Suggestion to prevent scam ICO

[zahra4577]

A lot of scam ICO have appear these days and some of them have run away with investors money.
I suggest the forum should have some minimum charge to open an ICO thread here.This will put off scammers to some extent.
What do you guys think? Or we can have some requirement to submit a pre-fixed refundable amount to forum in order to run a ico here.
More suggestions and thoughts?

[hilariousandco]

I wouldn't be against it necessarily but it probably wouldn't do much to stop scams. If it was just a bitcoin or so they'd just take the gamble and pay it as they know they'll be able to take in more. It also might lead people in to a false sense of security. I thought about some sort of fee to be able to launch a coin in the alt section though just to stop all the lazy shitcoins, and especially for those crapcoins that run signature campaigns and do absolutely nothing at all to stop spam.

[BitHodler]

I think a set rule that all ICO's should be done through sell walls on exchanges where the exchange in question holds the funds will do good.

If the operators fail to deliver, the exchange will put up a buy wall where people can sell their worthless coins/tokens for the same price they bought them.

Just look at how the HEAT ICO failed and C-CEX put up a buy wall where people can get their money back. That's how it should be done.

No ICO through exchange? Then ANN thread will get deleted. It's quite simple and yet very effective.

[Lauda]

I wouldn't be against it necessarily but it probably wouldn't do much to stop scams. If it was just a bitcoin or so they'd just take the gamble and pay it as they know they'll be able to take in more. It also might lead people in to a false sense of security. I thought about some sort of fee to be able to launch a coin in the alt section though just to stop all the lazy shitcoins, and especially for those crapcoins that run signature campaigns and do absolutely nothing at all to stop spam.

So the alternative, i.e. doing nothing is better? Classic policy nowadays.

No ICO through exchange? Then ANN thread will get deleted. It's quite simple and yet very effective.

How exactly is that simple? All it does is make it very hard to attempt an IPO.

[DomainMagnate]

I think a set rule that all ICO's should be done through sell walls on exchanges where the exchange in question holds the funds will do good.

If the operators fail to deliver, the exchange will put up a buy wall where people can sell their worthless coins/tokens for the same price they bought them.

Just look at how the HEAT ICO failed and C-CEX put up a buy wall where people can get their money back. That's how it should be done.

No ICO through exchange? Then ANN thread will get deleted. It's quite simple and yet very effective.

But an escrow can do the same with less complications.
We should not force ICO to choose exchange and give exchange advantage.
Exchanges will raise their fee for ICO so why not forum get this fee?

[suchmoon]

I'm afraid that shitcoiners would find ways around such policy by slightly tweaking the scam model and calling it something else, unless you restrict any altcoin ANN threads. Even then they would probably find a way to separate fools from their money (think DAO).

Having said that, raising the cost of entry might still be useful, as long as it's simple and obvious as to what it does, i.e. a fee and not "vetting".

[Wapinter]

I'm afraid that shitcoiners would find ways around such policy by slightly tweaking the scam model and calling it something else, unless you restrict any altcoin ANN threads. Even then they would probably find a way to separate fools from their money (think DAO).

Having said that, raising the cost of entry might still be useful, as long as it's simple and obvious as to what it does, i.e. a fee and not "vetting".

I think forum's responsibility is limited in this regard.It is community's responsibilty to scrutinize every ICO throughly and help potrntial investors decide.

[jamyr]

I wouldn't be against it necessarily but it probably wouldn't do much to stop scams. If it was just a bitcoin or so they'd just take the gamble and pay it as they know they'll be able to take in more. It also might lead people in to a false sense of security. I thought about some sort of fee to be able to launch a coin in the alt section though just to stop all the lazy shitcoins, and especially for those crapcoins that run signature campaigns and do absolutely nothing at all to stop spam.

How about a launching-bond which is refundable but have terms such as : 1. Signature campaign spam tolerance should not exceed 15%, in case of failure to comply, 20% of bond will be deducted to the amount to be refunded. etc.,

[botany]

I'm afraid that shitcoiners would find ways around such policy by slightly tweaking the scam model and calling it something else, unless you restrict any altcoin ANN threads. Even then they would probably find a way to separate fools from their money (think DAO).

