Bitcoin Forum

In the real world (I guess we are still in the real world on this forum), the entity who is closest to the creation of the money supply in the fractional reserve, fiat system benefits the most.  In other words, central bankers issue currency for profit.  People who establish IPOs and advertise for investment on the forum, are in effect, recreating the exact same system Bitcoin was designed to defeat.  Some might argue there's a difference because the systems are Austrian in nature, and not Keynesian, but there's really nothing that prevents them from using either method, so the difference is non-existent.

The normal Bitcoin protocol was not designed to be issued for profit, or to have a central issuing authority.  It was designed to be a trust free system where others work to acquire it through mining, and for any reward to be independent of the creator.  If one acknowledges the previous points as fact, you can clearly see that any IPO has absolutely no place on the forum in the context of money supply creation.  It is an evolution backwards in the technical domain of distribution, and in the ethics domain of corruption issues.

What's that you say?  You claim 100% proof of stake systems have benefits?  If you believe proof of stake is superior for coin dynamics and security, there's no reason you can't release a coin that uses normal PoW for distribution, then utilizes PoS entirely once all coins are mined.  The idea that an IPO is actually required to make 100% proof of stake work is an outright lie.  The term PoW/PoS hybrid exists for a reason and has already been accomplished.  If you wanted to be extremely lazy and have a proof of stake client entirely separate from the PoW client, you could always release a crap coin clone, have people mine it, then trade units of the crap coin for shares in the 100% PoS client coin.  Where does the need for an IPO fit into this anywhere?  It doesn't.  They should be banned.

Agree 100%.

They should be banned but I'm almost willing to bet they wont be.
Of course 95% are pure scams but for the rest 5% out of which 10% might return some money , people won't stop looking into IPOs

Unbelievable that within 60 seconds of making the post, there are already five votes against, and five votes for banning.  The unbelievable part is that not a single person that voted no could provide any rational response to my post as to why IPOs should not be treated entirely as scams.  I expect this thread to see a MASSIVE NXT/Ethereum shilling campaign.  The amount of effort and propaganda required to try and debunk the original post is so monumental, we may not see an anti-ban poster reply for weeks, just votes only.
  

Have you researched every ipo on this forum and all of them were scams?

Read the third paragraph in the original post again.  There is no demonstrable reason for the IPO method of distribution to exist.  Proof of stake does not require IPO ever.

We're now at 6 votes for banning, and 9 against, with not a single reply demonstrating why an IPO is necessary instead of the method outlined in my original post.  This forum has far more criminal fraudsters than I imagined.

Then update your title because you're referring in the post only to coins related IPOs , but a lot of people will think that you want all kinds of IPO to be banned.

You cannot have an IPO for an idea.  IPO are to make a functioning, established private business to become a publicly owned one.

If there is a company or product that does have a net income or market value, then there's nothing wrong with an investment opportunity.

most 'IPO's on this site do not present the prospective investor with any type of valuation.  However, simply being 'overpriced' doesn't mean they're all scams.  

what people call 'IPO' on this site is in reality panhandling for cryptocurrencies.

I voted ban for the sound reasoning OP gave, I dont feel the need to add further reasoning.

Ban or not all I can say is most of IPO's here turned into scam and many people lost their investment because of this. In the end it's all up to the people if they really want to invest or not on those IPO's.

This sounds like a big government and regulations. Why would you ban IPOs? Let people make their own decisions what is scam and what is not.

rock on!

People always get funny when money is involved...

If I wanted to buy stock or stake, I would put money into the blood sucking greed culture that already exists in the world... why go through all the effort to create another?

you IPOlice you

This place is the wild west. If you ban IPOs because some are SCAMs (which of course they are), there are a lot of other offers you would have to ban as well. There wouldn't be much left  ::)

IPO's should be banned here.

Both of you are either shilling, or missed the point completely.  The IPO coins are relying on the premise that it's necessary to have an IPO to run a 100% proof of stake coin, when if you read the 3rd paragraph in the original post, you would see this is demonstrateably false.

This is the altcoin forum section.  I'm talking about currencies only, not business venture IPO such as Cryptsy seeking investment to expand a business.

Let the market decide.  If you feel strongly against this premise promote a cryptocurrency wiki site that identifies these kinds of issues.

I voted no but pressed for time. I think the people really opposed to the new coins are maybe just been here for awhile.

Having been here two months or less, have learned a lot about all of it from the altcoins. Mostly from the often hilarious responses, but whatever. We deal with the same thing IRL. Penny stock scams... Our solution (not mine) is canada. All the crap companies who cant get listed on us exchanges open in vancouver or toronto. If they cant make it there we have pinksheets (.pk). And ob.  

Not much different here. I havent bought any altcoins except vtc and had to buy bitcoin to do that. Most altcoin buys require bitcoin buys, and vice versa.

I would bet 80% or more of daily payment processing via bitcoin is currently altcoin trading.

So... You really want to try and kill it?

90% of IPOs on this site have been scams

I see both sides to this debate. On one hand developers do need money to make services and such to build a coin up but on the other side they shouldn't as everyone should (In a perfect world) have an equal opportunity to mine and get coins as other people to make it a fair market. Even bitcoin was originally invented to fix problems with our monetary sistem. Satoshi must have put a lot of time (remember  Time=Money) into building bitcoin and did he get much (if any) from it?
Although I personally am looking at bitcoin/alts more and more as shares rather than currency (From trading etc.)
tldr; I am undecided on the matter.

[Citation needed]

The Original Doge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sICSyC9u5iI&sns=em

For you young uns. See pets.com wiki.

History does rhyme. 

Just kill all the IPO's that don't allow Escrows or some proof of a client  ;D

Don't ban it.  It tells ppl which is scamcoin.  Otherwise. We need to waste lots of time reading analyzing to identify a scam

List of Legit vs scams?


