F*** ICO's.

[cryptor0th]

We stand at a weird point of time in the history of Blockchain technology and its eventual rise to mainstream adoption. The technology is not a geeks dream anymore and the community is not entirely considered to be outliers. Banks, governments, enterprises and private investors are watching with eyes open on the various projects that emerge from enthusiasts of a revolution that is expected to be decentralized in nature. Amidst the hype and excitement, DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) has managed to raise over 150 million dollars. . The fact that this amount has been raised from individuals around the globe, most of whose identities are not even known shows the potential a decentralized currency has in the context of fund raising. While the legalities, logic and possibilities of what is happening is subject to debate, this post is not about that. It is about how development on the Blockchain has evolved over the years.


When Satoshi Nakamoto released the whitepaper for Bitcoin in 2008, he did not seek a couple million dollars in funding. What he did however, was seek the input, insight and contribution of skilled individuals from around the globe that he believed could contribute to the project. The rise of Bitcoin was not through pointless hype but rather by building upon its utility and community over the years. From the perspective of a consumer — Bitcoin does one job and it does it perfectly well. Remit tokens of value, around the globe, while circumventing global players such as banks, governments and their related agencies. Granted the currency or rather commodity is subject to fluctuations owing to supply and demand, the currency paved way for millions of individuals to connect themselves to an economy they never had access to earlier. Entrepreneurs and freelancers from third world economies could now receive and remit payments while not losing a major chunk of it to third parties who never played a role in adding value to the economic chain. Bitcoin garnered traction, not because it could raise a couple million dollars through an initial coin offering, but rather because it could get its job done right amongst the demographic that used it during the initial days, regardless of whether they were hackers, money launderers, gamblers or wikileaks.


Skip through to the era of alt-coins and you have a community of developers sprouting from around the globe demanding thousands of Bitcoin in “investments” or rather, donations for the purpose of building blockchain based solutions. The fact that a large chunk of these developers remain largely anonymous and are often not accountable in regards to how the funds are spent leads to disastrous situations in regards to corporate governance and transparency. Ethereum — which was once one of the largest crowd-fund amongst decentralized communities, was crippled for a while due to fund shortages and mismanagement of its funds. Similarly, Bitshares — a community that decided to have its tokens given to developers on the basis of voting and democracy found itself crippled owing to politics and investors not understanding how to actually build a profitable enterprise.


Waves, Lisk and IOTA have together raised over 5 million dollars in the last few months. Each of these currencies solve unique problems and definitely contribute drastically to how the world approaches a more decentralized era. Odds are, the teams behind them are fairly credible too. However what’s concerning me as an individual is the amount of hype that’s going on behind these coins and the culture of pointless ICO’s around a number of concepts that add little or no value to the ecosystem. The sheer amount of dead ICO’s and projects that have fizzled out would easily run into the tens of millions of dollars. There used to be a time when this wasn’t the nature of decentralized currency. When core utility and a community around the product mattered more than the funds raised. When the end goal was disruption rather than a short term hike in price. It almost feels like in trying to disrupt conventional systems of banking, we have the community itself falling down to greed and short term obsession towards a pump.


This obsession towards ICO’s and investment gimmicks can possibly do more harm than good because in a lot of these cases the capital is dumb capital and does not pave way for the innovators (if any) behind the coin to actually have the opportunity to work on the coin and the product behind it. Unlike venture capitalists who take risks posts conducting due diligences, Bitcointalk is strife with individuals who don’t have a clue in regards to what’s’ going on. Seasoned investors in the game would easily play the pump and dump game while an individual that is new to the ecosystem would play along, eventually losing out what’s his or hers. While the free market does give each individual the freedom to do whatever he prefers to do with his money and investors are bound to lose their money if they don’t do their due diligences, I personally believe all this obsession with ICO’s could partly be the reason why no alt currency has neither attained the scale nor the user base Bitcoin has in all these years.


Revolutions are not to be monetized. Or, in the few cases they were , they did not really end with the masses being on the side not being screwed over. (eg : Rothschilds and the battle of Waterloo). While private investments and interests in Blockchain technology is rather welcome and much needed, the pump and dump game looks like a new iteration of penny stocks for individuals to sit on their computers all day long and earn money for spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). I am a strong believer in decentralized crowdfunding and what it can do for the people. What am against however (and this post in its entirety is about) -is the pointless hype that goes on behind some of these projects. Its time the community called the bullshit once and for all. A lot of the “enthusiasts” behind the new ICO’s do so with the intent of liquidating at a higher profit margin within a matter of months, if not weeks and thereby increasing their capital. If such, is the nature of capitalism within our attempts to create a revolution on the blockchain, may god bless our souls. Or much rather, may the banks come do it through their “permissioned” ledgers, because I fail to see the differency any longer. Both .. are fuelled by speculation, greed and a deep control on the monetary policies



Tl:Dr : Such ICO, MUCH WOW!!

