Bitcoin Forum

Hi, everybody. With the development of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology,not only good ideas and projects began to develop,but also those who want to get a lot of money on the HYIP,  use new technologies for their personal purposes. Projects began to carry out the KYC procedure for investors, airdrops, bounties to protect their projects from prosecution by the authorities, to improve security, to know their investors in person. But maybe we can use the KYC procedure not only for buyers but also for sellers. If we introduce such a procedure for new projects, it will increase the level of investor confidence, as well as deter many fake projects from collecting our funds, protect our crypto assets from fraud. This procedure can be entered in this forum to host projects or in special platform. The project developer will have to provide his personal and contact details.
Do you think this is a good or bad idea? Express your opinion.

KYC project both safety and breach of privacy. In the decentralized world of cryptocurrency, it is hard to imagine KYC to intervene.

KYC sounds great but that means no more privacy. Which defeats the purpose of decentralization.

I don't support KYC in ICO. It doesn't matter how little the informations are, I don't want to share with them. It's like fiat banks and government all over again.

I agree with you and it seems to me that this is a very good idea that will bring confidence in the project team to the ISO process. What is happening now in most iso projects is a scam. Investors do not know anything about the team, only their photos on the main page or the pages on social networks that may be fake.
But I also do not understand those investors who give their money to such and projects.

Sharing an information is always a failure to the privacy. Although it sounds great, I don't support the idea.

KYC is not good idea for crypto users. KYC should send ID card copy, in fact cryptocurency principles is protecting ID, so what is for KYC for cryptocurrency. I think later time ICO should be free from KYC. Becaue more people will send data to a central server. It is very fragile to get hacked.

ICOs don't need KYC but SEC requires this to do because of AML. We don't have the choice and must do KYC to invest in many good ICO. ICOs without KYC will not be listed on big exchanges.

If KYC for investors I think it's a good idea. If KYC for investors I think it's a bad idea. Maybe why projects require KYC for investors may be a simple reason. Because there are some countries that don't have crypto, for example. Therefore investors are seen first if they want to invest.

KYC is meant for investors, the team just want to make their place much safe.
Know Your Customer is designed for those people who want to join the ICO but in Restricted countries.
But i am pretty sure that there are some who cheat the KYC application.

Even though is a way of building confidence for investor,I don't really support KYC.Giving out information that are vita to site all in the name of KYC,is not the best to me.

Very good, governments still should have a control about investments and if there is banned crypto in some country, that should be controlled and KYC is good way how to watch it. But still personal data must be stored very safe in that way.

There are always positive and negative opinion in the one thing. Right now we are talking about KYC For Some ICO, as some people said above, KYC Is a good solution because it certainly avoids fraud or obeys the laws that exits on the country where the investor lives, but it makes it "Centralized" isn't it? Just my opinion

I think this is quite a good idea, because thanks to this, owners of multi-acaunts and bots are left.

There's seems to be various reasons for the ICO issuer asking for a KYC of their investors.
The most prominent of them being able to provide info when asked on by authorities.
Crypto is a good place for money laundering and suspicious investment without source of income would get the issuers in trouble.

Is this obtained as a KYC mutual check? Very interesting, but only for investors. Participants of the ICO generosity campaign should not be tested by KYC at all, since they are not investors, and the main purpose of KYC testing is to prevent the laundering of dirty money and other illegal actions with non-cash money. If you look at the relationship between the ICO team and bounty hunters, then the client is the ICO team, since it pays for the services rendered to them in advertising their ICO project. On this basis, the ICO team must pass the KYC test.

I can't imagine how fair is it when projects ask for KYC procedure from investors and bounty hunters but keep themselves private sometimes. Or don't provide some important papers for community :-\ I understand KYC only if I am sure that my documents wont get to the wrong hands, but such situation with huge amount of scam ICOs and many hacker's attacks makes us think is it worth it.
P.S.: by the way, I consider all hands wrong except mine ;D

I would support this kind of idea that not only buyers would require KYC but also on the seller/developer's side, they will also provide their KYC. Maybe you are right that this could increase the confidence of the buyer and also could mean that the project's success rating could go high as people will now know that the project they are participating is a legit one.

If the ICO project in which I invest will require to pass the KYC, then I will do it, since I chose this particular project. Providing your data to airdrop and bounty companies is complete nonsense. Okay, I'm ready to take the KYC with the bounty companies, but airdrop???

I really think this is for the protection of the participants, investors And even members of the ICO, this may certainly affect the certain views for a decentralized and anonymous feature given in cryptocurrency I really think the safety for each and everyone who take part in it was the priority after all, I really think this will ensure its purpose, Even though a lot of participants are against this it is the only way in trusting certain ICO for investors to rely their money with.

I think that kyc is not really very important to sign up for any project in cryptocurrency, Because you can't defend your identity because there are so mamy identy thefts going on and some people may sell your KYC information for money. In my view, KYC can't play any role for making your investments in ICO projects worth taking the risk of losing your identity. Cryptocurrency was introduced so that people can stay unanimous but this KYC procedure makes it look like not so much of what Satoshi dreamt of cryptocurrency.

Kyc is good but for investors alone, so that they can know those that bought their coins (investors). But I don't buy the idea of doing kyc for bounty hunters.

For me kyc is a bad idea, it tainted the purpose of crypto currencies that prmoise anonymity feature, and I dont feel secure to submit my data over to unknown site, many people against the kyc procedure and some used the fake id, the one that need kyc actually the developers and the teams, it can prevent scam project

I think identity verification is bad for us all. After all, we do not get $ 10,000-100.000$

This is certainly a good thing. with the KYC report distribution certainly makes clear her arena has customer data. Perhaps many who fear their data to be misused and I also like that. but at least as long as it is good and worth to ICO followed then take a risk is also not a big problem.

I think it's good because the purpose of kyc is to avoid money laundering and fraud and kyc is very necessary for investors because to be an investor data is needed

I think it is not a good idea, many people do not want to show their documents, because very often you can find them at the black market after ICO )).

In most of the cases bounty hunters don't like KYC, because they have many multiple accounts in bounty campaigns, but I do not see any problem to buy this documents ).

The reason why those have potential projects will undergo KYC on their investors as they wanted to get listed on big exchanges. Seems that the team had no choice but to process KYC if they are targeting to get listed in binance or on those top exchanges.

For me it is good to have a KYC in the ICO because they knows of which investor invest in the ICO. And can avoid to those people are trying to invest even if they are not invested. Even in the bounty campaign making a KYC was better for me because the are have some participant wants to steal or copy some link of the bitcointalk account.

Most of you think and talk about KYC for investors, for bounties, for airdrops, but I offer KYC for ICO, for all CEO and founders of projects we follow. Tthis will increase our level of confidence to the projects.
Now many projects require to pass the procedure of KYC from their participants, but we can also introduce the passage of this procedure for the founders of the projects. If the team wants to enter the market with its own token and a new project,then let the KYC go like everyone else. Yeah, that sounds like control. But even in a decentralized world, we can make a platform  that will be independent of the state.

I think the best idea of kyc is for a team. I hope in the nearest future every team will have a profile on the regulator database and the data will be available for all. Name, photo country of living at least.

well. it is ridiculous to demand private personal data from investors. i risk enough to investing money on icos, why would i risk being leaked of my personal datas. they can sell my personal information to other people easily.

Maybe, one of us can create a decentralized system or platform for passing KYC, and when new ICO starts first of all the ICO team have to pass KYC on that platform before selling they tokens. All project CEO have to pass KYC before sale starts. This proccess will show us the high level of project , it will show us that the project team is not hiding and can be responsible for their actions.

For me kyc is good for ico. Cause it is very need to cought scammer and verifying real investors. By this we can invest very safely.

Kyc for utility tokens? this is complete nonsense. I still understand for security tokens, but now I’ll give my data to some scammers ...

The community is divided on these issues if only this technology is not decentralized everything will be regulated if there is a KYC it defeats the main purpose of cryptocurrency but in the end, there should be a point where we all meet halfway to protect this technology.

if all projects were decent and did not use your data - then yes it would be the right decision, but since many projects turn out to be fraudulent, then unfortunately there is nothing good in this because you transfer your data to the scammers

In my opinion, KYC is a good idea that is applied to an ICO to avoid fraud and our identity problems. it might be safe to be safe because for now there has been no negative news about charging KYC related to our identity.

