Do we need an ICO regulation?

[SenSeiSoKo]

It depends on the people making ICOs and on the people funding them, the state maybe must get in when it goes a little bit too hard. too much scam? but when the market is cleared a regulation is bad, wait until the market is cleared, but at the moment many government don't like it for different reasons so they ban it and regulate good night

[moamin77]

After so many projects going scam the Investors or just dying before launch anything, I start think about this. I believe a project that want to raise huge funds should be backed by something big too. I know most of ICO doesn't have enough money to start the project and release announcement of their ICO with almost free money (there's website hosting payment and or copy-writers fees).

There's no guarantee for the Investors the project will ends well or the funds can be repay if something about fail gonna happen. Even they use escrow for fund, I don't think it safe because most of them using escrow that we don't really know.
We can't see people lose their money anymore. We need a trusted company or an organization with trusted people behind its to be a regulator. So every company should register their project, introduce the team (decentralized project doesn't have to be anonymous), office address (at least we know the place even if it's just a garage). And after that, the regulator decide to approve or reject. If it approved, they can make their Ann thread in this forum with regulator "approved sign".

Well it's just an opinion. It's all back to you guys to speculate money in crypto world.

Well, I agree with you on your concerns but adding regulation to the ICO is like centralizing the 'de-centralized' thing (that we all like it because it's de-centralized).....I believe that People who want to invest in ICO MUST do their own due diligence exercise properly before jumping in the ICO pool

[Temmy007]

I think its a great idea but one that will be hard to get off the ground because they would have to convince the ICO's to use their regulation service in the first place.
  All we need just, trusted escrow services. Anyone wanna join ICO should do their research in whitepaper, team and token it self

[coinfinder000]

After so many projects going scam the Investors or just dying before launch anything, I start think about this. I believe a project that want to raise huge funds should be backed by something big too. I know most of ICO doesn't have enough money to start the project and release announcement of their ICO with almost free money (there's website hosting payment and or copy-writers fees).

There's no guarantee for the Investors the project will ends well or the funds can be repay if something about fail gonna happen. Even they use escrow for fund, I don't think it safe because most of them using escrow that we don't really know.
We can't see people lose their money anymore. We need a trusted company or an organization with trusted people behind its to be a regulator. So every company should register their project, introduce the team (decentralized project doesn't have to be anonymous), office address (at least we know the place even if it's just a garage). And after that, the regulator decide to approve or reject. If it approved, they can make their Ann thread in this forum with regulator "approved sign".

Well it's just an opinion. It's all back to you guys to speculate money in crypto world.

Yes we need. Some scam icos do nothing for their projects but just spend the money raised from investors, no one could stop them but the government.

[reputation]

maybe we need, maybe not, it doesnt matter, this all depands on the goverment, one paper will make all ico disappear in one night, this is the power of centralization, what can you do to deal with this situation

[White sugar]

Many ICO's are outright scams, or are run by unprepared people and may end as badly as the scams, so some regulations are needed want it or not

[TrueAnon]

Anyone talking here about how we don't need any regulation should snap out of his delusions and get real. You can decentralize all you want but ppl won't trust you, the rich won't trust you.
The following comparison might sounds ridiculous to some but just compare it to Daenerys in Game of Thrones when she tried to kill all the Masters. It didn't work, you can't do anything without the support of the rich (even if you don't like it). Therefore, regulation is necessary (at first at least) to gain and build trust.

[ropyu1978]

After so many projects going scam the Investors or just dying before launch anything, I start think about this. I believe a project that want to raise huge funds should be backed by something big too. I know most of ICO doesn't have enough money to start the project and release announcement of their ICO with almost free money (there's website hosting payment and or copy-writers fees).

There's no guarantee for the Investors the project will ends well or the funds can be repay if something about fail gonna happen. Even they use escrow for fund, I don't think it safe because most of them using escrow that we don't really know.
We can't see people lose their money anymore. We need a trusted company or an organization with trusted people behind its to be a regulator. So every company should register their project, introduce the team (decentralized project doesn't have to be anonymous), office address (at least we know the place even if it's just a garage). And after that, the regulator decide to approve or reject. If it approved, they can make their Ann thread in this forum with regulator "approved sign".

Well it's just an opinion. It's all back to you guys to speculate money in crypto world.

what you say is true, good to be criticized. so it happens now, I also understand it, this problem should be discussed until we find the solution.

