All ICO Project Proponents Must Also Submit KYC

[bitstalker]

I strongly agree that it would be fairer if all the teams involved in ico also participate in doing kyc, because by doing this, maybe if ico were a scam / might fail if they left the project just like that, investors "might" be able to hold accountable or maybe "refund" but if it's not done by the investor, the investor might also be able to do it but it's just a little difficult because surely they will hide or maybe some of them are actually fictional people

[1715083817]

1715083817

[1715083817]

1715083817

[1715083817]

1715083817

[1715083817]

1715083817

[1715083817]

1715083817

[upsidedown75]

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?

If you’re just tired of all these rubbish that are happening and you don’t know how to avoid them, the best thing you can do for yourself is just forget about them, there are lots of other ways you can make money from cryptocurrency. Even by buying BTC and storing it in a safe wallet for a long term till the price matures, you’re more safe doing that than any other thing. The only problem is that a lot of people wants to make quick profit and that’s why they don’t show interest in long term hold. You can even go for trading, there are lots of exchanges with good reputation already.

[der_troll]

I thought it was obvious that if the team members require to pass the KYC process from investors and bounty hunters, they must be verified as well, I mean it is a regular process that should not be met in every project, but if so, everybody who is involved should undergo this process.

[jrrsparkles]

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?

KYC doesn't make them as trusted community,they can easily submit fake documents even those were available for cheap prices on darknet.Only we can restrict us from joining on the projects which are asking KYC to submit so they also might reconsider removing it from their participation.

[khufuking]

Actually, there are some ICO review sites that offer that and do KYC on the reviewed projects, however, we can not be sure if they did that KYC for real or it is just a paid one so we need a really trusted service that can do that for us and at the same time be sure that there work is legit, something maybe something like Civic can be the answer for this I tried them before and it was very easy and smooth verification. 

[Augustyusuf]

im agree with this one, so we as investor know well the person whos running that project was a real person, not a fake one, so we can avoid being cheated by them.

[baigreen]

Personality check makes me more suspicious than positive emotions. Staroniki of this procedure will be in trouble for many times. Identity checking should be done only by developers. And do not collect our documents. It's not safe. When you are attacked by another hacker.

[labilaab]

I understand your idea but in my opinion I think its better to do sensus voting for all crypto users to have a vote on who'se infavor of having KYC and don't.Maybe there will be a specific voting site where all participants are undergoing KYC to avoid double vote or cheat.And of course this site is a certified site by google or backed by any licensed organization to ensure our information is safe by our KYC. I recommend this since there are many also who are infavor of implementing KYC just like me to avoid spammers like in exchanges.

[coin-investor]

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?

If you are not comfortable with ICO that requires KYC then better not invest or participated, we have seen so many ICO caught faking their profile, they always have a way to fake the identity and so do the KYC, it is a proven and a fact that there is no guaranty in ICO even if they are telling us that they are compliant.

[Muzika]

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?

if people can trick bounty KYC thru passing fake ID's then the team behind the bounty can also did that if they really wants to scam people, the only thing that can make bounty great again I think is the intercede by the government to the team behind bounties.

[labilaab]

Also one main reason why banks and other organizations keep contradicting on supporting crypto is its prone to scammers use due to its anonimity transactions. Its not that I'm against the idea of not having a KYC, I just hope there will be another solution to this matter aside from implementing a full KYC method for every investors.

[Psynthax]

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?

if people can trick bounty KYC thru passing fake ID's then the team behind the bounty can also did that if they really wants to scam people, the only thing that can make bounty great again I think is the intercede by the government to the team behind bounties.

But only a little percentage the bounty participants that used a fake ID and it can be identified easily. you can create such a comparison between how much scam icos that used fake ids. Most of the bounty hunters are getting scammed by them too. You should see that from various perspectives.

[Tylev]

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?

So far, no campaign of the ICO project has given a link to a specific law and has not pointed to excerpts from it, which would give them the right to demand from headhunters to be tested by KYC. We need to start with this. If they cannot bring their claim legally, then it should be considered illegal, because it violates our right to privacy of the individual. Checking the KYC of the ICO teams themselves will not give us anything, they may also not provide their data, as many bounty hunters do. The ICO teams should be checked by authorized state bodies. Only they can conduct a quality check and protect us from fraudulent ICO projects.

[pungopete468]

In my opinion this has become a reasonable procedure. because what is feared is the funds that they invest in laundering funds. and this is why KYC is treated to avoid this because the team knows data from investors. I am not too concerned about this but it is clearly not misused by the team of data from investors.

[jessyj48]

Failed ICO projects I've seen in the past are mainly the ones requesting for our IDs but even if projects owners start going through KYC themselves these doesnt prove to safe investors funds anything can still happen

[Boombull]

This is seriously needed and I think this is one of the reform we need in this space. An ICO team don't have any right to ask investors to do KYC if they are not doing. Come to think of it, they're even the one that needs to do kyc because we are the one risky our money and skills as bounty hunters into their business startups that they are yet to prove its chance of going big.

[Docbee]

It is illogical when team couldn't go through kyc but asking for kyc from investors. As far as i am concern that is a red flag, i don't see why a genuine team will be running from kyc.

[Sacramentus]

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?

you guys should stop bringing up this kyc issues all the time. If you have phobia for kyc, stay away from any project asking for it simple. There has been many post about this kyc and many response to it also there are projects that don't require kyc, stick to them.

[fasdorcas]

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 don't even see any reason whatsoever why investors would have to carry out KYC when participating in an ICO, when means of payment for token is tired down just to crypto and without fiat included, KYC should only be necessary for those who will want to make purchase of the token via fiat so that the government would be able to demand for their details if something went wrong during the purchase, the main people that should carry out KYC are the people in charge of the project since we are committing our money to their hand.

[Petchant]

I think this should be the new standard for all projects in the industry. Project team should be able to come out let us know the full details which will includes kyc before they can tell us to invest in their startup and with this, it will be very easy to make them fully accountable