KYC is bad. I can not tolerate bounty that require KYC. Moreover, those who are just at the end of the company are starting to talk about KYC.

I think KYC can identify real cryptocurrency investors and filter out countries that have restrictions on ICO projects. However, there are also some bad places, and the privacy information of investors may be exposed. The most important point is that KYC's ICO project has higher real reliability.

As everything it has 2 sides one good and bad good is ,its against scam and would help save investors but bad is ,its against cryptos main idea, hide users presonal info.

i think the core values of the cryptocurrenct is anonimousity.
with KYC it violates it.
that is why its really against the value.
though with fast transaction and secure transaction of crypto
it thinks KYC isnt that necessary for such projects.
privacy is one of our inherent rights. and i think for just a handful of coins were selling our privacy.
in which we woudlnt know for sure where they will use our information

I think it's bad for the reason that people who are passionate about cryptocurrencies came here not because they wanted to but because they wanted a little more anonymity and thus KYC all anonymity comes to naught

The KYC process today is only useful for project developers, who will then report to the SEC to show that they raised money from people who clearly do not belong to the citizens of USA. This is the main idea, but they are not stupid people either.

KYC is a great tool for an ICO. It will help to protect investors and the project from different scammers and cheaters. But KYC does not guarantee, that the ICO will be successful. Another disadvantage, is that if the project goes scam, our data will get lost.

IMO,  KYC is a good idea mainly because it is done for the project's improvement and development. However, what I do not understand is that they are requiring KYC for airdrops. I think that is not a good idea in that part

as long as it is needed, I don't think it's a bad thing. but in my opinion it is not only investors who have to do KYC verification but the bounty hunters also have to do it. because with KYC verification it can reduce multi-account problems and other fraud.

ok, based on your opinions and ideas ,I will try to draw a table to graphically more clearly reflect the situation with the KYC:

                                                                 good idea       bad idea               reason

KYC for ICO founders (CEO, token sellers)           +                    -                  responsibility, trust, not scam
KYC for bounty hunters                                       -                     +                not a bot, to eliminate multiaccounts, to exclude the participation of the citizens of USA
                                                                                                                 and other cryptoclosed countries
KYC for investors (token buyers)                          +                     -                to exclude the participation of the citizens of USA and other cryptoclosed countries
KYC for exchanges  (traders)                               +                      -               tax payments


Like most forum members I see no point in passing the KYC to the bounty hunters, in other cases this procedure makes sense.

At present, on average, each ICO project carries out KYC for both investors and bounty hunters. this is because there are many factors, especially in legal matters.
and for campaigners it is to prevent farmers from using multiple accounts. yes that's why KYC is always involved

Actually it's good due to many people double their account for joining ICO which has a limit buy.
So, KYC is pretty good for buying an ICO or doing bounty for the project

On the one hand, it is a great idea because the KYC process, helps to protect the ICOs from different scammers. But on the other hand, when an ICO do not collect their funds, they are usually not doing anything. In these moments I am pretty scary about the safety of my personal information.

if KYC for ico in my opinion it is very beneficial because by verifying the requested data can maintain the assets that we have invested so that when there is a problem we can provide our data according to our first come

KYC is against decentralization which also means it is aginst the crypto currencies but still the new crypto projects needs KYC verification before or after investing it maybe good to stop the people from investing on ICO projects where the ICO investment is banned but the bad side is our personal information can be exposed to the world.

In term of verification that is a good move to make, but in term of private data security, that can be a problem, cause when the site is com promized by a hacker then the data from any of the investors that already done the KYC would be in danger.

Your proposal has some safety issues for founders. When they provide KYC for investors the information they gained is not publicly available. And you propose to get founder's ID scan and security number available for anyone? Nobody will agree with this.

I think KYC certification is good for ICO projects, so you can avoid citizen participation in restricted countries.

I really support your idea, I think if kyc procedures is also required for the team and developers of an ico, the rate at which these scam ICOs disappear with investor's fund will be reduced to the bearest minimum and also boost investor's confidence in the project which will also enhance its success.

cryptocurrency market theme was anonymity but with KYC, that purpose quashed. I am in favor of it as the purpose to get it is to know the real credentials of investors.

I believe that KYC testing plays a more negative role in ICO than a positive one. When buying new tons in ICO, investors actually exchange Bitcoin, etbereum, less often another cryptocurrency for these new tokens. If a person already has a cryptocurrency, why again demand confidential data from him? . What kind of cryptocurrency, if at every step we report not only their data, then send copies of their documents? And who, in projects that are 80 percent fraudulent.
However, the paradox is that such a check is demanded from the participants of the campaign by the generosity of the ICO, who are in no way connected with the payment of cryptocurrency or other types of money. This is clearly illegal. By the way, not a single ICO team indicated the document on the basis of which they demand to pass a KYC test from bounty hunters. This is the usual arbitrariness, and sometimes fraud.

       Investstry is another matter. I myself am a member of the company for generosity. Therefore, KYC do not understand. I am at the registration fill all the appropriate items. Then after a long period of time you need to fill KYC to what it is. In KYC, there are points in which I really can not figure it out, but there is no video. That's what to do.

I don't see anything good in today's KYC. I can find someone's passport on the internet and send it during pass a KYC. I think it needs some improvement and after this KYC will make sense

It is certainly necessary, it is the legal regulations of the United States or Europe are required to do that. Including the ban on capital mobilization from banned countries

 KYC procedures for ICOs  is very important in order to build confidence in crypto market , but firstly , this procedure must be applied on ICOs owners , so don't buy from  ICOs which you don't know their owners identity.

As decentralized cryptocurrency a KYC for both parties is not necessary but because we both avoiding a scam ICO and scam project , then we should to follow but ofcourse you have all the option of not to follow , although this will not give assurance that investors will really attract on this.

i think that's good. it can reduce money laundrying. the government has made that regulation
an ICO must do that in order to get approved

It's one thing when a project wants to know investors personally, and another is bounty hunters. Here I see no reason to apply KYC.

I think some countries are already doing that like for example the United states,South Korea and Even the Philippines according to the SEC article that in the Philippines all ICO and other CrowdFunding activities are considered as Securities and their Founders and Team members should undergo a KYC procedure Before they can proceed to Initial Coin/Token Offerings.  

from the start of KYC was a failure. because blockchain is anonymous, so if kyc is still enforced isn't that a disability for Blockchain technology. I support the creation of quality projects, for that regulation is needed to regulate it.

Now everyone is already starting to think, but why is it needed all the same? Because it is a necessity that the SEC has integrated, but do you think it is right? I think that in general it is right if we want to move on and accept serious investors, but there are a lot of conditions here.

Well, it is, in fact, both, a good or a bad idea. It varies from entity to entity. For example, if you think from the perspective of ICO investors and bounty hunters, it is bad. Most of the ICO investors don't want to give their identity to other persons, same go for bounty hunters. On the other hand, if you think as a project owner, ICO is good since they need to provide valid information to the govt about their business.

I'm not sure if KYC is a great idea for ICOs as we all have seen some that are scams and not only will you be giving them your money you will end up giving them your Identity which they can then sell on or even use.

I have no issue with doing this with credible companies but a standard run of the mill ICO in order to claim coins doesn,'t make sense to me.

I do not argue  that the greatest attraction of all crypto-currencies is in anonymity and any control over actions with cryptocurrencies causes dislike. Therefore, the KYC procedure causes negative emotions both among the founders of ICO projects and all its participants. However, we can use the blockchain to help with the passing of KYC procedures by all participants. For example, each KYC will be conducted by a separate transaction with an entry in the distributed data register, which will preserve the transparency of all data but also their anonymity.Thus, having passed the procedure of KYC investor, bounty hunter, or any other participant or founder of ICO can make a successful transaction of KYC in all other projects. A single blockchain KYC for everyone.

my opinion is that this is a good idea, I have nothing to hide I work on an honest basis, and the KYC process suits me completely, who is when I bought at what time, this is a great idea thanks to which the cryptocurrency will not be banned.

KYC puts our privacy in risk. People can stole our data and use as their own. As I see, KYC do not give expected verification as someone can use another's ID with a his selfie. People are not honest and hence KYC procedure is not enough to catch real participants.

Yes KYC can exploit our identity so never give your personal data to the project that you are not sure with, KYC can help to identify fraud but if some people don't used their personal identity for KYC I think they add more options on KYC to verify such persons.

KYC for ICO is a good idea and very important as it is work to identify the real investors as well as avoid the fake entry by spammers too. It may also help to create a positive and transparent environment in the cryptocurrency market.

