F*** ICO's.

[enet]

What we have right now are a lot of scum like beings utilizing a technology built with the highest of ideals to trick and steal.

In terms of a pure rational analysis there is no theft or fraud. Alice sends money to Bob, because she believes she will get something in return. So these are just risk factors. ICO's are an early, simple form of capital investment structures for blockchains. Instead of paying for all developing costs upfront, a project can raise funds (secured via escrow hopefully) and then recoup these with the float of a currency. Potentially there are other ways to pay for developer costs. Its a much better model than what Bitcoin has at the moment (sponsoring through the backdoor).

[twunkle]

What we have right now are a lot of scum like beings utilizing a technology built with the highest of ideals to trick and steal.

In terms of a pure rational analysis there is no theft or fraud. Alice sends money to Bob, because she believes she will get something in return. So these are just risk factors. ICO's are an early, simple form of capital investment structures for blockchains. Instead of paying for all developing costs upfront, a project can raise funds (secured via escrow hopefully) and then recoup these with the float of a currency. Potentially there are other ways to pay for developer costs. Its a much better model than what Bitcoin has at the moment (sponsoring through the backdoor).

Well at best maybe you have stupid scams probably where the devs fooled themselves as well  

I mean it is really doubtful whether any startup should do funding this way. it is extremely risky for your continuity even if you have good intentions. if you want something for everyone then make it open, that shouldnt need a corp. and even if you do that you might find funds you need in different ways

[cryptor0th]

What we have right now are a lot of scum like beings utilizing a technology built with the highest of ideals to trick and steal.

In terms of a pure rational analysis there is no theft or fraud. Alice sends money to Bob, because she believes she will get something in return. So these are just risk factors. ICO's are an early, simple form of capital investment structures for blockchains. Instead of paying for all developing costs upfront, a project can raise funds (secured via escrow hopefully) and then recoup these with the float of a currency. Potentially there are other ways to pay for developer costs. Its a much better model than what Bitcoin has at the moment (sponsoring through the backdoor).

Well at best maybe you have stupid scams probably where the devs fooled themselves as well  

I mean it is really doubtful whether any startup should do funding this way. it is extremely risky for your continuity even if you have good intentions. if you want something for everyone then make it open, that shouldnt need a corp. and even if you do that you might find funds you need in different ways

It is really interesting to see differential perspectives on ICO's. Some think there is no scam involved as these are risk factors involved as with any investment. Some think these are outright scams as most scams could be avoided. I come somewhere in between.

I am looking to compile information on the rise of alt's and their history in general some time in the future. It would be great to record how a parallel financial revolution occurred to Bitcoin and gave birth to coins like Ethereum. Wonder if people would even buy a book on  that.

[Spoetnik]

This is about Digital Currencies.
You all choose not to see the correct path / train of thought.
Simply because you want to profit off of them.

ICO's are a great way for the dev etc to snag a huge shitload of coins for themselves.
When they should not get any !

People we are not talking about paying a contract coder to create a software program for you.
We are talking about launching a currency ..and the launch fairness *is* the entire point !

It can not be a currency if the dev holds his hand out and says
i need $250,000.00 usd to create your new decentralized digital CURRENCY.

I have like 20 super long points why ICO's are BAD and i am always thinking of new ones.
But i don't think you guys care.
Think ?
I KNOW you don't !

Go out and research Pyramid / Ponzi schemes.. then come here.

No legit dev should have his hand out "crowd funding"
If you do not have the means to be coding the worlds internet currency
then you should NOT be doing it period .

Do not create a problem on purpose to sell me the solution.
We need a currency ? #6,000+ ?
Solution ? Your money invested into it ?

Has any ICO ever produced a viable currency that innovates over Bitcoin ?
NO ..not even close !
ALL OF THEM have been a pointless cash grab (not a currency) ICO scheme.

I think it hinges on how the starting coins came about.
The US Federal Reserve for example simply fabricates them on demand. (out of thin air)
They are not asking the public to pay them some other already dominating currency
to buy another newer currency.. that ACT alone makes them scammy !
AND no you can not try and wiggle around that.. it is how SCAMS WORK !

WHY ARE WE HERE ?
We all came here years ago to support BITCOIN.
Why ?
For the concept of an open source decentralized digital currency.
This needs to replace the FIAT money not be an add-on scheme to FIAT.
If we NEED fiat to buy say ETH tokens then it can NOT be a currency no matter how hard you try.

A digital currency has to REPLACE FIAT !
It can not if you NEED Fiat to get the damn ICO tokens 
..use your brain people.
And if you are not making a currency then it's just a straight up Pyramid Scheme !

