Bitcoin Forum

Hello everyone, I apologize if my question sounds silly.
Please tell me how the project team is responsible to the community?
As the project team can be punished for not fulfilling obligations?
Is there any guarantee that it will not disappear with the money collected?
??? ???

There is a word escrow who will act as middle man on ICO ran by trusted developer team so if you found some ICO running without any escrow than that is sign of scam.

Funds in escrow will not be released towards developer till they deliver what they have promised to deliver including wallets, listing in exchanger and future roadmap. Funds collected during ICO are released in batch so that dev team have to remain active on development.

And what happens when the escrow people have different judgement than some or many of the ICO investors?

Discord? "Oh well"? Suckers!

And what happens when the escrow bean counters are not visionaries and screw up the developers who want to remain fleet footed and flexible?

There is no governance that solves the problem of giving developers $5 million and then expecting them to meet some pie-in-the-sky promises. Much better don't give a lot of money for promises. The developers need $300,000 for 12 months with 3 developers, then okay. Or you've got industry savant s/w engineers so they need $500k for a year of development, then maybe okay. But $5 million?!?

I developed CoolPage (a million user product) in my Nipa Hut in the Philippines while eating rice and salt. Nobody gave me a damn penny. Then I released and earned up to $100,000 a month (inflation adjusted).

Work before pay. Money down only before panty down (because men lose interest after they cum).

But after developers get this ICO money, it is down to them to use that money, how to use  and allocate it, how to control the development process etc. I don't think there are any procedure to punish them.

An idea popped into my mind.

What if ICO coin buyers vote on each release of the budget. They only get to vote up to the value of the tokens they own. They can vote any fraction of their tokens on any budget release. Once they've voted all their tokens, they can't vote any more.

The approved releases are taken from the pool of BTC. Any of the pool not released after a certain period of time, is returned back to all ICO investors proportionally.

What do you think? See any flaws in it?

One flaw is that it means some ICO owners can hold the other owners hostage, by refusing to fully fund what the developer thought had been raised already. But I am not sure that is really a flaw. It means the devs have an ongoing incentive to perform. I am very sleepy so I might have a major flaw in this idea.

There is no guarantee!
Except in the if the project raises funds through escrow.
I recommend attentively familiarize with the agreements.

@iamnotback,
I believe you would most likely end up with Continuous token models as discussed by Simon de la Rouviere
https://media.consensys.net/exploring-continuous-token-models-towards-a-million-networks-of-value-fff153175776#.ev642unp1

Not exactly the same. I am proposing a preset beneficiary that can't change, so the voters can't pay themselves unless they are also the beneficiary.

And I am talking not about minting new tokens as a process of mining, rather instead for these tokens to be bought at an ICO. Then the owners of the tokens vote. But they can vote independently with their share of the pool.

So for example, if an ICO raised 100 BTC from 100 contributors. Then for example 10 owners of tokens might decide to vote to release 10 BTC to the developer. They voted independently of the other 90. If the other 90 refuse to ever release any tokens and the deadline lapses, then all token holders receive a 90% refund and lose 90% of their tokens. Note that each owner of tokens can vote his token share at any time at his discretion.

That's it. That's why use ESCROW BECOMING OBLIGATION for the ICO.

So the developer can't run away from his responsible to the investors and take all of the money.

That is why the escrow has to be trusted. You need to have faith that the escrow will take the right decision in case of a dispute.
Obviously, it there is a dispute between the investors and the coin developers, the escrow's judgment will make one of the parties unhappy.

you're under no obligation to give to ICOs and there is no need in the community to have ICOs.

plenty of solid cryptos out there without the need to run ICOs.

save alot of hassles with ICO (infact they go against the main reason for p2p currencies in the first place), just avoid them, and support good solid fair cryptos.

Its okay dude, When your are creating or establishing a coin in the crypto world they should be always a part of the Escrow in the ICO, also the Developer must always uptdate their invesrtors to the fullest. :D

What if the investors disagree with each other and the developers? Who does the escrow agent follow? So the escrow agent becomes entrusted as the "controlling" owner of the project (which may make him culpable to the SEC regarding investment securities law).

Sometimes it's good to be silly and beside from escrow. Know your devs, if you aren't familiar with your devs and you find suspicious with that ICO then better not to go with it. Also another thing is that don't always invest if there's no guaranteed or they don't have any plans for using an escrow. If they'll say they don't need it, just leave them.

Any ICO project team must be responsible in their goal of having their respective project be success in the future. It will include community's trust since funding will came from the community. So as an exchange, make it worth the community's money. But it's not the scene sometimes since most of the ICO's (or I will say most of them), turned into fraud one bagging investors money and left.

There is no guarantee that ICO project team will not dissappear as the project goes by. That's how risky ICO investing is so for your comfortability, if you don't know what you are doing stay from ICO and you will minimize the risk of having your money loss.

Even with a trusted escrow, the developers (or big investors) will find the way of benefiting of the project. It's called pump&dump, they hype the project and when the value it's nice, dump!

There absolutely no guarantee. You should use your brain before investing, I will take Komodo as an example here, their project may be good however the fact that their team is totally anonymous and not known to the public makes me don't want to invest. Usually, If the project has known faces on the cryptocurrency community then people will invest otherwise people won't take risks.

Altcoin investment is really a risky one and there is no guarantee that they will be active in operation that will lasts a lifetime. If you established some knowledge about the risk associated when investing in an ICO, you can give it a shot and face the possible risk.

An ICO that established a good run on their first phase of operation can somehow give an investor a profit, of course in an early phase too. You must be an active investor meaning you always watch what is currently happening in the project and not just sit back and relax.

This kind of investment is not meant for weak hands so if you are not ready yet then take your time studying all the things involved in an ICO investment.