Having said that, raising the cost of entry might still be useful, as long as it's simple and obvious as to what it does, i.e. a fee and not "vetting".

I think forum's responsibility is limited in this regard.It is community's responsibilty to scrutinize every ICO throughly and help potrntial investors decide.

Nope, that won't work. For peanuts, you have signature campaign participants endorsing ponzis.
You will have an army of shills working to support ICOs.

[FFrankie]

Isnt every ICO a scam? Are there really any successful alt coins besides LTC/ETH/MXR? I would include DOGE in that list but I don't think DOGE is successful

I really dont see need for other alt currencies unless buying 1 YYY of something directly correlated to something.

Why not support the current alt currencies we have now instead of making new ones? 

[Lauda]

Isnt every ICO a scam?

Depends. Do you consider someone who tries his or her best to deliver something, but ultimately ends up delivering much less than promised (e.g. due to lack of skills) a scammer?

Are there really any successful alt coins besides LTC/ETH/MXRXMR? I would include DOGE in that list but I don't think DOGE is successful

Neither one of those is successful either.

Why not support the current alt currencies we have now instead of making new ones?  

Because.. stupidity, greed and similar.

[BitHodler]

No ICO through exchange? Then ANN thread will get deleted. It's quite simple and yet very effective.

How exactly is that simple? All it does is make it very hard to attempt an IPO.

I meant easy/simple in the way that it wipes out the +95% fake ICO's as they most likely will never reach the point of 'success' they falsely promote themselves with.

I must however admit that it will indeed be an extra hassle for legit ICO's, but if we don't do anything, then these scam ICO's will continue to pop up without an end in sight.

I think a set rule that all ICO's should be done through sell walls on exchanges where the exchange in question holds the funds will do good.

If the operators fail to deliver, the exchange will put up a buy wall where people can sell their worthless coins/tokens for the same price they bought them.

Just look at how the HEAT ICO failed and C-CEX put up a buy wall where people can get their money back. That's how it should be done.

No ICO through exchange? Then ANN thread will get deleted. It's quite simple and yet very effective.

But an escrow can do the same with less complications.
We should not force ICO to choose exchange and give exchange advantage.
Exchanges will raise their fee for ICO so why not forum get this fee?

I can somewhat see a good point in having reputable escrow members of this forum play an important role, but if so, then the funds must be secured through multisig for extra security, because in some cases ICO's gather millions in funds.

[hilariousandco]

I wouldn't be against it necessarily but it probably wouldn't do much to stop scams. If it was just a bitcoin or so they'd just take the gamble and pay it as they know they'll be able to take in more. It also might lead people in to a false sense of security. I thought about some sort of fee to be able to launch a coin in the alt section though just to stop all the lazy shitcoins, and especially for those crapcoins that run signature campaigns and do absolutely nothing at all to stop spam.

So the alternative, i.e. doing nothing is better? Classic policy nowadays.

As you know I don't make polices round here.

I'm afraid that shitcoiners would find ways around such policy by slightly tweaking the scam model and calling it something else, unless you restrict any altcoin ANN threads. Even then they would probably find a way to separate fools from their money (think DAO).

Call it whatever they wanted but they wouldn't be able to list it in the Announcement board at all without paying the fee. In the past I've thought about maybe letting Alt coins have their own sub board for a certain fee. I'm sure the bigger/more serious coins would prefer this and it would be cheaper and easier for them then creating their own forums. 

I wouldn't be against it necessarily but it probably wouldn't do much to stop scams. If it was just a bitcoin or so they'd just take the gamble and pay it as they know they'll be able to take in more. It also might lead people in to a false sense of security. I thought about some sort of fee to be able to launch a coin in the alt section though just to stop all the lazy shitcoins, and especially for those crapcoins that run signature campaigns and do absolutely nothing at all to stop spam.

How about a launching-bond which is refundable but have terms such as : 1. Signature campaign spam tolerance should not exceed 15%, in case of failure to comply, 20% of bond will be deducted to the amount to be refunded. etc.,

How would you decide when a campaign crosses the 15% spam threshold? Many campaigns would complain and argue about conflict of interest if they didn't get their bond back for whatever reason. I think pretty much all alt campaigns haven't done enough about spam and many of them don't do anything at all. Their entire business model seems to be centred on getting as many people as they can to spam their advert all over the forum for little to no cost to them. The only time I'm ever made aware of these crapcoin ICOs is when I see hoards of one-line spammers carrying their adverts so it sadly works in that regard but they shouldn't be allowed to continue this way.

