Is KYC bad for crypto?

[Abiky]

In some cases regulations are necessary to put an end to fraud and corruption in the crypto/Blockchain industry. By requiring KYC compliance on centralized exchanges, the crypto world could become a better place. However, the mere fact that you'd need to provide some sort of ID verification would completely destroy the purpose of crypto. I've seen situations where centralized exchanges became hacked, putting customers' identities at risk. Last time I've heard, someone hacked Binance and threatened to expose customer's identities across the web.

This makes me to believe that KYC does more harm than good for crypto. Of course, regulation is necessary in order to legitimize the industry in its entirety. Institutional investors, conglomerates, and other entities will find crypto regulatory-compliant for their own needs. But knowing that KYC goes against crypto's principles, could make the entire industry similar to traditional banking.

What are your thoughts?

[yohananaomi]

actually this kind of incident I also disagree but because the rules made require us to do the KYC, if not then we can not transaction in it. if the report for KYC does not affect all transaction activities maybe I will not give. because for me the identity must be properly protected because it is very dangerous to give to authorities that we don't know or may not even trust. because it could be the identity can be misused. this is a dilemma that must be resolved as soon as possible without reducing the essence of the goal for improvement.

[Python Master]

I am not against KYC but KYC is against the purpose of crypto. In Bitcoin whitepaper shows the purpose of it, transaction without information about parties, and without hand of banks. Everything is incognito. It seems that we're going backwards when accept KYC when joining crypto.

[BlackFor3st]

In some cases regulations are necessary to put an end to fraud and corruption in the crypto/Blockchain industry. By requiring KYC compliance on centralized exchanges, the crypto world could become a better place. However, the mere fact that you'd need to provide some sort of ID verification would completely destroy the purpose of crypto. I've seen situations where centralized exchanges became hacked, putting customers' identities at risk. Last time I've heard, someone hacked Binance and threatened to expose customer's identities across the web.

This makes me to believe that KYC does more harm than good for crypto. Of course, regulation is necessary in order to legitimize the industry in its entirety. Institutional investors, conglomerates, and other entities will find crypto regulatory-compliant for their own needs. But knowing that KYC goes against crypto's principles, could make the entire industry similar to traditional banking.

What are your thoughts?

Exposing our private details is very risky especially if it will go to the wrong hands as they can do whatever they like. And what worst is that they can use our private details in shady transactions if they like to do so without our consent.

But with regards to exchanges especially those centralized one, most of them are asking for KYC because they want to prevent any fraud so we don't have other option but to follow their rules if we want to use their exchange. It is bad for crypto if it will be use in shady transaction but if it will be use correctly then it will not that bad at all, let's just hope that every exchange will tighten their security so hackers cannot penetrate their databases.

[bgaf]

As much as I dont want KYC, there are some things Ive done in the past involving KYC and yes I did regret about it giving information to receive tokens for bounty. But Ive changed now and limit the kyc process to a much huge environment.

Take a look on this post OP. Why KYC is extremely dangerous and useless When I read this, it turns me back to the time I am doing it and I realize its really not good. Identity theft is worse and I dont want to put on that situation. Some agree on KYC but this is a process where decentralization will be destoryed if continue to patronize.

[OrangeII]

I have the same thought. since the exchange, and even the crypto project has KYC, but many of these projects have a decentralized system, which is certainly against the principles of crypto which are anonymous. besides that, KYC is indeed quite dangerous, especially if there are cases such as Binance. however, IDs can be misused in the wrong hands. I hope there will be a change in this matter, but since crypto became famous, I think the government needs to provide regulations like this so that a company can be held responsible. it's just that most of them are not responsible.

[Oasisman]

Well, KYC do have its good and bad side. Though it doesn't totally protect you from fraud, It could only do the tracking and tracing of these fraudulent activities easier for the authorities. The safes security is always on our hand. We just need to be more educated in possible fraudulent and phishing attacks.
KYC indeed destroy's the purpose of how Bitcoin was created, but we can't also blame the government for implementing such regulation because there are always a vulnerable people and that's inevitable.

[Little Mouse]

In general, it is bad for the users if anything goes wrong but in the other hand, to comply with the rules and regulation of the states, business need the KYC. I was contacted by company to run a signature campaign but thwy said they were not able to send me the fund without KYC in their site because they owe legal response to their authority. So, it is needed and I would say it is good. Otherwise, taxation will not be possible for the authority.

[TheUltraElite]

The good thing about KYC is that it does track a money laundering, but to what extent is unknown to me because I have little knowledge in this field. But it does peg your exchanges to your name and thus allow the taxations to come in. Taxation is a necessary evil. In order to let the economy run and the free government services in many countries, subsidies etc, tax money is used to pay for those.

The bad thing about KYC is the possibility of identity theft. This is mitigated by having newer systems where the exchange does not get the name of the user but only a yes/no from the KYC agent and the data is not being stored. Cyber warfare actually never ends, so its useless to be paranoid, you will get sick if you think too much here.

Now bottom line is that bitcoin is a decentralized system but we tend to bring in centralization in it because without it we cannot use bitcoin properly.

[TheClownSong]

In some cases regulations are necessary to put an end to fraud and corruption in the crypto/Blockchain industry. By requiring KYC compliance on centralized exchanges, the crypto world could become a better place. However, the mere fact that you'd need to provide some sort of ID verification would completely destroy the purpose of crypto. I've seen situations where centralized exchanges became hacked, putting customers' identities at risk. Last time I've heard, someone hacked Binance and threatened to expose customer's identities across the web.

This makes me to believe that KYC does more harm than good for crypto. Of course, regulation is necessary in order to legitimize the industry in its entirety. Institutional investors, conglomerates, and other entities will find crypto regulatory-compliant for their own needs. But knowing that KYC goes against crypto's principles, could make the entire industry similar to traditional banking.

