A call for mandatory KYC for core members of projects conducting an ICO or IEO.

[bitsurfer2014]

         Over the last few years, the crypto-community had experienced different forms of SCAM crypto projects doing ICO's in order to defraud unsuspecting investors and supporters which I think would have discouraged most of them towards openly embracing blockchain technology particularly on field of cryptocurrency. This fraudulent activities had resulted to significant amount of hard earned money being lost with little chance of recovery but rarely we've seen indictments for those who are responsible for the reason that most proponents or core members of these SCAM projects have used fake identities and addresses as an evasive strategy thereby making it more difficult for authorities to identify and pursue each and everyone of these perpetrators and held them liable under the rule of law.  Although there has been some cases of previous crypto frauds where the perpetrators had been brought to justice - due in part that their identities were known, still there are considerable number of SCAM projects out there waiting for the right time to take advantage of other people's weaknesses.  Additionally, these bad actors are often brazen in committing these illegal acts due to the fact that their real identities are often unknown to the public and there is almost no way we could really identify them personally.

        Another interesting fact is that I've seen some project's core members being tagged as KYC verified or had passed KYC by ICO rating sites which I find doubtful since these ICO ratings sites are not transparent enough on how they do their KYC process even if they stated that they are conducting it with the help of a KYC provider but of course, most of them are paid sites and possibly could give favor to certain projects due to monetary considerations or maybe they have other vested interest over that particular project.

       In this regard, I think its now about time that the crypto-community would altogether stand up united and demand that every crypto project's core members or top management should at least pass a mandatory KYC utilizing the industry's leading KYC providers even before the community considers to start investing in it or supports it since it could serve as a proof that a certain crypto project is being handled by real persons with real identities and not just with bogus aliases / identities. Moreover, the rationale behind this idea is that if those core members are doing a honest and legitimate project and they are all also acting in good faith, then I think there will be no reason for them to avoid undergoing a KYC process and would instead gladly submit themselves to it since there is no reason to hide their true identities for the purpose of avoiding any unwanted repercussions in the future.

      Also, I would like to point out based on my observations, that most founders and core members of most successful projects in the crypto industry had their identities made well known to the public except of course for Bitcoin's Satoshi Nakamoto which is in contrast to its current core developers whose identities are also publicly well known. I think maybe we could attribute the success of these crypto projects due to more transparency being shown by the core team of these respective projects. I guess the community are generally more inclined to trust most on the team or core members  if they knew their real identities thus building more trust and confidence between both parties.and this maybe one of the reasons why we need to obliged  ICO core members to absolutely pass KYC verification. Also, we should take into consideration that  that we could also make this KYC process as a requisite for any crypto projects doing fund generation activity be it an ICO or an IEO for that matter.

      I surmise that this mandatory KYC process for core members of a crypto project would be be both beneficial to the community and to the project itself since its implementation  would also gain the trust and faith of most members of the crypto-community towards the project and they would likely support and be part of it which I think will be critical elements to the project's success.  Moreover, the crypto-community should now have a means to know the real identities of project's core members and could further research those identities in order to further verify the legitimacy of the project and this will give them a leverage and power to sue the team if ever they did commit any unlawful acts that merits an indictment.

     I am longing for the day that all crypto projects will have KYC credentials mentioned or exhibited in the project's OP though I understand this will not totally stop scammers from doing their shameless acts but at least it would discourage would be offenders and  maybe lessen their scam activities. I am also hopeful it could have a positive impact to the community so that it might regain the trust from those who are in doubt with the whole crypto-industry.

     Finally, I know it  sounds hard to implement this idea but if only all members of the crypto-community would stand united by it then I think in the long run, it could make a significant difference that could result to a more healthier crypto industry!

[asriloni]

I thought that if IEO already used KYC verification before the exchange site is wanna listing an ico to be launched on its IEO but I will support this one because KYC can become another standard to the developer to launch its ICO.
But the problem when it will be so difficult to be implemented on independent ico.
This has already used by major launch pad to verify the ico.

[DeepChipolino]

Everything you write about is already being used by scammers to quell the vigilance of gullible investors. If there are only two sides, one of which is at risk and has no protection, there will always be a victim and a predator.
The first difficulty is the quality of projects. But with this we can do nothing.
2-nd. The difficulty lies not in the technical details of the implementation of the transparency of the project. Difficulty in the third person. I remember escrow providers were popular. But for some reason this is little used.
I think that a good way to reduce scams is to create a verification mechanism (KYC, escrow, publishing their mom's home addresses ) when creating a token. How to be with a new coin, while there are no ideas.

[bigcash2011]

I gave this suggestion too and that too couple of years ago but the fact is that there is no regulatory or implementatiom authority or body present and exchanges are centralized either their should be a global authority for ico registration, team kyc and details, ico clearance and licensing or the bigger exchanges should act like it and afyer thorough due diligence they should put public all the require data to public before the listing of an IEO.

[bitsurfer2014]

I gave this suggestion too and that too couple of years ago but the fact is that there is no regulatory or implementatiom authority or body present and exchanges are centralized either their should be a global authority for ico registration, team kyc and details, ico clearance and licensing or the bigger exchanges should act like it and afyer thorough due diligence they should put public all the require data to public before the listing of an IEO.

Yes you're right! The lack of central authority to enforce KYC process for every ICO or IEO further supports this notion that there should be a way to require them to undergo this process and that I think it should start on every member of the crypto-community's demand and insistence and if those projects fail to undergo such process in due time, then we might think of it as a red flag and be cautious about that particular project and I guess most projects would not like to be in that kind of doubtful situation. Imho.

