Altcoins Talks - Cryptocurrency Forum
Crypto Discussion Forum => Cryptocurrency discussions => Topic started by: examplens on October 07, 2024, 06:15:27 PM
-
A thread on Bitcointalk got me thinking again about the topic of KYC, particularly about its abuse. A user started a scam accusation discussion against the Changenow exchange, where they held back slightly more than 1 Ethereum. Before that, they requested KYC, which the user complied with, and the funds came directly from other exchanges, meaning there's a low chance it was illegal money.
So, Changenow decided, based on their assessment, to request personal information and manage those funds further. They did not provide any further explanation, whether an official authority requested it or what would happen with the disputed funds.
Recently, there was a case where the German government seized 47 instant exchangers for operating outside the law, unregistered, and also employing the practice of freezing funds and complicating the process with KYC requirements.
The biggest obstacle, generally, is that the 'victim' is usually not from the same country as the exchanger, everything happens online, and it’s very hard to legally recover the funds. Especially when it involves 'smaller' amounts, although I wouldn’t say that $2,500 is a small amount for everyone. Mandatory KYC has been imposed as a regulation, but it seems like it's an open loophole for abuse and 'legalized' taking of funds.
How can we even fight against this practice, aside from avoiding such services, what if it happens, like in the case mentioned above? Is it realistic to form some kind of association that would protect crypto users, perhaps even have legal representatives in the most common countries?
-
How can we even fight against this practice, aside from avoiding such services, what if it happens, like in the case mentioned above? Is it realistic to form some kind of association that would protect crypto users, perhaps even have legal representatives in the most common countries?
If it is small amount of money, there is nothing that can be done. There is no crypto association that have been established to combat such issue. It is better to avoid using such service when there are some that you can even used with VPN and Tor and nothing like KYC will be asked from you to provide for verification. KYC has led to many abuses.
-
How can we even fight against this practice, aside from avoiding such services, what if it happens, like in the case mentioned above? Is it realistic to form some kind of association that would protect crypto users, perhaps even have legal representatives in the most common countries?
Realistically speaking, the best way we can protect ourselves from these idiotic crypto platforms is to stay from them. Seems to me that we are on the losing end like in the case mentioned above most especially if you are not a citizen of the same country where the exchange is based. In other words, you are at the mercy of these people...and I am sure they got really that intention to "scam" people using KYC as the shield and basis. If the government is requiring these platforms to ask KYC from their customers, there should be a protection from the government from abusive platforms who are using KYC to victimize people. Now, of course, there should be an association that can help protect the victim and if necessary help in recovering the funds lost. I am hoping that someone would be generous enough to start such an organization and I am willing to be a part of it if there is one.
-
How can we even fight against this practice, aside from avoiding such services, what if it happens, like in the case mentioned above? Is it realistic to form some kind of association that would protect crypto users, perhaps even have legal representatives in the most common countries?
Realistically speaking, the best way we can protect ourselves from these idiotic crypto platforms is to stay from them. Seems to me that we are on the losing end like in the case mentioned above most especially if you are not a citizen of the same country where the exchange is based. In other words, you are at the mercy of these people...and I am sure they got really that intention to "scam" people using KYC as the shield and basis.
Let's start with a couple of obvious fact, one reason why KYC is gradually getting mandatory in a lot of crypto platforms is because of government regulations and restrictions. And in addition to this we have just a handful of persons who really care much about their privacy compared to those that really don't mind carrying out any level of KYC required by these sites.
Threads like this are meant to help people become better aware of their privacy and avoid useless KYC verifications as much as possible however the truth remains some persons no matter what will still prefer to carry out multiple KYC verifications. To some level it seems like they actually believe that organisations and platforms that collect their KYC data actually keeps them safe and as a result they seem to believe there is no harm trust them with it.
-
I think there is nothing anyone can do to these exchange that are using KYC as a tool to withhold customers funds. The best way we should go about it is avoiding centralized exchanges so that we don't fall victim to them because there will be no way one can get back his funds. Who knows maybe with time a legal crypto body would be formed to fight for victims in such situation as stated by the OP.
-
It's government I don't know if we can fight them and force them to remove mandotory KYC. Some exchanges like gate.io also use AML as their legal defensive to froze customers funds. that's the way how they scam people unlike what happen to someone on Binance If I remember correctly, someone's account was frozen due to depositing funds from a casino, he was refunded and the funds were returned to the sender's address.
