IMO, those conditions previously mentioned can be generally applied in one way or the other to all crypto projects regardless on what type of funding activity they have conducted whether its an ICO, IEO or STO respectively.

Though I know those conditions or list looks like very idealistic, and I assume those are the things that needs to be realized first, but in reality, I doubt those conditions could ever be satisfied all at once since I understand that no project is perfect! Initially, we could just use them as a criteria or use them  to identify signs  or measure a project's probability of success to guide us accordingly.

This two scenarios sounds scary but nevertheless could still happen!

Number 4 will  probably happen anytime soon so there might be a need for contingency plan not only on the Bitcoin network but on the whole internet infrastructure as well to keep it running in the event it happens.

Number 5 is irrelevant - I mean who would ever want to think about Bitcoin anymore when the world is about to end? TBH, Imagining this scenario really makes me very uncomfortable!

I don't know if there were already  previous researches or studies correlating gambling activities with Bitcoin's price but if we put ourselves in the shoes of gamblers, I think there is a very high probability of correlation or connection! So let us put it this way and put ourselves in the minds of gamblers:

Assuming I'm a recreational gambler  and I have 1 BTC which I had recently bought at the price of $8k per BTC. Now after a period of two weeks, the price of BTC suddenly went up to $10k! Immediately realizing that my BTC's value had increased by 20 percent, I was tempted to gamble my gain amount of $2k, thinking that if I lose, I still have the remaining BTC valued at $8k, and thus would convert it to fiat or stable coin and wait for BTC's price to dip at $8k level and buy another 1 BTC which in effect negates my loss of $2k thinking my original entry price of $8k BTC is still the same! So technically, IMO, an increase in price of BTC had a correlation with increased gambling activity.

Conversely, assuming there is a bearish market trend in which I had bought 1 BTC at the price of $10k and after a period of two weeks, it went down to $8k, then most likely I will not be tempted to gamble even a small amount of it since I'm expecting a rebound will occur sooner or later and would instead would hodl it until the price recovers just like what @crwth had illustrated . At this point, we could assume that a decrease in price of BTC also had a correlation with decreased gambling activity.

I know this is quite fictional but it could really happen in real life. I hope there could be more formal study on this topic from the academe so that we can gain more insight about this matter and hope our assumptions will be proven correct! Imho.

Ooops! Btw, I forgot to include one of the most important characteristic which I think is critical for a project to become successful and that is the project team must have a very good financial planning! Because I believe that assuming those ten items listed previously are satisfied with, in the end, the project will still falter just like what happened to most  projects after the crypto winter of 2018. Imho.

OP didn't bother to specify the 5 things successful ICO's have in common as per his thread title. Anyway, here is my list which I think are the characteristics successful ICO's have in common:

1. The project had an original idea and a sound business model.
2. The project had released a working product or may have already had an MVP right from the start.
3. The project had an active Github repository.
4. The development team are very capable in developing the product.
5. The team's identities are verifiable and publicly known.
6. The project have a realistic roadmap.
7. The team give utmost importance to their promises and perform deliverables in time.
8. The team are exercising enough transparency on project related matters.
9. The project's tokenomics are excellent and justifiable.
10. The project have positive peer reviews among trustworthy members of the community.


Actually these are the answers to my previous post - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5144508.msg51103208#msg51103208 related to criteria in determining the viability of an ICO.

I don't think China can influence or overtake the Bitcoin network even though it hosts most of its BTC's major mining pools. This is a wrong perception of China's supposedly dominance over the network and this is simply because these mining pools are composed of aggregate miners not necessarily located in China just like an ordinary miner from another country joining a mining pool from China.

Aside from that, in terms of nodes that supports the Bitcoin network, China is  only currently ranked no. 8 among the top 10 countries who holds the most number of nodes. Unless otherwise China holds more than half of mining power and more than half of nodes, it would be very difficult for them to "own" the network so to speak. Imho.

Reference: https://bitnodes.earn.com/

There I see it! An innovative and viable payment and rebate program involving crypto which serves as a conditioning process to adopt BTC and cryptocurrencies thereby stimulating crypto adoption!

If only these kinds of program with crypto integration could be replicated in other countries other than Japan, then a whole wide range of opportunities could be had right away for the crypto-community! I feel sorry for those crypto projects that seems promising with their similar payment/rebate business model but had gone less active after the crypto winter onslaught! If only they had implemented it in the right way.

Well CMC is well known for producing inaccurate market data and are often criticized for this but THB we cannot blame them alone for producing such erroneous data that can influence the perception of other people towards cryptocurrency markets. If I'm not mistaken, I believe we should illustrate a simple walk through to find out whose to blame for all of this inaccuracies as listed below:

1. Shit people doing pump & dump especially on a shitcoin
2. Exchanges faking trade volumes and spreads to attract attention thus could lead to volatility and fake price.
3. CMC fetch data to these exchanges who have fake volumes which is mostly generated by fake people with a shitcoin,

So all the data starting from exchanges are very inaccurate! Reminds me of GIGO in computer parlance which means "garbage in, garbage out"!. I guess we just don't just rely on these market tracking sites and instead we do our own research:)

I agree! I guess one of the main benefits of accepting cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin as a source fund for donations is that it will provide an accessible, fast, transparent and efficient remittance channel that will  further encourage donators to donate more and influence other prospective donators to do the same.

In fact, some big philanthropists who wants to help any cause wants to remain anonymous as much as possible, and they would find the use of cryptocurrencies as a means of sending donations very appealing! As such, I think this would drive more adoption in the charity sector.

