Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2018, 03:12:38 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Do ICO's need KYC and AML checks or will that kill innovation?  (Read 494 times)
CryptoSpark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2017, 09:56:28 PM
 #1

Is it inevitable or even desirable for blockchains and their ICO's to become more regulated or to least run their ICO's in more risk averse ways such as submitting to AML and KYC checks?
Atlas City Finance has just begun its 1 month pre-ICO which is expected to be popular in part due to the large 30% pre-ICO discount but to offset this the ICO is unusual in that it is being run against a set of AML and KYC checks to protect the business, the blockchain and investors. The question remains whether requiring such strict rules to be applied to investors will deter investors or attract more traditional investors who welcome more voluntary regulation.
Smaller investments up to 1 BTC in value don’t need KYC or AML checks but larger investments can be used to move money illegally which is why such checking can be helpful. Since Atlas City Finance is really trying to establish market credibility for its other products and services such as Plutous then it makes sense to be over cautious of how the Olympus blockchain is funded. It remains to be seen how ICO investors will react to such checks being carried out and it’ll certainly be of interest to other upcoming ICO’s who are considering how to present their coin offerings.

A presentation that combines Plutous and Olympus is provided in the following link. The ICO is just for the Olympus blockchain and its Olympian coins but this presentation looks at the wider Plutous financial services platform and how it makes use of the features of the Olympus blockchain to provide scale, anonymity and smart contracts in more familiar programming languages.

For full disclosure I'm involved in the blockchain and Atlas business but I find the wider question of whether AML and KYC's protection is good or bad for the blockchain industry as a whole very interesting. Sure it makes sense for a commercial organisation in the financial sector but is it over-restrictive for startup's looking to raise money quickly for without being too intrusive into funding sources? What are your views on these kinds of test or regulations more broadly?

https://www.atlascityfinance.com/media/AtlasCityFinance_BusinessPresentation.pptx
1542553959
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542553959

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542553959
Reply with quote  #2

1542553959
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
knircky
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 99
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 25, 2017, 10:06:38 PM
 #2

Is it inevitable or even desirable for blockchains and their ICO's to become more regulated or to least run their ICO's in more risk averse ways such as submitting to AML and KYC checks?
Atlas City Finance has just begun its 1 month pre-ICO which is expected to be popular in part due to the large 30% pre-ICO discount but to offset this the ICO is unusual in that it is being run against a set of AML and KYC checks to protect the business, the blockchain and investors. The question remains whether requiring such strict rules to be applied to investors will deter investors or attract more traditional investors who welcome more voluntary regulation.
Smaller investments up to 1 BTC in value don’t need KYC or AML checks but larger investments can be used to move money illegally which is why such checking can be helpful. Since Atlas City Finance is really trying to establish market credibility for its other products and services such as Plutous then it makes sense to be over cautious of how the Olympus blockchain is funded. It remains to be seen how ICO investors will react to such checks being carried out and it’ll certainly be of interest to other upcoming ICO’s who are considering how to present their coin offerings.

A presentation that combines Plutous and Olympus is provided in the following link. The ICO is just for the Olympus blockchain and its Olympian coins but this presentation looks at the wider Plutous financial services platform and how it makes use of the features of the Olympus blockchain to provide scale, anonymity and smart contracts in more familiar programming languages.

For full disclosure I'm involved in the blockchain and Atlas business but I find the wider question of whether AML and KYC's protection is good or bad for the blockchain industry as a whole very interesting. Sure it makes sense for a commercial organisation in the financial sector but is it over-restrictive for startup's looking to raise money quickly for without being too intrusive into funding sources? What are your views on these kinds of test or regulations more broadly?

https://www.atlascityfinance.com/media/AtlasCityFinance_BusinessPresentation.pptx

If u want regulation there is no point for an ico. U can go the regular route of getting vc fundingn and later launch on wall street. Thats fully regulated.

ICO are valuable because they need to produce a token that hs crypto economic value. As investor just make sure the token has utility and value and else dont invest into it.

jjdub7
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 25, 2017, 10:13:54 PM
 #3

I think that if KYC become an ICO standard, ICOs will die.

