I agree with your overall thoughts here, but full KYC with government docs needed and full name displayed on platform (all things coming directly from him) is something you would go for?
I get the need to solve the identity issue and that most people in mainstream have no issue with a bit of “proof of human”, but full KYC to use a social platform?
I can’t help but feel that focus is a bit extreme.
I can't find any official information for exclusively requiring "full KYC with government docs", just random chat logs and hearsay. That certainly does not qualify to be the "special authentication system" that they are promoting. I'll reserve judgment on the matter till we have full and final details on their methods of authentication.
PS: Oh, you're @llfarms!
True, no official documentation. I am just going off of what Dan personally stated when asked about it. That all of course could very much change.
Again, this opens many doors for blockchain.. especially government contract doors which if I was a gambler would say that is where their goals are.
I get the identity issue needs to be solved, but it does feel quite odd for full identity to be displayed as well as needing full KYC.. but then again, you can’t have an election on the blockchain without that I guess. 🙂
Yes, sorry I should have gave you a heads up! Haha. I hope you are doing well!
Yes, I saw the some of the same logs, but after I published the post. We shall see how it turns out. Like I mentioned in the post, I fully expect it's something cumbersome that'll alienate much of the mainstream audience, which something like this would. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised though, so I'll wait and see what the final solution looks like, which countries it'll be available in, etc.
Hope all's well!