KYC has both good and bad effects. If it is used for legal purposes, it is ok but sometimes we notice in the name of KYC, they disclose Identity to another dark sites, it is bad. KYC (know Your Customer) process should be easy for the customers.

KYC is one of the best alternative in order to filter out fake and spam accounts, of course this will redundancy on the part of the ICO management, but it can assure that the personality and investors are sharing their true identity by complying on the KYC as a part of the requirement. Also, this is also applied in bounty participants, so its gonna be fair.

Here, of course, a double opinion about KYC. On the one hand, this is good for the project from the point of view of legislation, on the other hand, not every person wants his personal confidential information to be used somewhere. I am more against KYC than for him

I think KYC has both advantages and disadvantages. For hunters, KYC is an extra step, isn't it? But for the project, KYC can effectively prevent the emergence of fraudsters!

Throughout the electronic money pursuit, I find that projects that have a Bounty campaign involving KYC participants are potential, potentially potent ICO projects and I'm always involved in projects like That is why I always support KYC, even knowing that KYC in the world of cryptography is not very effective, but it also speaks to the potential and sincerity of the project.

I never understand why a KYC can solve the problems you mentioned? Is this really the case? I don't think so, the project does not need to avoid being sued, who will go back to sue him? What is the use after the prosecution? I feel that it is not good to ask for KYC, which will make our information leaked.

KYC for ICO participants - investors is not an idea, there is no  question about KYC in this case.
If there is no KYC before getting the their tokens, than something is off  and you should not participate in this project at all.

But on the other hand, if they ask kyc for bounty hunters they clearly do not know what they are doing,sadly they announce for bounty kyc only after the job is done.

I believe KYC is very good for ICOs, because it is in the idea of knowing your customer, At least it helps one to identify who is real and who is fake.

Rather if it good or bad. KYC is mandatory in some country to comply with the law. If you want to join the ICO, you must pass KYC process to verify that you are eligible to join.

Yaap, scammers now very active and they are using multiple account for hacking token/coin/dollar. CEO of ICO always should be active, so they start for selling their token after finished KYC. KYC is most important for check identity of a person.
Identity is most important and they collect it and they published how many token sold to how many countries people. I think KYC still good.

There is nothing wrong with transferring KYC to participate in the project, and not so passed and received useless tokens

For me kyc is not really use in investing ico. Because i think its not matter who buy in your token as long it will sold and its fine. Kyc is best for bounty because that way multiple account will be reveal.

There are five main reasons why this makes sense.

Firstly, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is reportedly preparing to prosecute ICOs which are held without KYC procedures. In fact, there have been cases where the SEC prosecutes and demands refunds for Token Sales that have not implemented KYC. In September, decentralized application Protostarr may have been the first token to cease operations due to communication from the SEC, signalling an intensification of regulatory scrutiny.

Secondly, cryptocurrency exchanges are beginning to exclude cryptocurrencies that did not properly implement KYC processes. Thus, not running such checks poses a long-term risk to a project. This month the Financial Times reported that New York Stock Exchange-backed GDAX says it “plans to list only a fraction of the hundreds of new digital coins that have been invented this year”.

Thirdly, if an ICO can demonstrate proper KYC then it will be possible for all parties to establish credibility with banks and follow Anti-Money Laundering regulations. Voluntary compliance thus gives a project and its participants a stamp of legitimacy with regulators and banks. This is the goal of DMarket’s proactive approach to KYC.

Fourthly, voluntary KYC compliance may help ICOs reach a larger global audience and expand the number of jurisdictions in which they can take place. Such compliance allows easier reach to investors in America, Britain, Canada and elsewhere. Even in the Isle of Man, which is seeking to become one of Europe’s most permissive regulatory regimes, KYC has been stated as a requirement by the island’s Department of Economic Development.

Fifthly, the US dollar remains the world’s reserve fiat currency and US regulators are not shy about punishing parties to any transaction that in any way uses a greenback. Even banks outside America treat US rules as inviolable as getting shut out of the dollar clearing system isn’t an option for any global bank.


If you want more : https://www.ccn.com/five-reasons-kyc-crucial-ico-investment/

It's a hard question, for investors KYC in ICO looks very bad, bacause it won't allow to participate people from countries wich banned ICO, also KYC just causes additional inconveniences for all users wich take part in ICO.

I refused KYC. If KYC is done, it is equivalent to exposing one's privacy. Encryption is built to protect privacy. This violates the original intention of encryption.

Nowadays in the cryptocurrency space is it for every project necessary to do a KYC, mostly project choose to let it do also to bounty hunters.

I think KYC must be a rule for investors which investing too much amount for example bigger than 5k or 10k dollar. Normally ico investors investing 3 4 eth to icos. So i dont know how can people make some money laundring with 3 eth.  so in my opinion that is really unnecessary thing to sending our special documents to these guys..

I am also against to require KYC to join or claiming the reward for bounty campaign because I do not want to give my info as we do not know what they are doing to every data after the ICO end. It make to delay to receive the reward and many participants struggle not to give info for their safety. Even you exert so much effort, you have to stay secure.

KYC is a good idea for an ICO, because this process will help to protect an ICO from people that are using multi accounts and from different scammers. It is good for serious investors that do not want to lose their money. KYC is great.

For me this is good, it means crypto is now being on main stream but this can also be used to invade your privacy and use it in illegal ways.

I agree with the kyc strategy if it is only a legit campaign,i will support and give some of my informations..,just be sure in everything you do for you not to be scam of.

This is a bad idea, but it is needed in ICO. I think there should be an independent authoritative service for KYC, I do not want every project to trust my personal data, now there are a lot of scammers who sell personal data.

To make both sides feel safe it is necessary to use some sort of system, for example CIVIC or Traceto. Investors will have a guarantee that the project coming to the ICO has been tested by a team of qualified experts and the organizers of the ICO will have fewer problems with the KYC. Both sides win.

This is a very, very bad idea kyc nobody likes. Kyc must pass current investors who make their money and not bounty hunters. Unfortunately, these projects are not understood and ask for kyc at every opportunity.

To be honest, I very much doubt that someone will check this information in the near future. But the fact that certain fiscal services have the opportunity to learn about your assets confuses me personally

kyc for ico? , if I think it's a bad idea. Why? , because the kyc is our personal information, for a bounty or airdrop, there is no need for vertification of kyc, because we also don't know whether the ico can maintain the security and confidentiality of our kyc

KYC is the best way to buy or sell, even register in the market in my opinion because if at any time in a regulatory country about in the world of cryptocurrency is getting tight then the company is ready for a database of all users if the government asks for evidence...

In the case of investors, KYC makes sense because it is intended to prevent money laundering or other criminal activities. However, passing KYC by bounty hunters is pointless. They receive a work reward so they do not invest money directly in ICO.

KYC can reasonably avoid some money laundering criminal activities and avoid conflicts with some national laws prohibiting crypto. Therefore, KYC is necessary for investors, but I think KYC should set an investment amount standard ，for small ICO Investors do not need KYC, KYC is only for large investors.

I can't see anything wrong about it because it is just a way for every bounty campaigns and projects to know their costumers well. It is important that they will have enoug information about their costumers for security purposes. It is also for our own good.

I guess the point you are trying to drive at is making ICO CEOs to provide their personal details to the public in order to make investors to have more confidence in them.
Most projects provide some details of their CEO, team members, legal advisors and other advisors. It's just that most of them are fake and impersonating.

The only way you can detect this, is to do an intensive study on the team of such ICO.

I think if this is used for bounty hunters maybe with kyc and our personal data they can get them to sell to people who need it for what it is but if we sign up for gifts and do kyc it will risk our data and information leak and those who share it get profit

Everything have its pros and cons but KYC is coming to stop illegal money to comes to the market and through KYC, every ICO company knows who is investing their funds and if any authority ask them about it, they can show the investors details. This will stop money laundering in this market.

For me, KYC is not helping an ICO to improve their system or avoiding double entry on such bounty because there are some ICO putting their personal data (their team) to encourage investor that they are true and legit. But after the ICO ends, the team will suddenly gone and no more conversation afterwards.

I don't think it's necessary, and I hope that there is no more KYC in ICO and bounties, remember that privacy is important so KYC's presence actually makes investors and bounty hunters unwilling to participate.

