Bitcoin Forum

The KYC requirement in many ICO projects has been the bone of contention of many investors and supporters with many thinking and feeling that this is not needed as this is the industry that proposes decentralization, anonymity and privacy. However, a project can argue that it is the law that requires them to know their customers and they are in fact just following the regulation. The problem is that KYC is not a guarantee that a project can never go down the coffin and run with the investors' money...maybe travelling to the "moon" and have an indefinite vacation in there until the victims can forget their misfortune of trusting them.

Now, if these project owners can require us to undergo the KYC process...should it not be rational that they themselves submit to the same so that we can be sure that we are dealing with real people with real address?

If you don't feel comfortable giving your identity to strangers you should stay away from those ICOs, you should also stay away from ICOs that do not required identification.

Plenty of good projects to put your money in.

KYC doesn't guarantee anything. It's getting too much attention, but if fact it's just additional trick to get more confidence that has no real ground. Instead of KYC, investors must estimate risk/reward ratio when they invest. On the other side, requiring KYC from clients is really ridiculous, even if developers completed KYC themselves. I think KYC will not be very important factor soon, now it's just overvalued.

A lot of scam projects required their supporters (like bounty hunters) to pass KYC to make them looks real. In my opinion, it's not necessary for them, either it's a serious project or a scam one to ask KYC from bounty hunters as they don't invest any fund so that they won't do money laundering.

I drink coffee this morning. And on the news stories about identity verification. And endless loans from fraudsters and lawyers. Something I have revised my policy regarding the passage of this procedure. Probably today I will have to give up all the projects that require it.

I have never view kyc as a negative development in the cryptocurrency industry because the cryptocurrency space is growing and at that there is a need for individual identification by the team in other to avoid negative usage of the token or coin even down to bounty hunters in that way no body can have double registration. But I support the suggestions that projects owners should also be subjected to some form of regulations and identity verification also so all parties could be protect against fraud.

As you know in past various cases about money laundering occurred Liberty reverse is example and FATF also strict about KYC, you will see in future everyone will ask about KYC, so KYC submission is risk those projects are scams.So we needs to very careful about KYC.

Maybe if we don't come directly to his office we can't make sure the Team is real or not. But the name of investing in an ICO project we must have strong confidence and trust.

I will not trust my documents to anyone. Scammers here 99%. Give the passport in their hands? no thanks. Create a platform for holding a bounty with kitty. What would go 1 time on the platform. And do not give your data all in a row.

Agree they should give their also real info by verifying like a live video chat including their government IDs to make sure that they are real people so that we can trust their project.

I don't like to give my sensitive information like IDs from a scam project because they can use it for scamming purposes in the future.

Like they will use some collected data to make a new scam project so that they were look legit because they can submit the data pretending that they are KYC verified.

Yes this is the need of the hour and i have suggested this more  than a year ago as their were many scam icos now IEOs are somewhat covering this issue as i expect exchanges to properly interview and kyc team members and understand and confirm the viability of the project before listing it on the exchange this will cover most of credibility issues.

We cannot force them to do KYC but if they are very transparent and active in joining events, KYC is not needed. BTW if you think that the projects are not trustworthy about your identity then don't do KYC and find another project you think are legit and you can trust.

In my opinion, KYC is just a requirement that allows the project owner to really do the right thing and the data that can be held accountable even though in fact it might not be so useful for now

The KYC requirement is unnecessary and it should be banned by small projects. KYC is not safe to pass on the smalle ICOs due to safety issues related to the known problems. Bounty hunters need to prove their work with other tools, KYC is not for this.

they would be lying then because nothing about this market is regulated specially ICOs, the only regulations ICOs saw was a big ban hammer. so anybody asking for KYC is already scamming double times.

that would be the case if there were regulations in place which meant they first had to register what they call "company" before raising funds.