[Vinalians]

Let's say in the ICO first. If the KYC implemented last year for sure there will be less scam project today and for sure the new ICO projects will still be the best investment. I hope today they do it on the IEO to put those owners or applicant to pass their own KYC for the assurance that they will now run the money.

[Marry Finch]

Our common efforts and appeals to ensure that ICO teams are tested by KYC will not bring any success. If there is no strict regulation of the activities of ICO projects by the states and their authorized bodies, the fraudsters will be able to successfully bypass all these public checks. Only a real check of the ICO team members by the relevant law enforcement agencies of the states at the place of registration of the ICO project can significantly reduce or even completely eliminate fraud in this type of activity. To do this, we will have to wait until the state during the legalization of cryptocurrency will not adopt the relevant regulations.

[Eadefemi]

Our common efforts and appeals to ensure that ICO teams are tested by KYC will not bring any success. If there is no strict regulation of the activities of ICO projects by the states and their authorized bodies, the fraudsters will be able to successfully bypass all these public checks. Only a real check of the ICO team members by the relevant law enforcement agencies of the states at the place of registration of the ICO project can significantly reduce or even completely eliminate fraud in this type of activity. To do this, we will have to wait until the state during the legalization of cryptocurrency will not adopt the relevant regulations.

The most saddening thing is that such scam and fraudsters will demand kyc from investors when they know they are out to dupe people. The only solution like you said is absolute regulations of ICO projects. Proper checks should be done through a regulatory body before endorsing any project for ICO or even IEO.

[Red-Apple]

all of the ICO rating sites are already corrupted and are reporting fake things for those who pay them and we all know that ICO scammers are willing to pay to get their shitty token advertised and that is why IEOs were created so that exchanges could get in on this and get that payment instead of letting some random site get paid while they lose the opportunity!

[fallensky7]

I agree with you about the need to introduce a mandatory KYC procedure for the ICO team. I think this is very important for assessing the reliability and success of the project. If investors know all about the developers, then there will be less scam and cheating on projects and will attract more potential investors.

[Karlinz]

Very laudable idea, I think this should be different from the days of Satoshi, currently a lot of these developers collect a lot of funds in the name of project development and eventually dump the token on unsuspecting investors. KYC for developers at this time is necessary at least it will go a long way in determining the veracity of the project, l see some ICO websites doing so for some projects and Verifying the developers but I am not sure if that is enough

[Msworld83]

I think this is a great suggestion for every team on any project to do KYC before their token can be invest in like Bitcointalk forum should help with that too by put a rule for any thread like ANN and BOUNTY program should not blbe posted here if the team did not do any thing like kyc and this will go a long way to protect and reduce lot of scam project on this forum.

[donass1]

I think IEOs are presently an indirect way of perferming KYC on project team members especially IEOs that are conducted in reputable exchanges, an exchange can lose it's reputation if it conducts a scam IEO and this has made exchanges conduct a thorough review of the project team before allowing them to conduct their sale in their exchanges.

[Bessta]

I saw a post like this before, and I totally agree with it. If there is any people here that is required to pass a KYC, those are the project owners or managers. Because with that, the possibility of having fraud is going to reduce significantly. Because in the first place, what the hell are they going to do with the KYC we passed? But if they are going to do submit a KYC, the customers are going to know them better.

[Ucy]

I like the idea of investors  demanding KYC from developers  to make their real identities known too. Not sure though it would stop a bad project from failing or make developers to deliver on their promises.

[knuckey]

all of the ICO rating sites are already corrupted and are reporting fake things for those who pay them and we all know that ICO scammers are willing to pay to get their shitty token advertised
~snip~

I agree with your opinion about the bad performance of ICO rating sites and unprofessional, I also doubt and do not believe in their reports or analysis that are not transparent and not objective.

~snip~
that is why IEOs were created so that exchanges could get in on this and get that payment instead of letting some random site get paid while they lose the opportunity!

But it doesn't seem too fair, how can the exchange decide between the projects they will launch or not? How about projects that do not meet their IEO requirements, they will always be eliminated, even though we don't know for sure what will happen in the future.

[gunhell16]

+SUPPORT++

This is why IEO is getting more popular than the ICO now.
If a project wants to have an IEO in a certain exchange, that team will do the investigation and research over the TEAM MEMBERS of the project before launching it to public.
This will ensure more legit project and such secured investment for the people.

[Fesatmas]

+SUPPORT++

This is why IEO is getting more popular than the ICO now.
If a project wants to have an IEO in a certain exchange, that team will do the investigation and research over the TEAM MEMBERS of the project before launching it to public.
This will ensure more legit project and such secured investment for the people.

True to the identity of the original team and make them confident with the project being run on the sale of certain IEO exchanges, there is no doubt investors will invest there.

[serjent05]

I agree with you about the need to introduce a mandatory KYC procedure for the ICO team. I think this is very important for assessing the reliability and success of the project. If investors know all about the developers, then there will be less scam and cheating on projects and will attract more potential investors.

Implementing this needs a central authority.  There are lots of factors to consider but if government will step in, those problem regarding who will conduct the KYC for ICO projec developer will be solved.  Without government intervention, there will be lots of KYC verifying company to sprout taking advantage of this new profitable venture.  Another problem is how credible are those company that will conduct KYC.

[thehulkk]

I totally agree with you, there have been many fraudulent ICOs and no one is responsible. If KYC is required for the ICO development team we will greatly reduce fraud ICO, because customers will know more about the development team.