A new look to KYC, from a customer's perspective.

[andulolika]

So, what does KYC mean? I always hated that thing, mostly because I feelt it is an unnecesary leak of information.

With these times and all the shitcoin scams and real waste of time and money I came to the resolution that we need a new meaning for KYC.

Know Your CEO.

The best way we could prevent or atleast act in the case (most certain) of one of any new project being a scam is selecting a number of trusted users of the community to verify the "Team" of any coin just the same way we are verified in most sites.
Since most of the new coins claim the "Team" is the people shown in the pictures they shouldn't mind verifying it to this peculiar non snitch trustworthy gathering of users.

In the case a project is to be compared to bitcoin or ethereum and the team crave anonimity you shouldn't need an ICO or could provide code before launching and provide a service.

Any ideas? Would anyone actualy ask for this before investing? and keep the word and not invest without the check?

I think it is more than a fair price for trusting someone with perhaps thousands of bitcoins.

Edit: I has another interesting post few ahead for (for the ones that read op only)

It is hard to obtain genuine infos regarding ceo's, the easiest way is to make a black list with all the projects (and the team behind it) that has been proven to be scam.

I'm very tired and cannot make a post right now, after I sleep and wake up well I will make a new post erasing this one and making a  new one or something.

I just had to note that  one must be very careful on notes about people around a project, shills and such.

[Bonwin]

I have also thought of this many times, but most of the project teams will not want to reveal their identities to just some chosen set of people in the community, because they too do not trust just anybody, just like investors I'll not trust just any CEO. This is why we need platforms like Civic and others to help in this process.
ICO listing sites should also come in to help, but the case is, how many of them can be trusted?

[minersday]

So, what does KYC mean? I always hated that thing, mostly because I feelt it is an unnecesary leak of information.

With these times and all the shitcoin scams and real waste of time and money I came to the resolution that we need a new meaning for KYC.
Know Your CEO.

Definitely, the new meaning for KYC should be know your CEO. There are a lot of scam projects all over the crypto ecosystem which is making investors lose huge sums of money and also driving out serious investors away from real crypto projects. I think I support this new name and direction.

[Emilyp]

Inasmuch as ICOs need investors kyc information, it's also important that the investors know who they are actually giving their money and he/she is ready to be held accountable.

[muncuss]

I know a platfrom called kyd (know your developer), they check and review the developer of a coin/token. but i don't know if their review is authentic or not.

Honestly i only invest in a project that have a video showing their team's face

[MakeMoneyBtc]

So, what does KYC mean? I always hated that thing, mostly because I feelt it is an unnecesary leak of information.

With these times and all the shitcoin scams and real waste of time and money I came to the resolution that we need a new meaning for KYC.

Know Your CEO.

The best way we could prevent or atleast act in the case (most certain) of one of any new project being a scam is selecting a number of trusted users of the community to verify the "Team" of any coin just the same way we are verified in most sites.
Since most of the new coins claim the "Team" is the people shown in the pictures they shouldn't mind verifying it to this peculiar non snitch trustworthy gathering of users.

In the case a project is to be compared to bitcoin or ethereum and the team crave anonimity you shouldn't need an ICO or could provide code before launching and provide a service.

Any ideas? Would anyone actualy ask for this before investing? and keep the word and not invest without the check?

I think it is more than a fair price for trusting someone with perhaps thousands of bitcoins.

Edit: I has another interesting post few ahead for (for the ones that read op only)

I think this would be a great idea and it would definitely help crypto industry to grow a lot since people could invest only in project they trust. Honestly I don't know why someone else didn't thought about this before since the industry of ICOs would have been completely changed now. Every new project that claims to have a team with dozens of years of experience in cryptocurrencies should prove it to their users first before asking them for money.

[karagun125]

I agree with this thread. Perhaps many bounty hunters doesn't agree with kyc verification, i think kyc is for the investors but not for bounty hunters and some good projects states that they will be having kyc on the starting poibt of their campaign, but some aren't telling kyc, they would just surprise you if their project is done already.

