The KYC requirement in many ICO projects has been the bone of contention of many investors and supporters with many thinking and feeling that this is not needed as this is the industry that proposes decentralization, anonymity and privacy. However, a project can argue that it is the law that requires them to know their customers and they are in fact just following the regulation. The problem is that KYC is not a guarantee that a project can never go down the coffin and run with the investors' money...maybe travelling to the "moon" and have an indefinite vacation in there until the victims can forget their misfortune of trusting them.
Now, if these project owners can require us to undergo the KYC process...should it not be rational that they themselves submit to the same so that we can be sure that we are dealing with real people with real address?
I have said this times without numbers too that KYC by these developers is also very necessary, but the challenge now is how to push for it, since they are the ones developing the system that request for KYC and we investors have no system to do this, and ordinarily, if there is no system enforcing this on them, there is no way they will comply with mere words of our mouth, it will only fall on deaf ears, but if we have anything we can hold that would enforce it on them, that is the aspect we need to be looking at now.
I think it is only bitcoin talk that can make this happen, since most of them come through bitcoin for bounty hunters, before this developers can push the campaign out through this thread, they must do KYC before their ANN paper can be published.