If they want to be regulated, then they don't need an ICO at all! Personally I will never invest in any ICO who's requesting documents. It's killing the whole point of crypto-investments.

▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄▄██████████████████▄▄
▄████████████████████████▄
▄████████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████  █████
██
▓███████████████  █  ████████████▓
█████████  ██           ██  ███████
▄█████  ████████  ██████  ███████████▄
████████    ████  ██████  ██  ████████
████████████████  ███ ██  ███        
██████     ████     ████████████████
████████████████  ███ ██████   ██    
▀███████    ████  ███████████████████▀
█████  ████████  ████████████  █████
████████  ██      ████████████████
██████████████████████████  ████
▀████████████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████  ████▀
▀▀██████████████████▀▀
 ▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
`FRELDO`
Token sales
[ WP ]
hatshepsut93
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 604


Vires in numeris


View Profile
October 25, 2017, 10:46:11 PM
 #4

Even if most of the countries will regulate ICO's it won't stop them, because they are unstoppable just like the cryptocurrency itself. Sure there's a problem that most ICO's are scams, but it's a very valuable element of decentralized economy, and it's the duty of crypto community to expose scams and keep it safe for newbies.
But those proposed AML and KYC checks seems rather odd, because instead of targeting ICO runners to make sure that they at least won't vanish as soon as their ICO is over, they target investors who are not in position to do any harm. Laundering money through ICO without any cooperation with its owners seems very risky and there are much better ways to do it.

Hydrogen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 688



View Profile
October 25, 2017, 11:28:21 PM
 #5

Based on my limited experience, it seems as if payment processors like paypal which are regulated and have KYC checks are less reliable than payment processors which lack KYC/regulation.

Coinbase could be a decent example of this. I don't remember hearing anything bad about coinbase until after they became regulated and implemented KYC. Now there are stories of coinbase witholding funds for months for no apparent reason. Funds being lost or confiscated. I can't vouch for whether these stories are true. But the timing does seem suspicious.

I would be interested to know if others have similar impressions about KYC/regulated payment processors / exchanges being less reliable with checks and regulation in place.

digitx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 51
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
October 25, 2017, 11:30:32 PM
 #6

I think its important that there be some kind of KYC/AML rules around ICOs but without the heavy requirements that regular markets require. It could be a very good way for startups to take their first steps and learn about the market before moving onto fiat exchanges if their growth can support it.
rjbtc2017
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 252


View Profile
October 26, 2017, 03:24:20 AM
 #7

You should always remeber that ICOs are alike with IPOs therefore it should be regulated and part of that regulation is the KYC and AML With this regulation we can stop  the trash icos and scam icos. Regulation will not be a big problem for the ICOs that are genuine and made to geberate profit.
qchain
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 185
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
October 27, 2017, 09:44:40 PM
 #8

Is it inevitable or even desirable for blockchains and their ICO's to become more regulated or to least run their ICO's in more risk averse ways such as submitting to AML and KYC checks?
Atlas City Finance has just begun its 1 month pre-ICO which is expected to be popular in part due to the large 30% pre-ICO discount but to offset this the ICO is unusual in that it is being run against a set of AML and KYC checks to protect the business, the blockchain and investors. The question remains whether requiring such strict rules to be applied to investors will deter investors or attract more traditional investors who welcome more voluntary regulation.
Smaller investments up to 1 BTC in value don’t need KYC or AML checks but larger investments can be used to move money illegally which is why such checking can be helpful. Since Atlas City Finance is really trying to establish market credibility for its other products and services such as Plutous then it makes sense to be over cautious of how the Olympus blockchain is funded. It remains to be seen how ICO investors will react to such checks being carried out and it’ll certainly be of interest to other upcoming ICO’s who are considering how to present their coin offerings.

A presentation that combines Plutous and Olympus is provided in the following link. The ICO is just for the Olympus blockchain and its Olympian coins but this presentation looks at the wider Plutous financial services platform and how it makes use of the features of the Olympus blockchain to provide scale, anonymity and smart contracts in more familiar programming languages.