Legit (and working):

1) Nxt
2) Bitgem
Total = under 30btc

(feel free to add more)


Scams:

1) Visacoin
2) Verocoin
3) Neon
4) Shares
5) Shadowcoin
6) Aerocoin
7) Tomatocoin
8 ) Frictionlesscoin
9)Topcoin
Total = over 200btc

(feel free to add more)

According to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWtNeaZxT54&feature=youtu.be Satoshi owns about 980k BitCoins.  :)

I don't think you understand what this thread is about.  The vast majority of altcoins do not have IPO.  People started to release proof of stake coins using the lie that IPO is necessary to run the proof of stake model such as NXT, Ethereum, etc.  This is false, read the 3rd paragraph in the original post of this thread.

Next, the developers tend to try and hide all the code and not make anything open source for these IPO coins.  After enough community outrage, some release it, others will resist and eventually navigate cryptocurrency to a closed source model.  This is another huge negative of the IPO scheme that I didn't even mention in the original post.  Bitcoin is supposed to be an open source model.

If you don't start banning these clowns from trying to sell their IPO scams on the website, while trying to profit off something that's supposed to be open source, eventually you will have Bank of America itself trying to sell you their own IPO scam on the forum a year from now.  Nobody wins except scammers and a handful of random developers, 99.99% loses.

110% agree with OP, well put.

You are correct, i understand not much beyond knowing a lot about markets. Know very little about nxt or any of them. Most are comically awful though. They just remind me of pokemon cards or beanie babies for nerds or a bunch of other bizarre manifestations of subcultures. If someone loses their life savings on tittiecoin i doubt they had much to risk.

This seemed to truly get out if hand with coin.io and simplification of cloning, maybe i am wrong on that but if so it is like a month old. There are only so many suckers in the pond so it will not last.

As for B of A they will do something like that, probably they will end up hiring serial devs to do it. Wall street will eat the space or the space will become wall street and you wont stop that. Human nature still.

Anyway i am naive and i get your collective outrage at the whole thing. But it is a really useful circus tent for learning the concepts for those of us not dumb enough to give money to the carnies.

No...allow a free market its freedom.  

Having said that I will not invest in an IPO because I'm too afraid of being scammed.  Plus I favor a fair (i.e., non-premined) start.

to me it's PoW coins which should be banned. as miners are not needed anymore (since 100% PoS was made reality in Nxt) and with the polarizing of the miners market it is not even a fair model of distribution . also PoW mining is a threat to our environment (with estimated carbon footprint of Bitcoin alone likely to be 3x worlds total if it was to become the worlds currency).
miners now are just some sort of middle men between developers and investors and a detrimental category.
i'd rather see PoS developers distributing the coins for free (like in the "interested" threads lol) or see wallets automatically charged with some algorythm (proofofuniquewallet) rather distribute them to miners which have become an exclusive club which requires a minimum 1000$ rig ticket (unless you want to mine at a loss).
in bitcoin PoW miners were/are NEEDED to secure the network/carry out transactions, that's primarily why they were introduced in the system. and the coins were their reward for doing so.
but now with 100% PoS  miners are simply surplus to requirements...and as any redundant category they start with their strikes and protests (threads like this one ).
distributing coins to developers/investors makes more sense to me than distributing them to miners.
ProoFofinvesting > ProofofMining ( i refuse to call sitting on your ass watching rigs mine "work" lol)...and i see investing in technology and developers a more valuable job than mining.
for sure i prefer getting the coins directly from the developer than buying them from miners while they are being pumped&dumped on an exchange

an Ipo can actually be more democratic and inclusive if it allows even for tiny investments (and that tiny investment is better placed in an IPO rather than in mining where with a tiny investment actually means a loss)

also you have to keep in mind when Bitcoin and first altcoins were created there was no mining market so the developers themselves were able to mine a large amount and effectively have a large stake in their own creation. (rumours say satoshi was able to mine 950k of btcs....)
this would not be possible today...as the developers would be gazumped on release by multititudes of miners who would get all the coins and the profits (and for what? burning electricity and watching some fans spin..)....

if ethereum was just to do a PoW without any premine/ipo.....considering all the attention it received and all the miners ready to pounce on it.....the developers would be left with hardly anything to bring the project forward....and probably most of the trolls that jump in every IPO screaming "scam " would end up having bigger amounts than the developers lol.
r0ach with more etheriums than Vitalik if it was 100% PoW....yeah sure that would be fair lol.

edit:
having said this I feel there should be a code of practice for IPOs here. one cannot just put an IPO up without any evidence of a product.  first there needs to be some verified beta before it can be listed here or something. but then again if people want to invest in thin air you cannot stop them...
in this regard i think ethereum did well to postpone the IPO and first have a proof-of-concept client for download. and emunie too is allowing people to try the open beta before the IPO.
this should be as standard imo.

If you don't like IPO's don't get involved.

Why try to stop that do want to invest just because you don't want to?

And most of you voting are doing this?


What is wrong with this picture guys?

Minor point but if you all keep calling them IPO's long enough the SEC will be shutting them down for you.

Also surprised such a crypto-anarcho-libertarian crowd is pretty well split down the middle on....more governance.

Oh please, you're talking to someone that helped work on Ron Paul coin, they quoted what I wrote on the evening news, I know what a free market is.  There are a lot of angles to this, but this is a privately owned website created for an open source, software platform called Bitcoin.  This isn't a stock exchange or government institution.  They have extended site functionality to support forks of that open source software, referred to as "altcoins", but an IPO is dramatically different content.

I've already covered how the self proclaimed, "second generation", proof of stake cryptocurrencies do not actually need IPOs to function.  Things like the Ethereum IPO exist solely to enrich the currency issuer.  Bitcoin was not designed from the ground up solely to enrich the creator.  It was designed as an open source, software solution to reign in the power of currency issuers.  The IPO scamsters are also attempting to move towards closed source as well.  There is a clear conflict of interest.

It's the equivalent of some guy burning copies of Linux and trying to sell it on the street corner.  Sure, he can do whatever the hell he wants, but you don't have to allow him to post his ads for the discs on your privately owned, open source, Linux website.  That's what a "free market" is.

What's next?  Everyone will start charging $20 to download the wallet for their new crap coin?  We will start difficulty at 0.00000, but you have to pay money to download the wallet!  I don't care if they altered some, or most of the code, they're still trying to make money off an open source software project, while also trying to convert to closed source at the same time.  If this isn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what is.

