KYC Safe or Threat

[edhp]

Too risky. But then again most of the exchanges require this now. It is very risky to give your personal information to any company or any form of government.

[1713999895]

1713999895

[1713999895]

1713999895

[1713999895]

1713999895

[jumbo]

It actually is a great question, if KYC is a threat or provides a necessary safety.

My answer is both.

1. There is always a risk induced from sharing personal sensitive information. And as much as we would love to be anonym all the time, it is a matter of public safety to have a way to check, if a person brings extra risks with its presence somewhere. KYC is generally dedicated to prevent such risk exposure transfer from a person to a mutual entity, which may suffer serious losses and/or damage to its reputation, and therefore losses to owners and clients. In that way KYC provides safety.

2. There is always a risk of personal data leakage and misuse by the current data collecting agents. Their design is simply unreliable, since there is a lot of people involved (people do mistakes both willingly and unwillingly), the data storage and transfer channels are almost always imperfect and vulnerable to attacks, a lot of 3rd parties have a "legal access" to such private data, even if it is against interests of the data originator. So currently, KYC brings extra risks for privacy, makes person more vulnerable to fraud and identity theft, and even puts family safety at risk, since most of the time residency address is a part of the required KYC.

The best way to deal with it is the decentralized KYC repositories with the selective decentralized data control and the forced data fragmentation for every step of its processing and storage. I won't name any project, yet there are some. They will certainly have difficulties working out a deal with countless government agencies, yet it looks doable without screwing safety entirely (I've discussed it several times at think tanks, there are solutions).

[laserfocused]

KYC faced the real security issues. Someone can steal your data by hacking the platform and use it for criminal purpose. But in other hand, crypto world still finding the best ways how to protect crypto transaction form money laundery, human trafficking and drugs transaction.

I think, its a big responsibelity to keep KYC data safe. If not, crypto will had bad ending.

Its an issue about not only hackers but the people that are collecting the data.  Who's to say that someone does not offer them $100k for the data?

[BenOnceAgain]

The best way to deal with it is the decentralized KYC repositories with the selective decentralized data control and the forced data fragmentation for every step of its processing and storage. I won't name any project, yet there are some. They will certainly have difficulties working out a deal with countless government agencies, yet it looks doable without screwing safety entirely (I've discussed it several times at think tanks, there are solutions).

This is the best way to balance the privacy interests with the KYC/AML/CFT requirements.  Entities that perform crypto/fiat conversion are generally licensed in some form in their jurisdictions.  My view is that these entities should participate in a decentralized pool.  Access to specific information on file will be by permission only (i.e. you give permission to XYZ ICO/ITO to access the minimum information necessary).  It's similar to how credit reporting agencies work, they keep a file on everyone that is accessible (normally) by your consent only.  This will be much tighter data control than those old databases, obviously, and the data allowance will not be "all or nothing", there will be different levels of data available based on what is required by the ICO/ITO.  It's one of the ideas that we've got on tap for FinTech SRO, should help to greatly reduce fraud and potential identity theft/KYC data theft issues.

Best regards,
Ben

[Gabi]

KYC related to ICO's is a pure threat. Noone from these KYC providers, and I spoke with few of them in person on BtcMiami, can tell why they are collecting this and that. Because there is no written requirements for this usecase. These KYC-ICO providers just simply employ scare tactics against wanna-get-rich-fast "entrepreneurs" and just bank their money. Price is $4-10/person. To add to this - you can get in prison in many countries for storing people private information on your server without accreditation and certification.

[Helsing]

I don't like it either but what they can do otherwise? If they will have audit and they won't be able to show from where they got money then it will looks like money laundering. In other hand they can loose potential customers, even for bounty hunters (unfortunately in most bounty topic the team reserves any changes if they need to do).

[eagle10]

KYC faced the real security issues. Someone can steal your data by hacking the platform and use it for criminal purpose. But in other hand, crypto world still finding the best ways how to protect crypto transaction form money laundery, human trafficking and drugs transaction.

I think, its a big responsibelity to keep KYC data safe. If not, crypto will had bad ending.

KYC is a threat. It should not be implemented where the country of origin of the ICO is not requiring KYC for the participants or investors. I noticed that some ICOs are implementing this even if it is not required.

They are changing the rules at the end of the ICO campaign requiring even the bounty hunters who are not investors, to submit themselves for KYC. It's a bad bad thing as I doubt it could be used to fraud.

[Helsing]

KYC faced the real security issues. Someone can steal your data by hacking the platform and use it for criminal purpose. But in other hand, crypto world still finding the best ways how to protect crypto transaction form money laundery, human trafficking and drugs transaction.

I think, its a big responsibelity to keep KYC data safe. If not, crypto will had bad ending.

KYC is a threat. It should not be implemented where the country of origin of the ICO is not requiring KYC for the participants or investors. I noticed that some ICOs are implementing this even if it is not required.

They are changing the rules at the end of the ICO campaign requiring even the bounty hunters who are not investors, to submit themselves for KYC. It's a bad bad thing as I doubt it could be used to fraud.

Unfortunatelly there are always such possibility that your data will be used to fraud (never know).
Back to the topic, I think it's easier and cheaper to require from everyone without any exceptions KYC instead of checking which country require which not and in the end if you do mistake will get subpoena.

