ICO certification service needed

[theymos]

I'm getting a bunch of ICOs wanting to advertise on the forum, but I don't have time to do more than a very cursory review of each. Somebody trustworthy needs to set up a certification service that will work like this:

An ICO will pay you to apply for a certification. You will then spend many hours thoroughly reviewing everything about them in order to determine that they're at least basically sane. Some things that you should maybe check:

 - If they're planning on creating software, require that they have the software already 5% done, preferably with a working proof-of-concept that you can play around with. Check that they haven't just filled a github repo with copy-pasted garbage code from elsewhere which doesn't actually do anything relevant.
 - If they're planning on operating a real-world business (solar, mining, etc.), check that they have a registered business somewhere. Do a background check on all involved individuals. Require that they have some of the necessary assets (property, etc.) already purchased, and verify this using public records, etc.
 - Check that there are no reasonable open scam accusations against anyone involved.
 - If smart contracts are used, verify that the English terms match the smart contract terms. If there's any way for the smart contract terms to be changed, make sure that this is specified in the English terms.
 - After reading all of their public info, ensure that there is no deception or any glaring holes.
 - Check their website for copy-pasted text, photoshopped images, and fake people.

If they fail your criteria, then you should not certify them. That's important. If you just give a certification to everyone who pays you, you're useless. You should keep the application fee even if they fail, though in some cases you could allow them to reapply for certification after failing with a reduced fee. Your goal should be to eventually be able to publish a statistic like, "99% of ICOs I certified did not turn out to be scams." You should not attempt to certify that ICOs will actually appreciate in value or anything -- that'd be far too difficult --, but just that the collected money will be used as advertised.

Once I notice that a good, trustworthy certification service like this exists, I will require that ICOs wanting to advertise on the forum receive such a certification. (If/when there are multiple good certification services, I will publish a list of ones I consider acceptable.) So you'll get a built-in market from this, and even if an ICO has no interest in advertising on the forum, acquiring a widely-trusted certification has significant value in itself.

[CUNÉGONDE]

wow, if it is put into practice, I believe that many ICO projects will be sinked.

but there is another problem - audit man review project, but who review the audit man? how to avoid the audit collusion ICO team?

[desticy]

how to be a certification staff? any application and qualification needed?

[LakeBTC]

we are very interested.  and LakeBanker project website is https://lakebanker.com/  how do we proceed?

[Last of the V8s]

we are very interested.  ... how do we proceed?

pivot to not being an incestuous sleazy fuckhead

[NewWorldCoiner]

I out scammers all the time on here for free, but hey, if someone wants to pay me to do it full time, no problem.

[ethtraderdude]

- Check their website for copy-pasted text, photoshopped images, and fake people.

how does one go about verifying fake people? in most cases founders don't seem to be high profile or well known

[Redaxo]

We need an ICO for this!

 

[hilariousetc]

Can we extend this to any ICOs wanting to Announce their projects here? Otherwise all this is going to do is take away even more money from the forum and encourage them to run even bigger spamfests of signature campaigns that they won't do anything about.

wow, if it is put into practice, I believe that many ICO projects will be sinked.

It won't unless the same practice applies to announcing them at all here. This just seems to be for advertising slots and most of them are too cheap to advertise via them anyway.

[theymos]

Some people seem to have misunderstood: I'm not trying to recruit people here for something that I would manage; I want you to set this up, on your own and independently. Then if you do a good job, I would require that advertisers receive your certification (or a similar one).

how does one go about verifying fake people? in most cases founders don't seem to be high profile or well known

Usually these team pages say stuff like "XYZ team member has worked in the field for 100 years, and is recognized across the universe as the #1 expert." They should prove those qualifications to the certifier.

Most people leave traces that you can find. If there are one or two who can't be linked to anything, then that's probably fine. Also, it's fine if the people are pseudonymous but have a good pseudonymous history (eg. they've written a lot of code, etc.). But if the whole team is full of ghosts with no verifiable achievements, then that's awfully suspicious.

Can we extend this to any ICOs wanting to Announce their projects here?

That'd probably be too restrictive.

[LeGaulois]

And how are you going to choose someone? Corruption always works, especially with money offered. I am afraid after some time the guy can start to look around a way to accept money without you see/check something is not clean in the project.
Don't you have someone in your team able to do this?

