Waiting is the safest way to go without some form of escrow. The issue then is that investors are paying around double the rate for the coin compared to earlier investors. I do agree that early investors should get greater rewards, but double is a bit much, at least compared to most other ICOs. So it's safe in regard to scam potential (well, safer, anyway), but not exactly the best way to invest in an ICO. One almost might as well just wait until the coin hits the exchange at that point.

I recall ICO coins on Polo that did the two tiered ICO thing (early investors got coin for half the cost of 2nd tier level)... and then when the coin was active for trading, pretty much everyone who bought early dumped  for around double the profit.  And I don't mean 2x the profit of 2nd tier guys, I mean 2x what they invested... they eventually sold below 2nd tier ICO levels and still made a nice profit. That is the issue with double the rate for early investors, they can sell when the coin hits the exchange way below testnet ICO levels, driving the price down. And why waiting, although safest, may not make sense investment-wise.

Anyway, I will drop the issue and just keep an eye out on the coin. Apologies if it seemed like I was harping on things; only reason I did so was because I was considering investing in the coin.

The idea is to use a trusted escrow... not some dubious form of escrow. I trust exchange escrows more than most devs (and that is saying something after the Cryptsy debacle). But yeah, if escrow runs away, coin is totaled. And if dev runs away, coin is totaled. Guess it depends who you trust more, a form of trusted escrow or a dev with a newbie account.

I may be in the minority here, but if the dev is willing to not touch the funds until a certain date, I see no logical reason not to use a trusted escrow instead.

Yep, although if going that route, it'd make more sense to use proper escrow.

As for early investors gaining greater rewards, I am fine with it. Usually it's not like double the rate, however, and it does add an extra red flag when not using escrow.

Don't think it works like that. 1300 is flat rate regardless. The bonus thing is just for btc (or eth, shapeshift too, not sure). It's not like XCR people get more Lisk investing later.

However if there are XCR people with spare coin that they feel like selling off to mitigate some risks, it could make sense to wait until the later weeks of the ICO, as without that btc bonus XCR price should rise to 1200+ish (in theory).

That also assumes exchanges have no issues moving XCR that close to the ICO deadline.

Actually no.

The issue is that early investors get up to twice the value of the coin than later investors. So by waiting until the product is out and working they are already at a major disadvantage. Then add in the fact that if you were scamming people (not by not releasing the coin, but buying in on your own coin using donated btc instead of hiring devs), you would have done so early most likely.

So if going into evil dev mode, you take early donations, and since there is no escrow you buy-in on your own coin using that btc, and by the time the product is released you have both the original btc plus the elc worth double (ish) the initial rate.

Instead XCR people get a flat rate of 1300 sats, which based on the marketplace is a decent price value. If it makes you feel better, pretend that you are getting it at 1130 sats with the same 15% bonus. It was an arbitrary number (somewhat) to begin with ... I'm just happy it wasn't like 700 sats.

Okay, thanks. That is the main part that concerns me. Although I do agree those who enter earliest deserve the higher reward (most escrowed ICOs just do a little bonus at that stage), I expect others can see how this potentially could be a red flag when a coin doesn't use escrow. Although I won't harp on ICO details as the dev asked us not to (although since this is an ICO thread, I personally see no issues with discussing ICO terms) -- it is an incentive for a dev to do the 'buy his own coins using donated btc' game before the coin hits viable product stage.

But if investors wait until the product is finished, they pay double for the coin, correct?

My point was, if not using escrow, the shady poor devs are the ones to worry about. If using escrow, then you can worry about the shady rich ones. It's just easier if a dev wanted to scam to not use escrow.

And yes, using an escrow doesn't necessarily mean all is well. Dev can still run away (although at least they have restricted funds until dev delivers coin + wallet). And then they run away...

I find it a lot safer in the crypto scene if you look at things from a somewhat jaded perspective. A dev nowadays runs an ICO without escrow and it's a red flag to me. It could be unwarranted, just my 'risk meter' going off.

Yeah, if a dev has enough BTC onhand, he can do the same thing. But of course it's easier if the dev doesn't have to use his own money. The risk is with shady, poor devs who want a quick buck. Not saying that is the case here, just speaking in generalities.

As for dumping, well, any dumping isn't so good obviously. The risk is with devs who cut and run (and as we all know, that has happened here many, many times). The main difference is if a lot of investors dump, the dev may still be around to develop and promote the coin, usually keeping the price semi-stable and over time the coin may recover. If a dev dumps, all is lost.

And as for the perfect way to do an ICO... beats me. I don't think there is a perfect way. I have no problem when devs profit (as why not, they are doing work)... it's just when the risks add up, I become wary.

The way to run a decent scam -- goes into evil dev mode -- would be to use non-escrow, take in some btc, use some of that btc to buy your own coin, bring ICO volume up, hype coin, bring in more btc, collect generous portion of that... keep using free help (or code yourself), say you are hiring devs ... promise wonderful things .... once price/volume is up, sell your freebie coins and cut and run. It cost nothing at all to even do this, a dev could have zero btc to start and manage it.