For full disclosure I'm involved in the blockchain and Atlas business but I find the wider question of whether AML and KYC's protection is good or bad for the blockchain industry as a whole very interesting. Sure it makes sense for a commercial organisation in the financial sector but is it over-restrictive for startup's looking to raise money quickly for without being too intrusive into funding sources? What are your views on these kinds of test or regulations more broadly?

https://www.atlascityfinance.com/media/AtlasCityFinance_BusinessPresentation.pptx

I'm interested in talking with you individually about KYC and AML.

We at Qchain, as a US-based startup focused on long-term growth and success, had to have very strict KYC/AML to comply with US regulations. Being honest, this really limited the scale of our ICO. However, we saw it as a necessary sacrifice to maintain continued operations in the US. The tradeoff is that it is easier to get venture capital funding in the US.

However, for the US, there is no minimum threshold by which KYC is necessary. Even if a transaction is under 1 BTC, you technically need to abide by KYC/AML regulations. If not, you might not get busted, but do so at your own risk.

soham
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 27, 2017, 10:20:27 PM
 #9

I strongly believe that ICOs needs to be regulated heavily for the interest of their investors. If we look back and check all previous ICOs, we will see a lot of ICO did not turn up with their final product which they promised for and the investors are crying foul for having to loose their investment. This has to stop, otherwise the ICO market slowly become the scammers paradise and people will start avoiding investment in ICO. If their is a genuine ICO from a genuine company, they should not have a problem with the KYC norms at least. If their intention is good, they will proudly show it to the world. But if anyone is starting an ICO with the bad intention, they will not be willing to comply with the kyc requirements. It immediately put us on alert about them and we can safely avoid that scammer. ICO is already a very controversial way to raise money and it needs to be regulated for the sake of crypto currency reputation.

   
▄████▄       
██████       
▀████▀       
▀██████      ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   
▄▄█████  ▄██████████████████▄
▄██████▀██  ████████████████████
▄█████▀    ▀  ████████████████████
▄█████▀         ███ ████████████ ███
██████▀          ███ ████████████ ███
███████           ███ ████████████ ███

▄████▄                  ███████   
██████                 ▄██████     
▀████▀                ▄█████▀     
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄      ▄    ▄█████▀       
▄██████████████████▄  ██▄ █████▀         
████████████████████  ██████▀▀           
████████████████████  ██████▄             
███ ████████████ ███                     
███ ████████████ ███                     
███ ████████████ ███                       
  [    |    ████████████████████████
████████████████████████
███            ▀████████
███  ███████  ▄  ▀██████
███           ██▄  ▀████
███  ███████  ████▄  ███
███                  ███
███  ██████████████  ███
███                  ███
███  ██████████████  ███
███                  ███
████████████████████████
████████████████████████
  ] 
FACEBOOK  )   (  TWITTER  )
  SUBSCRIBE NOW!!! 
INSTAGRAM  )  (  LINKEDIN  )
jekjekman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 28, 2017, 02:46:04 AM
 #10

If this happens once they requires document for an ICO where will the term decentralized be?
As one of the purpose of crypto currency that its users should regulate themselves by the use
of the block chain, what is the need of such checks?

I strongly believe that ICOs needs to be regulated heavily for the interest of their investors. If we look back and check all previous ICOs, we will see a lot of ICO did not turn up with their final product which they promised for and the investors are crying foul for having to loose their investment. This has to stop, otherwise the ICO market slowly become the scammers paradise and people will start avoiding investment in ICO. If their is a genuine ICO from a genuine company, they should not have a problem with the KYC norms at least. If their intention is good, they will proudly show it to the world. But if anyone is starting an ICO with the bad intention, they will not be willing to comply with the kyc requirements. It immediately put us on alert about them and we can safely avoid that scammer. ICO is already a very controversial way to raise money and it needs to be regulated for the sake of crypto currency reputation.

It is everyone's responsibility to check and verify if they are joining the right ICO's.
cpfreeplz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 1033


View Profile
October 28, 2017, 02:48:20 AM
 #11

In certain countries that's already becoming the norm. I think the huge ICO craze is what ended up changing everything. Without that, we'd still see these unregulated ICOs coming out all the time (which yeah, we still do see, but it would be even more so). Any country's government is going to want to tax these. It's just that simple.
CryptoSpark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2017, 11:03:38 AM
 #12

Well we had to take a lot of legal advice before starting our pre-ICO process and that advice has greatly changed our entire ICO process.

