Project Initiators and Team need KYC more than Investors

[Bonwin]

The decentralized nature of cryptocurrency seems not be effective when it comes to investing in cryptocurrency, seeing that investors in most cases are asked to do KYC, bounty hunters inclusive.

I do not think investors should be compelled or made to do KYC by submitting their personal data and documents, because project initiators do not stand any risk of losing their money. Rather project initiators or developers should be made to do KYC, in order to gain the trust of investors, who want to invest in their projects.

This is necessary because we have seen cases of scam ICOs, which have made investors to lose trust in a lot of them. So to gain the trust back, we would need to know whom we are giving our money to as investors.

[1714892416]

1714892416

[1714892416]

1714892416

[1714892416]

1714892416

[1714892416]

1714892416

[getrichquack]

Maybe it will not be done.
I used to think like you, I like that.
I like them (the team) should (KYC) information transparency rather than investors.

[Awesomus Maximus]

Rather project initiators or developers should be made to do KYC, in order to gain the trust of investors, who want to invest in their projects.

You are probably right it would be nice to have a system where you can trust the devs up front. But I don't think the devs and project members are going to do KYC willingly. They may force the investors and bounty hunters to do KYC because they are in such a position to ask for whatever they want. My advice is to just avoid any and all campaigns where KYC is needed and you will be fine.

[Psynthax]

The decentralized nature of cryptocurrency seems not be effective when it comes to investing in cryptocurrency, seeing that investors in most cases are asked to do KYC, bounty hunters inclusive.

I do not think investors should be compelled or made to do KYC by submitting their personal data and documents, because project initiators do not stand any risk of losing their money. Rather project initiators or developers should be made to do KYC, in order to gain the trust of investors, who want to invest in their projects.

This is necessary because we have seen cases of scam ICOs, which have made investors to lose trust in a lot of them. So to gain the trust back, we would need to know whom we are giving our money to as investors.

Just like that and just try to tell you endchain as the ico project which all of the team have already proven their identity through KYC verification and it has already verified through some parties. We need the more trusted team like this one and KYC verification looks so important to avoid the scammer.

[dabenko]

There are projects that do not ask investors for kyc, such as webspace. Although, some will tell you they are trying to be complaints with certain laws and that it compels them to get kyc done by all participants, both investors and bounty hunters.
This is very common with STOs.
If project team can be made to do kyc, it will make more investors to invest in such project.

[batang_bitcoin]

Everyone should be careful with these KYC requirement from these ICOs. I just recently saw someone offers their database after the project that they went. It's not just the ICO that they have been selling but their investors itself, the data, information, the ID's. As in everything, they are selling it so you should be careful on choosing what projects to invest with if you want to secure yourself from such type of taking for granted scenarios.

[trofim21]

Today, almost all companies require this procedure, but I think in the future, many companies will cancel it because of this they lose a lot of customers, not everyone likes it

[Dondont]

it should be like that, both parties must be mutual KYC to avoid cheating by one of them, let alone team members, they should do KYC because these people save investors' funds. what is feared is theft or misuse of investor funds

[lornadane]

I don't think KYC is a bad procedure for a project or investors, rather it is needed for everyone. As you mentioned, the project owner needs to verify KYC first, I do agree with you! Every regulated project like STO has this system! At this moment, people lost every hope from the ICO, if ICO project owners go with a live KYC procedure, then people can trust them again!

[bangjoe]

Such a policy is indeed enough to eliminate decentralization rather than cryptocurrency but we cannot say that cryptocurrency is not decentralized, it differs from crypto properties because it is for ICO and project continuity but after that everything will be decentralized because cypto decentralization is a cheap, transparent and non-existent transaction who set it up

[Gabali126]

The decentralized nature of cryptocurrency seems not be effective when it comes to investing in cryptocurrency, seeing that investors in most cases are asked to do KYC, bounty hunters inclusive.

I do not think investors should be compelled or made to do KYC by submitting their personal data and documents, because project initiators do not stand any risk of losing their money. Rather project initiators or developers should be made to do KYC, in order to gain the trust of investors, who want to invest in their projects.

This is necessary because we have seen cases of scam ICOs, which have made investors to lose trust in a lot of them. So to gain the trust back, we would need to know whom we are giving our money to as investors.

I perfectly agree with you. We need to know the real identity of anyone who owns an ICO project so that in case they want to abscond with investors funds, they can easily be apprehended.