The government's desire to control people makes me believe that this is a problem that will never be solved(loophole).
-
It's government I don't know if we can fight them and force them to remove mandotory KYC. Some exchanges like gate.io also use AML as their legal defensive to froze customers funds. that's the way how they scam people unlike what happen to someone on Binance If I remember correctly, someone's account was frozen due to depositing funds from a casino, he was refunded and the funds were returned to the sender's address.
The government's desire to control people makes me believe that this is a problem that will never be solved(loophole).
I believe the government has valid reasons to increase oversight of the crypto market due to its rapid growth and the significant number of investors experiencing losses. Additionally, the government's obligation to combat money laundering as per international regulations has led to strict policies for CEXs, resulting in mandatory KYC procedures for all users.
KYC has arguably become an integral part of the market since it was required for ICO investors in 2017. We've had to accept it in order to utilize the convenient services offered by CEXs. While DeFi presents an alternative, it cannot fully meet all user needs in the short term, making CEXs the primary choice for investors looking to enter the crypto market.
-
this is where the big and well known exchanges turns bigger because the small ones are not trustworthy despite complying to them, it only appears they have decided already to scam and submitting KYC is somewhat just revealing the identify to a bad actor.
there is no other way to prevent this from happening than following the advice of the users who re familiar with the game which is to just trade on bigger exchanges.
-
It's government I don't know if we can fight them and force them to remove mandotory KYC. Some exchanges like gate.io also use AML as their legal defensive to froze customers funds. that's the way how they scam people unlike what happen to someone on Binance If I remember correctly, someone's account was frozen due to depositing funds from a casino, he was refunded and the funds were returned to the sender's address.
The government's desire to control people makes me believe that this is a problem that will never be solved(loophole).
I believe the government has valid reasons to increase oversight of the crypto market due to its rapid growth and the significant number of investors experiencing losses. Additionally, the government's obligation to combat money laundering as per international regulations has led to strict policies for CEXs, resulting in mandatory KYC procedures for all users.
KYC has arguably become an integral part of the market since it was required for ICO investors in 2017. We've had to accept it in order to utilize the convenient services offered by CEXs. While DeFi presents an alternative, it cannot fully meet all user needs in the short term, making CEXs the primary choice for investors looking to enter the crypto market.
I will agree with you here that the government is taking KYC very serious as to curb away irregularities and other heinous activities by unscrupulous elements who want to take advantage of the system to bypass the laws of the land. As a result of these happenings, KYC became mandatory for CEX which they could not be able to avoid so they could still be in the business as their profit is more important to them. As it is now, there is no third party exchange that has NO KYC policy, virtually all of them do in accordance to the jurisdiction they find themselves in and I believe it is helping them stay abreast of financial activities so they could easily track records and keep watch over transactions.
-
How can we even fight against this practice, aside from avoiding such services, what if it happens, like in the case mentioned above? Is it realistic to form some kind of association that would protect crypto users, perhaps even have legal representatives in the most common countries?
I think we already do some this as a community
BTT and Altcoinstalks now are a great community support. We point out scams and flag bad services. I see no reason why someone would use changeswap, with so many better options such as Exch.cx (the best swap imo).
Sadly, people are misinformed and they keep using services...
-
Like it or not, yes, KYC always has pros and cons, and in crypto spaces, KYP is always the enemy of what is expected in crypto, namely privacy and anonymity. especially in CEX, which some require KYC, it becomes very annoying, but cannot be rejected and does a lot if you still use the service or exchange or platform.
Because this is an identity issue and of course no one can guarantee that the identity we input, especially with the photo, will be safe or not, whether later there will be identity theft or hacking or not. This is the concern of identity owners who do KYC.
But what else can we do. Unless it's a new project that we also have to KYC, I think I would really think twice and probably not do it, because it would be much more risky to trust our identity to a new platform or project that is not yet reputable.
And related to this case, hmm we can only decide to stay to do KYC or not, with its own pluses and minuses. And make sure that it is really worth it and safe enough or not for KYC, if it is really doubtful, it is better to let it go and leave it.
-
Like it or not, yes, KYC always has pros and cons, and in crypto spaces, KYP is always the enemy of what is expected in crypto, namely privacy and anonymity. especially in CEX, which some require KYC, it becomes very annoying, but cannot be rejected and does a lot if you still use the service or exchange or platform.