Nothing is absolutely good or absolutely bad. KYC has a great effect on preventing scam and crime, but at the same time KYC also makes our privacy unsafe. Our KYC information is likely to be used illegally by some scammers.
For now, I think it’s obviously more important to protect personal privacy.

Great idea! I am ready to support this in every way!
And I even got into it. In the thread of one of the projects, I doubted the identity of his representative. And then he (the founder of the project) posted here, on the forum, his photo with a sheet with the current date (just as it is demanded of us). These actions of the project founder immediately removed many questions about the credibility of the project.

Although there could be some good reasons for the developers for the need of KYC in their ICOs, still I think this will scare a lot of investors knowing their personal information will be surrendered, and most participants in crypto prefer to be anonymous.

i got many scam airdrop and get trash token, they just need my infomation with my kyc, their token will never listed on any where.

First of all, you should definitely understand that KYC was created only for verification of people who invest in cryptocurrency, and here you need to understand that this is not just that, but for togo people who do not understand what they are doing.

I think KYC is good and can be bad too. KYC is really mandatory when you are joining an ICO it because of the law and to prevent manipulation. It can be no good if the ICO team exposed or use our info in their own interest. For me KYC is good and shall be implemented but choose wisely. Hopefully those companies that asking for kyc should be responsible enough.

On my opinion KYC on ico is not a bad idea. I couldn't see any bad side for this. And ico's nowadays need to conduct kyc for investors to prevent malicious or fraudulent activities of thier investors.

Let us say it is your ticket to avoid scams.

If they want KYC's then they must have been listed by their government to do so. That is if they want to continue their project.
Just be sure though that they are doing it for that purpose and not just to get your information.

You are safer that way. At the end, it could also be another way to take whatever ICO price per token they have told from the start.

what are the good reasons? especially this will scare a lot of investores when they see that id need to be uploaded to google form. I have seen on many ico's. This is very frustrating.

Each country has its own laws on this subject. This means that KYC is not a prerequisite for all projects. Each project should take the conditions of the legislation in the countries of its investors and in accordance with this should build its own policy regarding the KYC.

I don't support KYC in the current market situation. Because there are unfortunately too many frauds in the market. And in a situation where there are so many frauds, I don't think it is right to share my credentials. That's why I'm fillng a KYC form for only projects which have a good team members.

I think that KYC is not an idea to protect investors from fraud, KYC is introduced for something completely different, but for what, we do not know. I think that we will understand this only in many years, and maybe decades. In fact, KYC doesn't protect us.

KYC for ICO is necessary to stop participaiting residents from some countries how USA
Many ICO dont acept funds from us citizens because if they accept funds from him, they need to registrate their company in SEC

That is a very brilliant idea in my opinion. KYC is very important for investors or sales and purchases so that security is maintained. I think this must be done by all projects.

I think this is more towards a bad idea, because this can be potentially lead to an identity theft. and again those who do the procedure, can get tokens that are not valuable on the market if they follow the wrong project.

I agree that the lack of proper regulation exposes investors ' money to high risks. The introduction of KYC is a huge step that will increase confidence in new projects and give an additional guarantee for investors who doubted to invest their funds.

Now the KYC procedure gives projects a chance to avoid responsibility to the citizens of those countries where it is prohibited to conduct ICO, but before all other ICO participants this procedure is practically useless, because no one guarantees us the safety of our personal data. And we have the right to demand guarantees of security of our data from the founders of the projects.

Of course it's a good idea. Because KYC verification is a number to prevent fake IDs and multiple accounts. In this way, people can not benefit from unjustified earnings resources are opened.

I would not want my personal data to be off someone from outsiders. Have you seen at least one project developer who has published his personal data?

Releasing someone personal detail is dangerous is very bad when icos said we should do kyc they should have the alternative ways to verify the participant

I think this is a good idea, because we don't know about the ICO developer. But the moderator of the BTT forum knows almost all ICO developers, because moderators are available for all countries. Each country has a local moderator, this can help prevent scams from occurring in each ICO.

I am completely against this procedure in cryptocurrency, especially for bounty hunters . I don't want anyone to know who to disclose their data, it scares me . After all, I can not know in what hands they fall.

I think this is a good idea, but only for investors, and if the amount is too large. I understand that this is a way to prevent money laundering. But I am absolutely against this procedure for the participants of the bounty companies, in it I do not see any sense at all

KYC and crypto. That's simply hilarious :) Where is that famous anonymity and privacy everybody was talking about all the time? I thought this was one of the main ideas for a long time. Privacy is dead now :)

just some ICO now good on some rated site

KYC plainly has an advantage on the regulation aspect as the essence is for Anti Money laundering. KYC is not bad at all, and I have never had any problem with it, the only problem anyone can have is to end up dropping their KYC to scammers who could sell them and at the end of the day still lose their money.

As long as you do your own due diligence, you know it is a project worth investing in and you are so certain of the growth potentials in the long run while taking advantage of the ICO bonuses, I really do not see anything wrong with having to do KYC in such cases.

It actually depends on the project and yourself as an individual. These days as a result of some regulatory policies, so many projects are required to conduct KYC, what is important is to try and make sure that the project you are investing in is legit and you have nothing to worry about your data being sold to the black market.

Yeah, we have heard of some cases before in which KYCs were collected and sold on the dark market. For the most part, if you are not comfortable with KYC, just wait for them to get listed on an exchange and if it is a project you believe in its long term growth, then go for it.

ICO's that needs KYC for investors hmm.. I'm okay with that, but KYC for bounty hunters it is not good idea, I don't know why they need that for bounty hunters, I don't want to join bounty campaign that needs KYC.

Those who promote the business always want to keep multiple accounts in their business. KYC is very important for any company, so that multiple accounts are not encrypted by multiple accounts. You can not found multiple accounts of people without KYC, so if KYC is not possible for a person to make multiple accounts, I think KYC is a very good system for which companies are a good company.

ICO is the most important part of this project, so I think this is not a problem if the project uses KYC. I think this can be said to be necessary and can be said not because the most important is the funds that come in and how many investors join, not who the investors are. but if done I think there will be a reduction in investors because not all investors like to be complicated.

KYC is only needed by those who plan to fraudulently manipulate our data in the future. In the future, when accounting and payment of taxes begins, then KYC will be necessary. KYC is currently a useless thing.

I really like it you must pass your kyc before you will be accepted. Why because a lot of people are now faking things using many accounts to do one particular tasks which is bad.

I believe that KYC makes sense for investors, but it is not necessary for participants of generosity companies, we don’t invest our funds here, but try to earn them, now the sale of documents for KYC is gaining momentum.

Personally, I prefer to sidestep such projects that introduce a system of identity verification. Cryptocurrency is first and foremost the anonymity of anonymity but what if we give them our data?

I don't like the idea of KYC in cryptocurrency. All its meaning is lost, she has to be anonymous and decentralized.

This is a good idea, but only if we are sure that our personal data will not fall into the wrong hands, otherwise it is quite dangerous.

I think it is a bad idea to have a KYC procedure in a decentralize world of cryptocurrency. Giving your personal information to unknown people will compromise your security. You are also not sure if those who collect the data are trusted or not because selling personal data in the darkness is rampant.

I think that KYC for ICO is a bad idea and many projects have lost their investors because investors are not going to disclose information about themselves

I agree with the fact that there's need for KYC in most ICO's today. Take a good example with our traditional financial institutions (banks) who mandatory carry out KYC exercise for all her customers. So KYC helps to prevent Bot from participating in ICO because there's always that one Whale who might probably want to buy everything and then dump once launch in exchange. KYC is good and I support it.

Same here, it needs to to KYC for ICO so tbat you will be able to function normally and think critically. That is the most important part so that you will be guided and know what are the do's and don'ts because you are in the process of getting to know and you can gather more investors to come with you all along.

Majority of the replies I have seen in this similar KYC posts have never supported it. That means it is not a good idea. The majority of the people against it can't possibly be wrong.

Of course the project required KYC. But bounty hunters don't have to. Only now a lot of participants who are dishonestly conduct business on several participants on themselves, so  KYC is needed to better receive awards.

I think it would be one more obstacle to drive away potential investors, remember that most investors appreciate cryptocurrencies for their anonymity, and when you take that away, there is no longer much difference with the stock market, at least in the financial area, so I think it can be something harmful to the ecosystem.

I think is not bad because some of ICO need to protect their token or their project to some abuser that's why investor need to pass kyc even bounties now have to pass the KYC so cheaters can't get any reward.