[petrov752]

Very interesting proposal, but the qualitative test requires a lengthy due diligence. You  talk about management due diligence. It is necessary to Supplement the audit code, audit of financial models, escrow etc. I suggest doing it immediately at a good level. But this check takes time, and therefore money. It is necessary to understand the approximate cost of certification.

Further, can such a work order:

1) we propose a methodology
2) you confirm it
3) we start to work on the methodology
4) we make a certificate and add it to the blockchain. (or its hash as done in SilentNotary)
5) anyone can check.

Methodology public - The result of the public - there is no place of corruption.

[CIF]

This doesn't have to be an individual effort. It can be a verified team with checks and balances.

[petrov752]

This doesn't have to be an individual effort. It can be a verified team with checks and balances.

My experience working with Moody's and Fitch Ratings shows that each counterparty meets one analyst. But, on the project work team.

[JayJuanGee]

Some people seem to have misunderstood: I'm not trying to recruit people here for something that I would manage; I want you to set this up, on your own and independently. Then if you do a good job, I would require that advertisers receive your certification (or a similar one).

how does one go about verifying fake people? in most cases founders don't seem to be high profile or well known

Usually these team pages say stuff like "XYZ team member has worked in the field for 100 years, and is recognized across the universe as the #1 expert." They should prove those qualifications to the certifier.

Most people leave traces that you can find. If there are one or two who can't be linked to anything, then that's probably fine. Also, it's fine if the people are pseudonymous but have a good pseudonymous history (eg. they've written a lot of code, etc.). But if the whole team is full of ghosts with no verifiable achievements, then that's awfully suspicious.

Can we extend this to any ICOs wanting to Announce their projects here?

That'd probably be too restrictive.

Sounds like a really great business idea for someone who has the necessary skills and time and is also able to assemble a team.  Sure, at first the fee would likely be lower, but as the person or team builds a certification reputation, he/they can increase fees  - I would imagine fees of $3k to $10k would not be unreasonable in the earlier stages of this process.  Would probably take hundreds of hours of work and looking into, and of course the more experienced and the better auditing systems and skills are developed, the quicker and more reliable the  accreditation would become.

[CIF]

Some people seem to have misunderstood: I'm not trying to recruit people here for something that I would manage; I want you to set this up, on your own and independently. Then if you do a good job, I would require that advertisers receive your certification (or a similar one).

how does one go about verifying fake people? in most cases founders don't seem to be high profile or well known

Usually these team pages say stuff like "XYZ team member has worked in the field for 100 years, and is recognized across the universe as the #1 expert." They should prove those qualifications to the certifier.

Most people leave traces that you can find. If there are one or two who can't be linked to anything, then that's probably fine. Also, it's fine if the people are pseudonymous but have a good pseudonymous history (eg. they've written a lot of code, etc.). But if the whole team is full of ghosts with no verifiable achievements, then that's awfully suspicious.

Can we extend this to any ICOs wanting to Announce their projects here?

That'd probably be too restrictive.

Sounds like a really great business idea for someone who has the necessary skills and time and is also able to assemble a team.  Sure, at first the fee would likely be lower, but as the person or team builds a certification reputation, he/they can increase fees  - I would imagine fees of $3k to $10k would not be unreasonable in the earlier stages of this process.  Would probably take hundreds of hours of work and looking into, and of course the more experienced and the better auditing systems and skills are developed, the quicker and more reliable the  accreditation would become.

If this is going to happen, and it sounds like for the betterment of the community.. although it is known how important Bitcointalk is for ICO's you have to make sure there is measurable reward for advertising on this site. ICO's will just allocate marketing budgets to other avenues if you don't put a case together.

[petrov752]

Colleagues it would be a interesting project for me!

I have some experience in a related field. I worked as credit analyst and risk manager in banks, and also engaged in the organization of financing (CLN,Eurobonds, Syndicate loan).
If theymos will give me 1-2 days, I will prepare a draft methodology for certification of ICO and will post it here for discussion.

[Hui8]

It is very good idea @theymos. I think there should be implementation of software for uploading of docs and real proofs. Could you please give the idea whether there is need of such things? Like solid proofs of ICO founder or entity. Where we can find more idea about this or rules for instance. This will expand our imagination limit and we can try to implement more new ideas.

[hilariousetc]

Can we extend this to any ICOs wanting to Announce their projects here?