Why are you hanging out with the KYC thing so much? Many projects already have their token on the ETH network. And you can buy them all from DEX. Other than ETH, NEO, XLM and DEXs are available in some platforms. Moreover, the majority of the projects fall below the price sold in the ICO.

If the problem is for Bounty and Airdrop, there is nothing to do for it. You will accept the terms, or you will not participate in the bounty. The only thing that matters here is that the conditions have been explained in beginning.

Money laundering is not the main thing that needs to be considered as a problem. ICO creator must have uploaded their KYC to verify if they are a real person. Remember there was a lot of scammers are using fake identity and that should be the main problem

I would definitely say that transparency for project creators/developers should be of the utmost importance. It's very hard these days to know whether a project is a scam or not and I think KYC would help avoid that.

Well, what if the project is a scam and I already sent my documents for the KYC? In this case, I forgot my documents forever and it will be sold on the dark web. KYC is not for only avoiding scam.

And most of the time, these KYCs are a complete waste of time // mostly because many people try to avoid them as much as possible since they wouldn't want to be exposed as someone with big money. The risk/reward really is a great thing to consider but most of these people also promise the security of what they are collecting from people.

I strongly agree that it would be fairer if all the teams involved in ico also participate in doing kyc, because by doing this, maybe if ico were a scam / might fail if they left the project just like that, investors "might" be able to hold accountable or maybe "refund" but if it's not done by the investor, the investor might also be able to do it but it's just a little difficult because surely they will hide or maybe some of them are actually fictional people

If you’re just tired of all these rubbish that are happening and you don’t know how to avoid them, the best thing you can do for yourself is just forget about them, there are lots of other ways you can make money from cryptocurrency. Even by buying BTC and storing it in a safe wallet for a long term till the price matures, you’re more safe doing that than any other thing. The only problem is that a lot of people wants to make quick profit and that’s why they don’t show interest in long term hold. You can even go for trading, there are lots of exchanges with good reputation already.

I thought it was obvious that if the team members require to pass the KYC process from investors and bounty hunters, they must be verified as well, I mean it is a regular process that should not be met in every project, but if so, everybody who is involved should undergo this process.

KYC doesn't make them as trusted community,they can easily submit fake documents even those were available for cheap prices on darknet.Only we can restrict us from joining on the projects which are asking KYC to submit so they also might reconsider removing it from their participation.

Actually, there are some ICO review sites that offer that and do KYC on the reviewed projects, however, we can not be sure if they did that KYC for real or it is just a paid one so we need a really trusted service that can do that for us and at the same time be sure that there work is legit, something maybe something like Civic can be the answer for this I tried them before and it was very easy and smooth verification. 

im agree with this one, so we as investor know well the person whos running that project was a real person, not a fake one, so we can avoid being cheated by them.

Personality check makes me more suspicious than positive emotions. Staroniki of this procedure will be in trouble for many times. Identity checking should be done only by developers. And do not collect our documents. It's not safe. When you are attacked by another hacker.

I understand your idea but in my opinion I think its better to do sensus voting for all crypto users to have a vote on who'se infavor of having KYC and don't.Maybe there will be a specific voting site where all participants are undergoing KYC to avoid double vote or cheat.And of course this site is a certified site by google or backed by any licensed organization to ensure our information is safe by our KYC. I recommend this since there are many also who are infavor of implementing KYC just like me to avoid spammers like in exchanges.

If you are not comfortable with ICO that requires KYC then better not invest or participated, we have seen so many ICO caught faking their profile, they always have a way to fake the identity and so do the KYC, it is a proven and a fact that there is no guaranty in ICO even if they are telling us that they are compliant.

if people can trick bounty KYC thru passing fake ID's then the team behind the bounty can also did that if they really wants to scam people, the only thing that can make bounty great again I think is the intercede by the government to the team behind bounties.

Also one main reason why banks and other organizations keep contradicting on supporting crypto is its prone to scammers use due to its anonimity transactions. Its not that I'm against the idea of not having a KYC, I just hope there will be another solution to this matter aside from implementing a full KYC method for every investors.

