If KYC stays many lives will be lost in the future

[Alphakilo]

Even if users have the choice to use decentralized platforms right now, somehow I believe decentralized platforms still interact with CEX platforms in some ways and that's not including the fact that CEX offers better convenience to users who because of it adopted Bitcoin and crypto currencies for use.

Although the statement made by her may not have any current effects on how kyc rules is being implemented, it proves a point that can't be ignored because the rate of hacks is increasing on a daily and most times users themselves allow the hackers gain access without knowing which proves reasonable as to why mandating a zero knowledge proof, ZKP, is the go to option to limit the increasing rate of hacks and wrench attacks.

[elda34b]

Even if users have the choice to use decentralized platforms right now, somehow I believe decentralized platforms still interact with CEX platforms in some ways and that's not including the fact that CEX offers better convenience to users who because of it adopted Bitcoin and crypto currencies for use.

Depends on what platforms you're referring to I guess. Some DEXs clearly behaves like CEXs where they put a ban on IPs or require KYCs to make higher transactions. I remember DYDX as a popular example for DEX turning into a central entity. I'm sure we have many examples, especially when DEX is thrown around randomly here and there. Most of the time exchanges use that as a term loosely.

I doubt KYC will be removed anyway, not with how governments handle their AML policy. It's not like they can ignore crimes anyway. Mass surveillance is the easy way for them, so they'll definietly try to push that while keeping the masses in the dark.

[JiiBs]

KYC needs to Go.....



https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/2103510145024069816

That’s one thing that is never going to happen, as much as we might want it to go, it just wouldn’t go away if we are still stock on using centralized systems.

I get it, I get the risk it posses now and know it’s surely going to be way worst in the future.

One means to catch a criminal has always being having to follow the money, it always leaves a trail. With the content on ma address being public knowledge, if that address is tied to a being, that’s way too much information for criminals meaning to do harm to work with.

Bitcoin just needs to attain that mainstream usage and everyone goes non custodial.

[EluguHcman]

You can't say because you want to know who controls a Bitcoin address and not care about the dangers that comes with that.
Home invasion, Wrench attacks are growing up and it's looking like crypto chart 📈 ready to slowly keeps climbing.

This is the best thing that I have read online this year so far, finally someone in power sees it.
In the future hackers will prefer to look for data to go after people who holds Bitcoin,

This is not a joke, if you think it's impossible wait till Bitcoin reach 400k and counting.
The more valuable Bitcoin becomes and more it endagers your life.

Excuse me, so does it now mean people holding Bitcoin when price finally grows to that $400K extend will be living in such a danger that it will even attract home invasion?
Is $100K not worth valuable to those invaders.

I sincerely can not treat this impression kindly else, it could be misinterpreted to scare beginners or the public from using Bitcoin in regards that Bitcoin will not longer be save as price keep adding values.

Bitcoin has also been best safe and reliable when you holds it on the self custodial wallets that keep your privacies the Decentralized concepts. KYC is widely regulating platforms requirements which at som levels keep you exposed and risky.

[Die_empty]

The bigger question is.

Will centralised exchange exist without kyc since is a mandatory requirement for them to get licensed.

Another thing is, individual Bitcoin wallet holders have the right to either go to a KYC compliance platform or make use of a fully decentralised one; it's up to them to choose which fits them the most.

If SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce's leverage verifiable credentials and zero-knowledge proofs identification model is adopted, some crypto laws will have to be amended. Exchanges would be required to require users to present a cryptographic proof from a trusted issuer, such as a government agency or regulated financial institution, instead of personal information.

In some countries, decentralized exchanges are finding it difficult to operate because of strict regulations.

It's a good suggestion by Hester because it would reduce the rate at which personal information is collected from crypto users. It would be safer for one agency to hold my personal information than for it to be in the custody of several crypto-related service providers.

[Wiwo]

The bigger question is.

Will centralised exchange exist without kyc since is a mandatory requirement for them to get licensed.

Another thing is, individual Bitcoin wallet holders have the right to either go to a KYC compliance platform or make use of a fully decentralised one; it's up to them to choose which fits them the most.

If SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce's leverage verifiable credentials and zero-knowledge proofs identification model is adopted, some crypto laws will have to be amended. Exchanges would be required to require users to present a cryptographic proof from a trusted issuer, such as a government agency or regulated financial institution, instead of personal information.

In some countries, decentralized exchanges are finding it difficult to operate because of strict regulations.

It's a good suggestion by Hester because it would reduce the rate at which personal information is collected from crypto users. It would be safer for one agency to hold my personal information than for it to be in the custody of several crypto-related service providers.

