If KYC stays many lives will be lost in the future

[Floczy]

If KYC doesn't exist anymore, there will still be news like this although not as much
The best advice I can give if for individuals to limit the way they share their address, have more than one address, and avoid show off, most of this crimes are as a result of what someone knows about you,.if not what are the odds that the address they want to investigate on has significant amount of Bitcoin worth their effort, most of the crimes are from individual to Bitcoin, not address to individuals as a result of KYC.

[Rengga Jati]

God bless Hester Peirce for even bringing this up, something that random people have been talking for few years now.
That KYC verification must go, enough is enough.

It is quite striking to see statements like this. Yes, KYC essentially forces us to compromise our own privacy. We are dealing with platforms that are supposed to be decentralized, yet KYC is mandated. It is actually a rather "funny and strange" situation. But, many national regulations currently require KYC and AML measures, ostensibly to combat money laundering and the like.

[hd49728]

It is quite striking to see statements like this. Yes, KYC essentially forces us to compromise our own privacy. We are dealing with platforms that are supposed to be decentralized, yet KYC is mandated. It is actually a rather "funny and strange" situation. But, many national regulations currently require KYC and AML measures, ostensibly to combat money laundering and the like.

We as users don't compromise our own privacy. We if do anything bad, will only damage our own privacy.

Compromise is for platforms like centralized exchanges, market places, casinos that require KYC on users, then verify KYC documents by themselves or through third-party verification platforms, but they don't take care of such sensitive KYC documents well enough and let such documents hacked, leaked, compromised.

As business, they make terrible KYC data storage for users but we as users have to be responsible for our decisions to comply with KYC. If we don't see privacy is important, and don't take care of it properly, no platforms can help us with KYC. While there are no KYC exchanges, casinos to use, people still choose Tier-1 KYC centralized exchanges to use.

[X-ray]

God bless Hester Peirce for even bringing this up, something that random people have been talking for few years now.
That KYC verification must go, enough is enough.

It is quite striking to see statements like this. Yes, KYC essentially forces us to compromise our own privacy. We are dealing with platforms that are supposed to be decentralized, yet KYC is mandated. It is actually a rather "funny and strange" situation. But, many national regulations currently require KYC and AML measures, ostensibly to combat money laundering and the like.

KYC isn't even that effective for combating money laundering, there are tons of data breach cases and because of that KYC verification is being sold in the black market it's not even funny.

So, the more companies need KYC the more leaked data being sold, when KYC verification is being sold, combating money laundering using KYC become pointless. It's literally AML death spiral.

On chain analytic tools are usually enough, companies already profiling addresses by reputation from address linking, every suspicious address have already been tagged.

At this point we don't even need KYC. Yet, if government insist, they should use zero knowledge KYC where user can issue ZK proof.

Which is exactly why when SEC commissioner Hester Pierce endorsing ZK proof for KYC is actually a win for us.

At the very least they actually care and know that ordinary KYC is obsolete.

[Sandra_hakeem]

I think this particular SEC chair resigned. That whale watch account posted it on X.

Yep, it's true:U.S. SEC's steadiest crypto advocate, Hester Peirce, to depart next week

Tether, you mean with all the hacks that have been recorded throughout her tenure, It took her 8 years to speak up?? Now she's trying to fix something this serious at the brink of resignation? Meh.

But anyway, her resignation is bad for crypto because she was the voice opposing large swaths of crypto legislation, including all this KYC/AML stuff we're discussing now.

Indeed she was, but the impact isn't feasible. CMIIW but I learnt she didn't oppose the collection of identity anyway, instead she hammered on not having a mass collection of data stored somewhere.

People should not have to die over ID verification. This is deeply wrong.

People don't realize how deep this shit is until they get to watch true crime videos, how hackers can track someone, show up and kidnap, torture and gruesomely murder them just to get that crypto.

[jumptheramp]

I've always said that KYC and AML enforcement is just an inevitable hit list in progress.  Time after time after time, leaks or hacks happen, those leaks turn into target lists on crime focused forums and communities, those target lists ultimately result in murders, kidnappings of the holder or their family members, dismemberments, robberies without actual human death but financial death, elimination of the financial security of entire generations, and so on.  Maybe one day our governments will begin to care about reality, because they need to.

[pawanjain]

That's a very valid point mentioned by the SEC commissioner. If every other sites starts collecting KYC data then there will be a whole lot of crypto users across all sites at risk.
At some point, hackers will definitely steal this data and sell it on the dark web for a few dollars, matter of fact, they are doing it already.
The numbers will just rise in the future if KYC isn't prohibited.

