Imagine you can know who has been identified. Behind the screen, it can be anybody, even with ENS name. But if the ENS owner get a KYC. Then you can be sure this person or his/her commitment can be enforced by law.
Especially when NFTs contains Licences regarding IP of creators.
KYC verified by who? Who is doing the verification and storing/screening sensitive data?
It’s an interesting idea. I totally get the intention of making ENS closer to national identities.
The challange is not only KYC by who (as @inplco said), but also KYC how. Different countries have different requirements for different use-cases.
My other fear is that such information will create unintentional “classes” within ENS, between the KYCed names and the others.
No No No KYC
This procedure creates more threats than it will bring you “confidence”. Threats to you, to contacts, to freedom of speech in the end. And all nation-states are concentration camps, by the way - some are just more comfortable than others. But I will be happy if this proposal goes to the vote and I hope the community will close the topic with KYC forever.
With ENS you can already do this. It is totally possible to create an NFT that is a Proof of Humanity NFT, where a person can only mint one if they prove they are a real person. Then that NFT could be set as the avatar record of ENS name.
Thank you for this information Premm.eth. I did know about the KYC procedure of proof of humanity but I did not know about the possibility to use a NFT to register an ENS NFT.
Is it possible for a third party to easily get both of these informations from ENS ? (ENS name NFT + proof of Humanity NFT) Like an API or something ?
It could be public like proof of humanity (I don’t know if all datas are public but at least we all can see a video of the person willing to prove he is a human) or private through trusted entities.
Public advantages = You don’t have to trust someone to be sure of the ID of someone else
Public disadvantage = Sensitive datas are stored publicly
Private advantage = You have to trust
Private disadvantage = Sensitive data are not visible by everybody
For the “who” question, I think when it is private KYC, trusted party with huge commitment to keep confidential and preserve data integrity must be chosen. Data integrity can be preserved in a confidential and trustless way (Just by anchoring in public chain the Hash of the ID received)
For the “How” it should depends for which purpose someone needs to be identified. Newspaper seller never need to identified his buyer. But if KYC become needed to operate in Europe or in Asia, a ENS owner willing to exchange with European or Asian companies requiring a conform KYC of their countries should pass both of them. We could maybe imagine a way for ENS to severals KYCs solutions represented by NFTs. The more KYC you have made the more you have NFTs linked to your ENS.
I share your fear that such information would create unintentional “classes”. And maybe KYC NFT should be needed only for action whose KYC is needed.
Proof of humanity can actually be a good thing too. The main area where it is necessary is voting. A good example might be something as simple as a food coop with members. The coop wants to have the people that actually go to the store and are members vote, they don’t want a bunch of people who buy up the tokens making decisions for the coop. A proof of humanity NFT could be issued by the coop in person, and that token could be non transferable. In order to get a discount at the store, the POH membership token would would be used at checkout. The payment system could just check for the token, so it would be seamless.
Currently the first thing that the person who checks out members at a food coop says is “what is your member number?” This would be phased out with a POH membership tokens and crypto payments.