO's wanted people to fill KYC proccess but the problem is near to 70 % of ICO's oblige their contributer to fill KYC proccess

I also avoid ICOs with KYC because it will expose my identity, crypto currencies created to be used in anonymous transaction online and this KYC is against that rule in crypto.

I am having some second thoughts too when it comes to KYC but if I really wanted to participate in an ICO then I would just send my verification documents as I don't want to miss the opportunity. Since some ICOs are regulated in the country they are launch, the SEC requires them to have KYC to their investors and even some bounty participants and it makes me believe that they are legit because they follow the regulation. I am still afraid that my documents would be used for illegal purposes so if I am doubtful of an ICO then I would just wait for the coin to be listed in the exchange for me to buy it without the need of KYC.

Sooner or later, we wouldn't have any choice anymore but to follow the rules which is to provide the verification documents for us to continue earning from cryptocurrencies. We are heading towards mass adoption which would need regulation so that the scams would be lessen. I don't care if the government monitor the movements of our funds and I am willing to pay such taxes.

They are just protecting themselves from legal liability. We all know how much uncle sam loves his money

I don't think that boycott is the right word, but I wouldn't participate in any ICOs that ask me excessive amounts of KYC questions, unless I believe the opportunity is too good to pass up (very rare, imho).

But almost all ICOs these days are under heavy regulation, and that's out of their reach.

I'm definitely against the excessive collection of information for a simple crypto investment, but this is literally what most to all regulated ICOs are doing right now. Nothing we can do about it, other than not participating.

My main concern with these KYC compliant ICO's is that...what's stopping said company from "leaking" or "selling" your information to the highest bidder? Even Email addresses of known crypto investors are worth quite a lot of money to the right people. IMHO it's a broken solution to a problem that didn't really exist. Just my 2 satoshi :)

If you see KYC is required for some ICOs, you can skip it. The bad thing is that some ICOs owners decide to have KYC at the end of ICO. Such projects should be boycotted.

I agree the main concept of Ico supposed to be anonymous, that is why I never want to join any ICO that required any kyc documents, and because in ICO we only based on trust without any legality I afraid they will misused the documents for themselves

I believe that the KYC is not a bad procedure, it is certainly legitimate and contradicts the concept of decentralization of the blockchain, but if we consider tokens and coins as assets of the campaign and projects that produce them, then this procedure allows campaigns to protect themselves before the inspection bodies.

Very enjoyable & Very interesting!

Regulation requirements in many jurisdictions will require KYC more and more. Governments are trying to protect their citizens from taking parts in projects for money laundering or any other illegal activities. In my opinion with time we will see more and more regulation in the field and more requirements from ICOs, including KYC. So I don't think that we need completely avoid such ICOs, but maybe to check deeper why they needed to integrate KYC procedure in the ICO in their particular case. Maybe this is already the requirement of their jurisdiction and they simply comply with the regulation.

KYC is against of what blockchain technology is intended to. I do not support project that requires KYC since it is risky to provide our real identity to strangers because we don't know what they will do of our personal details. If you are joining airdrop for example and after you received the token you sell it. Then, your name still on their database even you do not have the specific token with you.

With time when most of countries will regulate ICO es all will become with KYC its true that is why secure coins like Monero,Onion will be useable too but its normal market grows and in future we will have  many types of tokens and coins.

It reminds me the situation of that saying. "Mice cried, pricked, but continued to eat cactus."
Pass of the KYC, in my opinion, is complete nonsense. However, the current realities are such that it has become common today. Every project wants your documents. Previously, it was very rare and only in projects of the high level of prospects. Now even shit projects want your documents with a cat, family, home, a blood type, etc ...

They certainly are going to regulate all ICO's but they can't regulate scammers who are using fake dokuments to run their shitty scam projects.
How can you say which project is run by scammers and which is regulated and legit?
How will you investors decide to whom to give IDs and to whom not?

There should be third party involved in whole KYC process, private info's shouldn't be given directly to team members.

KYC is for banks and their regulated currencies. Decentralized crypto projects doesn't need any KYC-scammers. KYC seems dangerous.

in fact it is illegal, misuse of identity can cause someone to get into trouble later on, the side effects of this KYC may not be directly felt, but we also do not know for sure if the ICO followed can be trusted when getting our identity, of course not easy as that

i think that we don't have to boycott icos with KYC.
I know that privacy is important, and it's not ok for me for example when they ask for cell number, but if crypto wants to be taken seriously, crypto need KYC

Many of ICO's owners are scared of persecution by the government institutes especially from another countries. And I think it would be more efficient to create list of KYC-free ICOs and let users decide what do they want.

I agree with you, because one of the main missions cryptocurrency this anonymity, and now they want to pick it up and get our documents for obscure actions.

