How will KYC with Third Party Wallets be enforced?

Calibra, which will likely be the main wallet most people use first will follow strict KYC for account setup. What enforces this for 3rd party wallet providers that are created, and if they do not comply do you think they will be censored?


Apparently there will be regulated “custodial” and unregulated “non-custodial” wallets, and they regulate the “on and off ramps” for transferring fiat currency into libra. From this I figure that maybe you only have to do KYC if you want a non-custodial wallet?

1 Like

So to clarify, do you think you can transfer through non-custodial wallets without KYC? If so, doesn’t that still require KYC through any exchange or through an initial custodial wallet? It seems then there would be a lack of anonymity even on non-custodial wallets as the chain can be traced back to the custodial wallets.

1 Like

From my understanding, I think non-custodial wallets are unregulated but you have to go through KYC, and then custodial wallets are very limited in what you can do but you dont have to go through KYC.

And I agree with you, I’m pretty convinced people are not going to be anonymous when using the platform.

1 Like

Cool, thanks for sharing your insight.

1 Like

Isn’t it time we called BULLSHIT! for governments wanting to know? This whole AML [“Anti-Money-Laundyring” is a ruse for more theft from citizens by government. [Is everyone going to declare >USD10,000 on airline flights because their mobile is their bank?]

1 Like

REALITY, Money regulated around the world. The US has more freedom to move money than several international countries. Driver … very profitable.

The government will play their games.

I am more concerned with how Libra will regulate and distribute private keys (export). Can anyone provide guidance related to if/how 3rd party wallets will exist and get the private key from Libra… Is this an area where code contribution required?

1 Like

Power is the devil…

1 Like

I think multi-sig would be a solution.

1 Like

I think it should be possible to have third-party wallets.

In libra’s source code mentioned about “client_known_version”. I guess the third-party wallet client must be follow by standard version for complaint.

1 Like

what if I built a wallet without KYC? Will the Libra mainnet refuse to witness these deals?
I mean how does the force-KYC work on mainnet?

1 Like

This is interesting:

I think libra still need to improve “method” of “account create” to cover KYC, once account’s address was created correctly then another process no need to change. So, third party wallet can implement particular “method”

But white paper mentioned “The Libra Blockchain is pseudonymous and allows users to hold one or more addresses that are not linked to their real-world identity.” It’s not KYC right ? Or we can refer to facebook account then assume it’s KYC :slight_smile:

No, I don’t think implementing KYC/AML on the blockchain level is a good idea at all.

The goal of Libra is to build a financial infrastructure for the world. The key to a truly global currency is open. Thus it implies Libra HAS TO become a permissionless blockchain eventually. KYC on blockchain level is the opposite. KYC can’t be done in a decentralization way. Who operate the KYC has the absolute power to censor and control the blockchain, which will eventually drive the people around the world away from Libra.

I didn’t mean KYC is bad but put it into the blockchain level will definitely hurt the ecosystem and ruin the vision of a global currency. Just think about how it will look like if tcp/ip needs KYC. A much better way is to implement KYC on application layer (e.g. Calibra) as it is closer to users and the traditional business.

Moving KYC to application layer is still someone has the absolute power to censor and control is not it ?

If yes, are we just change the person who has that power from A to B then hope he or she is better ?
Please correct me if I’m wrong, I thought the reason to have too many partner (node) is to separate power between them.

It’s much better. There can be various applications but only one blockchain. For example, we can develop a privacy-perserving Libra without the need of KYC as an DApp.

Many thanks for response.

Good guy like you think about benefits, Bad guy think opposite. How to catch bad guy ?

BTW, I hope we all found the win-win situation to move forward with libra.

Thought provoking discussions :slight_smile:. Calibra wallet would be the place to implement KYC, wouldn’t it?

Or define innovation idea to solve this conflict that will change the KYC in financial world forever.

I can’t imagine a wallet without KYC; any Government will shut such op down. KYC at the Blockchain level also doesn’t make much sense for several reasons. I’ve read this entire thread as this question has been on my mind since the Libra’s first day. Unfortunately, no comments from the Libra team but plenty of speculations. Perhaps, the Libra team is still studying this subject.

Can anyone form the Libra project please respond?

If Calibra is the main wallet then presumably they would be responsible for completion of KYC and authorisations. If the goal is to create a global infrastructure then will Calibra own KYC for all users. the objective is to create reduced fee transactions not to avoid KYC and permit money-laundering etc…, I don’t know why you would object to one party from the Libra association verifying identity etc…