I mean, I just outright refuse to invest in any sort of ICO, just because they usually have absolutely nothing to show for it and the chances of getting burned are just too great.
Think about it, there are enough projects that manage to get things done, before even raising a single dollar of funding.
Verifying the team behind an ICO might mitigate some of the risks, but in the end it's always possible that they do not reach the goals they've set out.
No matter who they are...
Well, this is not something that allow us to see competitiveness but yes however cataloguize their capabilities if they actually do a job. Also, there is always more people, and time, we aren't against chronometer right now all real hurry is eagerness for profits or timing because of speaking too early.
Indeed most successfull projects were either done without any coin raising or the code was provided right after the raising, so, done before.
More funnily, with their identity known they might think twice before doing a run after the ICO.
KYC was created to comply with the fiat world and its laws of centralization and is enforced by the government to mainly prevent money laundering but also to keep track of what people are doing with their money so that they can tax them.
at some point in last years when ICOs started failing and could no longer fool enough people to rob them, they started coming up with weird ways to look legitimate and one of the many ways used was KYC. then immediately afterwards they realized since they are not really regulated and there is no law that they abide by, they started selling all that information to make more money.
the worst part is that KYC and its problems is not even an ICO related issue. there are exchanges that have done the same thing! like bittrex selling user data on darknet...
that is KYC from customer perspective.
I think KYC used to be done because both company and government demands it towards user so they don't launder money bla bla , but if it was done from us towards unknown people AND taxes are paid then it should be surveilled/identified by whatever entity recieves the taxes (treasury I think it is called) , not a company that hasn't proven itself and has chances of going shady.
Shouldn't treasury take care the creators are legit since all this shit is taxed?
Also, whoever claim's an ICO is trusted just because is on icobench or whatever site might be a shill or holder, I agree it might give a better insight or even can help prevent scams but one is also easy to be influenced, just look at yobit and their own shittokens coins all day, everyone profits. Shitcoins, we don't even get those nowadays and if they were easy to create then an ico is a term of 2 months where you hype and raise.
Not having a whitepaper before even mentioning an ICO says a lot already.
And for the end, how and when the hell we start making it a crave and deny doing it otherwise?