Our policy has always been for investors to provide the minimum amount of information necessary to invest and so our first process design was for investors to simply provide a username and password and with that they would be able to invest.

Then we took that to the lawyers and regulators and it quickly became apparent that it wouldn’t fly in the UK, Europe or USA. The reality is that regulation is really tightening up and ICO’s are going to be subject to increasingly strict legal requirements.

If a token is classed as a security then it will be strictly regulated. It doesn’t take much for a token to fall into the security category. Is the token sold on the understanding that it will make the investor profit? Then it’s a security. Is it being sold so that the investor has some rights such as governance or influence over how the blockchain runs? Then it’s a security. The only way to ensure a token doesn’t fall under securities law is to say that there’s no rights over the blockchain by the investor, no governance by the investor and the token isn’t being sold with any expectation or guarantee of profit. So as an investor you are paying for coins with no rights or expectations. Even all of this doesn’t preclude the ICO from risk, for belt and braces it should be targeted towards sophisticated or institutional investors rather than the person in the street. Regulators generally take the view that a sophisticated/professional investor with money to burn can do so at their own risk but everybody else needs protection.
What does this mean for an ICO? Well regulation is coming and quickly. Our legal advice has been that regulators can make those who run ICO’s return the money even if regulation comes after the ICO since regulation will just be a clarification of existing law applied to ICO’s. What if the money has already been spent? Well that’s bad news indeed for the people behind the ICO, the law is very strict in this area. So all the legal advice we received was to run an ICO as if it was an IPO. Don’t sell tokens with the suggestion of profit, don’t offer any rights, don’t do anything to place the token in the securities category. Then assume that regulators will still rule it a security and so put in place KYC/AML checks so when they come at you you’re already covered.
It will put some investors off who don’t want to go through AML and KYC checks but it will also attract some investors to welcome the extra level of professionalism and protection. It means regulators are highly unlikely to turn around in 6 months time and demand that money is returned, collapsing the ICO, likely losing money and perhaps even landing people in prison. The investment is safer and that is good for the token and the blockchain.
It doesn’t have to be a bad thing especially if investors who are not classified as sophisticated are limited to smaller investments, perhaps 1BTC in value or less. Smaller investments are not really the problem, it’s when someone can invest tend of thousands of dollars in an ICO expecting to make a profit or have some rights only to lose the lot.

My background is in software security and I believe with a passion in the ideals of blockchain and privacy. Blockchain and its benefits should be for everybody, it should be an enabler that levels the financial playing field for all. Anyone, anywhere should be able to use blockchains for payments and investments and the overall result should be fairer and more transparent societies and money systems. KYC and AML doesn’t sit easily with me because it can preclude many people from the benefits of an ICO. But there are a lot of scammy ICO’s out there and there are a lot of people risking money they don’t have and so there has to be some kind of protection. Perhaps this is something that could be tackled within blockchains themselves, perhaps it’s something we can work out as an industry. For now we’re stuck with regulation which is coming and very soon and will be as strict as in the wider securities market and it’s going to be messy for those who run ICO’s and investors and since it applies retrospectively as a clarification rather than something entirely new then it’s really a buyer beware market. We’re being overly cautious by going the AML/KYC route while still allowing smaller investments to be made without checks but it will be interesting to see what effect it has on whether investors invest or not.
Razick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1002


dApps Development Automation Platform


View Profile
October 30, 2017, 11:53:07 AM
 #13

I think it would be better for ICOs to use KYC from a regulative standpoint, however there is no doubt in my mind it will absolutely destroy the industry. Most companies will not or are not equipped to even do this to begin with, let alone how much extra work it is even if they are.


