Compliance is really the big issue here because we have to protect the potential investors so that they will not be victimized by scam artists who can be using the ICO platform to enrich themselves leaving the investors just holding empty bags. Maybe a self-regulating group or a body can be a big help to advanced the ICO platform.
I agree and very much appreciate self-regulating initiatives like Williams
Tokenfilings but besides regulation, I do see big issues on the tax side as well as on future class actions if some (scams or not) ICO projects do not deliver as expected (and the pixie dust is blown away). This then would make foundations a more safe vehicle for token issuance, I guess.
Would be great to hear your ideas on how you structured and/or would structure a token issue in your respective jurisdiction.
Per the recent SEC guidance, if there is any profit sharing scheme or dividend dispersion attached to the token/coin, it is considered a security and thus cannot be offered as part of a crowdfunding venture attached to a non profit, as non profits cant issue shares. the dudes that are issuing the TribeToken and ACT token may need to rethink their model. it seems the cleanest way to structure this, in my novice eyes, would be to to issue a scrip of sorts; dollars that can be used on the platform for enhanced functionality or to redeem for prizes/rewards that dont have an equivalent fiat value. An example would be the Kin token (if Kik Messenger were a non profit) . The only thing you can do with a Kin token is buy stickers and emoji and stuff like that on the Kik platform. There is no transfer of real value; no way to facilitate money laundering or tax avoidance.
this is what crowdfunded game developers do; they offer enhanced functionality or pay for play game perks for early adopters.
but, people will not be interested in these as much (ICOs) if they have no profit motive