[justspare]

As it seems to me, binance carefully checks both the team and the viability of the whole project before displaying it on binance launchpad. I think the ICO taking place on the platforms owned by the exchanges will be the trend of this year. Customers trust binance, because if i happens "misfire" exchange risks losing part of its reputation.

That is what is happening now. It is true that the Binance launchpad is one place where people want to invest in the ICO. Of course it is not arbitrary projects that can be included in the Binance launchpad. If the team from the project is not trusted, of course Binance will lose his reputation.

It also depends on their own method of verification and selection, there is no system that does not have loop holes, if an hacker can break into United State of America fund to steal, which system cannot be broken ? Even with Binance Launchpad, we don’t expect 100% perfection.

Remember that we are operating a decentralized system even though we have centralized exchanges but even with that, the projects in question, the team are scattered all over the continent, Binance cannot one by one verify each of them individually but will still be system verification, so I don’t see Binance not still having one or two challenges with the system,and that should not make them imperfect.

[Vit83]

The only KYC we need is a KYC for a team) They taking our money. They must give us some guarantees that they will be working for the project and that they will finish the project or return the money.

[Red-Apple]

KYC was created to comply with the fiat world and its laws of centralization and is enforced by the government to mainly prevent money laundering but also to keep track of what people are doing with their money so that they can tax them.

at some point in last years when ICOs started failing and could no longer fool enough people to rob them, they started coming up with weird ways to look legitimate and one of the many ways used was KYC. then immediately afterwards they realized since they are not really regulated and there is no law that they abide by, they started selling all that information to make more money.
the worst part is that KYC and its problems is not even an ICO related issue. there are exchanges that have done the same thing! like bittrex selling user data on darknet...

that is KYC from customer perspective.

[eternalgloom]

I mean, I just outright refuse to invest in any sort of ICO, just because they usually have absolutely nothing to show for it and the chances of getting burned are just too great.
Think about it, there are enough projects that manage to get things done, before even raising a single dollar of funding.

Verifying the team behind an ICO might mitigate some of the risks, but in the end it's always possible that they do not reach the goals they've set out.
No matter who they are...

[WalkerIVIV]

The only KYC we need is a KYC for a team) They taking our money. They must give us some guarantees that they will be working for the project and that they will finish the project or return the money.

Most of them (team that created ICOs were not verified) we can take how bittrex was refusing to launch its IEO caused by the bittrex team has discovered a shady things from the team. KYC should be mandatory for the team.

[andulolika]

I mean, I just outright refuse to invest in any sort of ICO, just because they usually have absolutely nothing to show for it and the chances of getting burned are just too great.
Think about it, there are enough projects that manage to get things done, before even raising a single dollar of funding.

Verifying the team behind an ICO might mitigate some of the risks, but in the end it's always possible that they do not reach the goals they've set out.
No matter who they are...

Well, this is not something that allow us to see competitiveness but yes however cataloguize their capabilities if they actually do a job. Also, there is always more people, and time, we aren't against chronometer right now all real hurry is eagerness for profits or timing because of speaking too early.
Indeed most successfull projects were either done without any coin raising or the code was provided right after the raising, so, done before.


More funnily, with their identity known they might think twice before doing a run after the ICO.

KYC was created to comply with the fiat world and its laws of centralization and is enforced by the government to mainly prevent money laundering but also to keep track of what people are doing with their money so that they can tax them.

at some point in last years when ICOs started failing and could no longer fool enough people to rob them, they started coming up with weird ways to look legitimate and one of the many ways used was KYC. then immediately afterwards they realized since they are not really regulated and there is no law that they abide by, they started selling all that information to make more money.
the worst part is that KYC and its problems is not even an ICO related issue. there are exchanges that have done the same thing! like bittrex selling user data on darknet...

that is KYC from customer perspective.

I think KYC used to be done because both company and government demands it towards user so they don't launder money bla bla , but if it was done from us towards unknown people AND taxes are paid then it should be surveilled/identified by whatever entity recieves the taxes (treasury I think it is called) , not a company that hasn't proven itself and has chances of going shady.
Shouldn't treasury take care the creators are legit since all this shit is taxed?