[Laniakea]

F*** ICOs! Long live ICOs! Glad that we have projects that heavily push innovation forward

To the hidden communist in you: top notch software development requires funding. We all need money to live.

[cryptor0th]

F*** ICOs! Long live ICOs! Glad that we have projects that heavily push innovation forward

To the hidden communist in you: top notch software development requires funding. We all need money to live.

Hey,

Go back to quoting Jobs out of place and not understanding what true innovation is.
To the hidden peasant in you - you neither understand capitalism nor venture capitalism

GTFO

P.s - waiting for your "friends" to come along.

[GreenBits]

We stand at a weird point of time in the history of Blockchain technology and its eventual rise to mainstream adoption. The technology is not a geeks dream anymore and the community is not entirely considered to be outliers. Banks, governments, enterprises and private investors are watching with eyes open on the various projects that emerge from enthusiasts of a revolution that is expected to be decentralized in nature. Amidst the hype and excitement, DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) has managed to raise over 150 million dollars.. The fact that this amount has been raised from individuals around the globe, most of whose identities are not even known shows the potential a decentralized currency has in the context of fund raising. While the legalities, logic and possibilities of what is happening is subject to debate, this post is not about that. It is about how development on the Blockchain has evolved over the years.

When Satoshi Nakamoto  released the whitepaper for Bitcoin in 2008, he did not seek a couple million dollars in funding. What he did however, was seek the input, insight and contribution of skilled individuals from around the globe that he believed could contribute to the project. The rise of Bitcoin was not through pointless hype but rather by building upon its utility and community over the years. From the perspective of a consumer - Bitcoin does one job and it does it perfectly well. Remit tokens of value, around the globe, while circumventing global players such as banks, governments and their related agencies. Granted the currency or rather commodity is subject to fluctuations owing to supply and demand, the currency paved way for millions of individuals to connect themselves to an economy they never had access to earlier. Entrepreneurs and freelancers from third world economies could now receive and remit payments while not losing a major chunk of it to third parties who never played a role in adding value to the economic chain. Bitcoin garnered traction, not because it could raise  a couple million dollars through an initial coin offering, but rather because it could get its job done right amongst the demographic that used it during the initial days, regardless of whether they were hackers, money launderers, gamblers or wikileaks.

Skip through to the era of alt-coins and you have a community of developers sprouting from around the globe demanding thousands of Bitcoin in “investments” or rather, donations for the purpose of building blockchain based solutions. The fact that a large chunk of these developers remain largely anonymous and are often not  accountable in regards to how the funds are spent leads to disastrous situations in regards to corporate governance and transparency. Ethereum - which was once one of the largest crowd-fund amongst decentralized communities, was crippled for a while due to fund shortages and mismanagement of its funds. Similarly, Bitshares - a community that decided to have its tokens given to developers on the basis of voting and democracy found itself crippled owing to politics and investors not understanding  how to actually build a profitable enterprise.

Waves, Lisk and IOTA have together raised over 5 million dollars in the last few months. Each of these currencies solve unique problems and definitely contribute drastically to how the world approaches a more decentralized era. Odds are, the teams behind them are fairly credible too. However what’s concerning me as an individual is the amount of hype that’s going on behind these coins and the culture of pointless ICO’s around a number of concepts that add little or no value to the ecosystem. The sheer amount of dead ICO’s and projects that have fizzled out would easily run into the tens of millions of dollars. There used to be a time when this wasn’t the nature of decentralized currency. When core utility and a community around the product mattered more than the funds raised. When the end goal was disruption rather than a short term hike in price. It almost feels like in trying to disrupt conventional systems of banking, we have the community itself falling down to greed and short term obsession towards a pump.


This obsession towards ICO’s and investment gimmicks can possibly do more harm than good because in a lot of these cases the capital is dumb capital and does not pave way for the innovators (if any) behind the coin to actually have the opportunity to work on the coin and the product behind it. Unlike venture capitalists who take risks posts conducting due diligences, Bitcointalk is strife with individuals who don’t have a clue in regards to what's’ going on. Seasoned investors in the game would easily play the pump and dump game while an individual that is new to the ecosystem would play along, eventually losing out what’s his or hers. While the free market does give each individual the freedom to do whatever he prefers to do with his money and investors are bound to lose their money if they don’t do their due diligences, I personally believe all this obsession with ICO’s could partly be the reason why no alt currency has neither attained the scale nor the user base Bitcoin has in all these years.