A classic Krugman approach.

1. define a problem
2. conceive the arguments of the opponent yourself
3. smash those arguments
4. declare yourself winner

I voted no. Regardless of what OP and I think, people can and should think for themselves. They should be able to choose the coin they like or create their own. If coins are scams, better learn fast.

OP is somehow trying to ban the sun (sunlight is free, just as open source software).

Ooooh. I get it now, those IPO's. I thought that was just shorthand for all the new issues, you're talking about the whole other system.

Well point stands I learn way faster from the arguments and factions than I would without them. That said I'll bow out and read along now that I know what I don't know. Thanks.

many thanks for the thread. important question. is there a list of IPO's / fundraisers somewhere?

I would argue: large IPOs (1M$+) should be not allowed, in the sense that people should speak out against them and told that these are darkpatterns which are not wanted. so there is a continuum of outright banning, restricting and just campaigning against them.

if somebody wants to launch a CorporateCoin or eGold 2.0, do that outside the community. nobody wants it. bitcoin was designed precisely to avoid problems with eGold. a corporation can be attacked in various ways, or use its influence in various ways.

on the other hand problem is how to define "IPO"? somebody asking to be paid - is that an IPO? do you want to restrict all BTC flows and how? then you get into the question of potential admin corruption, i.e. "ban this person asking for money, and i'll pay you x BTC." another example is link to a Kickstarter. actually with BTC assurance contracts we can have a much better version of kickstarter.

my sugggestion: somebody opens up a thread and discusses some guidelines. then anyone can link to those guidelines, the next time somebody asks for a million bucks, he will be shown a flag: this is a darkpattern, established by discussion in this thread.

i.e. you want to raise 30 M$ without putting in a dime in yourself? => that is not a good idea.

some dark patterns:

* money beyond covering reasonable expenses (300k$ p.a. is highend)
* no skin in the game
* a lot of marketing based on non facts
* referencing law of the country. if you're raising in BTC, there is no law covering this, unless you have proof, i.e. legal docs to back up your claims

That's a real knee slapper.  Trying to perform guilt by association comparing me to a racial supremacist, Jewish man shilling for central bankers in his cult.

Can you address the multiple conflicts of interest outlined in my previous post above yours.  The progression of these activities I talked about will eventually lead to such a divergence in site content from the original purpose of the website, that people advertising plastic lawn chairs for sale will be more on topic.

This is not a democracy: the site owners can ban whatever they want. You have read my opinion, no more.

Nobody needs to "build a coin up" that is exactly the point. You have essentially defined a pump-and-dump scheme right there.

But it doesn't need to be banned. People just need to stop falling for it. When there is no demand the game is up.

ethereum's 30M$ fundraiser was stopped by negative campaigns (actually there is more negative things I would have to say about this, but I actually hope they do some work). It didn't stop by itself. Next time there can be a more efficient process. People will then link to old discussions / guidelines. If you want to raise money, follow this, otherwise you will be campaigned against. Negative campaigners can have bad incentives, too. In the real world we have all kinds of laws, from securities laws to libel, etc. Imagine somebody using violence to achieve their financial ends, then things get ugly.

Freedom is a tricky concept. Personally I'd feel less free if the society I lived in allowed individuals to try scam me without consequences. The scammers at the same time I'm sure would fell more free if this behavior was allowed. If you scam someone on the free market you are talking about your freedom will pay the price, i.e. jail time.

Freedom for scammers has nothing to do with free markets.

Yes IPOs should be banned, i never do ipo. I need proofs of coin working and everyone should do the same.

Just let people use their own brain to make their own investment/gambling decision.

I hate people who think if they don't like something, then no one should be allowed to like it.

These people are what ruins the world.

The reason is roach a huge miner.

So he tries to get rid of coins he cant mine

ROTFLMFAO

You contradict yourself many times in this post.

dont forget people 86.65% of all statistics are made up!


I voted no - an IPO itself isnt a bad thing, people just need to be able to spot a scam from a legitimate offering. People invest in all kinds of crazy things in the real world, they should be allowed to in the crypto world imo - i just wish people would risk less and not get so burnt when things do go wrong >.<

This is the best!! Sorry I got to steal this one. I will never forget it!!

 ;D

That's very old joke - where have you been dude!  ;D

nice way to slant opinion by calling them IPOs...   I don't view any of these coins as actual coins... I view them as an experiment in algorithms, more a scientific experiment with social impact...  Scrypt is easy right now so everyone is creating their altcons... but in the event that a big ASIC comes out or a better algo comes out scrypt will probably go away... even SHA-256...

they dont need to be banned, they need to be treated more seriously, as more money is moving into these markets. if it doesnt seem like a real company or team or group of developers is backing the coin, it shouldnt be allowed. if something randomly changes after lauchn, like a 600billion premine or whatever, it should instantly be shunned by the community and not allowed on any exchanges.as this market grows more steps are needed to legitamize it for all of our well-being

I'd treat them more seriously if there wasn't a new one every 2 days.

WE NEED MORE IPOs!

Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware


 Some, even most of us, have yet to fall victim to these types of unethical IPO's.

 Why should anyone have to defend anyone else from themselves?

 After all, no one can save a fool from themselves.

 In other words: Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware


 As for the notion of bans; okay then, Let's exterminate all the useless eaters and be done with it.
Starting with those that we strongly don't agree with. right?

 In other words it's a very slippery slope. And although personally I would like nothing more than
to see the banksters and many on wall street and in the City of London given the death penalty
I will settle for clawing back all their ill gotten gains, and bailouts, and them serving life in a
work prision from the rest of their evil, rotten lives. Hence banning them from ever again doing
harm to others. But it may still be a while before enough folks scream out "Off with their evil,
rotten, dirty, slimy heads".

 Bans? Where shall we draw that invisible line? At pure PoS crypto that are merely IPO's? Because
some might be frauds?

 So we need the Crypto-Currency Police?

 So do we also need financial police and monitors throughout the entire finance sector protecting
every fool from themselves?

