Quote from: CryptoSpark on October 25, 2017, 09:56:28 PM

Is it inevitable or even desirable for blockchains and their ICO's to become more regulated or to least run their ICO's in more risk averse ways such as submitting to AML and KYC checks?
Atlas City Finance has just begun its 1 month pre-ICO which is expected to be popular in part due to the large 30% pre-ICO discount but to offset this the ICO is unusual in that it is being run against a set of AML and KYC checks to protect the business, the blockchain and investors. The question remains whether requiring such strict rules to be applied to investors will deter investors or attract more traditional investors who welcome more voluntary regulation.
Smaller investments up to 1 BTC in value dont need KYC or AML checks but larger investments can be used to move money illegally which is why such checking can be helpful. Since Atlas City Finance is really trying to establish market credibility for its other products and services such as Plutous then it makes sense to be over cautious of how the Olympus blockchain is funded. It remains to be seen how ICO investors will react to such checks being carried out and itll certainly be of interest to other upcoming ICOs who are considering how to present their coin offerings.

A presentation that combines Plutous and Olympus is provided in the following link. The ICO is just for the Olympus blockchain and its Olympian coins but this presentation looks at the wider Plutous financial services platform and how it makes use of the features of the Olympus blockchain to provide scale, anonymity and smart contracts in more familiar programming languages.

For full disclosure I'm involved in the blockchain and Atlas business but I find the wider question of whether AML and KYC's protection is good or bad for the blockchain industry as a whole very interesting. Sure it makes sense for a commercial organisation in the financial sector but is it over-restrictive for startup's looking to raise money quickly for without being too intrusive into funding sources? What are your views on these kinds of test or regulations more broadly?

https://www.atlascityfinance.com/media/AtlasCityFinance_BusinessPresentation.pptx

I'm interested in talking with you individually about KYC and AML.

We at Qchain, as a US-based startup focused on long-term growth and success, had to have very strict KYC/AML to comply with US regulations. Being honest, this really limited the scale of our ICO. However, we saw it as a necessary sacrifice to maintain continued operations in the US. The tradeoff is that it is easier to get venture capital funding in the US.

However, for the US, there is no minimum threshold by which KYC is necessary. Even if a transaction is under 1 BTC, you technically need to abide by KYC/AML regulations. If not, you might not get busted, but do so at your own risk.

qchain

Posts

Merits