            ▄▄▄▄
        ▄▄████████▄▄
    ▄▄████████████████▄▄
 ▄████████████████████████▄
██████████▀▀███████████████
██████████▄   ▀█████████████
████████████▄   ▀███████████
██████████████▄   ▀█████████
█████████████▀   ▄██████████
███████████▀   ▄████████████
██████████▄  ▄██████████████
███████████████████████████
 ▀████████████████████████▀
    ▀▀████████████████▀▀
        ▀▀████████▀▀
            ▀▀▀

⬢⬢

⬢⬢



       ▄▄▄▄
   ▄▄████████▄▄
▄██████████▀▀▀█▀█▄
██ ▀█████▀     ▀██
██▌   ▀▀▀      ███
███▄           ███
████▀         ████
▀████▄     ▄▄████▀
   ▀▀▄▄▄▄████▀▀
       ▀▀▀▀


██████████████████



       ▄▄▄▄
   ▄▄████████▄▄
▄████████████████▄
██████████▀▀  ▐███
██████▀▀  ▄   ████
███▀   ▄█▀   ▐████
████▄▄█▀     █████
▀█████▌ ▄▄▄ ▐████▀
   ▀▀████████▀▀
       ▀▀▀▀


██████████████████



       ▄▄▄▄
   ▄▄████████▄▄
▄███████▀   ▐████▄
████████  ▄███████
██████      ██████
████████  ████████
████████  ████████
▀███████  ███████▀
   ▀▀████████▀▀
       ▀▀▀▀


██████████████████



       ▄▄▄▄
   ▄▄██▀█▀███▄▄
▄███▀▀▀ ▀ ▀▀█████▄
██████ ████▄ █████
██████ ▀▀▀▀ ▄█████
██████ ▄▄▄▄ ▀█████
██████ ████▀ █████
▀███▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄█████▀
   ▀▀██▄█▄███▀▀
       ▀▀▀▀


██████████████████
Pursuer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1092


Where is my ring of blades...


View Profile
October 30, 2017, 12:20:53 PM
 #14

you say "innovation" I ask you where is this innovation in the thousands of ICOs that have come out so far and have raised millions of dollars as funds for their "innovation"?

the reality is that no ICO has ever raised money to innovate, they raise money for doing some coding that any idiot with basic coding experience  could have done. those who really innovate don't ask for funds, they don't need funds. if I know I am creating something valuable I will get the first coins fair and square like anyone else can. I always give Satoshi as example and how he mined bitcoin aka his own project fair and like others.

all the developers these days that insist on a premine, or an ICO or any other kind of fund raising, they do not believe in their own projects so they want to get paid before other people join them in not believing in it.

buwaytress
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 734


I bit, therefore I am


View Profile
October 30, 2017, 12:36:49 PM
 #15

Is it inevitable or even desirable for blockchains and their ICO's to become more regulated or to least run their ICO's in more risk averse ways such as submitting to AML and KYC checks?
Atlas City Finance has just begun its 1 month pre-ICO which is expected to be popular in part due to the large 30% pre-ICO discount but to offset this the ICO is unusual in that it is being run against a set of AML and KYC checks to protect the business, the blockchain and investors. The question remains whether requiring such strict rules to be applied to investors will deter investors or attract more traditional investors who welcome more voluntary regulation.
Smaller investments up to 1 BTC in value don’t need KYC or AML checks but larger investments can be used to move money illegally which is why such checking can be helpful. Since Atlas City Finance is really trying to establish market credibility for its other products and services such as Plutous then it makes sense to be over cautious of how the Olympus blockchain is funded. It remains to be seen how ICO investors will react to such checks being carried out and it’ll certainly be of interest to other upcoming ICO’s who are considering how to present their coin offerings.

A presentation that combines Plutous and Olympus is provided in the following link. The ICO is just for the Olympus blockchain and its Olympian coins but this presentation looks at the wider Plutous financial services platform and how it makes use of the features of the Olympus blockchain to provide scale, anonymity and smart contracts in more familiar programming languages.

For full disclosure I'm involved in the blockchain and Atlas business but I find the wider question of whether AML and KYC's protection is good or bad for the blockchain industry as a whole very interesting. Sure it makes sense for a commercial organisation in the financial sector but is it over-restrictive for startup's looking to raise money quickly for without being too intrusive into funding sources? What are your views on these kinds of test or regulations more broadly?

https://www.atlascityfinance.com/media/AtlasCityFinance_BusinessPresentation.pptx

I believe it was inevitable. Crypto as we know it has far outstripped Bitcoin's very basic purpose as a digital P2P trustless currency. Much of the volume we see in crypto markets isn't P2P payments, they belong to exchange trading and other industries. At its height, online gambling took more than 50% of the share, and there's a growing amount of volume attributed to extra-finance industry, never mind venture capitalism through ICOs. The vulnerability to fraud, the shocks of Mt Gox led to knee-jerk reactions but also deep questionings of personal security or security of funds that identification would be necessary for.