[BTCreward]

It all depends on how much the level of fraudulent ICOs will be reduced, since the main problem at the moment is more than the number of fraudulent ICOS and therefore it is very dangerous to pass the KYC.

[kawetsriyanto]

Everyone should be careful with these KYC requirement from these ICOs. I just recently saw someone offers their database after the project that they went. It's not just the ICO that they have been selling but their investors itself, the data, information, the ID's. As in everything, they are selling it so you should be careful on choosing what projects to invest with if you want to secure yourself from such type of taking for granted scenarios.

This is what makes me afraid with KYC procedure. For bounty/airdrop cases, sometimes after giving KYC to a project, the project looks like not really active to the community. The team members are rather difficult to contact. Moreover, for bounty/airdrop hunters just got a little profit from the project. KYC procedure is too risky, and the profits are not in accordance with the risk. I think it is the reason to refuse KYC procedure for bounty/airdrop with less profitable.

[batang_bitcoin]

Everyone should be careful with these KYC requirement from these ICOs. I just recently saw someone offers their database after the project that they went. It's not just the ICO that they have been selling but their investors itself, the data, information, the ID's. As in everything, they are selling it so you should be careful on choosing what projects to invest with if you want to secure yourself from such type of taking for granted scenarios.

This is what makes me afraid with KYC procedure. For bounty/airdrop cases, sometimes after giving KYC to a project, the project looks like not really active to the community. The team members are rather difficult to contact. Moreover, for bounty/airdrop hunters just got a little profit from the project. KYC procedure is too risky, and the profits are not in accordance with the risk. I think it is the reason to refuse KYC procedure for bounty/airdrop with less profitable.

Bounty hunting doesn't have a secured profit through hunting projects and joining the program that they offer.

That's not an easy thing that everyone has been thinking of until now. Most of them are very sketchy and shady to the point you mentioned they rarely communicate with the people that they have been with. It's really hard to assess if you're in the middle of thinking and decides if you'll follow the KYC or not.

[CryptoTech_]

I don't think it is necessary to be KYC for an ICO Team, if to prove they are genuine they just need to make an introductory video about themselves, I think that is much better

[knuckey]

It's true and I really agree with your idea, because with KYC we can easily track and analyze the people behind the project, whether real or not. Even better if the funds from ico do not hold directly by the developer, but are held by escrow services, this is to prevent losses if ico becomes a scam.

[Woolles890]

ICO with KYC can avoid fraud, but this will no longer be anonymous but can find a good solution if undesirable things happen.
All of this also depends on project policy for the better.

[Jating]

It could be but the problem is that this is a free market, those ICO that pops around can do anything, but the thing is that this community has exposed a lot of them specially nameless and faceless project, and I don't think they are willing to do KYC, and that is the sad part.

For those investors who have been ask for a KYC, my simply answer is that if you're not comfortable sharing your information then skip and look for other projects that don't enforce this KYC thingy.

[maaldaz]

The decentralized nature of cryptocurrency seems not be effective when it comes to investing in cryptocurrency, seeing that investors in most cases are asked to do KYC, bounty hunters inclusive.

I do not think investors should be compelled or made to do KYC by submitting their personal data and documents, because project initiators do not stand any risk of losing their money. Rather project initiators or developers should be made to do KYC, in order to gain the trust of investors, who want to invest in their projects.

This is necessary because we have seen cases of scam ICOs, which have made investors to lose trust in a lot of them. So to gain the trust back, we would need to know whom we are giving our money to as investors.

I like that idea in asking the team to do a KYC, but it will need some trusted 3rd party involvement to collect all those KYC data, that way should be able to minimize any possibilities for people to make some scam project.

[Snaic]

Of course, the test, which is much larger than the KYC, must be passed in front of the relevant state bodies by the members of the ICO team, since fraudsters are often ICO teams rather than investors. We have statistics that more than half of all ICO projects are now scammers. Are there any data how many investors tried to launder dirty money by investing in ICO projects? It seems to me that the effectiveness of this venture is almost zero. This is one of the methods to discourage the population from using cryptocurrency.
On the other hand, we know that KYC testing is only for investors, not for bounty hunters, demanded by the United States and China. At the same time, we do not know what form they need to do. Maybe it’s enough just to warn investors that the ICO project is not for citizens of these countries. After all, in the end, it is for them to decide whether this event is risky or not.
 And with regard to bounty hunters, checking KYC is generally illegal, because no one is demanding such testing against us.