Unfair aspects of KYC. But KYP is here

[USBitcoinServices.Com]

Should the whole crypto community vote and get organized in order to ask third parties also have their own version of KYC? in this case clients should ask for KYP (Know your providers). And please if you are going to comment that the third parties already did their part by registering legally with their authorities, please think twice before mentioning that, because they did that part but only to comply with government and not to benefit customers, so far that is not benefiting the clients.

On the customer side, this one has to comply with the government and additionally with these third parties via KYC. It is unfair that third parties asking for KYC are not providing customers in the same way with the same info they request.

The crypto community is made of smart people (...most of them) and this challenge could be achieved easily if we really care about fairness, get organized and work together on this common goal. Crypto itself is already showing fairness with the use of blockchain.

We know that many people don't like the KYC process, because it is unfair, thus why the existence of privacy cryptocurrencies which will play a great work very soon with the decentralization of trust, money, internet, decentralizing anything you can imagine.

[avikz]

In crypto market, it makes sense! Otherwise, in real world, we usually know the service providers and obtain their KYP details easily! But in crypto market, the scope is usually much larger because crypto companies usually cater to the global client base.

Most importantly, it should be mandatory for all types of ICOs, ITOs or STOs because they get funded by common mass. So KYP is particularly useful in crypto market.

But in real world, such details are usually available in the public domain. So KYP would not bring much change there!

[USBitcoinServices.Com]

we usually know the service providers and obtain their KYP details easily!

How easily?

Would customers obtain their provider's passports or drivers licenses or any provider's personal ID, proof of address, bank statement, personal Social security number, on a personal level in the same way like providers get them when clients apply for KYC?

And then we have another problem, we have to deal with the big issue that providers have among many other advantages, they have the advantage of being able to be hidden (an investor, owner or workers for example) just because they use in their organization this thing we know as a "legal" entity, company, organization.

Thus why blockchain is a peer to peer level, on the same fair level, that is why we are here to encourage others to expand decentralization, but meanwhile, we must apply KYP to the providers asking for KYC, fairness on both sides.

In order to have fair things then customers need to act in the same way as providers do, and they can do it but so far not for this purpose yet. Maybe that is the unexplored field in order to achieve fairness in the KYC area.

[exstasie]

Should the whole crypto community vote and get organized in order to ask third parties also have their own version of KYC? in this case clients should ask for KYP (Know your providers).

It is unfair that third parties asking for KYC are not providing customers in the same way with the same info they request.

The biggest problem with KYC is we can't trust exchanges or their partners to safeguard our personal data. Customer data is not only being underhandedly sold by exchanges, but KYC data is also regularly compromised by hackers and sold on the dark web.

"KYP" does nothing to address this issue. What we really need are better privacy and data protection standards. Since current industry standards are so low, I would rather stay anonymous.

[Philipma1957cellphone]

Kyc is here.to stay. It is one of.many tactics used by many governments to attack all coins

[passwordnow]

Kyc is here.to stay.

Admit the fact that this is true. It's here to stay and no matter how many proposals that you have there, will they listen to what we want and what we need? we can stay anonymous even if they push these kinds of policies.
You have the option to remain anonymous or comply to them if you badly needed their service.

[tippytoes]

Should the whole crypto community vote and get organized in order to ask third parties also have their own version of KYC? in this case clients should ask for KYP (Know your providers).

It is unfair that third parties asking for KYC are not providing customers in the same way with the same info they request.

The biggest problem with KYC is we can't trust exchanges or their partners to safeguard our personal data. Customer data is not only being underhandedly sold by exchanges, but KYC data is also regularly compromised by hackers and sold on the dark web.

"KYP" does nothing to address this issue. What we really need are better privacy and data protection standards. Since current industry standards are so low, I would rather stay anonymous.

Aside from that, KYP is very hard to implement. Do you think they will comply from the request of a potential customer? I don't think so. More than likely, if you will request for KYP, you will be waiting in vain from their end, if in case they will every give you that info. So what's left here, is really being cautious to deal with these projects. A user should thoroughly do his job when it comes to submitting his KYC docs. A user is obligated sometimes because if he wants to sell his coin, and that exchange is requiring KYC, he has to fulfil the requirements. But he has choice not to, but he needs to look for other exchanges.