 Many understand the OP's points, and rational. But to ban something that isn't even known to
be fraudulent is quite a reach. Rather than that how about the death penalty for possession of
alcohol since it is in fact a deadly poison that also kills tens of thousand of innocent bystanders
each and every year. And after that we can write a much longer list in a vain attempt to legislate
morality.

 I think not. And no one can save any fools from themselves. Maybe some reflection on the matter
will help one realize that no matter what, a fool and their money is soon parted. Just like the fact
that there really is a sucker born every second or so.

 Hence, once again why I sign my posts the way I do. (to repeatedly remind reader to beware).

 And if we are going ban certain types then let's first ban the very one's that brought many of us
including Satoshi to this very place! By hanging them by the neck, till dead. In public, a dawn,
the very day after their speedy convictions.


Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware

Does anyone have a list of coins that have IPO'd on the site already?

Predictably, most votes are against IPO.  The biggest flaw of the poll is that people don't have to disclose being NXT bagholders in order to vote.

POW not safe,dirty and wasteful yawn

Ok, let's hypothetically assume everyone agrees with you.  You did nothing to counter my premise in the original post that an IPO is not actually needed to run a proof of stake coin.  It can be considered as nothing more than a money grab.  Even if you only ran PoW distribution for your PoS coin, for a single year, Quarkcoin style, it would still be light years better than what NXT did.

Imagine if NXT becomes the #1 coin?  We already had a book detailing the creation of the Federal Reserve entitled, "The Creature from Jekyll Island".  The book details a handful of bankers sitting down to create a money supply instantly, out of thin air, for personal gain.  You could write the exact same book about NXT IPO if it succeeded.

What does that even mean?

More scamcoins on the horizon, need more votes.

Who are you? Bitcoin Police?

Voted no. I'm more of a Laissez-faire kind of person. Let the market reign, and if you think an IPO is 'scammy', just don't invest in it. Or, better yet, ask the developers for more information so that you can make a reasonably well-informed decision. I definitely don't think it's our place, though, to tell other people what investments (including IPOs) should or should not be advertised in this forum. Give everyone a fair chance to seek funds for a proposed crypto-project, and people will make their own decisions about whether that project merits funding. Of course, the caveat emptor principle still reigns supreme.

You know if people weren't interested in investing or chancing on an IPO their thread would slide away down the forum in minutes. let people do what they want. Most people who want this kind of control tend to be anal retentive and painfully controlling people on real life.

You keep saying open source, but Satoshi released Bitcoin with the MIT license and ergo anyone is free to modify and distribute closed source derivatives barring other licensing concerns. So, while I do agree with the heart of what you're saying, this is not a good argument to back it up with. However, no one should be going anywhere near IPOs with little to no evidence of any actual design let alone code.

i disagree, i think IPOs are fine. Without them we won't have a chance to invest in great Innovative ideas like Nxt, eMunie, Ethereum and Bitshares.

If you don't like them fine.

This is one of the things wrong with the world. For some reason people want to force everyone else to follow their beliefs because they think they have a foolproof reason why they are correct. This so insane to me. It doesn't matter how great your reason is, it DOES NOT translate to forcing others to adopt it.

Do what you want, but leave me alone. I'm so sick of people like you in the world!!!

if most IPO's are managed for mainly dev benefit, does that make all IPO's bad ?

what is that actually makes an IPO good or bad ?

All someone has to do is click your post history to see you're an NXT/NEM shill.  You joined the forum this month and start shilling for NXT/NEM your first day posting?  Is this a joke?  I can't read a single thread on this forum without seeing an avalanche of NXT or Quark shills.

The argument you use is ridiculous, it means people should be able to post spam ads for bass fishing boats on the forum because booting them out is preventing them from "following their beliefs".  Maybe I can call up some people and we can get a team selling Evinrude outboard motors to people in every thread.  I'm sure everyone will love that.  Maybe some other people can sell stolen credit cards to go along with the IPO scams too.  Stolen credit cards are an alternative currency, right?

This is a privately run website, that's what the free market and freedom is, being able to do whatever you want on your privately run website.  If they want to boot the scamsters out, that's their choice, if they want to let people start The Federal Reserve 2.0 on this site, that's their choice too.

Who are you really ? you joined the board in December when Bitcoin was like 1200$ and you sounded like Bitcointalk GOD looking down upon new users. Stop the non-sense.

it means he wants to pre-sell you small European cars, I think, at a pre-agreed price.

I wouldn't fall for it, i'm not sure they are that good quality cars anyhow. 

How are those 100 Bitcoins from that IPO scam treating you?

!% premine - a few disgruntled complainers, not many people making a big deal

2% premine - immediate accusations of scamcoin

3% premine - only a true scammer like Wolong could possibly attempt such a thing

100% premine then charge you for the coin - the scam is now so large, the human brain is unable to comprehend it as a scam.

I'm confused, why are you referring to start-up coins as IPO? An initial public offering establishes a few facts, one of which is the company needs to be running and profitable to be able to offer some of the established profit to investors.

Plus banning them on the forum will simply drive those people away from the forum, not rescue people from experiencing losses.
Losses which they've accepted as a risk for investing in expectation of profit.

If you're calling for a ban, maybe understand what an IPO is before misrepresenting the facts?

Ok, so let me get this straight. You think if a coin is not mined it is a 100% Scam? What do you know about Nxt or NEM? Or any other coin that isn't POW? You need to open your mind to new things. You have no idea what you are talking about.

When the majority of the people here reading look at the above quoted comment, do you really think they agree that you know what you are talking about?

When people seen your previous comment, in which your "go to" move is to attack the fact that I'm new to the forum, do you think that convinces people what you are spewing is correct?

What I want to know is: Why are you even trying to convince people that POW is the only way to go?

Innovation is a good thing!!!

I have many mined coins too btw!! I came here and signed up to get my stake in NEM. Now I read about and buy other coins too! Just research new things before you dismiss them out of hand is all I'm saying.

Welcome to Tomorrow!

Oh, come on you can do better than that!!

Nxt and NEM have many revolutionary features. Most people have read up on Nxt by now and know the difference. And people are currently learning the differences between Nxt and NEM as well.