That'd probably be too restrictive.

This forum needs some restrictions. It's because there are no rules that anyone can just create a crapcoin and get away with spamming the forum with hundreds of accounts and with absolutely no consequences to them all whilst they take in millions in the process. All this is going to do is make sure the very few people who actually bid on ad slots wont bother now especially when they can just get unlimited advertising for free via a signature campaign.

[JayJuanGee]

Colleagues it would be a interesting project for me!

I have some experience in a related field. I worked as credit analyst and risk manager in banks, and also engaged in the organization of financing (CLN,Eurobonds, Syndicate loan).
If theymos will give me 1-2 days, I will prepare a draft methodology for certification of ICO and will post it here for discussion.

I doubt that it is necessary to publish your methodologies, except maybe as some of your internal documents that attempt to get clients to use your services to get certified... and also maybe as a means to provide some of the information to folks that might end up working on your team - that is if you can convince half of the scammer ICOs to attempt to get certified. 

I imagine a large majority of the ICOs don't want to get certified or to pay for certification until it becomes a thing and if it seems necessary.  If they are able to raise $100s of millions in days, then why the fuck they gonna want to get certified and expose all their weaknesses, unless certification does become a thing, and in that regard, one of the most important things is that anyone planning to engage in such a certification process to be a leader, self-motivated and establishing reasonable standards, as already outlined by Theymos.. and at the same time figuring out a ways to communicate the standards without necessarily revealing some of your trade secrets...   So maybe you go out there and certify a bunch of ICOs with grades and for free or some other way to attempt to monetize.. because everyone has to get paid at some point..  - and then some of the ICOs may be able to get better grades if they cooperate with you to audit them and they check out to be A okay.. on a deeper level.. it is a good idea, but no easy task to carry out without a lot of work..

[petrov752]

Colleagues it would be a interesting project for me!

I have some experience in a related field. I worked as credit analyst and risk manager in banks, and also engaged in the organization of financing (CLN,Eurobonds, Syndicate loan).
If theymos will give me 1-2 days, I will prepare a draft methodology for certification of ICO and will post it here for discussion.

I doubt that it is necessary to publish your methodologies, except maybe as some of your internal documents that attempt to get clients to use your services to get certified... and also maybe as a means to provide some of the information to folks that might end up working on your team - that is if you can convince half of the scammer ICOs to attempt to get certified.  

I imagine a large majority of the ICOs don't want to get certified or to pay for certification until it becomes a thing and if it seems necessary.  If they are able to raise $100s of millions in days, then why the fuck they gonna want to get certified and expose all their weaknesses, unless certification does become a thing, and in that regard, one of the most important things is that anyone planning to engage in such a certification process to be a leader, self-motivated and establishing reasonable standards, as already outlined by Theymos.. and at the same time figuring out a ways to communicate the standards without necessarily revealing some of your trade secrets...   So maybe you go out there and certify a bunch of ICOs with grades and for free or some other way to attempt to monetize.. because everyone has to get paid at some point..  - and then some of the ICOs may be able to get better grades if they cooperate with you to audit them and they check out to be A okay.. on a deeper level.. it is a good idea, but no easy task to carry out without a lot of work..

A)  There are three ways of publicity methodology

     1) methodology is public for everyone, in this case, anyone can recalculate and check the result.
     2) the methodology open for the customer in this case is the administration of the forum.
     3) Not a public methodology, in this case the certificate is accompanied by expert opinion.

     Here need to get administration opinion.

B)  1-2 days to make the methodology fail I will only describe the approaches of analysis of the possible methods and results, this information may be public in any case.

C)   At the initial moment the ICO Team are not interested in obtaining a certificate, so it can be "imposed" service. Further, in the case of a certain quality and a certain PR it can become a separate direction.
        In the case of support from the administration I am willing to actively participate (work, to set a goal, recruit a team, etc.)

D)  The price of the certificate is established in consultation with the administration.

[giveen]

This is a good idea but there is no exact way to determine if the ico is legit. They can pass all the copy pasting tests , all the software tests, smart contract , transperant ico but still this won't certainly be enough because investors are investing in something which is irreversible and after getting certified the owner can change his mind or not deliver what they promised in that situation there's nothing we can do. Secondly they will start adding sponsored which leads to even more bullshit and finally if the guy who verifies wants to make more money he may just ask to give more funds to certify their project. The idea is good but there is a less chance to work.