Because this is an identity issue and of course no one can guarantee that the identity we input, especially with the photo, will be safe or not, whether later there will be identity theft or hacking or not. This is the concern of identity owners who do KYC.
But what else can we do. Unless it's a new project that we also have to KYC, I think I would really think twice and probably not do it, because it would be much more risky to trust our identity to a new platform or project that is not yet reputable.
And related to this case, hmm we can only decide to stay to do KYC or not, with its own pluses and minuses. And make sure that it is really worth it and safe enough or not for KYC, if it is really doubtful, it is better to let it go and leave it.
Well, That is why it is hardly possible to solve the problem of the protection of the identity and the provision of the KYC procedures Legitimate concerns about personal data protection will not allow for easy storage and processing of such data. Instead, I think the best course of action remains to do your due diligence to ensure that you don’t trust your data with any of these platforms. There are a number of things you should consider especially where choosing a reliable service provider, some of which include; Reputation, Privacy policy and Security. You can also use another non-custodial wallet or DEX that doesn’t prompt the need to do KYC, so you can still engage in trading without compromise of your privacy. The bottom line is always emerge safe, whenever you start to feel uncertain or the risk is too high, you should bow out of the project.
-
How can we even fight against this practice, aside from avoiding such services, what if it happens, like in the case mentioned above? Is it realistic to form some kind of association that would protect crypto users, perhaps even have legal representatives in the most common countries?
I am sure that some people when they want to put their money in trust with others, they will do research first, including from the legality of the platform or company that controls the money we have... from some of the exchanges you mentioned above, the main problem may be legality, so there is no supervision from the local government agency that routinely audits its services... this may be a loophole for service providers (exchange) to do these fraudulent things...
As users, we can only mark the exchange related to open reports or complaints on social media to rely on the virality of the phenomenon... unfortunately, not all users are present in related forums or discussions, so new victims continue to come...
What I have done since long ago is, always use the exchange with the best reputation and if that is not possible, I always rely on the local exchange in my country.
-
Maybe you should try another service? changenow is not the one
-
Maybe you should try another service? changenow is not the one
And what about the user who lost his funds? His funds were taken hostage until he finishes endless kyc...
Certainly everyone should use other service and change now should be blacklisted, but there should be some way to those bad services. This is what this topic is about.
-
Maybe you should try another service? changenow is not the one
And what about the user who lost his funds? His funds were taken hostage until he finishes endless kyc...
Certainly everyone should use other service and change now should be blacklisted, but there should be some way to those bad services. This is what this topic is about.
As it was said there, there is not much that can be done, after all, the best course of action is not to get into peculiar situations like that - even though it was said "if there are other ways other than what was described?", most of us said the same thing. It's not bad, it's just the way there is currently.
You wouldn't be able to sue the gov for that.
-
In my opinion all KYC requests are a complete and proper abuse, the prevention of money laundering is just an excuse to be able to register us, control everyone, even the airdrops are now asking for sensitive data, how can we stem and counteract this phenomenon? only do airdrops that ask for generic data and use dex and p2p exchange
-
In my opinion all KYC requests are a complete and proper abuse, the prevention of money laundering is just an excuse to be able to register us, control everyone, even the airdrops are now asking for sensitive data, how can we stem and counteract this phenomenon? only do airdrops that ask for generic data and use dex and p2p exchange
Well, As of now, the issue of KYC has been a problem that many users of cryptocurrencies have to deal with, and mostly in relation to privacy and owning data. KYC is traditionally viewed as one type of excessive control, typical uses for which are such things as fighting money laundering. However, as regards this phenomenon, several measures can be put in place in advance. First, using the decentralized DEX platforms and P2P exchanges that don’t tightly verify identities allows to remain anonymous.
Second, it is necessary to participate in airdrops or projects which require only general or pseudonymized data and do not request personal data. Another way of rallying people support towards the projects that keep user privacy bare is through establishing more awareness of the available projects that uphold the standards of freedom of individuals. Therefore, the power struggle between the necessity to protect the client’s privacy and the requirements of the law remains a problem that the industry has to solve.
-
In my opinion all KYC requests are a complete and proper abuse, the prevention of money laundering is just an excuse to be able to register us, control everyone,
the government likes to say that kyc keeps us safe but it is not always the case as mentioned they say that non kyc makes way for illegal activities but again not always the case and it does not even happen most of the time if kyc is able to save someone from an illegal activity then congratulations but that is not enough still to convince me that non kyc will destroy the system and put us all in danger
even the airdrops are now asking for sensitive data
it is really scary we need to be more careful with our data and prioritize privacy at all times that is what will keep us safe
-
How can we even fight against this practice, aside from avoiding such services, what if it happens, like in the case mentioned above? Is it realistic to form some kind of association that would protect crypto users, perhaps even have legal representatives in the most common countries?