I beg to disagree since in the end, regulations could be a boon to both companies and its customers! I guess no crypto related company would ever want to put up a business in an environment where there is no established framework or a clear set of regulations that will act as a safeguard for them. And in the end, they don't want to get into trouble with the Government assuming they had not complied with regulation requirements which could result to their businesses to shut down amidst a barrage of possible Government sanctions not mentioning all the legal repercussions that may arise.

Even Malta which hosts some of the big cyrpto companies has its own regulations, yet its more likely a  crypto friendly one and it advocates blockchain  technology - the reason why it attracts blockchain related companies. In line with this, if a Government has implemented crypto regulations, then it means to say that they have consent for this industry, provided companies will abide with existing rules and regulations. I guess most crypto companies would prefer this kind of setup rather than operate in an environment full of uncertainties.

Maybe he got overwhelmed by the majority of responses that contradicts his statement, requiring him to show proofs to back up his allegations but none has been exhibited so far! To make a long story short, this is all but malicious act with the intent to harm this forum's reputation yet so far it had never succeeded in doing so. I guess we should now move on to discuss other productive topics rather this one. Imho.

You have a point but I think they can go side by side with merchant adoption and not be a prerequisite with one another. But of course, the first factor is the most important among the two, though I guess ordinary people doesn't really have to understand the inner workings of blockchain technology and its technicalities as this are mostly presented with abstraction with different technologies like web wallets and mobile wallets, block explorers, etc.,  -all of which are presented in a neat and comprehensible way to ordinary users with less technical know-how. Additionally, we don't really need to learn these technicalities on how blockchain works before we can use these apps.

I guess we all just need some basic understanding of blockchain technology and an intuitive and user friendly interfaces for these kinds of crypto applications. Moreover, without these abstractions, blockchain tech and cryptocurrency will have a very high degree of learning barrier, which I'm afraid, mass adoption is near to impossible but look at us now, the number of crypto enthusiasts are growing everyday, thanks to all the developers who had contributed so much in this industry.

Of course! I think everybody wants their funds being safe all the time! and in fact, I think even users of  large exchanges such Binance and Coinbase had in one way the other been benefiting from insurance policies acquired by both of these entities. Aside from a regular insurance, Binance did another wonderful program to further safeguard its customers funds with Binance SAFU to augment the coverage of its regular insurance policies.

In this aspect, I think we can deduce that our funds are more safer in these two exchanges compared to others who don't have yet insurance coverage and most people value this kinds of things that would most likely give them peace of mind regarding their funds security with custodial wallets as with the case of exchanges.

If he cannot prove his accusations then I am sensing it was meant to discredit bitcointalk.org and I guess no one will ever believe him. But assuming it did happen, then  I assume he was a  victim of an email phishing attack using a fake look a like email address of bitcointalk.org in which case the staff of this forum has nothing to do with nor committed any kind of fraud and have no liabilities whatsoever since he has only himself to blame for not being cautious from his actions.

Baseless accusations and without sufficient proofs are almost often dismissed, just like in any court of law as it is suggesting an idea that you are maligning the forum.

Also, I couldn't believe why it take almost two years for you to open this issue and not at the height of the Bitcoin bull run on 2017 where by far I'm sure you would have exerted all efforts to get your BTC back especially when it had reached $20k in December 2017.

I believe being insured will be good for most of the community since I understand exchanges will be forced to harden up their security mechanisms or maybe required to pass a security audit and comply other relevant requirements first before any insurance firm will consider them as insurable which in effect would make these exchanges much more secure in their ability to hold external funds coming from its customers.

Aside from that, once insured, these exchanges will continue to observe and implement utmost security upon their platform without being reliant on insurance because they don't want their platform being compromised since they could loose  customers, credibility, and more money! and if it happens , I think it will incur much more damages than the total amount of insurance premiums they will be required to pay.

I think insurance policies could be the next big thing in crypto space but I doubt it will ever attract the attention of most ordinary users who often holds less than 1 BTC at a time. Aside from that, I assume it is generally targeted only to big players into the crypto industry like exchanges, crypto projects who holds large value of crypto, etc.

I believe its one of the good things that happened in the industry, giving more sense of security and assurances and it could enable more players to adopt cryptocurrency by minimizing risks  associated with hodling crypto which are often one of the reasons why most investors don't want to partake or be part of this industry.

Maybe the team didn't reach sufficient funding from its previous IEO events hence the need to extend or conduct another fundraising. I think this might be okay for the community but they should at least  have a degree of transparency and I think that is what the team is trying to achieved right now!

In fact most of the community are eager to know and at the same time very excited on what will transpire this month of October for the project since its been several months right from the start of its IEO and they are somewhat getting impatient right now and I hope the team will do something about it.

For now such partnerships with banks and other fiat gateways couldn't be avoided since we still need cash but assuming we have achieved a full blown crypto mass adoption over a span of several years then there is no need to utilize fiat money as a medium of payment anymore and thus it would now become obsolete and useless.

I think you forgot to emphasize the importance of achieving  merchant adoption first - which in essence, is a critical factor on achieving  total mass adoption and without it, usage of cryptocurrencies would only be restricted to a select few and will eventually falter.

As with the case in my country, assuming we could have at least 5 merchant adoptions everyday like convenience stores, groceries, gas stations, supermarkets, coffee shops, restaurants.etc. which, in a span of  2 years, it might produce a vibrant crypto economy allowing the crypto industry to further flourish.