[tread93]

God bless Hester Peirce for even bringing this up, something that random people have been talking for few years now.
That KYC verification must go, enough is enough.

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.

KYC needs to Go.....



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

Wow yeah this is crazy. This is the first I am reading this just now and ive got to say that I really like that he said this! Ive seen this argument a lot and its hard not to ignore that KYC info could most definitely be used against the holder especially by force

[Free Market Capitalist]

Maybe one day our governments will begin to care about reality, because they need to.

Our governments? Don't make me laugh.

That's a very valid point mentioned by the SEC commissioner. If every other sites starts collecting KYC data then there will be a whole lot of crypto users across all sites at risk.

The risk in this case stems not so much from the data itself as from what you have in your possession. There are many types of data breaches and hacks, including those involving bank and tax information. But if you have a million dollars in a bank, in order to take it from you, they would first have to kidnap you and force you to sell your assets—because you likely have at least some of it in money market funds or bank deposits, if not also in mutual funds and stocks. And once that’s done, they’d have to get you to transfer that money to a front man—preferably in a foreign country—and ensure the bank doesn’t block the transaction.

In contrast, with a $5 wrench attack, they can get you to transfer that million in a matter of minutes.

[Sticky Bomb]

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.

There is an option not to use KYC for this, people can use DEX platforms. I get it that the trading volume is low, but it is safer and if more people should agree to use it, then we can reduce our data exposure. KYC cannot be erased totally, it can be reduced to a good extent if users take up some responsibility not to patronize centralized platforms when there is a reputable decentralized option.

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.

Data theft comes from KYC, if there was no strict and excessive KYC, data theft should not have been a major threat now. Government needs to relax their AML policies that forces platforms to enforce excessive KYC on their clients.

[ZeroVinsonN]

They lied that the initiative of KYC is to put an end to internet fraund that is connected to Bitcoin and other cryoto, to put an end to money laundering but the reality now is that the rate of online fraund and theft is so high and their so call KYC is not able to even reduce the theft, neither did it stop money laundering, so their is need of having it when it is not solving the problem they claimed it was meant to solve, so it would be good they just stop which I doubt they will listen.

Just because it wasn't as effective as it was expected to be doesn't mean the whole thing was a lie, it was intended to stop money laundering and it did reduce it and is still doing it, proving that someone is laundering money has simply become more difficult, you can put up as system to stop crime and the criminal mastermind will still find a way around that system or are you saying that just because a firewall can be breached means that people shouldn't protect what they have/store online?
KYC is only seen as bad because of the risk of all that information leaking, getting hacked, if there was a sure way to keep the information protected then there would be no reason to put an end to KYC.

[JoyceBTC]

They lied that the initiative of KYC is to put an end to internet fraund that is connected to Bitcoin and other cryoto, to put an end to money laundering but the reality now is that the rate of online fraund and theft is so high and their so call KYC is not able to even reduce the theft, neither did it stop money laundering, so their is need of having it when it is not solving the problem they claimed it was meant to solve, so it would be good they just stop which I doubt they will listen.

Just because it wasn't as effective as it was expected to be doesn't mean the whole thing was a lie, it was intended to stop money laundering and it did reduce it and is still doing it, proving that someone is laundering money has simply become more difficult, you can put up as system to stop crime and the criminal mastermind will still find a way around that system or are you saying that just because a firewall can be breached means that people shouldn't protect what they have/store online?
KYC is only seen as bad because of the risk of all that information leaking, getting hacked, if there was a sure way to keep the information protected then there would be no reason to put an end to KYC.

You actually made sense in what you said and I’ll agree to that because I don’t think there’s any way to totally eradicate fraud or money laundering. If one way closes for them, they will surely look for some other way to still launder money and Kyc might not fully stop money laundering but it is also playing a vital role to avoid it.
And I believe stronger mechanisms will be introduced to reduce more chances of money laundering and internet fraud since they still get their ways even with KYC.

[macson]

-.-
If crypto exchanges can't 100% protects users data they should all scrap the idea of asking for KYC verification.

Yeah, that's how it should be. But the problem is the exchange won't care about that. What they care about is how they can meet their obligations to the regulator and keep their operations running. As for user data security, that's probably far down on their priority list --- as long as they can make more money, that's more important than spending more money to better protect user data.