[fastboy619]

We need a decentralized governance system on ICO, not by the government but by ourselves.

[sommii]

Of course we need ICO regulation. There are a lot of scam shits on the forum with fake pictures and random names in white papers, lmao. People who want to make their own crypto should register their own company so everyone could check who really is working on the project. Of course it will cost a little but do you want some losers without a single cent to make ICO? I don't.

[100degrees]

Regulation is a good thing in the long term, could cause some short - medium term loses. The truth is big money will never truly flow into crypto until people stop saying SCAM and thinking SCAM. We just need a little more legitimacy and then this market could explode.

[duyduc256]

Of course we need ICO regulation. There are a lot of scam shits on the forum with fake pictures and random names in white papers, lmao. People who want to make their own crypto should register their own company so everyone could check who really is working on the project. Of course it will cost a little but do you want some losers without a single cent to make ICO? I don't.

We can not avoid phishing projects as there are now a lot of ICO projects from around the world and information on the benefits of investing in the project. I think if we invest in an ICO project with good products then surely the profit will be very high

[OneUserOne]

After so many projects going scam the Investors or just dying before launch anything, I start think about this. I believe a project that want to raise huge funds should be backed by something big too. I know most of ICO doesn't have enough money to start the project and release announcement of their ICO with almost free money (there's website hosting payment and or copy-writers fees).

There's no guarantee for the Investors the project will ends well or the funds can be repay if something about fail gonna happen. Even they use escrow for fund, I don't think it safe because most of them using escrow that we don't really know.
We can't see people lose their money anymore. We need a trusted company or an organization with trusted people behind its to be a regulator. So every company should register their project, introduce the team (decentralized project doesn't have to be anonymous), office address (at least we know the place even if it's just a garage). And after that, the regulator decide to approve or reject. If it approved, they can make their Ann thread in this forum with regulator "approved sign".

Well it's just an opinion. It's all back to you guys to speculate money in crypto world.

I regard there is a grain of truth. How many ICOs turned out to be scams without any reimbursement to their investors? How much money did investors lose because of that? Even though there is decentralization, there should a way to solve the problem with scammers whatsoever.

[carrie_white]

After so many projects going scam the Investors or just dying before launch anything, I start think about this. I believe a project that want to raise huge funds should be backed by something big too. I know most of ICO doesn't have enough money to start the project and release announcement of their ICO with almost free money (there's website hosting payment and or copy-writers fees).

There's no guarantee for the Investors the project will ends well or the funds can be repay if something about fail gonna happen. Even they use escrow for fund, I don't think it safe because most of them using escrow that we don't really know.
We can't see people lose their money anymore. We need a trusted company or an organization with trusted people behind its to be a regulator. So every company should register their project, introduce the team (decentralized project doesn't have to be anonymous), office address (at least we know the place even if it's just a garage). And after that, the regulator decide to approve or reject. If it approved, they can make their Ann thread in this forum with regulator "approved sign".

Well it's just an opinion. It's all back to you guys to speculate money in crypto world.

I strongly agree with the regulation for the ico project, because as we know, there are still many scam ico projects, in the absence of strict laws and the difficulty of tracking the perpetrators of the scam, so I think the regulation idea for the ico project is very good

[StockBet.com]

It is game over pretty much as soon as victims such as single parents supporting 4 kids and caregiving for a spouse and parent with dementia, cancer, etc. lose their life savings and the mainstream media starts reporting on these shenanigans.

That's possible, but the more likely scenario is a basement dweller geek losing his life savings, as ICOSs are still mainly bought by geeks.

And these geeks are much more skilled and knowledgeable about cryptos than your typical accredited investor, which might be a 65 year old retiree.  Regulators want to enable accredited investors to invest in ICOs but not the geek.  If a retired accredited investor loses his life savings, his life is screwed.  If the 20 year old basement dweller geek loses his life savings, its not as big of a deal.

[European Central Bank]

It's coming whether people want it or not.

The amount of money being thrown at one page websites with shit ideas can't go unnoticed forever.

It'll be interesting to see what form it takes but i think it's inevitable for americans at least.

[PowerfulGuerilla]

Of course, it's coming. Such great popularity of ICOs and cryptos won't go unnoticed.
It's needed to be regulated to get some money share of it.