It will be a legal nightmare!
First, the cost will be huge, and the financial burden will be more for cases outside US and EU jurisdiction as here we have the advantage of being able to bring to court any company that operates in the EU space, a thing that is not possible for people residing in India for example, then the nightmare of actually filing a case is a foreign court for a foreign person!
Then the reluctance of many to actually fill a case, the sums involved and so on and on and ...
Yeah, nice in theory and morally the normal way of acting against those abuses that are just selective scamming but really hard to do it!
-
In my opinion all KYC requests are a complete and proper abuse, the prevention of money laundering is just an excuse to be able to register us, control everyone, even the airdrops are now asking for sensitive data, how can we stem and counteract this phenomenon? only do airdrops that ask for generic data and use dex and p2p exchange
Yeah, not much can be done about it, only using something without that much data needed, and as it was said, in some drops, more data is needed than just to get your drop and leave it all with the profit in your hands.
The last thing that I saw in that way is Blum posting about the potential eligibility for the drop on X: there was a face-check in the list, I think that's for multi accounts users to be rekt ;D
-
How can we even fight against this practice, aside from avoiding such services, what if it happens, like in the case mentioned above? Is it realistic to form some kind of association that would protect crypto users, perhaps even have legal representatives in the most common countries?
It will be a legal nightmare!
First, the cost will be huge, and the financial burden will be more for cases outside US and EU jurisdiction as here we have the advantage of being able to bring to court any company that operates in the EU space, a thing that is not possible for people residing in India for example, then the nightmare of actually filing a case is a foreign court for a foreign person!
Then the reluctance of many to actually fill a case, the sums involved and so on and on and ...
Yeah, nice in theory and morally the normal way of acting against those abuses that are just selective scamming but really hard to do it!
Like most things out there with good ideals but bad practise in reality.
And I do think that the govs would just overwhelm the person in question no matter what.
-
The biggest obstacle, generally, is that the 'victim' is usually not from the same country as the exchanger, everything happens online, and it’s very hard to legally recover the funds. Especially when it involves 'smaller' amounts, although I wouldn’t say that $2,500 is a small amount for everyone. Mandatory KYC has been imposed as a regulation, but it seems like it's an open loophole for abuse and 'legalized' taking of funds.
Generally, exchangers and other services will try to be compliant with the law of their country's jurisdiction only, and they just won't do anything about user disputes that are not high-profile enough to destroy their reputation. They think it is a waste of their time trying to explain their criteria in detail a well. Meanwhile the user is left out of pocket and have little to no recourse in resolution.
How can we even fight against this practice, aside from avoiding such services, what if it happens, like in the case mentioned above? Is it realistic to form some kind of association that would protect crypto users, perhaps even have legal representatives in the most common countries?
By using only the platforms which do not enforce any sort of KYC.
-
The biggest obstacle, generally, is that the 'victim' is usually not from the same country as the exchanger, everything happens online, and it’s very hard to legally recover the funds. Especially when it involves 'smaller' amounts, although I wouldn’t say that $2,500 is a small amount for everyone. Mandatory KYC has been imposed as a regulation, but it seems like it's an open loophole for abuse and 'legalized' taking of funds.
Generally, exchangers and other services will try to be compliant with the law of their country's jurisdiction only, and they just won't do anything about user disputes that are not high-profile enough to destroy their reputation. They think it is a waste of their time trying to explain their criteria in detail a well. Meanwhile the user is left out of pocket and have little to no recourse in resolution.
How can we even fight against this practice, aside from avoiding such services, what if it happens, like in the case mentioned above? Is it realistic to form some kind of association that would protect crypto users, perhaps even have legal representatives in the most common countries?
By using only the platforms which do not enforce any sort of KYC.
Unfortunately, that's true. I've read lots of cases that you described on BitcoinTalk and overall usually, the results lead nowhere in terms of resolving a dispute due to what you described.
The main thing would be to really think twice while using something with KYC.
-
Unfortunately, that's true. I've read lots of cases that you described on BitcoinTalk and overall usually, the results lead nowhere in terms of resolving a dispute due to what you described.