..dig deep people.
I want to see us all peer deep into this stuff and reach down for answers.
We got off track guys !
We came to support a decentralized open source digital currency
and what is the hottest "coin" in town ?

A "coin" that is..
- Centralized.
- Launched closed-source sometimes.
- Not a currency at all.
- Has no innovative / purpose
- A gimmick that is unused.
- Incomplete half-cooked concepts with bits of code / vaporware idea's
- ACTUALLY used for nothing but profit.

People we have failed the point in EVERY aspect possible.
100% Failure.
Bitcoin still reigns King and this will not be changing unless a real coin comes out to rival it.

And what do we see ?
ANOTHER coin.. 6,000 ANN topics here & climbing.
And we have another coin posted with what excuse now ?
It is STILL another coin.. #6,000
So you better have a good excuse.. what is it ?
Oh really ?
Did it already rival Bitcoin or will it ever ?
No, no and no.

Stop ignoring the context & reality of what ACTUALLY is happening here !
Trying to be idealistic about a method of scamming the ICO is a joke !
..don't even bother. 

Did Satoshi say hey give me 1 million dollars
and i will post a project scheme idea that is partially complete ?
BlockNET did with their ICO..
So what do you do when Satoshi decides hey ..know what ?
Fuck it you all already paid me so..screw it.. i am sick or broke my hand or hackers or was raped by a sasquatch or unicorns stole my shoes or BUGZ.. or dem IRC flalws attackin' ma coldz storage'z... 

Hey my ass is itchy.. sorry guys fuck you thanks for the MILLION dollars.
And yeah i know the hosting bill expired and the site is offline.
..i must have forgot to pay it.. as had happened not long with BlockNET 1 yr after the ICO

Know why i bring up the scammy train wreck called BlockNET so much ?
Because i kept saying THIS is the beginning if we don't stop this shit here and now
then it will only get worse.. and since ?
The ICO shit has exploded out of proportion as I PREDICTED !
Not only is launching an ICO scammy but they could not even add 1 innovation to Bitcoin with them !

I WAS HERE WHEN THE FIRST ONE LAUNCHED
and i recall how this whole forum flamed them to death 100%
..you all turned scammy asshole on me.

When i hear the word crowd-sale or crowd-funding or angel-investing or ICO or IPO or ITO
i want to fucking puke !
You people make me sick !

I have buried every ICO-term you all come up with so keep making up new ones.
I will make sure Earth know that no matter how many times they change names
it will always be known as...................... S C A M

This is not the stock exchange fuck your terminology and your white papers.
Using stock market jargon is grooming the crowd here into treating this as penny stocks for crypto.
But this is not the stock exchange so fuck you are scammy bullshit.

No ICO will ever get past me with out FUD unless i see people regularly getting
jail time for "insider trading".. until then you are all on my shitlist !

[Bit_Happy]

This is about Digital Currencies.
You all choose not to see the correct path / train of thought.
Simply because you want to profit off of them.

ICO's are a great way for the dev etc to snag a huge shitload of coins for themselves.
When they should not get any !

People we are not talking about paying a contract coder to create a software program for you.
We are talking about launching a currency ..and the launch fairness *is* the entire point !

...

..and the launch fairness *is* the entire point !

You can try to say (regarding the Bitcoin launch) "it was fair", but very few people knew about it.
Was the end result fair?
"Satoshi" (if still alive) has 500,000+ or ~1,000,000 BTC's, is it a display of fairness for one person to have so many?

[twunkle]

WHY ARE WE HERE ?
We all came here years ago to support BITCOIN.
Why ?
For the concept of an open source decentralized digital currency.
This needs to replace the FIAT money not be an add-on scheme to FIAT.
If we NEED fiat to buy say ETH tokens then it can NOT be a currency no matter how hard you try.

A digital currency has to REPLACE FIAT !
It can not if you NEED Fiat to get the damn ICO tokens 
..use your brain people.
And if you are not making a currency then it's just a straight up Pyramid Scheme !

Other than this kind of magical existence of bitcoin, part of the problem is just that. I doubt many believe that either. Why does it have to to replace fiat? What does that accomplish? Do you really believe it is living up to what it promised? I mean I wish all the best for it and its supporters, that it may go on forever and so on, because there is no direct evidence of it being something evil itself (regardless events in its eco-system). But it is just beliefs and all that just as well. You believe it can structure society in the way fiat does, being one single currency?