People keep saying, what's the difference? You know the difference. You have read the info on NEM, as you have questions that show you have. But then you act like you don't know what's going on, and so cleverly, or so you think, phrase your questions in a way that will mislead those that don't know any better.

For anyone who now wonders what I'm talking about, read some of the other posts that these guys have written. Also, read the NEM development plan and see for yourself. You don't have to have coding experience to understand, as they explain what the basics mean in laymans terms as well.

Do this so you are not mislead by these guys. Then you can just laugh at them like I do!!  ::) ::) ::)

 ;D ;D ;D

Just ban ipo without escrow by super members that have been escrow a million times before and we know who they are.

But but they are all scams ... except Bitshares because you get it for free from mining Protoshares

Of course we may ban them. Why not we all go to North Korea and be totally protected from scams?! Who cares about freedom, freedom is bad, it's scary and there are scams u know...

+1 yes ban all and lets regulate things.

why can't everyone have the freedom to post wallet stealers? damn restrictions, we want freedom, freedom  ::)

Why should you "ban"? Can't you just let people decide on their own? If we don't learn to take care of ourselves, decetralisation will remain a dream!
I prefer to make a statement and let newbies know that some IPOs are scams (which everyone actually knows!) and we should use our brains before investing in one.
Or you prefer to make a comittee that says "this is scam and thats is not"... ahhh sorry, i don't want to go back to 1984...

^^^This exactly!^^^

I am sure the OP is well meaning and all, but so are all the government bureaucrats that continue to create stupid new laws that are supposed to protect us from ourselves.

This is how we end up with a society like the one in this video: http://youtu.be/nBiJB8YuDBQ

NXT is one of the most innovative and interesting coins to ever come on the market, and the idea that the next NXT should be stopped from doing an IPO because the OP doesn't think "the distribution is fair enough" or because some people have been using the forum to scam people is just silly.

All in my opinion of course and the forum owner will do whatever he/she wants.

Obviously I voted NO.  ::)

bump for the incoming Emunie and Ethereum money grabs/scams.

I am continually astounded by the number of people in the crypto community who despise freedom of choice.

You obviously did not read any of the posts that compare IPO for coin scams as being virtually the same thing as "The Creature From Jekyll Island".  Issuing currency for profit by a cartel, it's what Bitcoin was designed to defeat.  Why let people rehash the same system on a Bitcoin site that Bitcoin is directly opposed to?  Makes 0 sense.

If scams get banned here everyone has freedom of choice to start their own forum that allows scams.

This is gettin funny.

How come someone hope the IPO ban and promote Pow-system at the same time, which as a system is very exclusive.

I am likewise astounded by the number of people who invest in injust promises. Most IPOs are not that, these are just calls for investment without showing anything in return. Most companies that do an IPO have verifyable knowledge, a solid plan, and usually a guy or 2 you can sue if they screw up or disappear. Not so much in cryptoland, where we just get a one-page post of marketing ramble, and folks send their bitcoins to them. I can create 5 IPOs before lunch, and automatize most of it if I want to.

There's too many fools, and they still seem to have money. I'm not against regulation to protect them, but don't think it's the solution either. Inform them, gather statistics (some here shout 90% of IPOs is a scam... few aren't, the coin just didn't rise above 1sat long enough. They still have the IPOcoins, but those are worthless now. Scammed? Nope. Although it feels sour)

WTF are you talking about? How is an IPO in any way comparable to a central bank? No one is forcing you to invest in an IPO. Central banks force you to use currencies of their choosing via government. It's not this site or anyone else's fault if you're a moron and invest in the wrong thing and lose money.

Have you read what you typed? Bitcoin was not designed to have an issuing authority and was designed to be a trust fee system.  You want to take this trust away by virtue of your OP post and YOU want to become a governor of what is allowed and not allowed. If this is/was to be done, then it's no longer a trust-free system.  This is not with the spirit of Bitcoin by your own post/admission. You do know there is board correct? aka Bitcoin Foundation

You also state that it should by mined and independent of the creator.  While maybe true in spirit but from a historical perspective the "creator" earned himself close to 1 million BTC by mining because there were few early adopter/miners.  For all we know he could have a lot more under a different bitcoin address. So this too really doesn't stand.  One thing is said while another thing is realized.  In essence the creator had an IPO (of sorts) although it wasn't called that.  Maybe you would call it a premine?  Not really sure how to "classify" it per-say as it was the early days.  However, Satoshi did surely mine a lot before the masses were involved so it was sort of like a premine or IPO to some extent compared to today's standards.  Any way you want handle/call this he did come out with boat loads of BTC.  I personally do not think this is BAD AT ALL.  He had an investment in it.  He mined it.  He is rewarded for his abilities and time.  (to bad he hasn't cash in the BTC we know he owns) :)

I'm not even going to touch the POS.  You put a nice slant/spin on this and it would take a page itself to only touch on this.  Not going here.

Fast forward 5+ years to today.

You seem to think all new coins should be done the same way Satoshi did bitcoin. You assume everthing he did is 100% correct and can't be improved upon.  If that is the case, then we have no new innovations.  Many of the newer coins have a lot of new innovations.  It takes time for people to innovate (developers and business people both) and for this to turn into usable code.  The people coming out with these innovations need to be compensated for their time in some way. For some it may be notoriety, and other for $ and some a combination of the two.

Now since we are 5+ years from the adoption of bitcoin we can't simply create a new coin and mine it ourselves and expect to come out with a nice % of coins as Satoshi did.  We now live in the age of ASICs and huge mining rigs operations. There are just way to many rigs out there these days (not to mention ASIC devices).  Not like the early times of Satoshi.  An "original developer" these days has NO CHANCE of grabbing a nice % of their coin as Satoshi did unless they also run a HUGE farm. Most devs do not own large mining farms.  They concentrate of code, not machines/rigs. So by the very definition of our present times a new dev is raped of any earning of there time/effort.  They have no chance of earning $/BTC for their time.

