All ICO Project Proponents Must Also Submit KYC

[monalia]

If you don't feel comfortable giving your identity to strangers you should stay away from those ICOs, you should also stay away from ICOs that do not required identification.

Plenty of good projects to put your money in.

Different thought from high rank member. No one believing the ICO projects recent days because of increasing scam ICOs. SEC needs to take good action against the scam projects. To launch the ICO some norms needs to implement.
If they does not start such action then interest towards ICO investment reduce, no one cannot stop it.

[trudovik]

I fully support the opinion that I also put forward on many ICO projects. The fact is that they, too, can provide some kind of incorrect documents to inform investors, so I think that video fragments are needed there.

[Ozero]

If the ICO team claims that they have the right to demand that the KYC be checked by the participants of the ICO bounty campaigns, let them indicate which law and which country or union of states gives them this right and preferably refer to the text of this law. It turns out to be a paradox - everyone talks about it and no one knows such a right in reality, or is it an invention of ICO teams, who are very profitable to carry out such a check after conducting an ICO so that for a variety of reasons head hunters do not pay tokens earned by them. If someone can indicate here that he knows such a law and that it concerns precisely the participants of ICO bounty campaigns, please indicate here.
 do not be shy.
I think that there is no such law.

[Galley]

Project managers should go through KYC so that as much information as possible is presented on them freely available to investors. The more transparent the system, the greater the confidence in it. Providing information about yourself should be bilateral.

[GregH37]

KYC doesn't guarantee anything. It's getting too much attention, but if fact it's just additional trick to get more confidence that has no real ground. Instead of KYC, investors must estimate risk/reward ratio when they invest. On the other side, requiring KYC from clients is really ridiculous, even if developers completed KYC themselves. I think KYC will not be very important factor soon, now it's just overvalued.

I think the op is still right about that, maybe there should be a body that takes care of that and verify ICO for investors and supporters to know which one is legit and which ones are owned by scammers. Some of them are fond of setting up fake team and it takes a lot of research for you to find out what they have done there.

But, this is not going to be possible because a lot of people here don’t like regulation to be in this and having such means that regulation is slowly coming in. The only thing is just to keep off from those that needs KYC and go for other ICOs.

[Adriano2010]

Indeed they should do a kyc and someone to verify their kyc, because maybe only on that way they will not run away with funds, but making a kyc will not guarantee that once the project reach and exchange and after some time people who invest will make a profit.

[rizkyhiw]

KYC doesn't guarantee anything. It's getting too much attention, but if fact it's just additional trick to get more confidence that has no real ground. Instead of KYC, investors must estimate risk/reward ratio when they invest. On the other side, requiring KYC from clients is really ridiculous, even if developers completed KYC themselves. I think KYC will not be very important factor soon, now it's just overvalued.

I think the op is still right about that, maybe there should be a body that takes care of that and verify ICO for investors and supporters to know which one is legit and which ones are owned by scammers. Some of them are fond of setting up fake team and it takes a lot of research for you to find out what they have done there.

But, this is not going to be possible because a lot of people here don’t like regulation to be in this and having such means that regulation is slowly coming in. The only thing is just to keep off from those that needs KYC and go for other ICOs.

Yes, indeed, all must be properly and correctly filtered, all ICOs in the market are ready to be promoted everywhere, there must be one institution or whatever controls it because the ICO must be totally clean in fraud or whatever, as soon as possible to increase the reputation investors are beginning to be interested in following in their footsteps, perhaps with the advent of the IEO, they can anticipate all risks as a small example of fraud, so everything needs analysis to see a really good project.

[rachman mahesa]

That is the importance of KYC for all project team members. With that they are always trusted by investors. I think KYC for the project team is one of the requirements to find out whether the project is done by a professional team or not. Because I have seen a lot of projects with a team that is less clear and in the end the project died. I understand KYC for the project team is not one of the successes. But that is one of the investors' trust in the project itself.

[nekonyun]

I think we have to be careful before doing KYC because now there are a lot of fraudulent ICOs and also I see scam projects that have succeeded in cheating bounty hunters to do KYC and they have got the bounty hunter data for sale so we have to be careful

[arwani1985]

KYC For the makers of the projeck or team it should be done by an institution that regulates the issue of cryptocurrency. in this case the country in which they are developing the project, of course, they must have a business license. and this is where they certainly do data verification etc. to get permission

[Chicky213]

Requesting for kyc is now the order the day by many existing and upcoming projects. Wonder if half of them are actually real and legit. Well, giving out your information and data is entirely a thing of choice. I do participate in kyc only if I trust the project.

[South Park]

snip

Now, if these project owners can require us to undergo the KYC process...should it not be rational that they themselves submit to the same so that we can be sure that we are dealing with real people with real address?

I am against all forms of KYC, I do not like the idea of investors having to go through to it, and even with the huge number of scams I do not agree with the idea that the developers need to go through this process as well, there are legitimate reasons why a developer may want to remain anonymous, like developing a privacy coin that will be heavily monitored by the governments or just a desire to maintain his privacy.

[Wale777]

Many people have raised the issue of this kyc and nothing has been done differently despite all the kicks against it but I think no ICO is forcing anyone do kyc except for the few dubious ones that introduce kyc in the middle of the ICO or after the ICO to cheat some people. If you feel you don't feel safe don't release your documents

[sandra_x]

Too many kyc is more or less turning crypto into some centralized economy,Cryptos was suppose to give users some sorts or anonymity and freedom. Project teams are entrusted with peoples funds, so their identity should be not be in secrecy

[r_victory]

This is no guarantee that anyone will be deceived, maybe will make it more difficult. Isn't impossible but, could decrease the amount of "Shutterstock" teams. 

[Endikadija]

I think we have to be careful before doing KYC because now there are a lot of fraudulent ICOs and also I see scam projects that have succeeded in cheating bounty hunters to do KYC and they have got the bounty hunter data for sale so we have to be careful

Did you read it properly and he was talking about the developer and it's not about the bounty or investors need to pass KYC but the developer should do the same to avoid the fraudulent project. Please read it carefully. It looks like you don't even care about that.

[Bitfling]

The KYC requirement in many ICO projects has been the bone of contention of many investors and supporters with many thinking and feeling that this is not needed as this is the industry that proposes decentralization, anonymity and privacy. However, a project can argue that it is the law that requires them to know their customers and they are in fact just following the regulation. The problem is that KYC is not a guarantee that a project can never go down the coffin and run with the investors' money...maybe travelling to the "moon" and have an indefinite vacation in there until the victims can forget their misfortune of trusting them.

Now, if these project owners can require us to undergo the KYC process...should it not be rational that they themselves submit to the same so that we can be sure that we are dealing with real people with real address?

I dont think right now all crypto are decentralized. Many of altcoin are centralized and just want to collect fund from investor to developing the project. I think KYC could applied for the project like this because developers team must comply to government regulation.

[qomariah95]

That is why investors must be careful before investing. Because a lot of projects whose teams don't do KYC even the identity is all fake. With that, maybe the project in the future could be a scam. I agree if the project team has to do KYC. In that sense they really develop the project later.

[veraro]

I think it is a good suggestion, developers should pass KYC themselves. Of course it not give 100% guarantee, but i think it makes number of scammers much less. There are also should be legal responsibilities for those who launched ICO and collect money in case they fail. May be insure or something.

[LogitechMouse]

Simple. If you are not comfortable giving your personal to these stupid scammers then don't give it.

Do you think that these scammers will give their true information to the investors and everyone out there whom they don't know. I don't think so. One thing more, KYC from the team doesn't mean that they will not scam the investors already because they can give fake information to public.