[kaya11]

So there should be another type of agency that will validate their KYP, in that case we could assume their identities are legit and are not fakes. I have seen so many projects that shows their team members and advisors but are fakes and some are somewhat doubtful. If there will be a third party who could that be? Government agencies or we justify them base on our own?

[Stedsm]

You mean knowing the team behind the project by asking them for a proof of identity and/or proof of address (where the project is being established)? It's actually a great idea but will those guys hiding behind the project names itself and showing just an image of theirs on their website page actually give any real proof? Like if we ask someone from a Project X to show up with an identity proof as well as an address proof and click a selfie while holding a paper in his/her hand on which his/her name, the project's name as well as the date when clicked is written, they will need to complete all these KYP checks before anyone takes interest in their project and start investing with them?! If that becomes possible, at least 50% of these projects will disappear.

[Darker45]

we usually know the service providers and obtain their KYP details easily!

How easily?

Would customers obtain their provider's passports or drivers licenses or any provider's personal ID, proof of address, bank statement, personal Social security number, on a personal level in the same way like providers get them when clients apply for KYC?

And what is the business of customers obtaining these personal information of their service providers? I mean, why do customers have to know about their service providers' passports, driver licenses, other personal IDs, proof of address, bank statements, personal security number, and so on and so forth?

In the first place, assuming regularity, these service providers are not collecting all these personal information from their users or clients for their own consumption or perusal. What are they going to do with those among themselves? They are collecting these information because a law or a policy is obliging them to do so. They need to have them because the state or any appropriate government agency for that matter might require them to submit such information anytime. In line with this, I guess they are also submitting the same set of information to these agencies.

[TravelMug]

You mean knowing the team behind the project by asking them for a proof of identity and/or proof of address (where the project is being established)? It's actually a great idea but will those guys hiding behind the project names itself and showing just an image of theirs on their website page actually give any real proof? Like if we ask someone from a Project X to show up with an identity proof as well as an address proof and click a selfie while holding a paper in his/her hand on which his/her name, the project's name as well as the date when clicked is written, they will need to complete all these KYP checks before anyone takes interest in their project and start investing with them?! If that becomes possible, at least 50% of these projects will disappear.

Exactly, if KYP is also going to be implemented, half of the existing project are going to disappear, because (1) they don't want to comply, (2) they are all fake.

KYC itself is very dangerous as we don't know who is handling our data, whether it's the services itself on another third party. And we have heard stories of third party selling our data, or hackers selling it underground.

[Ucy]

You mean knowing the team behind the project by asking them for a proof of identity and/or proof of address (where the project is being established)? It's actually a great idea but will those guys hiding behind the project names itself and showing just an image of theirs on their website page actually give any real proof? Like if we ask someone from a Project X to show up with an identity proof as well as an address proof and click a selfie while holding a paper in his/her hand on which his/her name, the project's name as well as the date when clicked is written, they will need to complete all these KYP checks before anyone takes interest in their project and start investing with them?! If that becomes possible, at least 50% of these projects will disappear.

Exactly, if KYP is also going to be implemented, half of the existing project are going to disappear, because (1) they don't want to comply, (2) they are all fake.

KYC itself is very dangerous as we don't know who is handling our data, whether it's the services itself on another third party. And we have heard stories of third party selling our data, or hackers selling it underground.

It's actually a dangerous thing to give your most sensitive stuff (home Address, signature, DoB, fingerprints, Name etc) to total strangers on the internet. It is worrying to see people take risk that could have long lasting consequences.
I wonder if there are penalties to people who have custody of the identities and lose them to hackers or misuse them. And how about compensating the owners? That will most likely force companies to adopt a very safe ways of collecting and storing them... and "unqualified people" will be too afraid to demand for such sensitive information.

[gantez]

The crypto community is made of smart people (...most of them) and this challenge could be achieved easily if we really care about fairness, get organized and work together on this common goal. Crypto itself is already showing fairness with the use of blockchain.

