There are very few FINMA-compliant KYC providers, and this is a new KYC system, that is more secure than any other KYC platform I have seen thus far. UTRUST is more concerned about having everyone complete the full KYC, demonstrating their 100% compliance, than they are about appeasing the impatient investors.
And there it is again, the "FINMA complient" myth. It's rubbish. ICOs, as of today, are still not regulated in Switzerland (contrary to what utrust had said when they misleadingly claimed to be regulated by FINMA).
Here is what FINMA officially says about utrust:
"UTRUST verfügt weder über eine direkte Bewilligung der FINMA für eine Tätigkeit im Finanzbereich noch über die Mitgliedschaft in einer Selbstregulierungsorganisation SRO als Finanzintermediär im Nichtbanken-Bereich. Wird im Zuge von Abklärungen festgestellt, dass ein Verstoss gegen das Aufsichtsrecht vorliegt, trifft die FINMA die erforderlichen Massnahmen."
With a link pointing here:
https://www.finma.ch/en/news/2017/09/20170929-mm-ico/"ICOs are currently not governed by specific regulations, either globally or in Switzerland. Swiss legislation on financial markets is principle-based; one such principle is technology neutrality. Collecting funds for ones own account without a platform or issuing house is unregulated from a supervisory perspective in cases where repayment is not obliged, payment instruments have not been issued and no secondary market exists."
The KYC is a farce. If utrust were concerned about complience (and assuming that KYC was required for an ICO to be complient with whatever rules), the only way to be complient would have been to do the KYC _before_ letting people invest in their tokens in ICOs and pre-ICOs. By having allowed investors to open accounts and sending utrust BTC or ETH without prior KYC, they already breached whatever complience rule they may have envisioned.