KYC for ICO, is it good or bad idea?

[KRAUSS]

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

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

[3acaga]

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

[Crim3]

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

[Olatunjex]

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

[michael23]

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

[Alohadance]

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

[rodolfolucas160]

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

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

[Reid]

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

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

[valkoun]

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

[bohr]

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

[messito]

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

[kateycoin]

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

[fiomcorka]

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.

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

[Beegovere]

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

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

[Cheesus]

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

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

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

[team87]

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

[NewRanger]

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

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

[kriptosan797]

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

[phm]

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

[transformt]

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