This is simply the reasonable point. The crypto world is for smart people and asking people for identity information without providing theirs first isn't the best way about it. Cryptocurrency has provided decentralized measures already so if someone wants a personal information, should also provide theirs too. That shows fairness.

[dothebeats]

KYP does not solve the issue of companies being careless with the data we provide them.

What consumers need is a transparent way of how companies treat our data, or eat least penalties severe enough for the companies in order for them to get scared should our data get leaked, sold or misused in any way or form. Provider details are usually seen on their whois, and could be followed-up on a trip to the government agencies responsible for registering them--that is if legal action is needed or whatnot.

Knowing the faces of those who run the show does not provide any guarantee that our data will not be compromised.

[enhu]

There is no escape to KYC anymore even if you have the KYP, our data are compromise already the moment you submit it to any exchange you have registered. At some point you will have to use an exchange or cash out your coins and banks are asking it. Its here to stay even for the DEX that we thought aren't going to ask KYC. Not all though so there's a little hope to stay anon.

[tvplus006]

There is no escape to KYC anymore even if you have the KYP, our data are compromise already the moment you submit it to any exchange you have registered. At some point you will have to use an exchange or cash out your coins and banks are asking it. Its here to stay even for the DEX that we thought aren't going to ask KYC. Not all though so there's a little hope to stay anon.

I have long refused to pass the KIK on Binance, which must be passed in order to participate in the lottery held for IEO. Although I am not a supporter of KYC, I still decided to pass verification on the exchange. Such conditions are set by the exchange to its participants, fulfilling the requirements of the government. And it's not just Binance that makes These demands , so there's nowhere to go .

[Linkkoin]

Kyc is here.to stay. It is one of.many tactics used by many governments to attack all coins

Not coins, but monitoring literally all the financial transactions - so then no tax is left unpaid, and no one has a potential for money laundering. And if you make it more Orwell/Brave New World-style, if authorities are able to track all your transaction, they can check whole your life (can be by AI systems). If you buy too much of alcohol with your card, they will classify you automatically as an alcoholic and send you automatically for rehab or take your children. Or if you buy too much fast food, you will be forced to pay twice as much for healthcare.

[Harlot]

Are people just acting like they are dumb right now? Or they don't really know what they are talking about? Projects and Organizations in the crypto industry may now have the same KYC version as us customers and investors but they do provide some of their baclground enough for us to know them well. What I'm talking about is the project's whitepaper, website , amd live events this is your only way to do background checks from them to see if the company is really legit or not baside from knowing their legal permits and documentation. So really it's up to you as a investor to do background checks on your own and get to know them well.

[wheelz1200]

Should the whole crypto community vote and get organized in order to ask third parties also have their own version of KYC? in this case clients should ask for KYP (Know your providers). And please if you are going to comment that the third parties already did their part by registering legally with their authorities, please think twice before mentioning that, because they did that part but only to comply with government and not to benefit customers, so far that is not benefiting the clients.

On the customer side, this one has to comply with the government and additionally with these third parties via KYC. It is unfair that third parties asking for KYC are not providing customers in the same way with the same info they request.

The crypto community is made of smart people (...most of them) and this challenge could be achieved easily if we really care about fairness, get organized and work together on this common goal. Crypto itself is already showing fairness with the use of blockchain.

We know that many people don't like the KYC process, because it is unfair, thus why the existence of privacy cryptocurrencies which will play a great work very soon with the decentralization of trust, money, internet, decentralizing anything you can imagine.

You can already do that.  If they dont provide you with enough information that you feel comfortable with then dont use their service, it's really that easy.  The more access you have to them, the more access they will have to you.  That is the risk reward tradeoff each person needs to decide for themselves.

[fiulpro]

Very interesting aspect at the same time one should understand that , Companies use reviews as marketin , they feel if they are on the internet and been there for a long long time they do not need to provide anything for the consumers.

Just like it's written on every Bank's note * bank is responsible for paying the user and stuff like that * I think if the companies actually starts using it in the time being it would make people more confident in them .