As Atlast City sees, it's also a vehicle for credibility - something that crypto enthusiasts can't deny is still one of the biggest struggles of Bitcoin in terms of recognition and acceptance.

At the moment, though, I feel that most projects are only taking steps towards AML/KYC because of regulatory pressure. Reactive rather than progressive. And the motivation behind that is still, as Pursuer mentions, profit without belief in their own project.

CryptoSpark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2017, 12:40:58 PM
 #16

you say "innovation" I ask you where is this innovation in the thousands of ICOs that have come out so far and have raised millions of dollars as funds for their "innovation"?

the reality is that no ICO has ever raised money to innovate, they raise money for doing some coding that any idiot with basic coding experience  could have done. those who really innovate don't ask for funds, they don't need funds. if I know I am creating something valuable I will get the first coins fair and square like anyone else can. I always give Satoshi as example and how he mined bitcoin aka his own project fair and like others.

all the developers these days that insist on a premine, or an ICO or any other kind of fund raising, they do not believe in their own projects so they want to get paid before other people join them in not believing in it.


I agree that many ICO’s don’t innovate but I think it’s unfair to say none do. Ethereum is a prime example, it raised over $18 million and Vitalik said he’d build Ethereum regardless of what happened with funding. Ethereum wasn’t easy engineering.

Today we seem to have three types of ICO.

Firstly, there are tweaks to Bitcoin. Tweaking properties isn’t innovative, it needs to be a substantial change before I’d consider it innovative.

Secondly there are smart contracts running on top of Ethereum. This is harder to classify since it depends on what the smart contracts do and how big a market it opens up. An algorithm can be very innovative, zip or jpg or SHA are examples of concise pieces of code that have a big impact. Facebook isn’t necessarily incredible engineering but it delivers big to investors and its users. As with the .com boom there are many organisations raising massive amounts for unsound business plans and projects that are less than innovative but there are some that are doing great work.

Thirdly there are entirely new blockchains which can be serious pieces of engineering and really innovative with new protocols, runtime environments, languages and much more. I’d argue that many of these are far far more innovative than most modern cloud businesses that have more in common with the Ethereum smart contract businesses that write something simple and leverage the power of the blockchain/cloud.
CryptoSpark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2017, 12:55:10 PM
 #17

Is it inevitable or even desirable for blockchains and their ICO's to become more regulated or to least run their ICO's in more risk averse ways such as submitting to AML and KYC checks?
Atlas City Finance has just begun its 1 month pre-ICO which is expected to be popular in part due to the large 30% pre-ICO discount but to offset this the ICO is unusual in that it is being run against a set of AML and KYC checks to protect the business, the blockchain and investors. The question remains whether requiring such strict rules to be applied to investors will deter investors or attract more traditional investors who welcome more voluntary regulation.
Smaller investments up to 1 BTC in value don’t need KYC or AML checks but larger investments can be used to move money illegally which is why such checking can be helpful. Since Atlas City Finance is really trying to establish market credibility for its other products and services such as Plutous then it makes sense to be over cautious of how the Olympus blockchain is funded. It remains to be seen how ICO investors will react to such checks being carried out and it’ll certainly be of interest to other upcoming ICO’s who are considering how to present their coin offerings.

A presentation that combines Plutous and Olympus is provided in the following link. The ICO is just for the Olympus blockchain and its Olympian coins but this presentation looks at the wider Plutous financial services platform and how it makes use of the features of the Olympus blockchain to provide scale, anonymity and smart contracts in more familiar programming languages.