Revolutions are not to be monetized. Or, in the few cases they were , they did not really end with the masses being on the side not being screwed over. (eg : Rothschilds and the battle of Waterloo).  While private investments and interests in Blockchain technology is rather welcome and much needed, the pump and dump game looks like a new iteration of penny stocks for individuals to sit on their computers all day long and earn money for spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).  I am a strong believer in decentralized crowdfunding and what it can do for the people. What am against however (and this post in its entirety is about) -is the pointless hype that goes on behind some of these projects. Its time the community called the bullshit once and for all. A lot of the “enthusiasts” behind the new ICO’s do so with the intent of liquidating at a higher profit margin within a matter of months, if not weeks and thereby increasing their capital. If such, is the nature of capitalism within our attempts to create a revolution on the blockchain, may god bless our souls. Or much rather, may the banks come do it through their “permissioned” ledgers, because I fail to see the differency any longer. Both .. are fuelled by speculation, greed and a deep control on the monetary policies

This is an excellent contribution to the community. I look forward to your posts in the future, you have my attention. As you have so eloquently stated this, I have no need to revisit , I agree with this part and parcel. I will add, in traditional finance, the IPO phase is usually only approached after a business has had sufficient growth to stand on its own, with a mature brand, and capital is needed for expansion, not development as we see with the current rash of ICO offerings. Essentially,I'm saying there is usually a proven product on the shelf, not just an idea. Investment at the concept stage is usually only reserved for big VC, as only they can tolerate the risk associated with early stage adoption. Especially in the technology sector.

You get a cookie. I had not thought I would give out more than one today.  

Never mind the shills. They are genuine sometimes, they simply don't have the perspective that comes from questioning your own motivations.

Thank you for taking the time to pen this for us.

[Shrikez]

damn right OP.

any project with a commercial approach in here doesn't get my money. Yes I missed out on a lot of profits, so what. it's time to change some fundamental issues in this world and people want fucking Lamboz?

I like having money just as much as the next guy but sometimes it's really hard not to be disappointed with what is going on in this space.

Human nature, I guess.

EDIT: I forgot... thank you for the excellent post

[vlom]

thank you very much for sharing this. i hope that everyone that is waiting right now - to be able to transfer their lisk to an exchange - has the time to read this. but i don't think that they will leave the thread before it reaches 1000 pages.

[Come-from-Beyond]

TL;DR version anyone?

[prettybuds]

TL;DR version anyone?

Communism

[Come-from-Beyond]

TL;DR version anyone?

Communism

This is good, because a world with the money cannot be perfect.

[StinkyLover]

The Libertarian dream has evolved into a Capitalist nightmare. The banks used to fear cryptocurrencies. Not any more. They just need to get some popcorn and watch us destroy ourselves chasing their fiat cash.

The bankers must be laughing themselves to sleep every night.

[americanpegasus]

Down with ICOs.  I'm with you.  We're all with you.  No more support for these scum - these projects exist only to extract capital from the crypto-community, instead of injecting that capital into fair/clean launch projects. 

[r0ach]

TL;DR version anyone?

Eastern Europeans figured out that creating decentralized currencies is not actually profitable for the coin creator because in a real decentralized currency, the coin issuer doesn't actually have control over who gets the block rewards at all.  Due to this fact, Eastern Europeans started creating centralized, permissioned ledger IPOs in order to try and scam people for personal gain.  (exhibit:  Come from Beyond & Vitalik)

[Minecache]

LISK will leave s bad taste in everyone's mouth for quite sometime. What a complete price dump and easy profit taking for the scammers.

[btctube]

F*** ICOs! Long live ICOs! Glad that we have projects that heavily push innovation forward

To the hidden communist in you: top notch software development requires funding. We all need money to live.

Hey,

Go back to quoting Jobs out of place and not understanding what true innovation is.
To the hidden peasant in you - you neither understand capitalism nor venture capitalism

GTFO

P.s - waiting for your "friends" to come along.

crowdsale, ico or ipo or whatever theyre called is the new innovation actually.    you're left behind.