This I get clearly, and something that has to do with trust the model will work perfectly with the right system in place, such that another third party issuance of that screen proof ID.

Between in the end this still brings us to the same KYC thing but at a minimal level instead handing over the documents to the platform you give them to the issuing party to get the ID to verify with.

Thirdly what advantage will this have for decentralised exchanges whose operational challenges have been regulatory compliance?

[Odogwu-Blockchain]

Would such calls warrant to be stopped with immediate effect or just a suggestive rants on the Internet that never goes to the main target?, I never love it when the head of a body declares what never starts, a word in the mouth that doesn't get implemented.

And yes, ending kyc is necessary in the industry, enough is enough. I don't think hackers will do this kind of mess, but physical kidnappers who could know your identity to own a certain type of crypto will break in.

I've often times ask such questions, what's the need for kyc verification? Operation can proceed without it and everyone will be fine.

[Hamza2424]

KYC can’t be completely erased though.. it’s needed in maybe some other aspect unless there’s something better to replace it..  Instead  it should be rephrased as KYC requirements for owning Bitcoin (not generalizing it )needs to be cancelled or reduced in a way that won’t affect those owning it.

Still don’t think that will be possible anyway.. it will still be the responsibility of everyone trying to own it  to figure out how they can without exposing much.

That's exactly what she meant bro, to end mass data collection processes, and she said ZKPs should be introduced instead.

Where an owner doesn't have to give personal information, and that would be a great idea, but would anyone consider it? People with great ideas usually lose their jobs.

At least she said something that I want to hear for some time, that these people are collecting data of Bitcoiners in so much detail, like as one day they have to confiscate from each and every one haha.

Yep, it is still our responsibility to not share too much, especially when involved in crypto.

But taxation is also important, so that's why one who is already paying taxes, and honest ones out there, need protection. Government is failing to manage that.

[HelliumZ]

This is definitely a matter of concern because if hackers later find the wallet user directly, attack him and forcefully steal his Bitcoin, then of course many lives can be lost in the future just because of KYC.
When the price of Bitcoin increases a lot, especially approaching a million dollars, if hackers cannot hack Bitcoin wallets, in this case their target will be to find the owner of the Bitcoin wallet and identify the address and reach him, KYC will be their only reliable source.
Therefore, if it is possible to identify any harmful thing in the future, it is KYC and maybe in the future people will refrain from doing KYC for important things.

[Silverstonez]

Well I don’t know the intentions behind this but I don’t think it can be possible, who knows if she wants it for her own interest because politicians only care about something when it’s affecting them and not for the public.  I understand that collecting people’s information is actually putting them in a risky position,  but I also think we need to question the intentions behind such a move and whether it is genuinely being done for the public’s benefit or for personal or political interests.

[Churchillvv]

Everyone appreciates the fact that one among many appreciates the need for KYC data collection reduction or elimination but however I still believe that it’s just a mere suggestion which will be countered by most of the SEC members since data collection is the means through which control is accomplished in the crypto world, the fact is that it’s very bad how this companies trade KYC data’s and how bad it could be for some whom is exposed to the KYC thing already.

[Floxynice]

KYC needs to Go.....

I know that KYC has lots of disadvantages because of how it tampers with people's privacy and all of the disadvantages that comes with it. We also need to be honest to ourselves that KYC, though bad, has helped to flush out some bad eggs from among us. What we need is not for KYC to be erased completely, but the information asked during kYC verifications should be adjusted and limited to few requirements that still does not put anyone's privacy at risks, except there is obvious  need for it. This is what almost everyone wants; a kind of KYC where my personal data is not needed, other means should be employed since the government cannot help protect the people from scam after a successful KYC verification.

[KingsDen]

https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/2103510145024069816

Why did it take this long before someone could speak up? Someone I meant is; someone in power. Is the government suddenly tired of being the government?
Are they tired of controlling and censoring everyone? Well, this is a mere protest call by a SEC commissioner, I'll keep my fingers crossed to see if other big names and portfolios will buy the idea.

Well I don’t know the intentions behind this but I don’t think it can be possible, who knows if she wants it for her own interest because politicians only care about something when it’s affecting them and not for the public.  I understand that collecting people’s information is actually putting them in a risky position,  but I also think we need to question the intentions behind such a move and whether it is genuinely being done for the public’s benefit or for personal or political interests.

I am trying to think out how avoiding mass KyC will be of an interest of the proposer. Are you insinuating that the commissioner might have the intention of doing some illegal stuffs and wanted to end KYC before they do it?

