Bitcoin Forum

So I wanted to find out why crypto rich don't go in for angel investing.

The risk profiles between early crypto investors and angel investors are similar. Investing in startuos directly  (for shares/bonds) would give non crypto diversification and avoid the need for the crypto holders to convert. Would allow for startups away from traditional investors for access capital  (Why does location matter?)  It doesn't seem to factor into ICO projectsnans crypto allows for decentralised organisations well as well allowing for easy pooling and diversification of investments 10 people putting 1k each into 10 projects still gives each project 10k whole reducing the risk of any one failing.

It suprises

It is not true that "crypto-rich" don´t do angel investing, you can take a look at the advisers on many ICOs who are also investors in the early stages. In fact many of the ICOs have a previous investment to create the company and the tokens are just an add-on to get further funding and capitalise on their existing products and services.

The tokens have many advantages over shares, the biggest is that they go on exchange really soon and you don´t have to wait if need to sell.

Shares have value outside of tokens even if the project is abondand pivoted or changed. They have procedures and legislation in place that reduces the scamminess. I'm interested in examples where early crypto miners traders rather than tradition investors have done a safe or investment in non crypto companies.

The thing is not every project needs tokens, plenty of really good startuos.that need cash but not tokens and can't raise it traditionally which leads to frothy ICO space, if there was a non token alternative.

Shares have a different value because they entitle you to a share of the profits and sometimes to voting and they have full legal coverage. But absolutely nothing will prevent you from loosing your investment if the project is abandoned.

The balance here is between liquidity and legal coverage.

It is too risky and it takes too much time to do it properly, and I don't trust other people to invest my money for me.

I'm suprised that you would consider that more risky than an ICO. Would you invest in a SAFT? Simple agreement for future tokens.


Your right there is no more protection than an ICO of tokens. Although if it is a convertible  bond rather than shares you have the advantage of being a creditor if the project is abondand and the company is still incorporated.

If it is a question of balance between liquidity and legal coverage that suggests another approach. Something that has share like legal coverage but token like liquidity. Now this works perfectly with (irish) legislation. It is possible to issue convertible bonds (they can even be publically listed) which could be tokenised. So each token might represent a bond which can be publically traded(on a stock exchange) and will convert to shares at IPO  (possibly paying interest/percent of income in the meantime) Take those bonds and issue them as erc20 which will give you the liquidity.