For a current day developer/coin creator to put the required time into a new coin (coding, marketing, PR, etc) is a full time job in and of itself.  Due to the dynamics of current times the only real way for this person to benefit in a way to support them doing this full time is to either have a premine or an IPO.  If not the mining farms will take 99% (or whatever) of the coins leaving the coin creator with squat for their creation. Is this fair to you?  How do you propose compensation to POW coin creators? Should it only be a hobby endeavor with no motivation for profit?  How will this work out long term for the coin?

So to wrap up.  In current times, I do not see anything wrong with IPOs or premines.  It is up to each of us to find out, if it's in our own best interest to invest or mine a new coin.  If we plan to profit or support a new coin then it is the responsibility of each of us to investment or time, resources or $ in it and not some "other" authority?

We DO NOT need some "authority" telling us what is and isn't allowed.  I do not want China, USA or YOU telling me what coin is legit or isn't legit. A truly free enterprise (spirit of bitcoin/Satoshi) will quickly de-value the scam coins or copy cats with no new innovation vs those with some new innovation which have a fighting chance and will hold their own or prosper on the alt coin markets.

Really, you nor anyone other than Satoshi can tell us what is or isn't in the TRUE spirit of what Satoshi envisioned.  Even so, if a coin deviates from what Satoshi planned, is this a bad thing?  Can not and should not crypto coins improve as time goes on? Who is to say, what the correct way to this progression is?  Surely not you or I! It is up to the masses to decide what is or is not.

I'll give you an example: HeavyCoin.  This had both an IPO and a premine (double wammy).  So by the OPs standard it would not be allowed here.  However, this coin brings some nice innovations to the table.  Many will not like it for their own personal reasons.  That is fine.  Other will like some of the innovations it brings.  That too is fine.  I don't want to be a shill for this coin (not my intention) and did not get involved in the IPO but do mine it with my small rig (60MH HVC hash rate) .  Some of the IPO money is being used for PR and marketing.  Some for reward bounties.  This to me seems reasonable as any new coins needs proper promotion to become successful.  While I may not agree with everything the devs do, in spirit I like the innovations and what this coin brings to the table.  Even if the coin was to fail down the road, I see it as something of a game changer. Some of the innovations it brings to the alt coin market/sector will be copied (and maybe improved).  I view this as all good.

Another example.  I'm a very good programmer and also very good with finances and marketing, with a nice 6 figure income.  I've been the CEO of 2 companies, CIO of 2 companies including an airline. Good crediential and have worked for fortune 50 companies and elite government agencies. If I were to leave my current full time job to support/create an ALT coin I would want to be compensated accordingly. It would not be a copy cat coin but would have many new innovations and what I'd consider game changers (new ways of doing things and improvements to current way of doing things). I'd want no less then $200K per year (probably higher) for this new endeavor for a minimum of two years. I'd also want at least one other person of the same caliber to join me on the base team. Factor in other costs and misc expenses (servers, computers, etc) and I'd want one million up front for a 2 year investment of my time.  In this day and age to get true innovations it costs money.  Where is this $ going to come from?

Who are you the OP to decide if my innovations are worth it to the community? I could be sitting on the ideas that blow bitcoin out of the water but you would never know because you would ban my coin (site unseen) because it had a premine or IPO (to cover my expenses).  Is this a service or dis-service to the community?

The free-market would decide for itself but NO, you would want to ban it before it got to that point because my new "coin" didn't qualify due to the IPO, even if it had "game changing" algorithms.

Please stop trying to push your closed agenda on everyone else.  Let the free-market determine what is valuable and what is not based on what innovations the coin brings to the table.

So in summary closed source financial schemes and executables unrelated to bitcoin are appropriate here?

No "hey open the source or go file a patent then open the source then it is on topic here" ?

If you want to profit from your ideas that is what patents are for, right?

So you can open the source and still profit from it?

Software patents are maybe such an evil evil that simply allowing any old scam to be endlessly re-iterated all over the forum is maybe a far lesser evil?

Maybe allowing any and all scams is the price we must pay to avoid software patents and maybe hopefully even get rid of software patenting?

-MarkM-

Where/how did you get this take on this conversation/thread?

I don't think anyone is saying closed source is good in any way, nor is anyone talking about being able to patent a coin. It would be really hard to patent anything at this point since it all-ready exists and if a patent were to be issued by the US then the rest of world except the US could ignore it (technically).  Realistically any coin with a patent would be issued a death sentence and probably no one would use it BECAUSE of the patent.

I think you will have a 99+% agreement these go against the coin market and what/how it works.

The scammy "IPO coins" opposed often do claim they need to with-hold their source code because they don't want anyone to "steal their idea" or "steal their ideas".

Protecting ideas from being stolen is what patent is about.

If their purported idea is not patentable then there is nothing to invest in, it is worthless vapour/bullshit, it cannot be patented because it is itself stolen, or it cannot be patented because it is not an idea worth protecting, either way they don't have something to invest in really they are just bullshitting people and, at best, bring the value proposition "the mainstream is won by bullshit, see how well we are bullshitting you, buy in and we will make you rich by bullshitting everyone else or at least lots more people besides yourself".

-MarkM-

Angelshares was kind of a IPO, i bought into that one - what happens remains to be seen..
NoirShares i did throw a few coins at, the same with AlterEgoCoin.
NXT i regret not putting a few satoshis into...
IPO`s are a gamble, some will be scams some will maybe have great success.
Dont invest anything you are not willing to loose, an IPO is like flipping a coin or throwing a dice.
If people dive in above their head it is pretty much their own fault, if people lack common sence they might
get scammed by a IPO but they might just as well by a new revolutionary vacuum cleaner from a door salesman for
some fantasy price.

It can be virtually impossible to get patent on a "digital invention".

most IPOs are scams :o

IPO usually are a bad idea

But they should not be banned, because there are some good ones once in a while

haha only a miner can start this kind of post. ridiculous

But in my opinion we don´t need any new coins. There a enough of them, and the basics for huge projects a there soon.
Instaed of creating shitcoins think about what can you build on top of Gen 2.0 coins.