I like your idea of improving the legitmacy and confidence of the ICO project to boost the interest of supporters. But all this process are none sense if the said campaign is not merely capable in the investors choice like what happen this year a lot project is good but an unable to reach the hardcap because of lack funds to support.

I don't like KYC for ICO. It is definitely not for me. I don't like it at all! By the way I have several documents, because i don't like to share my personal data and there is no problems in submitting fake KYC

KYC also known as Know Your Customer is one of the best ways ICOs tries to fish out people trying to get more accounts. I think its good to do KYC during ICO.

I think so many people are using this Know Your Customer thing to get people's information for their own good. To me, before I will do a KYC in your ICO then I know the project Im dealing with.

I think it's a good idea, because in this market there are too many scams, in the end, what we need are investors, not scammers, so it's good that we put different measures to make the market more stable and attractive, because so much instability can be counterproductive if we want to bring new people into this.

KYC is a form that should be implemented in the ICO investment because it helps limit the manipulation of large investor coin. But choose the project carefully before deciding to implement KYC because your information can be stolen if it is a bad project.

i think it is ok, even through the ICOs can be moved huge amounts of money and knowing there are not moved for illicit purposes is very important

KYC alone is already a bad idea, IMO. Sending your sensitive information to them which might be used against you as your ID contains vital information that would help them hack your account. Rumors has it too that the information you send to them will be sold in the darkweb and they will earn money from your data.

This is a good decision, the idea of mutual verification will serve as a guarantor of serious intentions on the part of projects and such transparent conditions will inspire confidence among investors, which in turn can have a beneficial effect on the development of the project as a whole.

It is required by the authority, not that the ICO developer is trying to gather all your important data but it exist to prevent money laundering.
Maybe a scam ICO will do such thing but good and real ICO will never do that, however it's not wrong to be so paranoid about this KYC though.

Maybe yes maybe no. But for me better to do not give your personal information here in cryptocurrency because they have possibility that they use it to other. ICO no need to to use KYC because you invest your money and they don't need your information because what ever to happen you will be benefits or sacrifice.

For now I don really trust ICO's that collects sensitive data like the KYC. Now what some of them do is to sell your data to people for them to use it somewhere. I think KYC is a bad idea now. 

If it is mandated with what you believe a good ICO then we have no choice but to follow, though it will contradict to the decentralized platform technology but as I've said it is a must.

Investors requirements to pass a KYC before they are eligible to receive ICO tokens is a good idea but the execution is flawed because there is no valid publicly accessible database to make cross reference with how legit the information provided in the ID cards or passports.
Also ID cards are very easy to forge in some countries so it defeats the purpose.

in my opinion if for security then KYC is a good idea but for now I have not agreed to ICO using KYC, because ICO is not legal for now so then I think KYC is not very useful for now if we want to invest in ICO.

KYC for ICO is not really a good idea for me but at the moment regulations is making a lot of them to do KYC and I think for ICO to survive they need to comply with the regulations to make it safe for more countries to adopt crypto currency.

I don't actually participate in bounty that needs ICO. I am much concern about my private data than that of money (but i don't think an ICO with KYC is not a scam) that i can get from a KYCed ICO. I better be safe than sorry.

Kyc is merely a method in order to determined true identity of investors and participants., I don't see any negative impact in implementing kyc. Nowadays alot of fake accounts are proliferating in the market. So I think it's a good move.

When we are online we should take care and always on watch about our privacy, so it's a big no no for me when it comes to KYC my privacy and my personal information is more important to me than what I'm going to earn from these bounties and from investing from these ICO and besides I can always buy those coin when it hit the market..

I don't support KYC becs. It can mean giving your personnal information to others. But if this is really needed then i will provide the information as long as i xan earn my hard work.

KYC is not really needed in crypto. It breaks the rules that crypto brings so I do not like KYC and I think there are many people who will be like me. However, if you join the ICO then surely we need KYC so we need to consider carefully before joining.

Really. It would be better if all members of the team passed the KYC procedure. And then on some projects there are no simple photos of team members. Although scammers this will not stop the data being bought and sold. And what prevents the team from downloading stolen data, and give the project for real. KYC does not guarantee nothing, for this reason I do not see the point in it.

I think this is a good idea because in this way dishonest users will not be able to earn more coins than they should be, but you just need to figure out how you can regulate the developers themselves as they become more frequent when they leave with the depositors and give nothing

I think on the contrary, the application of KYC actually makes investors afraid of investing, they are worried that the data will be sold to third parties, thus making ICOs that implement KYC not favored by big investors.

I think for a certain amount kyc shouldn't be needed, like for 10000 Usd. Small investors don't like to share private information with somebody they don't know. (I hate it actually)

Why not? For more than 8 months KYC is a usual standard in crypto, so I don't see something strange in passing KYC procedure.
For me it is easy, I have nothing to be hidden

Earlier, when the process was only integrated, I thought that this process was very cruel to investors, because the investment was only to take place through the KYC process, nothing has changed today, but I begin to suspect that this was done against investors.

I strongly agree with the KYC policy (Know your customer) on the ICO project because it is essentially to find out who the project investor is, to prevent suspicious transactions, the Cryptocurreny company implements an anti-money laundering (AML) program and prevention of terrorism funding, information I compiled from several articles on the internet that ICO or Cryptocurreny are very often made money laundering places.

I agree, for me sharing are informations with ICOs aren’t that necessary it’s like sharing your private key to strangers you don’t know what or where they’ll use your info.

in my opinion it is worth thinking about, because for some big people who have names. KYC in the ICO is something that can be disturbing us in the future. If indeed the ICO has reliable teams and partners, KYC may not be a problem. besides with KYC, our access will be made easier to more know about the project

of course yes! This is the process of confirming the identity and it is a guarantee that the person is confirmed and does not make the content from other accounts. The project itself wants to save itself

I believe that when investing, everyone should remain anonymous and all these identity checks can very badly affect us. Personally, I try never to send my documents because it is dangerous

I think you are part of a bounty hunter, of course nowadays almost all KYCs are always included, both for investors and bounty hunters like us. there are advantages and disadvantages behind it all, we all know that our data can be used for crime. this is hard to reject because otherwise we won't get anything

If KYC for investors I think it's a good idea. But still personal data must be stored very safe in that way.

I think this is good, because anything can happen with our wallet, when something happens we can be helped by KYC. it's just that anonymity in crypto will disappear with this KYC.

Now there is a great uncertainty in the crypto currency, investing it, and in almost everything connected with the crypto currency. Personal data is like a cover!? or once again earn money on the black market!? I do not mind the KYC service if it is familiar to all.  And that data isn't left on the darknet.

I think kyc is very good idea for a ico. Cause by this they can verify real investor and about theirs details.  Also buy this they can catch scammer. That's why I think kyc is very important.

Kyc for investors and bounty hunters has become a necessary procedure for some projects . basically , this applies to projects whose tokens have the properties of securities ( that is, they promise profit to their holders). So projects  prepare for possible inspections by the SEC. Although, there are projects that require kyc is unclear why, perhaps to resell our data to third parties. ;D

if to speak specifically from the investor, to really provide personal data should be the norm. But we must understand that in this situation an investor will risk his passport data only for the sake of a really very promising project.

It would be good for the society if we could exclude non trust-worthy people from it. But on the other hand, it seems to lead to overcontrolling and it can't be good either.

I think there is no problem as long as the team of the project does not use investor kyc as a crime. so before you give kyc you have to look at various aspects because that is your personal data

I was just telling this to someone about this today that KYC is became a common thing in ICO's these days. There is a great risk in this of selling your data and can be misused but we cant restrict that as it became mandatory.

awful idea, as I didn`t pass even one KYC by myself and won`t do it. Why should we pass it?
Even for exchanges this is an awful idea (if it is not connected fiat)

You are a small or big investors that's doesn't matter because rules is rules and it's applicable for everyone. KYC is need in every single ico investment or it's necessary in bounty campaign. You like or hate KYC but It's very relevant I think.

It is real risk of data been stolen from the ICO team. It is because ICO team has no rules about investors KYC data storage. And if there are no rules they can just dont care about elementary safety of KYC data storage.
So my point - KYC and AML are 100% necessary for ICO. But it has to be complex solution with clear rules not only for investors but for ICO team as well.

It is a bad idea!!!
Why do developers need it?
Is that the law is necessary.

