We’re always on the lookout for new coins. However I don’t think this forum (this thread) is a place for such a discussion. Anybody that wishes to have their coin listed should submit a token listing request ( https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdnERAOhZER4j9CRTRzUSZZe65UwYd8cqc8i8HemnKD4tKULQ/viewform ) and it will be reviewed.
On the topic of transition to SafeCoin, we’re believers in the project since much earlier and we are taking note of the progress the project is making. We also intend to be ready for when the network go into ready stage (most likely post beta).
You might very well be correct and we are reviewing such options as well.
Never heard of chainrift before this TBH, but good news anyway
We’ve been around for a while, under the radar
We value transparency and quick support, at the very least. Be sure to give us a try!
In the spirit of transparency, are there any circumstances wherein you would require a customer, prospective or established, to take a ‘selfie’ in lieu of notarized identity documents?
I’m developing a next generation trading bot, (as mentioned at Introduce yourself) it will be used by others and drive business to supported exchanges, however I cannot in good faith add support for exchanges having that potentiality as it is an unnecessary and grave security liability.
To preemptively address any possible suspicion by those not involved in infosec, I comply with all lawful obligations, including taxes, and recommend the same to others.
If i understand you correctly, we only require selfies for the purposes of verification, which is currently only required of one wants to withdraw more than the 2.5k USD/day and 25k USD/month.
If we would remove the “free” tier we would either keep existing users as legacy with the same conditions (keep trading)
if this wasn’t possible we would allow them to withdraw funds without being able to trade until verified.
Naturally this would be mandated by legislation. And, just to make it clear, there would at least be an option for the users to withdraw their funds without providing a selfie (KYC).
If this doesn’t answer your question feel free to followup.
May I inquire as to the rationale for the industry standard of notary, accepted by financial institutions and courts, being insufficient for verification?
I recognize that the business process efficiency of a ‘selfie’ is appealing, however there should be alternative options available, perhaps with a fee, for those who are aware of its dangers. Even if it is as involved as requiring a bar certified attorney to function as the intermediary in relaying notarized identity documents, it would be perfectly reasonable.
Correct me if I’m wrong but what you wrote boils down to “why the industry requires selfies and if we’d be willing to accept identity verification by e.g. a bar verified attorney”.
If this is the case then selfies are required in order to establish a direct link between the id and id holder/owner and reduce chances of using stolen identity. We are aware that by collecting such data (at ChainRift we’ve chosen professionals) there’s a chance this may get out, although we’ve taken maximum measurers to prevent this from happening.
To answer your other question, yes, we’re definitely open to other options that users would have greater confidence in while this would allow us to maintain at least the same level of trust in the provided identity.
The extra fee you mention would probably be required because the cost of such a review would definitely be substantially higher.
What are you referring to by industry? Because for decades, if not centuries, notary has been the standard in industry. It is only crypto exchanges that have recently introduced the unusual and dangerous practice of requiring ‘selfies’.
Furthermore, there is nothing in law in the US that requires it. To the contrary, with jurisdictions becoming aware of the risk intrinsic to biometric data collection, and passing laws against it, I would be surprised if companies engaged in the practice will not be facing substantial liability as their customers become victims of it.
I would very much appreciate an alternative option to be offered and I thank you for appreciating the concern. It’s also a tremendous opportunity for your exchange to offer a privacy-respecting option for identity verification. How quickly could the details, including associated fee, be made available?
We have nothing to share, we’re open to introducing something new, provided it is secure for all involved parties.
I’ll rephrase; what would the next step be? I would be happy to be the beta tester for introducing this new compliance process to your business. You’re welcome to message me privately or continue this here, whichever you [and others] prefer. I would also be happy to schedule a telephone conversation or otherwise accommodate you however I can.
I’ve moved accross all my on exchange funds from poloniex to chainrift.
Very happy with the service.
We’re currently not aware of such solutions that we could integrate. If someone has a suggestion, feel free to bring it up.
I’m envisioning something similar to:
- I create a free tier account.
- I go into the office of my local bar certified attorney.
- I present my valid government issued ID.
- My attorney relays via registered mail to your legal council a statement on their letterhead including my name, account’s user id, and an affirmation that it has been matched with a valid government issued ID.
- Your legal council verifies the bar status of my attorney.
- I pay my attorney for his time and ChainRift for yours.
- You toggle my account as having a verified identity.
If I could briefly speak with your legal council I could tighten that flow up somewhat to find an optimal balance for minimal validation overhead on your part, and privacy preservation for the customer.
One missing link here is in us potentially needing to know more at some point if a user turns malicious. A name and statement won’t do. But this is a matter for attornies, as you’ve said.
I’m not opposed to providing whatever information you typically request, as long as a ‘selfie’ isn’t a required part of the process. As you have a cooperative demeanor, I’m certain a model can be specified that leaves ChainRift lacking nothing necessary for the operation of its business and full legal compliance. Working out the precise details is why I suggested a brief conversation with your legal council. What would you propose for the next step?
I will forward this information and we’ll get back to you, depending on the answer we get.
To clarify, if the answer you receive is not agreeable then you will not get back to me?
I can get back to you either way. It have take a while though.