Who is behind KYC info? Why we don't ask them for KYP?

[Ryker1]

Well, sound like a good point. But as far as I remember, every KYC registration requires the user to read terms and conditions. They would state there where would they put your information and why. The company that possess your sensitive information and an assurance that they will keep it confidential and will only use it for verification purposes. Am I correct? --please correct me if I'm wrong.

[1715189172]

1715189172

[Spider A4]

We know that centralization is a big problem for society these days, because of its many issues like bureaucracy, inefficiency, corruption, manipulation, data privacy, steal and sale of private information, etc!

KYC is another issue because nobody knows where their info will be ended and who will see it or use it.

The problem with KYC is who is asking for it and what use they will give. There should be a KYP (Know your provider) so far we don't have such a thing! and nobody is thinking about it!

The first step before doing our KYC, we the users should apply KYP and make sure we know who is holding our personal info, the people behind centralized companies need to have their full names and id publicly, they need to be accountable, and transparent. after that, we should proceed to do KYC.

Clever ideas?

KYP is a great addition but i think some projects publicly announced which is their KYP. Specially i know that about 2 projects Datablockchain and Moozicore public their KYP partner. Here is my fear when i provide KYC in the some bounties. Mostly project asking kyc and i always frustrated about my privacy, in previous a few of bounties scammed here i was completely it.  

[zviadits]

Know Your Customer, Know Your Partner. What comes next?

I think we should be looking for ways to stop this KYC policy instead, as in my opinion it only does more harm than good. Look around what's going on with the platforms using KYC and see for yourself.

Bittrex basically confiscated my funds by enforcing a mandatory KYC verification post-deposit. I only care about the safety of my funds, and KYC lowers the safety of them a lot more than lawmakers might've expected.

KYP wouldn't make things fair for both sides. What would knowing who's behind Bittrex help me with if they've confiscated my money thanks to KYC? It's exactly the same thing, but more privacy is invaded. Instead of making things better, it would make them worse. Instead of adding this policy, I would work on changing the KYC first so stealing of funds won't be legal anymore... because KYC basically makes money stealing legal. Fair? Obviously not.

Then simply boycott anyone asking for kyc if they don't offer kyp.

If KYP would be implemented, platforms would offer it from registration phase. And then it would function just like it does right now, without KYP implemented.

KYP and KYC are not practical and dangerous for users. These verification systems are not suitable, but so far there are no alternatives, we can not do anything. There remains the option of interacting with exchanges which do not require KYC, however, I doubt that your assets will be safe

[USBitcoinServices.Com]

Know Your Customer, Know Your Partner. What comes next?

I think we should be looking for ways to stop this KYC policy instead, as in my opinion it only does more harm than good. Look around what's going on with the platforms using KYC and see for yourself.

Bittrex basically confiscated my funds by enforcing a mandatory KYC verification post-deposit. I only care about the safety of my funds, and KYC lowers the safety of them a lot more than lawmakers might've expected.

KYP wouldn't make things fair for both sides. What would knowing who's behind Bittrex help me with if they've confiscated my money thanks to KYC? It's exactly the same thing, but more privacy is invaded. Instead of making things better, it would make them worse. Instead of adding this policy, I would work on changing the KYC first so stealing of funds won't be legal anymore... because KYC basically makes money stealing legal. Fair? Obviously not.

Then simply boycott anyone asking for kyc if they don't offer kyp.

If KYP would be implemented, platforms would offer it from registration phase. And then it would function just like it does right now, without KYP implemented.

KYP and KYC are not practical and dangerous for users. These verification systems are not suitable, but so far there are no alternatives, we can not do anything. There remains the option of interacting with exchanges which do not require KYC, however, I doubt that your assets will be safe

In the end, the users have the power of choice, they can accept or not provide KYC if they want to use centralized services.