In my opinion, this is an obvious departure from the original concept of anonymity in cryptocurrency.  This KYC is convenient not for you and me, but for people who want control.

It's bad idea the purpose of blockchain technology is privacy but with kyc being mandated it has defiled the purpose behind the technology itself (anonymity).

I think that the passage of KYC is a good idea, but unfortunately it does not work as it should. Because of the great risk borne by participants in the bounty of companies with the passage of KYC, it becomes dangerous.

I think that KYC is necessary for ICOs but it should be optional. We can't make passing KYC obligatorily. Many people want to stay anonym in crypto.

KYC is bad idea now with too many ICO created everyday...

It is not like bitcoin so it will better to be that way.
Safety have been an issue now with ICO's. Most investors are getting scared to risk their money. I mean there is already risk with buying those tokens. Why heighten that risk and be afraid always if all of a sudden it was a scam.

Somehow with KYC’s there is security if they are mandated to follow the rules of the government in which country they are residing.

I personally against introduction of KYC for participants of bounty of the program. These people do advertizing to the project and why them still to provide the personal information. I wouldn't want to give someone data on myself.

It is one of the worse ideas that came to this market, to begin with many people want to remain anonymous not because they are doing something wrong but just because that is their right, but now that almost all icos are asking for that information now they have to take a choice to take the risk to invest in the market even if that means that your information is stolen or to not do it, so I refuse to go through KYC and invest in icos.

This is a very good idea, but it needs to be improved and project developers should be checked in the same way.

Having a KYC to ICO have some good and bad reactions to people KYC needed to some ICO so it can't abuse and team know if you are real investor even to bounty they put KYC to not abuse from  cheaters.  But on other hand putting a KYC it may cause a problem to others because your identity will public so you don't have have privacy or in worse they use it to bad thing. So it's important to choose a good ICO that never use your identity to bad thing.

I know a lot of people are going to say that KYC is bad cause it defies the purpose as to which cryptocurrency was meant for; Privacy. But trust me, I believe that most of these ICOs that don’t request for KYC are scam. And that comes with another risk that we are going to face which is giving out information to the wrong hands. That’s why it’s really good to mind the ICO you’re investing, so you don’t give your information to scammers who would sell it in the dark web.

Nah… I know a lot of people will be against the idea of having KYC for ICOs, so am I, but they are important for ICOs and I read that the US SEC is preparing to prosecute ICOs that are being held without KYC. Things can have advantage but there will also be disadvantages, cause some stupid will always try to find a way of misusing that good thing. I’ve also come to know that it is fake ICOs that don’t require KYC. Majority of the legit ICOs require KYC for it.

I see a lot of ICO scam requests KYC. And they will sell those KYC files, so most people do not want KYC because it violates privacy. But if they really want to join the ICO they have to accept KYC. I personally respect privacy so I never participate in ICO projects and only invest in the altcoin listed at the exchange.

As long as there is nothing wrong (used for important things or completing documents), I think KYC really needs to be used in documents. As long as it's not used incorrectly or for improper use, I don't think it's a problem. 8)

i think its correlated with SEC commision rules.and the developers team make prevention action to their project and investors.they just worry if someday regulation againts them.

KYC is good for the security of sellers and buyers,investors Yes it increases investor confidence,but violates privacy in the decentralized world of cryptocurrencies.I do not support KYC in ICO and bounty.

I think KYC for ICO is very bad idea. How many final products do you know? why must I send docs then?

I can not give a definite answer. on the one hand, this is good because dishonest users cannot earn more than they should be, but on the other hand, this is very bad because the developers themselves are starting to cheat

For me it is a good idea to prevent money laundering and bots and multiple accounts to acquire a reward.

In my opinion, for ICO KYC it is necessary for investors to really see who they are dealing with and whether this or that project will succeed!

I have already written on this subject on this topic. KYS is needed only for registration in the company, and at the end IKO is no longer needed. The fact is that IKO lasts a long time after the end of the subscription company and KYC is forgotten. Even if you wrote posts for half a year. That is still half a year to wait for KYC.

I'm not sure, they really need it. The main reason regarding citizenship (maybe). But does it cause significant loss, if someone from a country they don't wanna be their investor? shouldn't investors have to send their funds at the beginning?

I'm currently working on my master thesis about ICO ratings (also considering KYC procedures). For this purpose I prepared a short survey (about 4 minutes) for ICO investors. If you could help me out here I'd be delighted. Your financial situation and behaviour will not be enquired and the results will solely be used for academic purposes.

Thanks a lot in advance!

http://grenoble.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d4gMcVoRSMHkMZv

This is a fairly common procedure that exists in banks and other financial institutions. I have nothing against identity verification in ICO, but here in airdrops...

When large payments are made, KYC is very much needed so that the same person does not participate in bounty and in ISO. But I do not understand when the payment of a penny, and a difficult KYC have to take a very long time

kyc for ico can be a security step for investors before getting coins, because it can identify anyone who participates and that can be used as a way to avoid using coins for crime. that's a good idea

I like ICO projects or Bounty campaigns that capture us KYC, because now many fraud projects are coming out, if KYC will limit those scams that exist in this market, I know is not entirely against them, but also somewhat reduced,

we are divided in KYC isssue,its a bad idea for those who involve in money loundring and good idea for those play fair. but in my opinon its a good idea.
play fair play safe with KYC.... thanks. its decentralized technology but goverment want to control via KYC.

KYC for ICO is not a bad idea,it has alot of advantages when it comes to security and it will also aid the confidence of investors in that particular project.

To me KYC for ICO is a good idea, the only bad thing about KYC is when the company you submit your KYC information to, now turn scam, that will put all those who participated in the KYC in danger, because their data can be misused.

I think it is a good idea, because I hate scammers, that are using multi accounts to cheat the community or the manager. Everyone should earn what he deserves. KYC will help to identify these people and kick them out.

I am not at all interested in participating projects that require KYC. I don't support it. As there is no guarantee that your data would be safe and it wouldn't get leaked by any third person. There days data is also very important and it can be traded with money.

I think KYC not only an advantage but also disadvantage. KYC project both safety and violation of privacy. In the world of cryptocurrency, it is hard to imagine KYC to interference.

This is a good way to identify real investors from the project team so that they can easily reach out to investors. It does not take long for people who do not want to invest in their project

I think this is a very good idea. Before posting about holding an ICO, you can not only throw off your documents, but also confirm your identity through a webcam. Only in this way we can keep investors and attract new ones.It remains to find those responsible for this work.

If you don't want to send personal information to KYC, then you don't need to pay attention to that ICO. You should only KYC and participate in that ICO if you trust and evaluate it as a good ICO

I think KYC for ICO is a bad idea. because the project management does not give information about themselves but only collect it from investors and it is unknown how they use this information. confidentiality is violated.

KYC is used to find out investor data, I think it's only difficult because KYC can be made easily without having to be right with the real data themselves

I believe that KIS is not needed for ICO and its application is a bad idea. I think that KYC is harmful for cryptocurrency

I don't think so.  KYC is the way to filter scammers on the forum,  since we are already flooded around by them. There is a big money in here and they don't want scammers will survive that's is why they set-up these especially for investors. 

I think that's a very good idea. but I doubt that KYC will scare away the scammers. They will not be difficult to forge documents and find people who will play the role of developers for money.

I agree, Kyc will bring security to some accounts that is a good idea for some ICO to have a trusted platform and to make their investors and participants to be safe for scams and other bugs in the system, It will bring security for their funds and profits.

Most ICOs require KYC/AML and this must be completed for you to be eligible to invest in their project. This is because residents or citizens of certain countries like China, USA, etc are usually exempted from participating in most ICOs, so in order to ensure there are no violations of the rules, KYCs need to be done. Also, projects do it for fear of the SEC and I think it's a good idea, in order to run into trouble with them.

IMO, KYC and ICO are only needed for investors, not for bounty participants because the number of Token for sale accounts for 60%, and bounty is always less than 5% of Total Token Supply. Therefore, KYC should only be applied to those who buy Token directly from ICO projects so that one person can buy too many Token at the same time.

It is like the blunder. Because it has both good and bad sides.
Good, it will reduce the spammer. It is also used to measure and determine that someone is available to participate in the ICO or not.
Bad, sometimes, it is very crucial to hide our identity because it should be anonymous. So, there is also worries that our id will be secure or not.

I am not a pro KYC bounty hunter because even if bounty hunting doesn't involve money, my identity and personal information is more worthy than for me. I have read about how scam ICO's are using KYC documents as their way of earning profit by selling it to someone.