But only a little percentage the bounty participants that used a fake ID and it can be identified easily. you can create such a comparison between how much scam icos that used fake ids. Most of the bounty hunters are getting scammed by them too. You should see that from various perspectives.

So far, no campaign of the ICO project has given a link to a specific law and has not pointed to excerpts from it, which would give them the right to demand from headhunters to be tested by KYC. We need to start with this. If they cannot bring their claim legally, then it should be considered illegal, because it violates our right to privacy of the individual. Checking the KYC of the ICO teams themselves will not give us anything, they may also not provide their data, as many bounty hunters do. The ICO teams should be checked by authorized state bodies. Only they can conduct a quality check and protect us from fraudulent ICO projects.

In my opinion this has become a reasonable procedure. because what is feared is the funds that they invest in laundering funds. and this is why KYC is treated to avoid this because the team knows data from investors. I am not too concerned about this but it is clearly not misused by the team of data from investors.

Failed ICO projects I've seen in the past are mainly the ones requesting for our IDs but even if projects owners start going through KYC themselves these doesnt prove to safe investors funds anything can still happen

This is seriously needed and I think this is one of the reform we need in this space. An ICO team don't have any right to ask investors to do KYC if they are not doing. Come to think of it, they're even the one that needs to do kyc because we are the one risky our money and skills as bounty hunters into their business startups that they are yet to prove its chance of going big.

It is illogical when team couldn't go through kyc but asking for kyc from investors. As far as i am concern that is a red flag, i don't see why a genuine team will be running from kyc.

you guys should stop bringing up this kyc issues all the time. If you have phobia for kyc, stay away from any project asking for it simple. There has been many post about this kyc and many response to it also there are projects that don't require kyc, stick to them.

I don't even see any reason whatsoever why investors would have to carry out KYC when participating in an ICO, when means of payment for token is tired down just to crypto and without fiat included, KYC should only be necessary for those who will want to make purchase of the token via fiat so that the government would be able to demand for their details if something went wrong during the purchase, the main people that should carry out KYC are the people in charge of the project since we are committing our money to their hand.

I think this should be the new standard for all projects in the industry. Project team should be able to come out let us know the full details which will includes kyc before they can tell us to invest in their startup and with this, it will be very easy to make them fully accountable

Different thought from high rank member. No one believing the ICO projects recent days because of increasing scam ICOs. SEC needs to take good action against the scam projects. To launch the ICO some norms needs to implement.
If they does not start such action then interest towards ICO investment reduce, no one cannot stop it.

I fully support the opinion that I also put forward on many ICO projects. The fact is that they, too, can provide some kind of incorrect documents to inform investors, so I think that video fragments are needed there.

If the ICO team claims that they have the right to demand that the KYC be checked by the participants of the ICO bounty campaigns, let them indicate which law and which country or union of states gives them this right and preferably refer to the text of this law. It turns out to be a paradox - everyone talks about it and no one knows such a right in reality, or is it an invention of ICO teams, who are very profitable to carry out such a check after conducting an ICO so that for a variety of reasons head hunters do not pay tokens earned by them. If someone can indicate here that he knows such a law and that it concerns precisely the participants of ICO bounty campaigns, please indicate here.
 do not be shy.
I think that there is no such law.

Project managers should go through KYC so that as much information as possible is presented on them freely available to investors. The more transparent the system, the greater the confidence in it. Providing information about yourself should be bilateral.

I think the op is still right about that, maybe there should be a body that takes care of that and verify ICO for investors and supporters to know which one is legit and which ones are owned by scammers. Some of them are fond of setting up fake team and it takes a lot of research for you to find out what they have done there.

But, this is not going to be possible because a lot of people here don’t like regulation to be in this and having such means that regulation is slowly coming in. The only thing is just to keep off from those that needs KYC and go for other ICOs.