[Theb]

KYP and KYC are not practical and dangerous for users. These verification systems are not suitable, but so far there are no alternatives, we can not do anything. There remains the option of interacting with exchanges which do not require KYC, however, I doubt that your assets will be safe

How are you able to judge if it KYC is practical or not if there are no known alternatives for it except for the service being KYC-free? Also there is no such thing as "KYP" at least that's not what it's really called, OP is just creating a counter on the KYC we are having for the companies and services asking for it yet he completely forgets the fact that in order for them to fully operate and run legally they need to be a registered and  a certified company or at least comply with the requirements of the SEC. The process itself is a good as a KYC equivalent for them since they need to submit their own personal information to build their own company/project. Also don't expect services that don't require KYC to remain KYC-free inevitably the authorities will catch up to them and require them KYC.

[20kevin20]

KYC is dangerous for users because it's our money and privacy at stake.

If I physically go to an exchange willing to change $500k into 500 EUR and they ask me to declare where the $500k comes from, I have the option to take my money back and leave the exchange. Here though, you have no option. You can send them your money but they'll hold it in their own accounts unless you give them what they need. It's some kind of a hostage situation, the hostage being your money.

In reality, this would look like: you give me your wallet to take a look at it and I'll seize it unless you give me your documents.

If there are no other alternatives to KYC, then change the law. Make it so it is mandatory pre-depositing or upon account creation to validate your identity. Or don't apply KYC at all. Ironicall, I feel safer on an exchange without KYC than on one with it implemented.

[imstillthebest]

Well, sound like a good point. But as far as I remember, every KYC registration requires the user to read terms and conditions. They would state there where would they put your information and why. The company that possess your sensitive information and an assurance that they will keep it confidential and will only use it for verification purposes. Am I correct? --please correct me if I'm wrong.

i never read terms and conditions to be honest but i still dont think that they will put on it on thier terms if what would they do on your kyc because that is already a serious matter  .

 no one will know if what will their doing with our  kyc's but one thing is for sure that legit and trusted companies will never done  harm on your data's  while fraud and scam company can say that they will keep your data's safe but deep inside they are doing another business with it  .

[gantez]

What OP is asking for or talking about in real life is called unveiling the mask or legal personality. This is the court that judicare on that but I don't know how that relief can be granted for online business or is going to be based on mutual agreement from exchange operators in the spirit of transparency.

[countryfree]

KYP is just common sense.

When I chose a bank, I visit the bank first. I walk in, looking at the building and the people there. I would never consider opening an account online to some new online bank like Mistertango or the like. You may also check a bank rating on Fitch, or some other provider of credit ratings.

When it comes to exchanges, I look for the large, old and established ones. Sadly, that was not enough, I lose money with Poloniex last year. You have to be very cautious.

[Tylev]

If we begin to constantly exchange confidential information in cryptocurrency, it will be some kind of nonsense. We do not need KYC checks on small transactions. Decentralization in this matter will not solve the problem. Clear rules are required to comply with the KYC procedure, such as, for example, FATF requirements. According to the recommendations of this organization, a KYC check should be applied if transactions exceed one thousand euros. More than two hundred participating States must comply with this binding recommendation by June 21 of this year. This will be an acceptable solution to the KYC problem in cryptocurrency.

[USBitcoinServices.Com]

If we begin to constantly exchange confidential information in cryptocurrency, it will be some kind of nonsense. We do not need KYC checks on small transactions. Decentralization in this matter will not solve the problem. Clear rules are required to comply with the KYC procedure, such as, for example, FATF requirements. According to the recommendations of this organization, a KYC check should be applied if transactions exceed one thousand euros. More than two hundred participating States must comply with this binding recommendation by June 21 of this year. This will be an acceptable solution to the KYC problem in cryptocurrency.

The best alternative is to use private-oriented cryptocurrencies, many of them use decentralized exchanges like Bisq. In the future, many crypto projects will turn into this type of business, because of the privacy advantages they offer.

[fortunecrypto]

We know that centralization is a big problem for society these days, because of its many issues like bureaucracy, inefficiency, corruption, manipulation, data privacy, steal and sale of private information, etc!

KYC is another issue because nobody knows where their info will be ended and who will see it or use it.

The problem with KYC is who is asking for it and what use they will give. There should be a KYP (Know your provider) so far we don't have such a thing! and nobody is thinking about it!

The first step before doing our KYC, we the users should apply KYP and make sure we know who is holding our personal info, the people behind centralized companies need to have their full names and id publicly, they need to be accountable, and transparent. after that, we should proceed to do KYC.