The first IPO I saw on this site turned out to be a scam, and the next one and then the next one. While stackcoin wins the IPO scam award. I won't be surprised IPO's account for more then 1000 BTC stolen from BTCtalk users. I'm surprised the admins of this forum don't take action to make this a safer place for newbies to learn and enjoy about cryptocurrencies.

Don't

This forum is like forums about HYIP (High-Yield Investment Program).

99.99% of the people are here to make only money, not to make a better world...

You need to integrate this as a perfectly normal trend in the cryptos.

i joined this forum specifically looking for good ipos to get in on so please do not ban them!

anyone have any good recommendations for ongoing ipos? nem looks great but the ipo is over.

Lol yes its a bit reminiscent of HYIP forums :)

Some people obviously cannot read.

Look at the following sentence in the first post:  

"The normal Bitcoin protocol was not designed to be issued for profit, or to have a central issuing authority.  It was designed to be a trust free system where others work to acquire it through mining, and for any reward to be independent of the creator."

Read the URL of the website you are posting on.  This is a Bitcoin orientated website.  Since IPOs do the exact opposite of what the fundamentals of Bitcoin are set to accomplish, I equate posting an IPO on this forum to be as off-topic as posting an advertisement for a bass boat.

It is wrong that you are being forced to buy into IPO's.  That's horrible.  Do they put a gun to your head to make you buy in?

I fully support your view!

Better idea: don't send money to zero-credibility idiots.

They shouldn't be banned. There are some good ones sometimes and who knows which one might be the next big one?

In memory of NEM, R.I.P.

If you don't ban them, the U.S. government will. And its gonna be a whole lot more messy.

This isn't really a matter of opinion so much as time.

@OP

I understand where you are coming form and I get that you, as a miner don't want to see your livelihood taken away. That is understandable. I am not even saying I 100% disagree with you.

But let's be honest with one another. The essence and the spirit with which Bitcoin was created are long gone. When you have mining farms, rich playboys buying $10 million worth of Bitcoin, and the average user, that was supposed to be the core of the system, completely incapable of playing a part without buying in with their entire paychecks, the Bitcoin and mining world are broke.

2nd generation coins came about because people wanted to introduce a coin that didn't require mining for the reasons listed above. For starters, it uses less power. It also, in theory, was going to allow all of those who missed the initial Bitcoin boat to get in on the ground level.

Unfortunately, coins like NXT went about it in a completely corrupt manner. By distributing the entire genesis block to such a small core of people, and making the entire basis of the algorithm to reward hoarding, they essentially create a system that will sustain their own riches long term.

2nd generation coins are the long term answer to solving the mining monopoly problem. However, initial distribution is the area in which we have yet to see anyone create the perfect coin.

IPO's aren't the problem here. Developing an algorithm from scratch and creating the entire basis for a coin, marketing it, and bringing it to a successful launch is a lot of work and with a team of 4 or 5 people working full time to get it there, they deserve to be rewarded. They deserve some form of compensation for the work they have already completed and many times require a basis of funding to continue to develop the project long term.

Many times on this forum if a coin doesn't have an active developer who continues to innovate and support his coin, the coin will be dropped by the community and fail. Unfortunately, the amount of time and energy this community expects someone to put into the coin equates to a full time job and NOW you are asking them to do it with no pay.

No offense, but that's a dick move.

In the world of business, and IPO is conducted by a company in order to raise funds for farther development of an idea that people believe in.

In the Crypto world, it should be the same thing.

If people believe in the idea behind a currency, they believe it can fix the problems of Bitcoin, Litecoin, and NXT, and truly innovate, why shouldn't they be allowed to support it by offering to help fund it's long term development?

You are attempting to start a controversy against a form of fund-raising that exists in every other facet of life.

The Bitcoin Foundation, Altcoin Foundations, and any developer of a Crypto based product who asks for donations is doing the same thing. The only difference in the IPO is that they are awarding you a share in the coin for helping them get it developed and getting the features in place that you all want.

Is this the best distribution method humanly possible? I don't know.

But let's consider this. IF an Altcoin was coming out that could possibly solve all of the issues we've mentioned and it was asking for donations to help development and features. They were offering absolutely nothing in return and simply were hoping you would give them funds so they could create the coin.

You would all troll them out of existence and claim immediately that it was a scam, laugh at them, and bid them good riddance. Best case scenario they get a total of 1 BTC in donation over a period of a year, which is barely enough to develop a proper website to distribute the wallet.

The reason IPO's exist is because people like you won't help develop, offer time or donations, to a legitimate group of developers trying to make a better coin.

Before I leave, I just want to make a point here as well. The only reason you are even on here crying like a little baby is because you see the influence NXT is garnering and it's growing market cap, you hear the support for new ideas, and you know you make your living on mining. You are here arguing and you are a supporter of other currencies that are run on an inferior method because you have a horse in the race. So be up front, be honest, say that you love mining based coins because you PROFIT from them, and put it out on the table.

In a perfect world, a company who created the perfect PoS coin, that started with 0 currency and awarded everyone who wanted to open a wallet an equal stake for some form of minimal service that amounted to supporting the coin, and distributed it all from scratch to anyone and everyone who ever wanted to support it, can never get made without some form of infusion of cash to help pay developers, conduct marketing, and get it in the hands of the people.

IF you want to offer $30,000 out of your pocket to develop such a coin that would reward EVERYONE in the entire world equally, would stop all of your complaints about IPO's, and permanently end the need for any other currencies, I will shake your hand in congratulations.

I'm waiting....

Huh?  Why do you think that miners are not centralized? People who invest capital in mining equipment gets the coins and somehow that is more fair than any of the other 1/2 a dozen ways IPOs can distribute coins.  Yes, IPOs are a hotbed for scams, but to blanket remove them is absurd. 

I have a NEM stake.  Even with the ugly stuff that was revealed today I am quite happy with my investment and the coin moving forward. It is a large community. I'm sure there are other compelling coins that I am not aware of.

You obviously have a big interest in mining equipment.  Not sure how mining makes anything less centralized.  People buy coins indirectly through hardware + electricity or they pay the coin creator directly.  (Or other ways).  The hardware + electricity was a great way to bootstrap this wonderous community, but it is far far far from being perfect.  It adds middlemen that are simply no longer needed. 