Indeed they should do a kyc and someone to verify their kyc, because maybe only on that way they will not run away with funds, but making a kyc will not guarantee that once the project reach and exchange and after some time people who invest will make a profit.

Yes, indeed, all must be properly and correctly filtered, all ICOs in the market are ready to be promoted everywhere, there must be one institution or whatever controls it because the ICO must be totally clean in fraud or whatever, as soon as possible to increase the reputation investors are beginning to be interested in following in their footsteps, perhaps with the advent of the IEO, they can anticipate all risks as a small example of fraud, so everything needs analysis to see a really good project.

That is the importance of KYC for all project team members. With that they are always trusted by investors. I think KYC for the project team is one of the requirements to find out whether the project is done by a professional team or not. Because I have seen a lot of projects with a team that is less clear and in the end the project died. I understand KYC for the project team is not one of the successes. But that is one of the investors' trust in the project itself.

I think we have to be careful before doing KYC because now there are a lot of fraudulent ICOs and also I see scam projects that have succeeded in cheating bounty hunters to do KYC and they have got the bounty hunter data for sale so we have to be careful

KYC For the makers of the projeck or team it should be done by an institution that regulates the issue of cryptocurrency. in this case the country in which they are developing the project, of course, they must have a business license. and this is where they certainly do data verification etc. to get permission

Requesting for kyc is now the order the day by many existing and upcoming projects. Wonder if half of them are actually real and legit. Well, giving out your information and data is entirely a thing of choice. I do participate in kyc only if I trust the project.

I am against all forms of KYC, I do not like the idea of investors having to go through to it, and even with the huge number of scams I do not agree with the idea that the developers need to go through this process as well, there are legitimate reasons why a developer may want to remain anonymous, like developing a privacy coin that will be heavily monitored by the governments or just a desire to maintain his privacy.

Many people have raised the issue of this kyc and nothing has been done differently despite all the kicks against it but I think no ICO is forcing anyone do kyc except for the few dubious ones that introduce kyc in the middle of the ICO or after the ICO to cheat some people. If you feel you don't feel safe don't release your documents

Too many kyc is more or less turning crypto into some centralized economy,Cryptos was suppose to give users some sorts or anonymity and freedom. Project teams are entrusted with peoples funds, so their identity should be not be in secrecy

This is no guarantee that anyone will be deceived, maybe will make it more difficult. Isn't impossible but, could decrease the amount of "Shutterstock" teams.  ;D

Did you read it properly and he was talking about the developer and it's not about the bounty or investors need to pass KYC but the developer should do the same to avoid the fraudulent project. Please read it carefully. It looks like you don't even care about that.

I dont think right now all crypto are decentralized. Many of altcoin are centralized and just want to collect fund from investor to developing the project. I think KYC could applied for the project like this because developers team must comply to government regulation.

That is why investors must be careful before investing. Because a lot of projects whose teams don't do KYC even the identity is all fake. With that, maybe the project in the future could be a scam. I agree if the project team has to do KYC. In that sense they really develop the project later.

I think it is a good suggestion, developers should pass KYC themselves. Of course it not give 100% guarantee, but i think it makes number of scammers much less. There are also should be legal responsibilities for those who launched ICO and collect money in case they fail. May be insure or something.

Simple. If you are not comfortable giving your personal to these stupid scammers then don't give it.

Do you think that these scammers will give their true information to the investors and everyone out there whom they don't know. I don't think so. One thing more, KYC from the team doesn't mean that they will not scam the investors already because they can give fake information to public.

That is why I think its high time now that the entire crypto community should rally on this cause and address it accordingly. Ideally it should be  standard that project proponents should also submit themselves to a KYC process in order to show good faith to the community and if they shy away from it, we should be alarmed in the first place and should treat it as a red flag.