[CryptoNewbie18]

KYC faced the real security issues. Someone can steal your data by hacking the platform and use it for criminal purpose. But in other hand, crypto world still finding the best ways how to protect crypto transaction form money laundery, human trafficking and drugs transaction.

I think, its a big responsibelity to keep KYC data safe. If not, crypto will had bad ending.

KYC is a threat. It should not be implemented where the country of origin of the ICO is not requiring KYC for the participants or investors. I noticed that some ICOs are implementing this even if it is not required.

They are changing the rules at the end of the ICO campaign requiring even the bounty hunters who are not investors, to submit themselves for KYC. It's a bad bad thing as I doubt it could be used to fraud.

Unfortunatelly there are always such possibility that your data will be used to fraud (never know).
Back to the topic, I think it's easier and cheaper to require from everyone without any exceptions KYC instead of checking which country require which not and in the end if you do mistake will get subpoena.

For bounty hunters, no country requires KYC. At least, not a single project has justified this legally.

[Collinberg]

It depends on your point of view,in my opinion,KYC is not a threat to your data from a security point of view.
But on the other hand,KYC threatens one of the fundamentals of bitcoin which is anonymous transactions,with many projects demanding for KYC,it would be hard to remain anonymous.

[waqasniaz007]

I think it is good to know your customers in any business,
 KYC is established as a regulation for banking sector to fight fraud, money laundering and illicit activities. This is a new concept for Icos but there should be security of personal information of investors and should not be disclose with anyone.

[kalunomics]

KYC faced the real security issues. Someone can steal your data by hacking the platform and use it for criminal purpose. But in other hand, crypto world still finding the best ways how to protect crypto transaction form money laundery, human trafficking and drugs transaction.

I think, its a big responsibelity to keep KYC data safe. If not, crypto will had bad ending.

There are many projects out there that can prove identity such as The Key or Civic. The problem is that the ICOs are not managing this issue correctly and that makes them loose prospective investors. Like myself.

The Key that's supposed to provide security of identity got hacked in the middle of their ICO and tons of personal data was stolen. People got scammed in their Telegram group
by the harder whom took over the moderation of the group. The whole KYC thing in my opinion defeats the anonymity that crypto stands for.  If a person uses multiple accounts to participate in a bounty and he qualifies for the payment in the two accounts, I would say the person should be paid. I can't even imagine running a signature campaigns on double accounts, its a lot of work except maybe the person has an ample time for this forum

[chibimanau]

KYC always has a risk of sharing personal information, if the information is stolen, it is very dangerous for users. That is the problem we need to look at. I do not like KYC

[joms123]

KYC faced the real security issues. Someone can steal your data by hacking the platform and use it for criminal purpose. But in other hand, crypto world still finding the best ways how to protect crypto transaction form money laundery, human trafficking and drugs transaction.

I think, its a big responsibelity to keep KYC data safe. If not, crypto will had bad ending.

It’s as safe as providing your Kyc details to any private sector Banks. Digital Wallets are now regulated by the RBI. At the end it’s the consumer trust what matters. Until a data breach happens all public and private sector banks and companies are good so having faith , trust and confidence is all what you can do.

[TrumpD]

KYC is needed, but not too soon. As agreed with the starting point of this thread, how do we know that these crypto exchanges of middlemen will be able to keep our data very safe. Even the big corporations which have been in the game for long enough face hacking issues and all sorts of data breach. Even see what Facebook is facing recently. However, we can't go too long without KYC all in the name of anonymity, coz it will turn into chaos.

[nelsmining]

In my opinion KYC is generally a threat. There is really very little reason for it except a form of government control. It is not for our benefit in any way and does not help us to improve our lives. It simply puts us at risk and allows scammers another way to get your information. In saying this I understand why exchanges and banks require it but in an ICO it is just a restraint to small investors.

[Helsing]

In my opinion KYC is generally a threat. There is really very little reason for it except a form of government control. It is not for our benefit in any way and does not help us to improve our lives. It simply puts us at risk and allows scammers another way to get your information.

Yes you are right. 1st of all it was never created for us customers it was created to controll money by governence but it ended with risk only for us. Goverment diesel not risk anything at all...

[Hasan_MSH]

Yeah I completely agree with you. It is needed to save our own work and security purpose. KYC make to safe both end. Sometimes happened unexpected transaction. KYC needed to skip that unexpected threat.     

[GeckoTrader]

As far as I am concern, KYC is more on security but we cannot remove the fact that it comes with a risk or threat. The objective of the KYC is to identity theft, prevent terrorist financing, money laundering and financial fraud. KYC allows us to understand the customer better and manage risks prudently. KYC collects and verifies basic details of the customers like:
-Name and authorized signatures
-Legal status of the legal entity or a person
-Identity of the beneficial controllers and owners of the account

Now adays KYC is very common with ICO's and I believe it is good for us.

[easemypain]

Know your customer known with the acronyms (KYC) is the essential regulatory requirements for the survival of crypto-currency in the digital world, project owners scrutinize investors for authentication using this innovation, Talking about the safety of KYC, this should be a huge challenge for the offeror of tokens or coins. Although it is in the best interest of the token investors that KYC is carried out properly, the information received from the investors which comprise of the name, address, an official ID, proof of residency and birthdate, this are computed and compared with the legal database to ensure conformity. This is still in its infancy stage with time KYC will become a norm in the crypto-community and the issue of safety regarding the personal information provided by investors will no longer be a thing to be worried about.