For full disclosure I'm involved in the blockchain and Atlas business but I find the wider question of whether AML and KYC's protection is good or bad for the blockchain industry as a whole very interesting. Sure it makes sense for a commercial organisation in the financial sector but is it over-restrictive for startup's looking to raise money quickly for without being too intrusive into funding sources? What are your views on these kinds of test or regulations more broadly?

https://www.atlascityfinance.com/media/AtlasCityFinance_BusinessPresentation.pptx

I believe it was inevitable. Crypto as we know it has far outstripped Bitcoin's very basic purpose as a digital P2P trustless currency. Much of the volume we see in crypto markets isn't P2P payments, they belong to exchange trading and other industries. At its height, online gambling took more than 50% of the share, and there's a growing amount of volume attributed to extra-finance industry, never mind venture capitalism through ICOs. The vulnerability to fraud, the shocks of Mt Gox led to knee-jerk reactions but also deep questionings of personal security or security of funds that identification would be necessary for.

As Atlast City sees, it's also a vehicle for credibility - something that crypto enthusiasts can't deny is still one of the biggest struggles of Bitcoin in terms of recognition and acceptance.

At the moment, though, I feel that most projects are only taking steps towards AML/KYC because of regulatory pressure. Reactive rather than progressive. And the motivation behind that is still, as Pursuer mentions, profit without belief in their own project.


Good observations that I agree with. In our defence we’ve committed to building the OlympusBC blockchain whatever happens with funding since we need it for our main business platform and business plan which is Plutous. Plutous came first and was originally planned to run on Ethereum which would be the easier path for us to follow but because of reasons it became a problem using Ethereum which made OlympusBC necessary for us as a business.
It’s perhaps a bit of an unusual situation where we are developing a blockchain to enable us to do our business of Plutous but we believe others will have similar business requirements that makes OlympusBC a useful blockchain in its own right. OlympusBC was first discussed at the end of 2012 and started to take form more over the following years. If we can raise funding to support the development of OlympusBC then that would be far better than trying to develop the blockchain on a tight budget and extended timeline which is what has driven the ICO.

I think there are many reasons for ICO’s today, sadly most are just get rich quick schemes with no real business case or purpose. Hundreds of millions of dollars for a tweaked Bitcoin branch or a handful of smart contracts for some personal interest. Among them though are some great business plans and innovative smart contract based businesses or blcokchains. As with the .com boom, the challenge is to spot the unicorns because I have no doubt that we’ll have some major successes akin to PayPal, Amazon and Google.
pearlmen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 30, 2017, 01:12:27 PM
 #18

Is it inevitable or even desirable for blockchains and their ICO's to become more regulated or to least run their ICO's in more risk averse ways such as submitting to AML and KYC checks?
Atlas City Finance has just begun its 1 month pre-ICO which is expected to be popular in part due to the large 30% pre-ICO discount but to offset this the ICO is unusual in that it is being run against a set of AML and KYC checks to protect the business, the blockchain and investors. The question remains whether requiring such strict rules to be applied to investors will deter investors or attract more traditional investors who welcome more voluntary regulation.
Smaller investments up to 1 BTC in value don’t need KYC or AML checks but larger investments can be used to move money illegally which is why such checking can be helpful. Since Atlas City Finance is really trying to establish market credibility for its other products and services such as Plutous then it makes sense to be over cautious of how the Olympus blockchain is funded. It remains to be seen how ICO investors will react to such checks being carried out and it’ll certainly be of interest to other upcoming ICO’s who are considering how to present their coin offerings.

A presentation that combines Plutous and Olympus is provided in the following link. The ICO is just for the Olympus blockchain and its Olympian coins but this presentation looks at the wider Plutous financial services platform and how it makes use of the features of the Olympus blockchain to provide scale, anonymity and smart contracts in more familiar programming languages.

For full disclosure I'm involved in the blockchain and Atlas business but I find the wider question of whether AML and KYC's protection is good or bad for the blockchain industry as a whole very interesting. Sure it makes sense for a commercial organisation in the financial sector but is it over-restrictive for startup's looking to raise money quickly for without being too intrusive into funding sources? What are your views on these kinds of test or regulations more broadly?

https://www.atlascityfinance.com/media/AtlasCityFinance_BusinessPresentation.pptx

There is no way this will not affect the amount of people who will invest in ICOs. I personally had an experience. There was this iCO I can't remember but I was interested in it so I checked it out. The moment I got to the site and realise the amount of information they were asking all in the name of KYCs, I just close the tab never to go back there again. The amount of information they were asking is not something I am comfortable to share on such site and I am sure a lot of people would also turn back because of that.
eminemcookie
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 118



View Profile
October 30, 2017, 01:17:21 PM
 #19

From the viewpoint of the new coin then I think it will actually be a good thing for innovation, it will likely limit the amount of rubbish ICOs because they have to be a serious project with a good team and procedure as well as financial backing to even consider launching an ICO. From the investors viewpoint it will certainly limit investment in a lot of projects for those people who cannot provide the required documentation.

