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?
That is the ideal thing, but you know that we have people that dont give a damn to what happen in the ICO which I am talking of regulators, for these project developers and team to be able to comply with the rule of KYC, they have to be under influence of an authority that is higher than them before they can do so.
They are imposing this system on us because they feel that we are the ones that needs it the most and that we are the ones under them, which is why the complains we have been having on this is really not shaking them, because when KYC started, many people were against this, but none of these project people even came out to appeal or defend why they are imposing it, so we need an authority to be able to impose this KYC too on them.