[X-ray]

Been saying this for a long time, KYC need to go and we can have ZK-KYC to replace that, company only need to know the ZK proof because we know how incompetent company could be.

Those companies 100% only allocating small amount of money for KYC security and they have no business holding our data and recently SEC commisioner Pierce is floating the idea https://bitcoinfoundation.org/news/regulation/secs-peirce-backs-zero-knowledge-proofs-to-transform-kyc-and-protect-user-privacy/, so this isn't just an empty suggestion.

The technology is already capable and we can make everything safer by using ZK-KYC and I hope this proposal can go through. The future is zero knowledge and we will have no more KYC leak that could threaten our lives, we paid taxes so at minimum the government should take care of our data. This shit is long overdue.

[SPIDERMAN008]

Now we have to do KYC verification on exchanges. If Bitcoin and fiat currency continue to run in parallel in the future and people use it normally for all transactions then this kind of KYC problem may not mandatory. The Bitcoin protocol does not require any personal information from anyone. Rather, it has kept decentralization as its feature which has made Bitcoin popular.

But for the verification of the exchange, KYC verification is mandatory so it is not possible to remain fully decentralized. If you have to convert from Bitcoin to fiat in the future, then KYC verification will still be required. But if you can make transactions through direct Bitcoin wallet to wallet transactions, then this KYC will not be required.

If the amount of funds is very large, then it is important to consciously ensure that the wallet is not connected to the exchange in any way. According to the rules and regulations of the exchanges, your identity will never be revealed. How trustworthy this is also a matter for us to think about. You have to control your own caution and security. If information can be given to an institution, then the risk certainly remains.

[MusaMohamed]

KYC needs to Go.....



https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/2103510145024069816

It's one of attempts to Call to action: Stop the FCC's KYC regime.

We all know that personal data is very sensitive and the massive personal data collection through AML and KYC policy and enforcement is extremely dangerous.
Why KYC is extremely dangerous – and useless.

Especially we are living in the era of AIs.
The rise of the machines.

I don't know how far that proposal will go but I like it while I know that governments, not only the USA but also other nations, will dislike such proposal against AML and KYC.

[Abiky]

KYC may never be completely eliminated, but we can expect to see some changes. KYC is necessary to regulate P2P services on exchanges, otherwise the number of frauds will increase. Since customers will blame the exchanges for these frauds, exchanges require identification of the person.

KYC is not a big problem, but data theft has become a cause for concern. KYC definitely needs some relaxation so that personal information can be kept safe.

KYC isn't the problem. Companies' ways of storing and securing data is. Most of them have terrible security practices. Hackers are aware of the inherent security flaws of centralized exchanges and/or services. Which is why they often exploit them to obtain all of our utmost sensitive KYC info. Crypto was created without the need for a middleman for a reason. Adding KYC or other centralized mechanisms, would bring the risk of a single point of failure.

I wouldn't expect KYC to be eliminated, since it's how governments are able to keep track of every crypto user. They just need to regulate companies/exchanges more to prevent customers' privacy from being exposed. Making use of Zero Knowledge Proofs for KYC would do the trick. I'm sure governments will think of something...

[Out of mind]

For KYC, a user may definitely face problems in the future, especially in terms of his privacy. When a person buys Bitcoin and keeps them in a wallet, later when he deposits those Bitcoins in an exchange that has completed KYC and sells them, the identity of the person will finally be known. The way hackers are currently trying to collect data of Bitcoin users in various ways, in the future they can somehow hack a person's data or know their identity.
For KYC, a Bitcoin user's life can be at risk. If he owns a lot of money, hackers will definitely try many ways to collect data about him. The more the price of Bitcoin gains ground in the future, the more it will be a risk for many users, especially because of KYC. So I think it will be best for every investor and every Bitcoin user if KYC is stopped.

[cryptoaddictchie]

KYC is created to avoid scammers from entering any platform or fakes one. The only problem is the platform security to protect these information cause once an attack happened these data arent safe and falling to the hands of a scammer means a bigger trouble.

Maybe they dont want that to happen thats why the statement is in support to limit the data which I believe is right and better since less information less danger to anyone stake.

[Awaklara]

This is not a joke, if you think it's impossible wait till Bitcoin reach 400k and counting.
The more valuable Bitcoin becomes and more it endagers your life.

If you have a fairly large amount of Bitcoin assets, then the greater your responsibility to protect yourself, your family, and your assets. KYC is done on exchanges; if you keep Bitcoin in your own wallet and do not publicize your Bitcoin ownership on social media, you will not be too pressured. Avoiding public attention regarding asset ownership is the best way.