I agree with you
but this is what we must do in investment or bounty hunters
almost all ico projects require KYC even though we don't know how they do and process our data safely. especially if only for useless ico and a scam
this problem is so very serious and continues to be a long discussion that there is never a solution.
and I think we really need regulation for this

I think you right, do KYC i think can reduce from Hacker yo steal your assets if you are investors.
Bounty Hunters need KYC to do bounty i think this is very good idea. KYC can reduce bounty hunters who cheat with using multiple account.

This is the right decision when the team passes the KYC and becomes transparent for its investors, but for this to happen, there must be appropriately regulated bodies that will not issue a project for ICO without KYC for the team.

I think it doesn't a problem when we required to fill our KYC because it is for our safety. Even if they are going to give any true information it is better because we have a reference. As long as we do and have a not illegal transactions like illegal gambling or a drug transactions I think KYC doesn't an issue and does not have any effect in every transactions that we have.

Guess you want fund-raisers to also present some sort of KYC , KYD may be? (know your dev) to investors and bounty hunters. Lots of devs/fund-raisers already provide some information about themselves. though not sufficient  when compared to the very sensitive identity documents from other side.
I do not support both ways though. Submiting sensitive documents to strangers on the Internet for some rewards is just not worth it

I agree with you, mate. Hopefully the projects will start to abandon KYC soon. This causes too much inconvenience.

Whenever i see a project that requires KYC, it get me scared and that will prompt me to make thorough research, but that is if at first i like the concept of the project.
Submitting personal details, details that are to be confidential to unknown persons can be quite risky.
I also support the idea that the project team submit theirs too and be verified. As a matter of fact, they should do video recordings of themselves to prove that they are truly the ones behind the project.

I do not think that someone should confirm their identity. Let's say a cryptocurrency for everyone. And there are countries in which people and passports do not have. I met these here. So you push them out of the market. And revealing your identity put yourself in jeopardy.

If not because of the issues of scammers that has hijacked the whitepaper, I think the whitepaper should have been enough to pass judgment on them, because they have a section in the whitepaper where they put all the details of the teams  and developers, so one can make a research using their details on the whitepaper to know them.

This is no longer useful as scammers now fill their whitepapers too with fake faces of people that knows nothing about the project or even exist, but we can still do something, if we investors and bounty hunters can all agree on one thing, maybe we all design the type of information that needs to be on the whitepaper and any whitepaper that does not have the information should not be read or paid attention to.

If the ICO team claims that the requirement for us to undergo a KYC check is a requirement of the law, let it fall first which law requires that participants of ICO bounty campaigns pass a KYC check and what exactly is said in this law about participants of ICO bounty campaigns. No team has indicated this yet. Considering that our passing of the KYC check is contrary to the purpose of this check, we can conclude that the requirement for bounty hunters to pass the KYC check is illegal.
Passing a KYC check by the team itself will not have any effect, because fraudsters will provide false information and fake documents. They should be checked by government agencies before launching the ICO and the documents should be submitted by them and in the original.

You offer some elements of regulation. On the one hand, crypto is a free environment. On the other hand, people want external protection.

Even cryptocurrency exchanges do not necessarily require KYC. In this context, KYC for bounty hunters looks redundant.

I have said this times without numbers too that KYC by these developers is also very necessary, but the challenge now is how to push for it, since they are the ones developing the system that request for KYC and we investors have no system to do this, and ordinarily, if there is no system enforcing this on them, there is no way they will comply with mere words of our mouth, it will only fall on deaf ears, but if we have anything we can hold that would enforce it on them, that is the aspect we need to be looking at now.

I think it is only bitcoin talk that can make this happen, since most of them come through bitcoin for bounty hunters, before this developers can push the campaign out through this thread, they must do KYC before their ANN paper can be published.

You must really be a legal adviser, and if you are not, I guess you are yet to discover your God given talent, please ask them again on what legal base are they doing this? The same law that does not fully recognize the use of cryptocurrency yet for businesses, the same law that is hunting and closing down some exchange’s, I really don’t know where they got such selfish idea from.