Just because someone didn't respond to your FUD nonsense in 60 seconds doesn't mean you have some big grand point.

This topic is more important now than ever with bankers and people like Blythe Masters trying to say, "hey, forget Bitcoin, how about that....blockchain", as they try to issue you their 100% premine coins.  

On another note, I can't believe people are hyping this Israeli scam coin, GetGemz.  From their site:

"Eventual supply is achieved as follows: 50 million Gems distributed to stakeholders; 30 million Gems distributed as daily Airdrop rewards during ~3 years after launch; 12 million Gems reserved for bonus block rewards, promotion, marketing, bounties; 8 million Gems + Presale BTC will fund the network R&D and operation costs.  Since daily airdrop rewards users who introduce other users, who is rewarded for those who come without a special invitation? Uninvited users will be attributed to random Presale buyers.. In addition, air drop share is multiplied by total gems owned. The more Gems you own, the more Gems you make - an advantage to those who accumulate Gems first."

This is even more scammy than crazy Darkcoin compound interest on masternodes.

I voted no. One of the reasons is that this site can provide FinCEN with easy access to the IPOs/ICOs that are launched by unregistered MSBs. This will assist FinCEN is prosecuting them.

It could also be helpful to regulators in other jurisdictions.

I voted no as long as there will be a real life identity verification of developers doing the ICO's. And all of them will be made public.

Fools being separated from their money doesn't bother me.

I created a similar topic long ago.. I voted ;)
OP made solid points that will go unrefuted!

Fact: IPO = Scam

Even if IPO is banned, they will still sprout out somewhere else in other cryptoforums. It would better for people in this forum to warn other people of dangers in investing into ICO.

If all Ipo coins are scams because one Ipo coin's developer can assign a percentage of tokens to himself for free, then all Pow coins are also scams because one Pow coin's developer can premine a percentage of tokens for free.

If all Ipo coins are scams because a rich person can buy a large percentage of the tokens during the Ipo, then all Pow coins are also scams because a rich person can buy a lot of powerful mining hardware and mine a large percentage of the tokens.

If all Ipo coins are scams because one Ipo coin ended up being a scam, then all Pow coins are scams because there have been several Pow coins that ended in scam accusations.

If all Ipo coins are scams because a small number of people invested in a certain Ipo coin's Ipo, then all Pow coins are scams because one coin was mined by few people at its inception.

Are you starting to see the problem with stereotyping all IPO coins?

yeeeesssss

I have watched you post so much stupid shit around here it's not even funny.
You are constantly *trying (and failing) to make pitiful excuses for scammy bullshit.
give it up Catp. Failtrain
Bad is bad ..it's can't be justified

you know fuck all sweet heart.

and your comment is a load of bullshit.. where do i start showing you how everything you said is wrong ?

My point was valid. There is a right way to do IPOs and a wrong way to do IPOs (and a right/wrong way to follow through afterwards), just as there is a right way to launch a PoW coin and a wrong way to launch a PoW coin. You can't have your cake and eat it too, you shouldn't set a double standard. If all IPOs are scams because some IPOs are/were scams, then all PoW coins are scams because some PoW coins are/were scams. PoW coins should therefore be banned from this web site for the greater good according to 50% of voters.

ipos should have a protocol to follow if they are allowed.

should be transparent, multisigs hold the funds that are released in accordance with development planned costs which are fully transparent too.

that is like saying there is a right way to run a ponzi scheme and a wrong way..

like i said you keep trying.. and failing LOL

nice try though Catp. Failtrain ahahha

next your going to try and justify shit coins by telling us all they attract *new users  ::)

PS:
No where does it say that if IPO's are bad that automatically makes POW coins good.
You completely and utterly missed the point sweet heart.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POW COINS

Explain to me your blanket reasoning as to why all IPOs are scams, and using the same reasoning I will ascertain that all PoW coins are scams using the same logic. All crypto currencies are scams using your flawed logic and stereotyping. Unless of course you judge PoW coins v IPO coins using a double standard. In that case I have nothing further to say to you on this topic. You would never do that to support your own agenda, would you? ;)

No one is forced to invest in ico's, so why should they banned. if someone invest into a coin ico and loses money, then it is its own fault.

Is that what Berni Madoff said in court ?
Well then let's free him from jail and arrest the people he scammed !

ahh good old fashion Bitcointalk logic LOL
gotta love it.. you guys work over time here trying to make bad excuses for bad behavior.

And to the other guy.. use the search feature here
(you might find i have answered your question 100's of times before already)

I'm with you.  I think we as a community should start to look deeper whether an IPO is a scam or not.  There are a lot of factors involved.  So it's really hard to judge if one project is scamming the public or not.  One example is the NXT vs BTS trolling that goes on here.  Are NXT/BTS scams then?  It would depend on one's POV right?  I think both are awesome projects trying different approaches in achieving success.  Nothing wrong with that.

Fast forward to today.

The number one factor with IPO's is, I think, devs should not be anonymous.  Those days are gone.  If they're gonna ask people for money via an IPO to fund a project, it is best that they have all the necessary details about them shown to the public for background checks.

They should also have their own domain and website, not just a fucking thread in the altcoin announcement sub.

Finally, require that their money accounting stuff is transparent for everyone or at least the project's stakeholders.  It's for them to have the opportunity to scrutinize and look into concerning the IPO funds.  Transparency is a must.

I know may have missed something, but those three come out right away.

Prediction:  There will never be any succesful IPO coin.  

If Bitcoin was released as a premine, none of you would have even heard of it because it would universally be labeled a scam.

There should be set in stone guidelines for any IPO or ICO

You have to protect against

1. outright scams from the start with no tech behind them, no escrow, zero post devs, sock puppets.

2. Insta ICO's with tech behind them but launched to them and a few people (sock puppets and pals) quickly so the distribution is tiny. Then pumped and pumped by people building almost frenzied mentality. Then released on exchanges and unloaded at 50 x ico price.


Designing set in stone ICO protocols which have to be followed is the best way.