GIGZI INDEPENDENT WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Crowdsale Starts on 23rd November 2018
Telegram   Medium   GitHub   Twitter   Reddit   LinkedIn   Facebook
CryptoSpark
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 47
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2017, 01:31:49 PM
 #20

Is it inevitable or even desirable for blockchains and their ICO's to become more regulated or to least run their ICO's in more risk averse ways such as submitting to AML and KYC checks?
Atlas City Finance has just begun its 1 month pre-ICO which is expected to be popular in part due to the large 30% pre-ICO discount but to offset this the ICO is unusual in that it is being run against a set of AML and KYC checks to protect the business, the blockchain and investors. The question remains whether requiring such strict rules to be applied to investors will deter investors or attract more traditional investors who welcome more voluntary regulation.
Smaller investments up to 1 BTC in value don’t need KYC or AML checks but larger investments can be used to move money illegally which is why such checking can be helpful. Since Atlas City Finance is really trying to establish market credibility for its other products and services such as Plutous then it makes sense to be over cautious of how the Olympus blockchain is funded. It remains to be seen how ICO investors will react to such checks being carried out and it’ll certainly be of interest to other upcoming ICO’s who are considering how to present their coin offerings.

A presentation that combines Plutous and Olympus is provided in the following link. The ICO is just for the Olympus blockchain and its Olympian coins but this presentation looks at the wider Plutous financial services platform and how it makes use of the features of the Olympus blockchain to provide scale, anonymity and smart contracts in more familiar programming languages.

For full disclosure I'm involved in the blockchain and Atlas business but I find the wider question of whether AML and KYC's protection is good or bad for the blockchain industry as a whole very interesting. Sure it makes sense for a commercial organisation in the financial sector but is it over-restrictive for startup's looking to raise money quickly for without being too intrusive into funding sources? What are your views on these kinds of test or regulations more broadly?

https://www.atlascityfinance.com/media/AtlasCityFinance_BusinessPresentation.pptx

There is no way this will not affect the amount of people who will invest in ICOs. I personally had an experience. There was this iCO I can't remember but I was interested in it so I checked it out. The moment I got to the site and realise the amount of information they were asking all in the name of KYCs, I just close the tab never to go back there again. The amount of information they were asking is not something I am comfortable to share on such site and I am sure a lot of people would also turn back because of that.

I do sympathise with you because I'm a privacy advocate myself. It's a really difficult line to walk though, I think it has to be an individual decision for each ICO operator.

If it's an ICO that can exist entirely outside of the traditional banking system so it gets paid in crypto, stored its money in crypto, pays its staff and bills in crypto then there's less legal need to go the KYC/AML route. The problems really start when you have to work with traditional banks. Raise $10 million in BTC then try to deposit it to a bank so you can pay salaries and office space and you'll find the bank will want to know where the money came from and if it was investment then show AML and KYC compliance so they know it's clean money. Banks get punished if they don't check the source of money, just look at what happened to HSBC when they turned a blind eye in South America.

In our case we provide financial services which involves banks and other financial service companies providing specialised financial services so we have to interface with banks. We also have to pay the bills in non-crypto. For some other organisations it may be possible to live entirely in crypto, I hope that's a place we can all get to in time but for now its difficult for anyone planning to do something real with their ICO earnings. If someone is truly setting out to raise $100 million from an ICO without KYC or AML then it means they don't plan to bank any of it which likely means they don't plan to spend much of it doing what's in their plan which means they're probably planning to just sit on it and get rich, unless they live in a place where staff, offices, utilities and life can be paid for in crypto.
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!