These people wants to protect themselves and yet they don’t consider the protection of people that they need their money and services more, it really does not make any much sense with these KYC scheme and should be abolished as soon as possible.

This will be a long debate if that will happen in the future. Many of the project owners for sure will not agree on this but this will help investors to gain some trust in the project. Staffs of the said project should also pass a KYC. There should be another name for it because KYC is for customer specifically.

From my own judgement, I actually prefer projects whos team are revealed on their social media accounts. Like the CEO having an AMA to its community or making a video-info at youtube. That way we can see the name and person posted on the website are the real faces. And that it will be difficulty for them to just abandon the project or go into an exit-scam. But whenever there are projects there that does not show faces or using cartoon character profiles are very suspicious. And most of the time are just fake and scamming projects.

Everything is much easier than it seems . I think everyone will agree that if development team and other people around the project wish to remain anonymous, it makes you wonder about the goals they pursue. In order for such projects to cease to appear, there is no need at all to create regulatory bodies that will monitor such projects. it is just necessary that none of the investors would invest their money in these projects, that's all. If they do not receive a penny for their efforts, they will not even waste their time on it.

actually that your own choice , if you think that wrong when you submite your identity you just can skip and join other ico with no kyc requirement. i think many ico out of there don't need kyc to purchase

that their own project , their own rules, when you join that mean you aggree with all of the rules there
you don't have right to complain about that. developer have authority to know who their costumer or investor

they should not only impose KYC to bounty participants and investors, they must first surrender their KYC as self-legality rather than DEV of a project.

It depends on the reason why they fail, most business fall into bankruptcy in their first year and the number of business that survive for 5 years or more is even smaller, so I do not see why it should be different in this market, so if an ico fails that does not necessarily means it was a scam and you must accept your losses if you invested in that project, but if the developers never had the intention of creating something and they spent the money from the investors on stuff for themselves then they need to be prosecuted for fraud.

Most of them do really have this kind of track where project owners doesn't represent something out of their investors funds which is simply a fraud
but what can we do? which we do know that theres no such strong legal back up on punishing up this fraud projects.This is why we should really follow
strict verification on team members transparency but this thing wont ensure success because it would depend on how the entire team works and being dedicated into
their project goal.

This can protect us from the scammers who make ICO. But this does not protect us from the fact that the ICO may simply be unsuccessful for you. And to whom does the developer provide KYC at all, how do we know that it is real.

But there are risks for us investors who are participating to a project that needing our identity. It is now not good to participate in a project that needing our verification because some of the news are saying that the identity that being collected from ICOs can be use in money laundering and many more illegal activities.

I agree with you. If some project requires pass the KYC ,then the team should do same. It would be very fair.

Yeah sure, it would make sense that the devs and team members verify their identity before the token sale launch. But in the reality people are making their social media public, which is a sign of a living person. However, nowadays, real people can scam you as well.

Who would verify those kyc if this will happen.
Regulation will be needed to evaluate if their identification will pass and to know if this is legal information.  If they will undergo KYC without anyone who will look for it, then it will be useless.

Basically they will just need to put their real identity to their platforms since there's no sense in passing KYC to themselves, unless there will be a regulation that will track the progress of the projects. On the other hand, participants shouldn't also pass their KYC since the essence of a decentralized world of crypto is to stay anonymous while making transactions, there's no need for people to send their identity. Most of the times, these information are vital that we should not send to anyone as our safety might be compromised.

Yes, you are right, they should also submit their documents because it will help the investors to keep cases on them if they start neglecting the investors. We have seen many ICO's scams which there is no real product after fundraising, this makes many people are afraid to invest in ICO's.

Why have submit KYC for joining and investing with ICOs project, we invest with ICOs and not earn ICOs coin by free way like joining bounty campaign and airdrop project, but why many ICOs manke KYC procedure for all investor? I think is not fair and give bad effect for the future with ICOs investment if needed KYC on every investing transaction, we can invest or buy ICOs coin without KYC and make easy to start investing.