[cryptor0th]

We stand at a weird point of time in the history of Blockchain technology and its eventual rise to mainstream adoption. The technology is not a geeks dream anymore and the community is not entirely considered to be outliers. Banks, governments, enterprises and private investors are watching with eyes open on the various projects that emerge from enthusiasts of a revolution that is expected to be decentralized in nature. Amidst the hype and excitement, DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) has managed to raise over 150 million dollars.. The fact that this amount has been raised from individuals around the globe, most of whose identities are not even known shows the potential a decentralized currency has in the context of fund raising. While the legalities, logic and possibilities of what is happening is subject to debate, this post is not about that. It is about how development on the Blockchain has evolved over the years.

When Satoshi Nakamoto  released the whitepaper for Bitcoin in 2008, he did not seek a couple million dollars in funding. What he did however, was seek the input, insight and contribution of skilled individuals from around the globe that he believed could contribute to the project. The rise of Bitcoin was not through pointless hype but rather by building upon its utility and community over the years. From the perspective of a consumer - Bitcoin does one job and it does it perfectly well. Remit tokens of value, around the globe, while circumventing global players such as banks, governments and their related agencies. Granted the currency or rather commodity is subject to fluctuations owing to supply and demand, the currency paved way for millions of individuals to connect themselves to an economy they never had access to earlier. Entrepreneurs and freelancers from third world economies could now receive and remit payments while not losing a major chunk of it to third parties who never played a role in adding value to the economic chain. Bitcoin garnered traction, not because it could raise  a couple million dollars through an initial coin offering, but rather because it could get its job done right amongst the demographic that used it during the initial days, regardless of whether they were hackers, money launderers, gamblers or wikileaks.

Skip through to the era of alt-coins and you have a community of developers sprouting from around the globe demanding thousands of Bitcoin in “investments” or rather, donations for the purpose of building blockchain based solutions. The fact that a large chunk of these developers remain largely anonymous and are often not  accountable in regards to how the funds are spent leads to disastrous situations in regards to corporate governance and transparency. Ethereum - which was once one of the largest crowd-fund amongst decentralized communities, was crippled for a while due to fund shortages and mismanagement of its funds. Similarly, Bitshares - a community that decided to have its tokens given to developers on the basis of voting and democracy found itself crippled owing to politics and investors not understanding  how to actually build a profitable enterprise.

Waves, Lisk and IOTA have together raised over 5 million dollars in the last few months. Each of these currencies solve unique problems and definitely contribute drastically to how the world approaches a more decentralized era. Odds are, the teams behind them are fairly credible too. However what’s concerning me as an individual is the amount of hype that’s going on behind these coins and the culture of pointless ICO’s around a number of concepts that add little or no value to the ecosystem. The sheer amount of dead ICO’s and projects that have fizzled out would easily run into the tens of millions of dollars. There used to be a time when this wasn’t the nature of decentralized currency. When core utility and a community around the product mattered more than the funds raised. When the end goal was disruption rather than a short term hike in price. It almost feels like in trying to disrupt conventional systems of banking, we have the community itself falling down to greed and short term obsession towards a pump.


This obsession towards ICO’s and investment gimmicks can possibly do more harm than good because in a lot of these cases the capital is dumb capital and does not pave way for the innovators (if any) behind the coin to actually have the opportunity to work on the coin and the product behind it. Unlike venture capitalists who take risks posts conducting due diligences, Bitcointalk is strife with individuals who don’t have a clue in regards to what's’ going on. Seasoned investors in the game would easily play the pump and dump game while an individual that is new to the ecosystem would play along, eventually losing out what’s his or hers. While the free market does give each individual the freedom to do whatever he prefers to do with his money and investors are bound to lose their money if they don’t do their due diligences, I personally believe all this obsession with ICO’s could partly be the reason why no alt currency has neither attained the scale nor the user base Bitcoin has in all these years.

Revolutions are not to be monetized. Or, in the few cases they were , they did not really end with the masses being on the side not being screwed over. (eg : Rothschilds and the battle of Waterloo).  While private investments and interests in Blockchain technology is rather welcome and much needed, the pump and dump game looks like a new iteration of penny stocks for individuals to sit on their computers all day long and earn money for spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).  I am a strong believer in decentralized crowdfunding and what it can do for the people. What am against however (and this post in its entirety is about) -is the pointless hype that goes on behind some of these projects. Its time the community called the bullshit once and for all. A lot of the “enthusiasts” behind the new ICO’s do so with the intent of liquidating at a higher profit margin within a matter of months, if not weeks and thereby increasing their capital. If such, is the nature of capitalism within our attempts to create a revolution on the blockchain, may god bless our souls. Or much rather, may the banks come do it through their “permissioned” ledgers, because I fail to see the differency any longer. Both .. are fuelled by speculation, greed and a deep control on the monetary policies

This is an excellent contribution to the community. I look forward to your posts in the future, you have my attention. As you have so eloquently stated this, I have no need to revisit , I agree with this part and parcel. I will add, in traditional finance, the IPO phase is usually only approached after a business has had sufficient growth to stand on its own, with a mature brand, and capital is needed for expansion, not development as we see with the current rash of ICO offerings. Essentially,I'm saying there is usually a proven product on the shelf, not just an idea. Investment at the concept stage is usually only reserved for big VC, as only they can tolerate the risk associated with early stage adoption. Especially in the technology sector.