KYC totally opposite to the crypto world, plus they can hacked and our identities can leak .. maybe some bad guys will use our infos for further actions who knows ..

I am all up to boycotting these ICOs. I am actually doing it already, because I don't participate in any ICO that is collecting data using KYC.

They are selling the information to people that want to make more cash. Not all the people that ask for a KYC is doing that though, you just have to stay from those projects and invest in something new.

I don't know why crypto community do not have a power to resit this kind of requirements when participating in an ICO and also the other bounty hunters are participating such projects. The fact that the project is asking your private information that is already a violation to the very purpose of why cryptocurrency is invented.


Atleast if it is on the government protection you are still have peace but if it will use for evil purposes that is a dilemma.

I say a big no to KYC, because it makes the bearer vulnerable. Personal information is of utmost importance. Care needs to be taken, so as not to fall victim. Your details sometimes can be used against you or for any criminal purpose.

I really don't want KYC in the first place it's not reliable at all. Cryptocurrency needs to be autonomous or make it as decentralize coz it may harm our identity or even easily access on our wallets.

Seriously, for mass adoption of crypto to take place, there will be rules and regulations brought in to provide base-levels of protection for the users.  KYC will happen.

As a simple comparison... When cars were first invented, you didn't need a driver's licence, and that worked fine until cars became commonplace (mass-adopted).  Same will go for crypto.

Yes that's why i don't give my information online and my real email address. If i joined campaign that requires KYC i get my sisters i.d and sign her up on the whitelist and after ico i give her a bonus. I am not convince of this KYC thing seriously.

What a great offer for 1,000,000 CPC.

It’ll be very interesting to read all comments here :) I don’t know what community think about this but for me, i just don’t like when they said Kyc is required. Probably there is nothing we can do about that.

ICOs that demand kyc most times do so to work in accordance with certain regulations in their host countries and also not to violate some international money laundering laws that are operational in their host countries but that in most cases causes hindrances to investors who want to remain anonymous in the blockchain technology and most cases are not too good. thanks

I always avoid ICOs that demand KYC. I think they don't need KYC, so why they are demanding it. The cryptocurrency is famous for its anonymity, so if you connect it to a specific person then all the benefits of cryptocurrencies are gone.

At the end of the day, KYC verification is for the better. It will reduce the threat of criminals participating in icos and lead to a better crypto community as a whole

I am also not in favor of ICO that demand kyc to the bounty hunters since they will already know your true identity and who knows that someday it will leak information of the person giving their identities and will be use in illegal activity like scamming or hacking of the person's account. Anonymity will never serve it's purpose in the crypto currency community.

I will never ever invest in an ICO that makes KYC mandatory. The article explains well all the risks of taking part of the KYC process.
IMO the main risk is a leak of personal data. What happens if the ICO turns into a scam or if the team doesn't secure the data properly?

that's exactly how it looks like. i do not want to give my data to any people i do not know. no one can say what's really going on with the data. therefore, i also renounce icos, that kyc demands.

I don't think KYC is necessary.
Because KYC authentication violated the principle of cryptographic money market anonymity, I did not agree that the bounty thread should be KYC.

Unfortunately I see it as a necessary evil as cryptocurrencies make their way into the mainstream.

Why do you have to boycott such ICOs? For me, I don't boycott ICOs simply because they are asking for KYC. I invest in ICOs because my personal assessment and the reviews I read about their project are saying that they are going to become successful. The KYC will follow much later. If I found out that the ICO I want to invest asks for KYC then I will just comply rather than totally forgetting the prospective gain that I will have from such ICO investment.

For me the main reason I wouldn't participate in an ICO that requires KYC (never say never though), is because since there is no guarantee the ICO will be successful or even meet its softcap, why should I share my info with a project that might not even launch? Why should they make more money for selling my data? ... Please note I always research every project I invest in, in depth, but wanting it or not, luck also plays a factor in the success of the project.

I personally don't like the KYC requirement but i think this trend is hard to stop. Almost every ICOs nowadays requires KYC in order to compliant with SEC regulations. Crypterium was the last ICO i invested in that didn't requires KYC.

I find it disgusting that an open based platform like ethereum holds so many bankster minded operators of ICO on it's platform demanding kyc for community that it's value is in opposite of KYC! We can not let this continue because we are for freedom not bondage!

LOL, how come you can trust strange people to protect investors personal data?
Even big company like Facebook can leak your data. The crypto world is very so wild, so do not believe in any stranger people easily. I do not think it should be boycotted. A few months ahead I think everyone will be more aware of the importance of personal data. The more people fear of spreading personal data, the ICOs that use KYC will not have big participants.

Are you serious? I hope you know what you are talking about. What if that ICO really is promising and composing of well known and big time team members? What if that ICO already built strong partnership before they will be released in the market? They demand KYC because they have to comply with the rules and regulations set in cryptocurrency to avoid Anti Money Laundering just like what other trading platform does.