Clever ideas?

I agree with your observation that is why I only do KYC to popular and compliant exchange, I never do KYC to newly launch KYC or ICO and airdrop that is why I missed a lot of bounty campaign because I do not want to be part of these campaigns that ask for bounty campaign, if they do not show compliant and who are the team behind I'll never do KYC.

[Argoo]

We know that centralization is a big problem for society these days, because of its many issues like bureaucracy, inefficiency, corruption, manipulation, data privacy, steal and sale of private information, etc!

KYC is another issue because nobody knows where their info will be ended and who will see it or use it.

The problem with KYC is who is asking for it and what use they will give. There should be a KYP (Know your provider) so far we don't have such a thing! and nobody is thinking about it!

The first step before doing our KYC, we the users should apply KYP and make sure we know who is holding our personal info, the people behind centralized companies need to have their full names and id publicly, they need to be accountable, and transparent. after that, we should proceed to do KYC.

Clever ideas?

According to the FATF recommendation of June 2019, which is mandatory for more than 200 member states, KYC should be carried out only for the purpose of preventing money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism, and at the same time for transactions that exceed one thousand euros. For other purposes, KYC should not be required. Based on this general recommendation, the states should have passed the appropriate national laws within one year, which should specify who and to what extent can use the KYC check and under what conditions it should be stored.
This casts doubt on the legality of the KYC requirement by the teams of new ICO projects. Apparently, for this reason, we do not see the requirements for passing KYC when participating in bounty companies.

[Streets 2.0]

When the whole world is faced with the choice of legalizing cryptocurrency or banning it - KYC is part of why it is legalized. Projects that request such conditions have more confidence and, as a result, get what they need faster. Collect money, form a community. If everything is anonymous, it is unlikely that governments looking at this circumstance will agree with the policy of allowing cryptocurrency and integrating it into national financial systems. Something has to be sacrificed. I think bona fide investors and cryptocurrency holders are also interested in this.

[Banprox]

I don't know who is behind of KYC info. Because we never asked them for KYP. This is really a clever idea to asked them KYP. But i think they don't give it to us.

[Welsh]

Generally, you know exactly who is handling your KYC information. Its the company you are directly dealing with, which is registered as a business, and therefore through the freedom of information act you can gather certain amounts of information about them. The issue is, the selling of data between companies. That's the real problem, I actually believe in the movement of not allowing companies to sell any customer data whatsoever. Obviously, this will never become a reality as advertising is such a big market these days.

So, although you do know who's handling the data directly, you don't know exactly who they might be selling this data too. Its worth checking their terms of service, and whether they explicitly state that they don't sell your data. However, that's not a guarantee in this day, and age where big companies are often caught breaking the rules in one way or another, and largely getting away with it.

[Slow death]

this is a very irritating question in the crypto world, because many companies related to cryptocurrencies are just sites without any physical office, without license and anonymous. it is ridiculous to do KYC on an exchange that the owner is anonymous or that the exchange is of dubious conduct. I know that people can say: "If you don't like the exchange policy, just change the exchange". true it would be very good if it were that simple. there are few reliable exchanges and there are also few exchanges that have had few cases of scam. but all exchanges do not bet on the creation of physical offices what leaves people with doubts where the documents we deliver go? does any government inspect the exchanges to see if our documents are properly secured? are questions that I keep asking myself all the time. there was a time I didn't sleep thinking about it

[Argoo]

Well, sound like a good point. But as far as I remember, every KYC registration requires the user to read terms and conditions. They would state there where would they put your information and why. The company that possess your sensitive information and an assurance that they will keep it confidential and will only use it for verification purposes. Am I correct? --please correct me if I'm wrong.

The issues of conducting KYC have remained largely unregulated so far. While everything is clear with regard to government agencies, they must have clear rights and obligations in accordance with local laws, in relation to commercial organizations, this is still the "wild west." They conduct KYC at their own discretion, and at their discretion, they will request the amount of confidential information provided to them. They have no idea what to do next with such information, where and for what period of time to store it and how to use it. Overall, this is very dangerous. Therefore, such passages of KYC should always be avoided.