You get a cookie. I had not thought I would give out more than one today.  

Never mind the shills. They are genuine sometimes, they simply don't have the perspective that comes from questioning your own motivations.

Thank you for taking the time to pen this for us.

Thank you so much for the cookie. It made my day. I'll be following up with a new post on how capitalism should work in the decentralized era and why IPO's can be "possibly" good. This will be to give a better picture of the possibilities. The sheer lack of regulation and accountability clearly leads to disastrous situations. This is the wild wild west all over again.

damn right OP.

any project with a commercial approach in here doesn't get my money. Yes I missed out on a lot of profits, so what. it's time to change some fundamental issues in this world and people want fucking Lamboz?

I like having money just as much as the next guy but sometimes it's really hard not to be disappointed with what is going on in this space.

Human nature, I guess.

EDIT: I forgot... thank you for the excellent post

Thanks for pointing out the Lambo example! People see this as a get rich quick scheme instead of what it actually can be!

F*** ICOs! Long live ICOs! Glad that we have projects that heavily push innovation forward

To the hidden communist in you: top notch software development requires funding. We all need money to live.

Hey,

Go back to quoting Jobs out of place and not understanding what true innovation is.
To the hidden peasant in you - you neither understand capitalism nor venture capitalism

GTFO

P.s - waiting for your "friends" to come along.

crowdsale, ico or ipo or whatever theyre called is the new innovation actually.    you're left behind.

IPO's have been around for centuries. If you think that's innovation, you really do belong to a different period of time in history.
The difference now is - Bitcoin (which was the real innovation) has allowed scammers to sit and garner funds in "IPO's" from remote investors who are often duped into buying into such coins. Greed and a lack of foresight is getting the best of us.


I am not pushing for communism or anything of that nature. The fact that the likes of come-from-beyond and his shills decide that every thread is about them, speaks amply about what I've been talking of. If you believe in what you are building, what I wrote should not make you feel insecure.
Have a good day!

[americanpegasus]

TL;DR version anyone?

Eastern Europeans figured out that creating decentralized currencies is not actually profitable for the coin creator because in a real decentralized currency, the coin issuer doesn't actually have control over who gets the block rewards at all.  Due to this fact, Eastern Europeans started creating centralized, permissioned ledger IPOs in order to try and scam people for personal gain.  (exhibit:  Come from Beyond & Vitalik)

So roach, why do you think Nick Szabo of all people is so on board with Ethereum?  He seems like the type to just launch his own clean fork of Ethereum vs. commit his talents to something so tainted.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Eastern Europeans figured out that creating decentralized currencies is not actually profitable for the coin creator because in a real decentralized currency, the coin issuer doesn't actually have control over who gets the block rewards at all.  Due to this fact, Eastern Europeans started creating centralized, permissioned ledger IPOs in order to try and scam people for personal gain.  (exhibit:  Come from Beyond & Vitalik)

Oh, these racist vibes, I like them, they indicate the author want to offend me but have no ideas how to do it. Keep posting them.

[Come-from-Beyond]

So roach, why do you think Nick Szabo of all people is so on board with Ethereum?  He seems like the type to just launch his own clean fork of Ethereum vs. commit his talents to something so tainted.

Roach and thinking? Haha, his mouth is connected to his anus completely bypassing the brain.

[cryptor0th]

Eastern Europeans figured out that creating decentralized currencies is not actually profitable for the coin creator because in a real decentralized currency, the coin issuer doesn't actually have control over who gets the block rewards at all.  Due to this fact, Eastern Europeans started creating centralized, permissioned ledger IPOs in order to try and scam people for personal gain.  (exhibit:  Come from Beyond & Vitalik)

Oh, these racist vibes, I like them, they indicate the author want to offend me but have no ideas how to do it. Keep posting them.

Nothing I personally posted had anything against you (directly) - only against the state of crowd-funding in the ecosystem.

[OrsonJ]

This is what people want. ICO after ICO after ICO. Most people are here to try to make a quick buck. They know ICOs are scams and they do not care. Better to make peace with it.