It's a lot easier to come up with ways to scam than foolproof ways to run an ICO.

Yep, but again, it just strikes me a bit odd. There are some devs working on it currently (unpaid), I believe, right? Or maybe I misread something.

With so many shady things that happen here, it just feels risky to see an ICO without escrow nowadays.

I'd think they'd take in a lot more money if using escrow, even if he's perfectly on the level, just to assuage some fears people may have. I realize people can wait and get their coins after seeing the finished product ... but it also means the dev could have done the 'Re-use invested money to buy up coins for himself' game if he wanted to. If he holds, no problem down the line... just so many devs dump and run here, so it adds a bit of risk.

So my question is, if a dev could take in more btc by using escrow, even if it delays development somewhat over a couple of months, why wouldn't he do so?

As for the first point, yep. I even said it can occur with regular ICOs. The only difference is that it's a lot easier to do with non-escrowed, as then it doesn't even require upfront money.

As for people being so foolish... greed trumps logic sometimes.  And regarding who owns the other coins, it can matter. You don't want one person or a small group owning a disproportionate amount of coins (at least ideally). Dev dumps, coin dies, money is lost. It's just riskier.

I'm not saying this ICO is a scam -- those who go around yelling scam everywhere is silly in my opinion. By their own definition of a scam, every single crypto in existence would qualify. I'm just saying that non-escrow is a red flag, and really, I see no reason not to use escrow. Yes, the dev says he needs money immediately to hire other devs and so on, but is anyone in that big a rush? So development gets delayed until the ICO is over? It just seems odd to me.

Yep, except if the dev doesn't think all coins will be sold, or thinks at some point after the ICO the coin valuation will go much higher, then buying his own coins could make sense. I don't mean a dev would use all of his ICO to buy all of his or her own coin. But I expect many devs have taken a decent chunk for themselves... which then equates to the same situation as a large premine.

In that type of case, it's not necessarily better to sell ALL coins during the ICO. They just need to sell enough to bring in a nice chunk of BTC, while at the same time set aside a little nestegg of their own coin for selling at a later date.

There is another benefit for the dev buying his own coins too ... fake volume. "Hey, 50 BTC has already been invested, Yay, I want to invest too" ... now if an ICO is failing, a dev can buy his own coin to make it look like others are buying it, luring in new investors.

And this does apply to all ICOs, but the issue with non-escrow is that the dev doesn't even have to use his own money to manipulate things.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I have been out of the crypto game for a while, but with a non-escrowed ICO, couldn't a dev:

Take whatever money sent in, buy his own coins in the ICO using that money, and end up with both the coins + money in the end? It was one of the reasons why everyone cried 'scam' ages ago when ICOs starting rolling around.

The problem right now is that Polo is working like a slug, and removing coins from Bter is sort of a 'who knows' situation if they'll actually be sent.

The ICO thing complicates matters, as I expect a decent number of ICO investors (not owning XCR) will buy XCR during ICO time (so will then need to move XCR from the exchange to ICO address) .... some XCR owners may be undecided, so will leave their XCR on the exchange in case they do wish to sell some off (probably only time there will be enough volume to do so).

It's a formula that basically equates to: a lot of XCR on the exchange, and a lot of people that will want to send their coins to the ICO address. I just hope it's all moveable when the ICO time comes.

Thanks for the reply. I assumed they just had issues due to ETH trading at insane volumes.

Quick ICO question for the devs here. For those with XCR on Polo or Bter, will you be in contact with those exchanges to make sure their wallets are updated and transfers work properly? I know some folks have had issues with coins lost in transit from bter, for instance.

I find myself with some extra XCR in bter right now... not a ton, but extra dumped to my buys that I didn't expect ... unsure if I should sell while their flaky exchange is still working, or just hold them for the swap. I'd feel better if I knew coins could be moved from there instead of just 'vanishing'.

I expect the Lisk devs' thinking may be to accept ETH, due to Lisk being its competitor. It's a way to draw attention to Lisk. The only problem is, if ETH is still on the rise at the time, no ETH people will convert the coin over... too risky for them. If in decline, then bubble may really pop after the ICO and the devs will be holding a lot of devalued coins. A lot of things can go wrong with accepting ETH, both for the Lisk devs and those investing with it.

Just playing up the smart contract/ETH comparison should be enough to draw some interest from ETH people anyway. If bubble still expanding at the time of ICO, market Lisk as a way to get in on the ground floor of something similar to ETH ... if popped, well, then market it to ETH people who are not so happy with ETH anymore.

Around when will further details on the ICO be posted?

I'm mainly talking about how escrow will be handled, via an exchange or somewhere else, the date we receive Lisk... exchanges being considered for the coin after the ICO, and so on.

You may wish to rethink accepting ETH coins in a swap too... no idea how you could accurately determine a price at this time (or even in 10 days time). You may lose like half the value by the time the ICO is over... or investors will lose half their value. Either way, someone will be unhappy.