[freshman777]

Hey my ass is itchy..

mmmkay, calling the ambulance.

[cryptor0th]

WHY ARE WE HERE ?
We all came here years ago to support BITCOIN.
Why ?
For the concept of an open source decentralized digital currency.
This needs to replace the FIAT money not be an add-on scheme to FIAT.
If we NEED fiat to buy say ETH tokens then it can NOT be a currency no matter how hard you try.

A digital currency has to REPLACE FIAT !
It can not if you NEED Fiat to get the damn ICO tokens 
..use your brain people.
And if you are not making a currency then it's just a straight up Pyramid Scheme !

Other than this kind of magical existence of bitcoin, part of the problem is just that. I doubt many believe that either. Why does it have to to replace fiat? What does that accomplish? Do you really believe it is living up to what it promised? I mean I wish all the best for it and its supporters, that it may go on forever and so on, because there is no direct evidence of it being something evil itself (regardless events in its eco-system). But it is just beliefs and all that just as well. You believe it can structure society in the way fiat does, being one single currency?

Conspiracies aside, part of the reason why there has been a push for replacing fiat is the lack of trust in government bodies. Due example being nation states like Zimbabwe that fuelled inflation and took local economies down to nothing. A more recent example would be brexit where'in the people did make a choice but I don't see why public opinion should affect the value of a local currency. If you really notice, the lack of diligence by nation states in taking their financial decisions have played a major role in pumping Bitcoin. There is an almost direct corelation between Bitcoin price and monetary devaluation.

[cryptor0th]

This article comes back to be in relevance in light of Zcash ?

[cryptohunter]

POW all the way ...fair launch protocol no nijna scam mines.

How to make it happen though?

[collin_thompson]

I really don't understand why people think crowd-sourcing is where the "innovation" is. People have been crowd-sourcing and offering shares in potential profit for hundreds of centuries. To put it in perspective, the British Conquest of India was partly "crowd-sourced" in the sense that East India Company had a number of private investors. You could say wars were also crowd-sourced in the sense that bonds issued to fund these wars in the 17th century were bought by private investors. None of this is what's "innovative"

The primary innovation in the ecosystem was what Satoshi offered when he made a system that allowed all of us to remove the barriers set by conventional banking and fiat system . A lot of these "investments" are being made because you have an anonymous system of value transfer that happens digitally. Granted a lot of the new coins (especially IOTA ) are solving drastically new problems, what am trying to talk of is the pointless hype around them.

I would respectfully disagree with you here in this example. The dutch east india traing company was a MASSIVE innovation, at the time, as it was the first example of capital formation. It was, at the time, and is to this day, one of the single most innovative legal structures, aside from the "trust" in legal history. Moreover, it was not "crowdsourced" in the sense that we know it, as it was only made avaliable to the aristocracy in part as a revolt to the monarch who was not always able or did not allow for the funding of expeditions. It was more akin to a "private Placement" the innovation of crowdfunding, as we know it today; is not the idea, but the methods in which it is done, the technology we have as the enabler. Which is where I agree with you. The difference from today, is anyone who has an interest no matter if you're rich, poor, smart or stupid, can participate.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to want to link the prevailing and good things from our investment regulatory system and apply them to ICOs but in the spirit of decentralization and crypto? I agree with you if thats the case, the question is what should we as a collective hold, and what should we shed to provide a working framework for issuers, and for investors so that our community can thrive?

I think a productive way to look at this might be to come up with a "Manifesto" for appcoins, ICOs etc, a loose, guiding framework that people can reference and be held accountable to so that a culture can be defined and governd around what we collective believe are the proper ways to issue and invest in ICOs. lets not overlook that on the other side as an issuer, there are nefarious things that investors do to screw with valuations and the success of platforms. I would sumbit that the DAO profiteer probably had it in for the whole Ethereum ecosystem, but thats a topic for another discussion.

I would say that respect to you for raising all this as a topic as it is necessary part of the eveolution of the community. I just hope we can sort it out before some bureacrat does and then it sucks for everyone.

[cryptor0th]

I really don't understand why people think crowd-sourcing is where the "innovation" is. People have been crowd-sourcing and offering shares in potential profit for hundreds of centuries. To put it in perspective, the British Conquest of India was partly "crowd-sourced" in the sense that East India Company had a number of private investors. You could say wars were also crowd-sourced in the sense that bonds issued to fund these wars in the 17th century were bought by private investors. None of this is what's "innovative"

The primary innovation in the ecosystem was what Satoshi offered when he made a system that allowed all of us to remove the barriers set by conventional banking and fiat system . A lot of these "investments" are being made because you have an anonymous system of value transfer that happens digitally. Granted a lot of the new coins (especially IOTA ) are solving drastically new problems, what am trying to talk of is the pointless hype around them.