Which is more reason research is very essential. Then cryptocurrency operates in a decentralized manner, why then the need for KYC.
I am not saying a no to KYC, but any project demanding for KYC must be ready to prove the project is genuine and that the project has every legal backing to demand for such.

I still don't understand why ICO requires kYC specially for bounty hunters or even investors. So I'm totally against it, what would happened to your personal information after the ICO itself? Will the ICO destroyed it or will they keep the data for later used? Its a bit scary so I'm really not comfortable with it.

Some investors always wants to be anonymous they don't want to share their personal details but nowadays many project developers are asking KYC because of policies of their countries and they need to comply with them and we have no choice to give them instead. But we can expect KYC procedure for investors certainly build some confidence in the investors mind. It shows some genuity of the project to some extent. I believe it will be helpful to reduce some frauds and as well increase the percentage of successful projects.

Then the problem arise from the project itself, is it worth it to hand our important data to stranger which we dont know? KYC exist to prevent money laundry and it's not wrong ofcourse. but, we need to look further into the credibiity of the project so that we can be sure our data is not fall into unresponsible stranger's hand.

For me it is definitely good idea, because binance and other huge exchanges require passing KYC.
That's why I follow such ICOs

The idea is good. It is a pity that it will be extremely difficult to bring it to life. Now the ICO developers allegedly do not hide their identity,but they often use data from other people.

As I'm looking at this KYC issue I guess it will be a must in the future ,for example electroneum has implemented kyc for fast lighting payment from our phones ,chasing after PayPal abilities ,without KYC it would be impossible so I think in the future many won't have  choice than to follow every kyc procedure and to me its not that bad

Yes this is not really need for us here in cryptocurrency , in some country there's a Data Policy which requires not to expose I D and all personal data in the internet , but it can builds confident of the investors .

As an ordinary investor,it's bad for me, it's a big waste of time and the risk that your documents can be stolen.But I think if introduced KYC,it is required by the laws and it is unlikely to be around

Cryptocurrencies (mainly Bitcoin) were created to be free to use, pseudo-anonymous, decentralized.
But with KYC and AML - you are loosing all of these features. So it is good?

well, it all depends on the project developed. Sometimes things like this are used as a means to wash money, because sometimes projects require KYC to find out who their investors are. Well, I don't think it's bad, but on the other hand it will eliminate other important points.

This is just a great idea that will eliminate a certain percentage of bad projects, I support this initiative.

I think its not good for me.becouse when you given your all information then you can't control your privacy too. So it is harmful for me.still my government against of bitcoin. So this is risky          

KYC is needed to avoid anti money laundry (AML) but which idiot people that wants to transfer their money to ICO? because the value fluctuations their will not transfer the money to ICO but to assets that have a stable value
in addition they said would not sell or publish investor data to third parties but in fact after filling KYC in some ICO now my email always get spam message, so my answer is BAD idea  :(

yups when talking with that context it is clear that kyc and aml are not relevant to cryptocurrency technology which they had from the start
but if we talk about ecosystems that I feel that it doesn't hurt to use KYC in every ico project

This is the business of the team itself. Developers are trying to work in accordance with the law. But it is completely incomprehensible to me why teams introduce mandatory KYC passing for bounty participants.

i believe investing in ICO that requires KYC is reasonable,because this is for investors safety

But if you’re referring in bounty hunters that the project requires KYC is unreasonable,because this may use to abuse participants

But you still have to take into account the fact that there are a lot of scammers in the Eco companies market and in the current situation fraudsters can use the registration requirements circle in order to give their project more importance and prospects. That's when many users of cryptocurrency, including participants of the Bounty company and investors, must be alerted, because I do not know where their personal passport data goes.

Like all of the majority of users here KYC is a big no-no in a decentralized world, they told us to protect their investment when in fact some of the devs are faked and there is a big possibility that some projects will cease or stopped and so there go your personal details there's a possibility that they are going to sell it to third party.

surely something has a positive and also negative impact. in the presence of KYC, a project will have important data about its investors. and for the negative impact there is no more privacy and what we fear most is that our data can be used for abuse

Very good reason for laundering money. There are many countries that have bitcoin enemies due to money laundering. so no one can launder money if kyc.

There are some external ico listing websites like icobench and co that conducts kyc for the sellers or team. How genuine is it is what I don't know. So even with this, buying the ico is still a risk. Also I don't like the idea of kyc for buyers.

the reason for the KYC for the ICO is to prevent the restricted country from participating, of course the organizers of IIC do not want any country that is banned from participating in the ICO program, but what else is it, this has become a regulation of the country, and organizers of ICO do not want to risk

It's not a bad thing because KYC prevent investing someone from a single entity do that no one can manipulate the price. But as an investor, I would never invest in an ICO which requires KYC for investing.

if it is indeed true to use KYC in the ICO, the ICO will automatically become a smaller ICO investor and there will be many ICOs who are underfunded. and it also affects not only the ICO but also the bounty hunter because if many ICOs fail or the sales result is small, the income of the bounty hunter will also decrease. so this not only affects the ICO but also affects others.

I do not agree if ICO must use KYC because there is no more Anonymous, blockchain is popular because of its advantages as an anonymous network. without crypto like investment in general.

In this situation, there are two sides of the coin, on the one hand, the KYC for developers needs that there would be no participation in their projects of scams. but on the other hand, where is privacy and personal data protection?

And I will say that's what should happen. And even the team must give KYC first to investors (at least showing on the website), not vice versa. Investors are the party most at risk of losing assets when the project turns out to be a scam.

Having a KYC have both good and bad things that come out with so you should think twice in any Ico investment which you want to partake in.
In that thought of yours about anonimity, Yes we shouldn't have any of those required KYC but in order for Crypto to survive we have no other choice as well as Crypto Ico to require the investors to do KYC.

With KYC this is quite good because it will be able to give trust to a project, because for now the concept and maybe the members of the team joining the project are not convincing enough, this is certainly very helpful because there are now many fraud projects which of course harm investors

I think that the passage of the KYC for bounty hunters is not dangerous for the bounty hunters themselves, but on the other hand more or less good projects are asked to pass KYC.

regulations in the crypto world are getting tighter and harder, including the use of KYC for investors and also bounty hunters. I think there are still pros and cons to that. but I myself agree with that rule, to further increase security and reduce fake accounts.

In this procedure, there are pros and cons.  Personally, I don't like her.  Recently went through KYC to get tokens.  Let's look at the result.

This is one of the requirements of regulatory authorities and for the most part it is introduced in order to protect you, investors. Once you have identified yourself, these investments are recorded for you and you have the right to sue the company if something happens.

I see only disadvantages here because I don’t understand why developers need to know the investors' personal data. Their task is to engage in the development of their project. And how can my data help with this? Only my money can help.

It was a terrible idea. Because there have been so many allegations that our information management project owners have sold all of it to others for profit. It was so bad and I was very upset about it. Hopefully this rule will be broken, KYC will no longer in the future.

I think KYC for ICO doesn't matter as long as all of our information is well managed. but I'm worried if later the project is a scam, our data could be used for criminal acts.

KYC verification is actually a good idea but I believe some documents required for KYC should be minimize in order to respect the privacy of investors. For instance I feel uncomfortable when I submit my bank account statement for KYC verification because I see bank statement as something confidential.

I think this is a good idea. This will filter out part of the fraudulent projects presented on this forum (and not only).
Regarding the process of the KYC in general, I don’t mind, the main thing is that the obtained personal information about investors and clients is well guarded and there are no leaks. And the organization that takes responsibility for collecting and storing data should also be fully responsible for data leakage.
Unfortunately, no one wants to be responsible, and there are no corresponding regulators.

I think KYC is a good idea for ICOs and bounties, especially for bounty campaigns, because it helps to avoid cheating like multi account spam, this is of course very detrimental to other bounty hunters, and therefore KYC is a good idea

Pretty good idea. It helps to protect your assets, as well as the project itself feels calm if the SEC decides to descend with a check.

It is a very good idea if KYC for sellers is more prioritized than for buyers because sellers are requesting for significant amount of money which are gotten from the hard earned money of the buyers in exchange for their tokens not yet sure of success.

It really is a good idea although it consumes time but it do not matter that much in my opinion. Also, it will not allow multiple accounts in bounties given that it is prohibited and such way would promote fairness to all bounty participants. Those people who are against KYC might be  doing some things which are not in rules. So personally i don't have any problem with that.