The main thing would be to really think twice while using something with KYC.
Not only that, but to make matters even worse, you have no idea when said KYC is going to be triggered, or if it will happen in your exchange.
Even if you use "clean coins" you might unknowingly trip over a threshold and the exchange could haggle you for documents for months.
Most instant exchangers have a disclaimer saying "we reserve the right to carry out AML checks and ask for additional documents at our discretion", which in many cases is just to cover their skin so that they can do questionable business activities with 3rd parties.
-
The only problem with too much KYC is that if that exchange is compromised then it mean our privacy is compromised as well and there are times they are doing dirty tricks from our funds like freezing it for suspicious activities maybe they don't understand how crypto works.
-
The only problem with too much KYC is that if that exchange is compromised then it mean our privacy is compromised as well and there are times they are doing dirty tricks from our funds like freezing it for suspicious activities maybe they don't understand how crypto works.
Also, it can be used to push some transactions down, because of the money being acquired or used as "dirty" ;D And you will be in a loophole to verify your identity to get your funds back.
-
Most instant exchangers have a disclaimer saying "we reserve the right to carry out AML checks and ask for additional documents at our discretion", which in many cases is just to cover their skin so that they can do questionable business activities with 3rd parties.
Ok, but what after that?
Not many exchanges have a clear rule on what to do with funds after the user passes KYC. However, I got the impression that they are trying to delay or make passing KYC impossible in order not to get into that complicated part of what happens after that.
Imagine that the notary took away your car during the mediation of the sale because it seemed suspicious to him. At the same time, you have no one to blame for this decision
-
Most instant exchangers have a disclaimer saying "we reserve the right to carry out AML checks and ask for additional documents at our discretion", which in many cases is just to cover their skin so that they can do questionable business activities with 3rd parties.
Ok, but what after that?
Not many exchanges have a clear rule on what to do with funds after the user passes KYC. However, I got the impression that they are trying to delay or make passing KYC impossible in order not to get into that complicated part of what happens after that.
We can't do much to be honest unless ready for the legal fight against a corporate over nothing.
So my bet will be ruining their reputation which is possible if the user has convincing evidence that he did all he was supposed to do but still his funds are frozen indefinitely and if this starts to affect the exchange's business then they will surely look into it and if there's no fault on the user end they will probably resolve it ASAP.
-
Most instant exchangers have a disclaimer saying "we reserve the right to carry out AML checks and ask for additional documents at our discretion", which in many cases is just to cover their skin so that they can do questionable business activities with 3rd parties.
Ok, but what after that?
Not many exchanges have a clear rule on what to do with funds after the user passes KYC. However, I got the impression that they are trying to delay or make passing KYC impossible in order not to get into that complicated part of what happens after that.
We can't do much to be honest unless ready for the legal fight against a corporate over nothing.
So my bet will be ruining their reputation which is possible if the user has convincing evidence that he did all he was supposed to do but still his funds are frozen indefinitely and if this starts to affect the exchange's business then they will surely look into it and if there's no fault on the user end they will probably resolve it ASAP.
You would probably be able to do so only if you are an influencer of sorts on YouTube, otherwise, there wouldn't be any hit for them to take, unfortunately.
And even then, the prices for it would be huge. Too huge.
-
Once we are making use of a centralized platform, then we should know that there is no how to evade the consequence of going through their normal and usual kyc procedures and requirements, they do this often and still have the back up of government in hand, so if we don't want to have our private information with any third party or government, then we have to stay away from centralized platforms, but on a real sense, can this be fully achieved as at now, because i doubt except maybe later.
-
Once we are making use of a centralized platform, then we should know that there is no how to evade the consequence of going through their normal and usual kyc procedures and requirements, they do this often and still have the back up of government in hand, so if we don't want to have our private information with any third party or government, then we have to stay away from centralized platforms, but on a real sense, can this be fully achieved as at now, because i doubt except maybe later.
Well, privacy preservation is a concern that is hugely likely on centralized platforms and particularly so with respect to identifying and verifying customer details through third parties and or governments. Staying away from CEXs and going with DEXs is advisable in this case as your privacy will be sharply preserved. But, as the presence of growing state regulation in many countries testifies, it is quite difficult to break from third parties at all. For this reason, it is also necessary to investigate the platform you use and evaluate its reliability and safety provisions. Further, keeping use of trust wallets and others helps to give one more way of preserving their data while still being able to get into the crypto market.