I would respectfully disagree with you here in this example. The dutch east india traing company was a MASSIVE innovation, at the time, as it was the first example of capital formation. It was, at the time, and is to this day, one of the single most innovative legal structures, aside from the "trust" in legal history. Moreover, it was not "crowdsourced" in the sense that we know it, as it was only made avaliable to the aristocracy in part as a revolt to the monarch who was not always able or did not allow for the funding of expeditions. It was more akin to a "private Placement" the innovation of crowdfunding, as we know it today; is not the idea, but the methods in which it is done, the technology we have as the enabler. Which is where I agree with you. The difference from today, is anyone who has an interest no matter if you're rich, poor, smart or stupid, can participate.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to want to link the prevailing and good things from our investment regulatory system and apply them to ICOs but in the spirit of decentralization and crypto? I agree with you if thats the case, the question is what should we as a collective hold, and what should we shed to provide a working framework for issuers, and for investors so that our community can thrive?

I think a productive way to look at this might be to come up with a "Manifesto" for appcoins, ICOs etc, a loose, guiding framework that people can reference and be held accountable to so that a culture can be defined and governd around what we collective believe are the proper ways to issue and invest in ICOs. lets not overlook that on the other side as an issuer, there are nefarious things that investors do to screw with valuations and the success of platforms. I would sumbit that the DAO profiteer probably had it in for the whole Ethereum ecosystem, but thats a topic for another discussion.

I would say that respect to you for raising all this as a topic as it is necessary part of the eveolution of the community. I just hope we can sort it out before some bureacrat does and then it sucks for everyone.

I love how you are able to look through and see what I am getting at but how will you enforce such a manifesto ?
Through code  ? What if the code is broken ? (eg: DAO )
It'll have to be a mix of of tech  / regulatory procedures in order to ensure the best interest of everyone involved.

[digaran]

You should always think before putting money in any ICO first you need to make sure if the funds are really from real investors and not the team behind the project and make sure to know for what you are investing your money.

I agree that 80% of ICOs are pure scam.

[aioc]

Have you lost a lot in these ICO's,finding profitable investment it's like looking a needle in a haystack,you have to exercise due diligence,so many ICO you are lost in a sea of ico.

[cryptor0th]

Have you lost a lot in these ICO's,finding profitable investment it's like looking a needle in a haystack,you have to exercise due diligence,so many ICO you are lost in a sea of ico.

I don't invest in ICO's personally.
Only help some of these projects though.

[digaran]

I don't think anyone cares if funds raised in a crowd sale or in an ICO are really from the crowd?
We can't have a currency and offer it to people before printing them(mining).

If a company is going to pay dividends to investors then it has nothing to do with crypto and being decentralized.
And if they tell you otherwise then better to stay away from them because no company would open source and operate in a decentralized environment could actually earn money.

[cryptor0th]

I don't think anyone cares if funds raised in a crowd sale or in an ICO are really from the crowd?
We can't have a currency and offer it to people before printing them(mining).

If a company is going to pay dividends to investors then it has nothing to do with crypto and being decentralized.
And if they tell you otherwise then better to stay away from them because no company would open source and operate in a decentralized environment could actually earn money.

Wrong.
Bitcoin went from a token worth nothing to 1350 working in that very environment.
Albeit, not a company in the conventional sense.

[digaran]

I don't think anyone cares if funds raised in a crowd sale or in an ICO are really from the crowd?
We can't have a currency and offer it to people before printing them(mining).

If a company is going to pay dividends to investors then it has nothing to do with crypto and being decentralized.
And if they tell you otherwise then better to stay away from them because no company would open source and operate in a decentralized environment could actually earn money.

Wrong.
Bitcoin went from a token worth nothing to 1350 working in that very environment.
Albeit, not a company in the conventional sense.

Don't get me wrong but it's the truth, if you have a money maker idea and you go open source then everyone start to clone your idea, so in order to be able to make money you need to be closed source and I think all the companies have their own secrets why is that? because it's a money maker idea.
If a developer team comes out and says otherwise then you should check their money making idea to see if it is possible and if you can't have access to it then it's not open source and being decentralized means nothing.

Also bitcoin didn't offer any tokens to crowd sale.

[John Charles Leon]

decentralized is the wave of the future

[BitcoinNational]

what FUD sticks said in less words

F*** ICO's.