This will not change much with respect to fraudulent projects in the ICO. At the same time, fraudsters will present other people's passports and other people's data. The situation with fraud can only be changed by state regulation of this type of activity. At the same time, the relevant state bodies should personally verify the documents of the ICO team, make copies of them, register and verify their authenticity, as well as control the general process of fundraising and their intended use. Very good rules in this regard are prepared in Russia. There, even fundraising in the ICO format is provided only through banks, and in order to start an ICO, you need to have a decent amount on your bank account.

This is a good idea for the developers to submit their identification documents first before they request a KYC in their project because it will help the investors to gain confidence and continue their plan to invest. It is best if they will also get regulated by the government so we can really have an assurance that we are dealing with real project.

They can do it, but the thing is they can submit fake ID too! To very their existence even though all the credentials arent true. The good thing I can suggest is, they need to conduct a live stream and propose their project as well as their professions and credentials in different social medias so that we can verify that it is true. I have a doubt in KYC of them, since I encounter a fake KYC of a team in my past bounty.

Many new projects implement KYC to fool people who belief that KYC is a form of certainty that the project is not scam but alas scam project use KYC too, i am not surprised because i am a full time airdrop hunters and all airdrops i promoted last year only those without KYC pays me

Still there is a chance that ICO team members will abuse the KYC process by providing fake identities. There is no way how to restrict them without any regulations or licenses. It is problem of the free market and internet and it is up to you if you would like to play, or not.  :)

what people need is profit. if ico use kyc and it can be sure that give you profit, im sure people willing to fill kyc for their profit. many scam project, if it not the project just waste time, problem come from team that not give you the token, though the exact date released by them. and there are many ico, no need to fill kyc but successful. the main point is about your information. crypto created to be anonymous

Basically, requiring them to undergo KYC will be useless because they can easily submit a fake identity. No one will regulate and will filter if their submission is passed or not. If there will be any regulators to run KYC verification, it is possible to avoid the scam projects to even launched in the community.

There must be permission to be able to limit and also know when forgery will occur. as in stocks when they are going to sell it on the market doing IPO is not just anyone who can do it and all of that is overseen by institutions that are specifically made by the government. but in cryptocurrency itself all seem free everyone can create projects and deceive people with various concepts

Few ICOs needed KYC because to protect investor come from United State, this country is illegal for their citizen to invest with bitcoin and altcoin, they not allowed for their people become ICOs investor because they mind ICOs have big way to scam, so all ICOs project want to adopt KYC and protect to investor participants come from United State, now have adopt KYC to bounty campaign participants to keep use multi account for joining bounty campaign.

That is the ideal thing, but you know that we have people that don’t give a damn to what happen in the ICO which I am talking of regulators, for these project developers and team to be able to comply with the rule of KYC, they have to be under influence of an authority that is higher than them before they can do so.

They are imposing this system on us because they feel that we are the ones that needs it the most and that we are the ones under them, which is why the complains we have been having on this is really not shaking them, because when KYC started, many people were against this, but none of these project people even came out to appeal or defend why they are imposing it, so we need an authority to be able to impose this KYC too on them.

I am not comfortable to give my i.d.'s to other people and thats why for me KYC is a threat for my identity. I do not know those people and thats why I keep my identity safe and hidden from others.

No need to do KYC. The most important thing is that they have received permission from the government that they will do the funding and the project has been verified so that we ourselves are sure that there is no fraud that will occur so that investors do not need to worry about fraud because the data from each team is already on the government and can do a report

Agree with you. actually the problem of Fraud can be overcome by the rules of each country that requires making reports so that each Team can verify in advance to be able to carry out the funding process and also continue the project. As we see shares after each country has supervision and permission all are more regulated and avoid scam projects