Team also needs to pass KYC

[azalea69]

Who did the KYC team and it was reported to? if we follow the project automatically we have researched and know the team in the project, if it is not comfortable with the KYC system in the project it is better to avoid it. There are advantages and disadvantages if it is KYC, but this is the game that happens in every project.

[vertinfos]

for me KYC for the TEAM project does not really need to be applied in a project. the most important thing is their performance, because it is more important in making a project that is highly qualified.

Now actually, the kyc team does not really help the project to achieve even a softcap , I think the ico should now be a product that will interest either the ico should go to the ieo and then the project will be successful

[Babayan]

Some team members should have a LinkedIn profiles, it is something like KYC for them. If they have a lot of connections - it is a proof of their identity.

[Sebas.tian]

Investors and bounty hunters are mostly required to undergo KYC while the team behind the project itself are not known. And they scam people. I suggest the team should first pass a "KYC" test and publish it on their website before investors and hunters are also made to do same. What do you also think?

Seems reasonable to me. If you want investors to trust you with their money, it makes sense that you should make yourself honest about your intention. Its a good thing that majority of ICOs right now have their team conduct KYC. To site an example, in icobench, you can see if a project team did a KYC.

[thaliaand]

Investors and bounty hunters are mostly required to undergo KYC while the team behind the project itself are not known. And they scam people. I suggest the team should first pass a "KYC" test and publish it on their website before investors and hunters are also made to do same. What do you also think?

Literally, KYC means "Know Your Customer", so this term is not suitable. But I got what you mean by "KYC" for the team. I have not hear a global institution for this kind of matter, which is to regulate and as an intermediary between investors and ICO conductor. But there should've been local regulators who make such policies like the SEC. Some ICO reviewers have tried to do their researches to find out the team's background wether the ICO is legit or not, though can't be used as reference fully.

[fortunecrypto]

Investors and bounty hunters are mostly required to undergo KYC while the team behind the project itself are not known. And they scam people. I suggest the team should first pass a "KYC" test and publish it on their website before investors and hunters are also made to do same. What do you also think?

then we need a site or an independent company that will do that for us, Icobench and other rating sites already have this kind of features but we should not trust them they are working for their own profit, we should have an independent one for investors and bounty hunters.

[kiemnhieutien]

Project team members need to be verified. But it's not our job, we have/should have a 3rd independent party to verify project team members before they start their ICO/STO.
It's important to detect not real members or members that have participated in scam projects before.

[D3m1r4wanti]

In essence I am very pleased with you, it would be better if DEV and TEAM must first publish their own data in detail, but what I know in ICOBench is that some DEVs have included their KYC

[Toraynt]

That's a great idea, but so far it's not possible, because who will control the whole process. Some teams sometimes put their data on their site and it will always be a plus.

[davinchi]

KYC is not an ultimate sign of a scam free project people can fake their ID just to scam people its not like those KYC docs gets verified by the issuer.

We are fully aware that mere seeing their identity is not enough to justify the authenticity of the  project but it will give the users who wishes to do directly verify them the chance of doing so, we just need to explore many option available to us that will make us stay safe in the cryptocurrency investment.

If KYC is not that effective, why do projects and exchanges enforce it on users knowing full well too that they could have supplied a fake identity but at least, it is best they still take their chances, so KYC will be part of many system that should be put in place for project team too for necessary verification by investors.

[yulchatar]

If initially the project is conceived as scam, then its creators will have no difficulty in faking an KYC verification. Therefore, this is not at all an indicator of an honest and good project. I think that a thorough examination of all aspects of the project will be more reliable for us.

[tumis]

The team are expected to be certified. You have a good point but the question is, who will verify the kyc? Where will they submit the kyc? Unless we see the team on places like icobench where they have to pass kyc to increase its ratting

Never believe this site! (ico bench!)  There are very many projects and scams of many millions that received the highest ratings very quickly after the start of the campaign, had full verifications.

Never trust them

See an example of why --->> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5113882.msg49909676#msg49909676 !  <<<< --- Best fraud detector ? - ICOBENCH

Current examples of fraudulent campaigns:



Loyakk They collected 16 million USD! -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5111782.0
DATABLOCKCHAIN + Swachhcoin (Almost 20 million USD)  - > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5099688.msg49319218#msg49319218
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5124495.0 ->  Another mafia - Swachhcoin -They will stealing your IDs and preparing to retreat

Read and compare all these entries
and that's only 2 % of everything I know
And compare exactly the same methods of operation. The same lies. Phishing documents on the google form.
The same false experts % fake kvc methods
Scam and run method.
New documents from YOU . And the same.
And so all the time and again.


they didn't even calculate any rates and after a year they collect data from nerds.

example:
SCAMS:

https://icobench.com/ico/intro 4,5 / 33  expert ratings / KYC -YES
https://icobench.com/ico/humancoin  4.5 / 61 expert ratings / KYC -YES
https://icobench.com/ico/trustlogics 3.8 17 expert ratings / KYC -YES
https://icobench.com/ico/datareum 4.4 13 expert ratings / KYC -YES
https://icobench.com/ico/enlte  4.5 / 23 expert ratings  / KYC -YES (I am not convinced, but it seems to me that there have been at least twice as many expert assessments alone)
https://icobench.com/ico/sidera-blockchain-technologies  3.0 / 9 expert ratings (the grades were very high, all fell and were changed as soon as the fraud was official)

https://icobench.com/ico/datablockchain ( 4.7 / 55 expert ratings ) KYC -YES / Unofficial fraud but everything points to it (no translator received payment, kyc announced after a year and to this "mysterious" shares).
https://icobench.com/ico/loyakk  ( 4.5 /10 expert ratings) / KYC -YES Unofficial fraud but everything points to it (no translator received payment, kyc announced after a year , The administrator lies all the time, all the time removes the group members on the telegram. He deleted his account a few days ago. The company deals with business support, collected 16 million and smoothed out (kyc) documents through the google form.

[/size]

[kleshovab7]

This is a great idea, but who will check the team?
Who can you trust?
Unfortunately this will not happen. But it would be interesting to see).

[thinkright]

With what you're proposing, there will be the need for a central body to impose kyc od team members but this belie the idea behind crypto. Team members could choose to complete kyc on platforms like icobench in order to build trust with their prospective invewtors

[maculeth]

I think it's fair because the team wants the original data from the participants, so the team must also provide their original data as a guarantee that they will not commit a scam.

[rachman mahesa]

Before investing in each project, you should see the team first. If the team has been verified, of course that will increase trust for investment. Because most projects are certainly not verification that makes people hesitate before investing. As an investor, of course you have to see whether the team is trusted or not.

[Haterstestbtc]

This is a great idea, but who will check the team?
Who can you trust?
Unfortunately this will not happen. But it would be interesting to see).

It would be much interesting if the manager of the said campaign will provide the whole profile status, links and others information which proves the community that this company or  campaign is legitimate. Otherwise, its really impossible to happen that other business sectors or groups formed initiating the KYC requirement of each team.

[itasannah]

Yes, I agree that the Team behind their ICO must pass KYC. So we know they are very real and we can also see their track record. And this looks very fair because bounty hunters also do KYC. So that everything can be transparent and this will reduce fraud.

[tranduong123]

I agree, There are currently a number of ICO review sites, there are requirements for ICOs, such as ICObench, they have part of KYC for the team.

[guffie]

Many ICO are successful because they have a real Team and can provide correct information. KYC is now widely used in Crypto. So we must also be prepared if the project we are following must use KYC for bounty hunters. And the Team should be able to pass KYC so that more people will believe.