KYC is required to remove the cheater . Although there is a risk that the project will sell your information to third parties. But in the face of the increasingly evolving cheater that makes the bounty increasingly boring, KYC is needed.

ICOs applying ICOs for their investor because they following government regulation. I think its good because if they follow government regulation, its mean its legit ICOs.

For some honest and good ico projects in marketing I think KYC is very important to know who is participating in ico. But there is also ico which does not display the profile of the actual developer and team and for those like this it is not worth asking for kyc. Maybe KYC aims to reduce the potential for crimes such as money laundering. It needs to be understood that every development has its own rules and policies in marketing.

There may be many opinions on this question! My opinion is that there is nothing bad in it, I believe that this shows the responsibility of the project. If the project offers to go through KYC, this is not a 99% fraudulent project.

I don't think this is a bad idea for kyc in an ico, as long as the kyc required for the procedure is not too difficult, even if the goal is to maintain security, I don't think there is anything wrong for this kyc

Implementing the use of KYC in an ICO is indeed a good method to minimize cheating that can be done by participants. But the KYC system was quite complicated and the process was quite long, and that was not liked by the crypto community. If between the ICO and KYC can produce balanced results it will be good, so it is not too futile to take care of the process.

they just make prevention action if someday they have trouble with regulator from the country they operate.as long as it has clear purpose , personally i am accept it.

I think, there is always positive and negative opinion for the KYC for ICO. The purpose of KYC is to avoid money laundering and fraud.

KYC is great to apply and they must have a clear purpose. And during this KYC already many applied and I think by having the procedure very well and were able to reduce acts of fraud. And we have to be careful in the use of KYC procedures. We should be able to do some checking before we decide to use KYC.

good for stopping multiple accounts in the same project. but it's bad for multiple accounts that want to follow ico a lot to get even more profit. then which side are we on? one account with kyc, or many accounts and avoid kyc? everything aims well, provided that the work is also done well and also the rewards obtained are also good.

It is a good idea. Because if you find a good ico and have a KYC requirement, then you must comply on it in order to participate in the tokensale. They have just required it, because of their law compliance in the country. As long as the ico campaign you join to is a legit one.

Yeah that's true but for those bounty hunters this is just a waste of time to us and gives us a problem in the future if those ICO will use it for other propose. It can cause danger to our personal identity for just few dollars of bounty reward.

Its true. Many scam ICOs right now and i am believe they want to comply with government regulation to protect investor fund. Cryptocurrency in some country consider as security token and need KYC to protect investor money

Kyc for ICO is not all bad, is not all good! The cryptocurrency is evolving and some believe hold tightly in the past might not be applicable or relevant anymore!

kyc for ico investors are so bad in my opinion, kyc should be implemented by the team member of a certain ico or project so that investors wont be afraid to invest, this is also to prevent scam project that were so high in this time of year.

I am not against the ideology of KYC because every strong platform or business need the data base of its users in order to track their progress. Also, KYC is needed for verification purposes especially in the event when double entry by a single participant is expected. With this, the ICO must state it clearly to treat all collected data with the highest discretion and not to use the data for any dark activity.

I agree with you in your statement, KYC is really important to the project to avoid double entry of each participants. Big ICO's is just protecting and securing that no one would be fall into scam.

If you consider it decentralized then no need f KYC as then this will called banking or trading in fiat money.

In my opinion, if it used to filter the people who are purchasing the coins, that could be a good thing to do, cause we can't just simply filter the IP address of the coin buyer.
But it would be awful if the one making that KYC is scam project, they could sell our personal data in the black market, and used them for something bad.

If KYC is used for the ICO project, then I think 99% of ICO will not succeed. This is not a good thing, investors will not be willing to expose their assets. Future STO can solve these problems.

The procedure for using KYC is very good and all ICO projects for prizes can use KYC. And implementing KYC has very positive things and can reduce the use of many accounts. However, you must be careful in this matter and do not easily send your personal data to others.

very good in my opinion ,.
with KYC, a project will be safer because it is protected by an authorized legal entity. and we will know the spread of tokens or coins that are owned by a project so that we can monitor the development of tokens or coins. can also avoid fraud.

If the project is real, then KYC can not only effectively avoid fraudsters but also improve the income of our hunters (because KYC will limit many participants), but the fact is that most projects are scams, when we provide KYC, we Just revealing your privacy, but did not get any return!

KYC can be used only for the organizers of the project, for the investor it is unnecessary, fraud is just happening on the part of sellers, not buyers, and try to impose KYC on everyone, it's not right.

Sometimes i wonder why people have issues with KYC. The main purpose of that is just so identify yourself as the owner of the asset holding.

What if someone comes to lay claim to your wallet, with all the millions in it? KYC will definitely be your saving grace. Let's not overfrog the issue, except someone that has something to hide,  it is not a bad idea.

Again, the holders of the KYC shud be held liable if the privacy of the holders gets violated. That is the main area that needs an attention for now; enforcement of privacy

KYC checking for ICO projects is a very bad idea. Because of this, many investors bypass those ICO projects that require you to undergo a KYC check. After that, the ICO teams still wonder why investors do not want to buy their tokens. All these claims of the United States and China do not have so much importance, because the Cryptocurrency does not go only in these two countries.
As for bounty hunters, they should not be tested by KYC at all, since they are not investors. Checking KYC for them, especially at the end of the ICO, is simply a deceptive way of not paying off some of the bounty hunters they earned tokens.

actually the basic purpose of KYC is good, it's just that now many people doubt that KYC will be abused and most people now avoid ico or those who need KYC, even though the basic purpose of KYC is to ensure that those participating in ico are not a BOT, so why should there be KYC and require sending and including personal data to check whether the participants are people and not BOT.

Something new would come up, since kyc is passed, in fraudulent ico is not something that reluctance. And it is dangerous. Maybe it will be from someone else a new idea, and we will forget about such a problem once and for all. So far, there is nothing to offer.

I also began to hesitate with KYC, I think personal data must have legal protection so that data is not easily misused.
there must be certainty that the data sent is safe. avoid KYC if you are unsure of the security of your data.

Let me give you a question, if you are sure that the project will yield a profit x2 or x5 over the amount you left out, but that your personal information will not be safe. Do you dare to continue investing in that project?

I think it is a great idea to protect the investors from scammers. A lot of people are trying to trick the projects team and to buy more than a limited supply per person. But nobody knows, what will happen to our docs if an ICO fails.

the application of KYC to users and sellers is very amenable because it can prevent someone's fraud, and also KYC is very necessary for data on every trading transaction.

In the beginning, i used to scold many ICO's about the NYC but after reading the potential project and compulsory KYC verification will help them to find out the scammers easily. That's why we have to research everything about them before investing.

If you want to protect yourself - you have to pass KYC. Surprised at my answer? I will make an amendment, you need to pass it in a good project, not from scammers.

I think it is reasonable when the ICO requires KYC. This will give a good impact because of course, the team will need their customer data to anyone in ICO. and with this system then the KYC is required for clarity of the crypto stream provided. It's when the bounty or even airdrop use this new will is questionable if in my opinion.

Although, the idea of KYC for ICOs isn't really bad as long as the project remains a successful one. But what pisses me off the most is doing a KYC for a dead project. I think KYC is important for investors who also want the success of the project. However, I don't support the idea of KYC for bounty hunters, anyway.

For the teams it's good to have ico because they know which country has the biggest number of investor and make changes for the upcoming development, but on the other hand, if we are talking to user it's not good to have it. Privacy is always there and once you send that kind of information,  had a risk

This must be a bad thing. KYC will let some investors disappear, they will give up the investment of the project. KYC does not have much effect. In fact, it can be said to be meaningless. Be aware that the quality of the ICO is more important.

Kyc for ico is it good not a bad idea because in this way you know the investors and can be stop illegal activity and want sure to investing with a proper channel method so kyc is a good idea for investor's for investing.

My opinion is that this topic has been posted a hundred times already and should not be posted anymore. You can always use the search engine to look for the topics of this kind and not necessary start the same topic over and over again.

very bad because many people in crypto world enters to be anonymous in a way because they arent willing to give their identity for security purposes

The idea of KYC itself is good but there are people who are using this thing in a bad purposes. The worst is, even scam campaigns requires KYC. So they got our information and we got nothing from them. KYC is worth it, only if we receive a big payment which means its price in the market is also good.