Also, whoever claim's an ICO is trusted just because is on icobench or whatever site might be a shill or holder, I agree it might give a better insight or even can help prevent scams but one is also easy to be influenced, just look at yobit and their own shittokens coins all day, everyone profits. Shitcoins, we don't even get those nowadays and if they were easy to create then an ico is a term of 2 months where you hype and raise.
Not having a whitepaper before even mentioning an ICO says a lot already.

And for the end, how and when the hell we start making it a crave and deny doing it otherwise?

[raven7886]

~snip

You are absolutely on point, this is one of the great ways we can use in knowing a good project by verifying the team directly, at least a very good project should not be afraid of displaying its location and location of the team members which any of community members residing in same country as the team can verify and give feedback.

It will really be great if groups can be created generally for people to join other than the ones created by the projects, whereby people can come and discuss generally about any form of ICO for verification purpose by any member residing in the country of the project team.

[mrdeposit]

So, what does KYC mean? I always hated that thing, mostly because I feelt it is an unnecesary leak of information.

With these times and all the shitcoin scams and real waste of time and money I came to the resolution that we need a new meaning for KYC.

Know Your CEO.

Know Your CEO? Mate, you made my day.
 After all these scam projects I am tired and want to do something different than passing the pre-determined barriers by CEOs. Now revenge time!

[Ahiaba]

Well, the truth is that there are some project here in this forum that was managed by some trusted forum member here and at the end they all turn out to be scam. So, i think your recommendation may be also difficult for it to s÷ the light of the day.

[andulolika]

Well, the truth is that there are some project here in this forum that was managed by some trusted forum member here and at the end they all turn out to be scam. So, i think your recommendation may be also difficult for it to s÷ the light of the day.

Well, thing is all they do is accepting a ridiculous amount of btc for managing and promote it, perhaps they should specificaly say if they endorse the project or not , not leave it in a limbo of conveniency where you misguide people and earn without a penalty. So even if they promote they should atleast admit they endorse it, it is still a factor left in cause for the promotion but a bit would be mitigated.

However promoting obvious scams this way should also be punished somehow.

Also, we really need to see and talk how we will start demanding this kyc.

Note: While I wouldn't usualy just change the subject like this I feel that since I already have signature I could do no harm in metioning LIF , or even more important, windingtree.com, It is one of the most legit projects I seen out there after an ICO with constant development. Price is on one of it's ATL's however it raised a bit.

https://kydcoin.io/ someone forwarded this to me in an alternate site.

[superscommessebitcoin]

At first, I also had a negative attitude to this procedure. I did not participate in projects where it was necessary to pass it. But now I've reconsidered my view of it. I understand that this is a good way to protect against fraud.

[qtronix]

But many projects also abuse this procedure. They may steal your personal information. So I can not say that I also have a good attitude to KYC. I very carefully examine the project before going through this procedure.

[basty03]

So, what does KYC mean? I always hated that thing, mostly because I feelt it is an unnecesary leak of information.

With these times and all the shitcoin scams and real waste of time and money I came to the resolution that we need a new meaning for KYC.

Know Your CEO.

The best way we could prevent or atleast act in the case (most certain) of one of any new project being a scam is selecting a number of trusted users of the community to verify the "Team" of any coin just the same way we are verified in most sites.
Since most of the new coins claim the "Team" is the people shown in the pictures they shouldn't mind verifying it to this peculiar non snitch trustworthy gathering of users.

In the case a project is to be compared to bitcoin or ethereum and the team crave anonimity you shouldn't need an ICO or could provide code before launching and provide a service.

Any ideas? Would anyone actualy ask for this before investing? and keep the word and not invest without the check?

I think it is more than a fair price for trusting someone with perhaps thousands of bitcoins.

Edit: I has another interesting post few ahead for (for the ones that read op only)

This is good suggestion because it's important that we know who is team in every project so we can have assurance that what we invest will not take away. And if the there's no motive to scam the people they will agree to this so it will fair to their investors.