[Boobies00]

A lot of scam ICO have appear these days and some of them have run away with investors money.
I suggest the forum should have some minimum charge to open an ICO thread here.This will put off scammers to some extent.
What do you guys think? Or we can have some requirement to submit a pre-fixed refundable amount to forum in order to run a ico here.
More suggestions and thoughts?

Why would that stop them? They pay the fees like they pay Yobit .3btc to get listed and host their ICO. Best way is to buy into ICO's that have escrow and ignore the ones without. The way it works now seems to be okay. Community members vet the proposal and research the people behind the ICO. From there we make our best judgement on whether is legit or scam.

[btvGainer]

Isnt every ICO a scam? Are there really any successful alt coins besides LTC/ETH/MXR? I would include DOGE in that list but I don't think DOGE is successful

I really dont see need for other alt currencies unless buying 1 YYY of something directly correlated to something.

Why not support the current alt currencies we have now instead of making new ones? 

Not all unsuccessful ICOs are scams.You are confusing a failed Altcoin with a scam although both are different.An Alt may fail because of various reasons beyond devs control and you can not blame it on dev or call them scam.

[Quickseller]

Call it whatever they wanted but they wouldn't be able to list it in the Announcement board at all without paying the fee. In the past I've thought about maybe letting Alt coins have their own sub board for a certain fee. I'm sure the bigger/more serious coins would prefer this and it would be cheaper and easier for them then creating their own forums. 

How would it get handled when such a thread is created outside of the proper section, and it needs to get moved to the altcoin announcement sub?

I agree that this will create a false sense of security. I would also point out that many of the altcoin ICO scams end up getting well over 1BTC, so a payment to create such a thread would serve little more than a tax to the forum.

I would also point out that even if such a fee was imposed, the forum cannot reasonably prevent people from creating threads discussing a ICO that does not have an [ANN] thread. A lot of the ICO scammers seem to have a large number of sockpuppets, I don't see why these scammers wouldn't simply use some of their sockpuppets to create threads that generate interest in an ICO scam that directs people to some reddit sub or other website.

It would also open up the possibility that many people will direct users to imposter websites to get information about an ICO (intentionally or not) when the devs do not want to pay this fee/tax.

[Forbiddenone]

I think the most wise idea are make a warning in pinned thread about risks of investing in ICO or warning above ICO thread itself
If they still got scammed or that altcoin fail after read and know the risks, it's their fault.

It is best to ask for escrow by dev of respective altcoin,if even altcoin fails or scam money will be held by escrower and distributed back to investor/promotion participants..

[Quickseller]

I think the most wise idea are make a warning in pinned thread about risks of investing in ICO or warning above ICO thread itself
If they still got scammed or that altcoin fail after read and know the risks, it's their fault.

It is best to ask for escrow by dev of respective altcoin,if even altcoin fails or scam money will be held by escrower and distributed back to investor/promotion participants..

Well escrow doesn't work so well in all ICOs.

[jamyr]

How would you decide when acampaign crossesthe 15% spam threshold? Many campaigns would complain and argue aboutconflict ofinterestif they didn't get their bond backfor whatever reason. I thinkpretty much all alt campaigns haven't done enough about spam and manyof them don't do anything at all. Their entire business model seems to becentred on getting as many peopleas theycan to spam their advertall over the forum for littleto no costto them. The onlytime I'm ever made aware of these crapcoin ICOsis when I see hoardsof one-line spammers carrying their adverts so it sadly works in that regard buttheyshouldn't beallowed to continuethis way.

Solution :

1. Have a buddy-system tallying of posts.

Example :
Weekly,
(Member 1 checks post of Member 2 v. versa)
then updates a spreadsheet. Forward to manager. Manager verifies it with a staff
or any trusted 3rd party.

2. Managers should be regularly checking on his inferiors.

Etc.

Point is we need to exert extra effort for Altcoin signature campaigns.
Altcoin sig campaign pays more compared to others, so I think its only fair to to ask more from participants.