KYC for ICO, is it good or bad idea?

[krassy]

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

[Wigowien]

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

[Onardonwan]

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

[Haethiel]

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

[IgorShumilo]

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

[Niresean]

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

[blockchainmarketus]

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

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

[seo-maestro]

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

[rachman mahesa]

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

[gunhell16]

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

[Absolutep]

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

[silverleafy]

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

[dhemasm]

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

[tepyh]

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

[tsaroz]

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

[Vektrum]

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

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

[MISS_nSTASSY]

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

[Rrtt]

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

[gerjiss]

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

[YuginKadoya]

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