KYC for ICO is a complete nonsense, since most of them accept crypto only.
I strongly believe that KYC should be performed only when fiat money is exchanged with crypto.

i think the KYC system is good. this is a transparancy to make sure that the investors and any related to the ICO get their token. and the token that they use is not for a criminal thing. this KYC is already used in the conventional bank long time ago, so for now this is just kind of a collaboration between an ICO and old idea. maybe until we find a good alternatives and solutions about this case.

Will definitely use it!

Because that is the only way to change things. If the majority of ICO investors would boycott ICOs that require KYC, then ICOs would soon notice this and stop demanding KYC.

And the problem would be solved.

if developers not use KYC for ICO investor with huge value, how to avoid people, who use cryptocurrencies for money laundry (example) with join ICO?

I think, we can't blame developer watching investor with KYC, because real dev project will safe investor document and will never sell their investor data.

Last, research before join ICO is the key, if you think not safe to join ICO with KYC, skip it.

It is a gray area with a lot of good arguments from both sides.  Personally I do not care for KYC procedures and it kind of defeats the purpose of anonymity in this technological space.  The person or group that can satisfy both requirements without opening up a purchaser to full disclosure will get my money for future investments.

I don't know how it started but recently a lot of ico have implemented kyc. For me I have a mixed feelings about this, yes kyc is a good way to know each other in the ico but some like to keep their privacy for safety purposes. I think kyc should be voluntary and not mandatory, its up to the member if he wanna share his private info and they respect others who choose not to share their private info as well.

i think that we don't have to boycott icos with KYC.
I know that privacy is important, and it's not ok for me for example when they ask for cell number, but if crypto wants to be taken seriously, crypto need KYC :)

personally, I wouldn't participate in an ICO or a bounty that requires knowing your client to do anything. I don't want to disclose my confidential information to people who are not trusted and then my information is sold and then used by hackers to carry out illegal activities.

I know all this risk, that is why I'm not participating in this kind ICO, even if they are profitable, there's a lot of risks involve giving your information that making a profit from this ICO, anyway there are a lot of ico that do not ask any kind of KYC.

It is becoming a concern for me, when they are asking for bank document in the name of KYC, another thing that is of concern now is that it seems they are giving the email and document to other projects, because the number of newsletter I recieved from projects I never subscribe to is on increase, the must be getting these information from somewhere

I agree that if you are a serial investor in ICOs, having to send your personal information en masse is a risky business. Especially with all the scammy ICOs.
However, whether to boycott these ICOs or not is a personal decision, that involves some missed profits. I passed on some solely because of the KYC. But did another ones that were too lucrative to pass.

I don't see any problems here, why do you need to boycott these icos? kyc ok why not, the are under local law, you should respect them

Basically, all projects announce the KYC procedure before the ICO. If you are not satisfied with it, just do not participate in these projects. I don't like this procedure either, but for the sake of a good project, I allow its passage.

I think they will choose what the best for their ICO but sometimes they ask some weird documents like some bank papers billings but based on my experience some ICO that requires KYC is assuring that their customers are safe and their identity and holdings are safe but some of the SHITICOs uses KYC as an excuse to minimize and remove some of the participants on the Bounty campaign so they will pay less you know and sometimes they announce it after the ICO end so that's disappointing.

Very informative!

Crypto world is all about freedom. KYC takes that freedom away. By complying with KYC and AML you do not deserve to be called an ICO.

Why to comply with SEC regulations if you are not from USA? Why not rather comply with regulations of Morocco or Ecuador where Bitcoin is completely illegal?

I would be very careful with KYC as they require sensitive data.
Some projects fail or does not start at all and my question is where all these provided data lending ?
I can understand the purpose of KYC but I think that it is against privacy policy as they should prove first how they will store all these data  according to  GDRP ( General Data Protection Regulation )
Even some airdrops started asking for KYC as well. 
Giving out 3$ and asking for KYC procedure, that is really nonsense.

I agree with you. Carrying out the procedure of the KYC deprives the original idea of anonymity for the sake of which the crypto-currency was created. If everyone starts to pass the KYC, then soon the crypto currency will cease to be anonymous and decentralized.

KYC is the reason why Bitcoin was invented. To fight the banking mafia. ICOs that require KYC are betraying the whole ICO industry. Shame on them!

Anonymity is not durable epitomizing the circumstance. They faculty argument it. Therefore, extra and extra ICO faculty compel KYC.

Whether KYC should be boycotted it all depends on the person I guess. ICO is a product and a product has features and this product is launched on the market, and it is up to the buyer whether he/she wants to buy that certain product/coin. But in general I do not like KYC, but if it is a must oh well.