What are your thoughts?

KYC is currently widely enforced when we use exchangers for large transactions. But if we keep our coins in our own wallet, I think KYC is still not needed and this is why cryptocurrency is in demand because it is anonymous

[Lexurdania]

In some cases regulations are necessary to put an end to fraud and corruption in the crypto/Blockchain industry. By requiring KYC compliance on centralized exchanges, the crypto world could become a better place. However, the mere fact that you'd need to provide some sort of ID verification would completely destroy the purpose of crypto. I've seen situations where centralized exchanges became hacked, putting customers' identities at risk. Last time I've heard, someone hacked Binance and threatened to expose customer's identities across the web.

This makes me to believe that KYC does more harm than good for crypto. Of course, regulation is necessary in order to legitimize the industry in its entirety. Institutional investors, conglomerates, and other entities will find crypto regulatory-compliant for their own needs. But knowing that KYC goes against crypto's principles, could make the entire industry similar to traditional banking.

What are your thoughts?

There are positives and negatives of KYC. The positive side that can be taken is the process of adopting cryptocurrency in the economy or daily use will be faster because the government will regulate it and this will attract a lot of public interest to invest. While the downside is that transactions cannot be anonymous

[magnum cyber]

depending on how the company you want to join, if the company is real and truly official, then it doesn't matter if you have to do the KYC procedure. but need to be careful before you do KYC because there are a lot of crypto scams. for me, KYC is done if in my opinion the company is really real.

[minairia3]

Now bottom line is that bitcoin is a decentralized system but we tend to bring in centralization in it because without it we cannot use bitcoin properly.

I tend to agree on both of your explanation. Good side of it helping us save from too much corruption, but unfortunately everybody worries because we all knew how Government operates and we never know if they are the one who will use our identity for illegal things or worse fight on our own term.

Bitcoin is decentralized, but how many hear using centralized exchange for trading? Binance is good, Im using it and conducted KYC, not a problem I think. But many here are hypocrites saying centralized market are so mess up. Come on be real, id you are using these market then complaining here is pure nonsense right? Im not totally against KYC Ive just dont want to see it use as a way of fraud and illegal activity.

[mahilchii]

There are so many different sorts of regulations being on crypto market, In my personal opinion there is advantage and disadvantage as well...

The good : Lack of regulations in the crypto currency market has a negative feat, implementation of this could deliver more mainstream adoption.

The bad : Lack of similar regulations means more anonymity, which brought more fans. Also this has been crypto's backbone for the last several years...

[kickdapa]

depending on how the company you want to join, if the company is real and truly official, then it doesn't matter if you have to do the KYC procedure. but need to be careful before you do KYC because there are a lot of crypto scams. for me, KYC is done if in my opinion the company is really real.

I only see bullshit projects that require KYC, their purpose is to collect people's personal data for their purposes. And most of the bounties now require KYC participants to be able to receive tokens, KYC is not evil but if it is done by bad people then surely everything will be bad.

[20kevin20]

As much as I dont want KYC, there are some things Ive done in the past involving KYC and yes I did regret about it giving information to receive tokens for bounty. But Ive changed now and limit the kyc process to a much huge environment.

Take a look on this post OP. Why KYC is extremely dangerous and useless When I read this, it turns me back to the time I am doing it and I realize its really not good. Identity theft is worse and I dont want to put on that situation. Some agree on KYC but this is a process where decentralization will be destoryed if continue to patronize.

Oh man, if you have given your personal information for a supposedly free bounty then you paid a big price for it. Your personal data is worth a lot and can be resold as many times as someone wants to. You're also supporting the opposite of what we're trying to achieve but miserably failed..

I guess many of us have given personal data away at some point, but I'm lucky I always give every website a different and fake birthdate, name or username.

[reallester]

Kyc is actually not bad for crypto as it helps in curbing fraudulent activities on the space. However it is always necessary for those asking for kyc documents to protect these docs in the best interest of their users to avoid these documents leaking to a third party.

[Crypto_lion]

You have to understand what Kyc Means it means that you are sharing sensitive information with someone on the internet .I agree if there is a regulatory requirement saying investors buying in the project must do KYC but Kyc for bounty and airdrop means that they are selling your information elsewhere .

[Saisher]

This makes me to believe that KYC does more harm than good for crypto. Of course, regulation is necessary in order to legitimize the industry in its entirety. Institutional investors, conglomerates, and other entities will find crypto regulatory-compliant for their own needs. But knowing that KYC goes against crypto's principles, could make the entire industry similar to traditional banking.

What are your thoughts?

That is bound to happen, we are going to traditional banking if majority of the traders still do not support the Decentralized exchanges and Coins that adhere to anonymity like Monero, but it's part of the adoption of Cryptocurrency, the authorities would like to see that Cryptocurrency will not be used to illegal activities like they do in silkroad. 

[senin]

As always, in everything you need to look for a middle ground. We have already seen that it is impossible to do without a certain organizational order in the cryptocurrency market, without this we are simply overwhelmed by anarchy and fraud, investors are already tired of investing in fraudulent projects. At the same time, we see that for participation in ICO bounty campaigns we are paid a few dollars, but we are required to go through KYC and our personal data are then unknown how they are used.
The one-year deadline set by the FATF expires on June 21 for the implementation of their mandatory recommendations on streamlining the KYC into national legislation. This organization has determined that KYC should only be applied if the transaction amount exceeds one thousand euros. Individual states have begun to enact their laws to introduce these recommendations. However, I still do not see them being executed by ICO teams. They offer us their new tokens for a total amount of several tens of dollars, and at the same time they still require us to go through KYC. It is unacceptable.