[petrov752]

This is a good idea but there is no exact way to determine if the ico is legit. They can pass all the copy pasting tests , all the software tests, smart contract , transperant ico but still this won't certainly be enough because investors are investing in something which is irreversible and after getting certified the owner can change his mind or not deliver what they promised in that situation there's nothing we can do. Secondly they will start adding sponsored which leads to even more bullshit and finally if the guy who verifies wants to make more money he may just ask to give more funds to certify their project. The idea is good but there is a less chance to work.

The certificate cannot give guarantees that the money will be returned to investors. He confirms that the ICO has been tested by this technique. If we understand that the procedure works poorly, we change it. As concerns the second question there are two answers, the reputation or publicity. In classical economics, the rating agencies work on the basis of reputation. Here are the options with the publicity.

[CIF]

Colleagues it would be a interesting project for me!

I have some experience in a related field. I worked as credit analyst and risk manager in banks, and also engaged in the organization of financing (CLN,Eurobonds, Syndicate loan).
If theymos will give me 1-2 days, I will prepare a draft methodology for certification of ICO and will post it here for discussion.

I doubt that it is necessary to publish your methodologies, except maybe as some of your internal documents that attempt to get clients to use your services to get certified... and also maybe as a means to provide some of the information to folks that might end up working on your team - that is if you can convince half of the scammer ICOs to attempt to get certified. 

I imagine a large majority of the ICOs don't want to get certified or to pay for certification until it becomes a thing and if it seems necessary.  If they are able to raise $100s of millions in days, then why the fuck they gonna want to get certified and expose all their weaknesses, unless certification does become a thing, and in that regard, one of the most important things is that anyone planning to engage in such a certification process to be a leader, self-motivated and establishing reasonable standards, as already outlined by Theymos.. and at the same time figuring out a ways to communicate the standards without necessarily revealing some of your trade secrets...   So maybe you go out there and certify a bunch of ICOs with grades and for free or some other way to attempt to monetize.. because everyone has to get paid at some point..  - and then some of the ICOs may be able to get better grades if they cooperate with you to audit them and they check out to be A okay.. on a deeper level.. it is a good idea, but no easy task to carry out without a lot of work..

You're basically trying to become the SEC by doing this its a very time consuming/sensitive plan. I just can't imagine this working out well if it's not run by a larger organization. Like Jay said - you need to get more than one forum on board to enforce this.

[hilariousetc]

This is a good idea but there is no exact way to determine if the ico is legit. They can pass all the copy pasting tests , all the software tests, smart contract , transperant ico but still this won't certainly be enough because investors are investing in something which is irreversible and after getting certified the owner can change his mind or not deliver what they promised in that situation there's nothing we can do. Secondly they will start adding sponsored which leads to even more bullshit and finally if the guy who verifies wants to make more money he may just ask to give more funds to certify their project. The idea is good but there is a less chance to work.

It's not meant to be an absolute guarantee that an ICO is legit, but more just of a vetting process to minimise risk. You could have all the qualifications to look after kids and pass all the background checks, but still doesn't mean to say they still wont abuse them. This is no different. It will at least weed out a lot of lazy ICOs who can't even be bothered putting in the minimum amount of work.

[petrov752]

I made a chart of the estimated risks. Please add to view, give comments.
Under certification it seems to me should fall the branches the risk of crowdfunding and the status of the project.

[Dullmartini]

I made a chart of the estimated risks. Please add to view, give comments.
Under certification it seems to me should fall the branches the risk of crowdfunding and the status of the project.

That is a really good chart!

From the top of my head; in financial risk,  the risk they run out of money before project can be operationalized. What does the ico intend to do with funds? Do they already have financing from elsewhere?

Also in legal risk I think if they're entering a heavily regulated industry (eg those ico's trying to set up a stock exchange trading real shares with crypto) that increases the risk exponentially

[petrov752]

Also in legal risk I think if they're entering a heavily regulated industry (eg those ico's trying to set up a stock exchange trading real shares with crypto) that increases the risk exponentially

About the legal risk, I don't think we need to evaluate at an early stage. However, beyond the confirmation of existence of legal entities.

[petrov752]

The scheme of influence of various factors on the rating depending on the type of project.

[Dullmartini]

Also in legal risk I think if they're entering a heavily regulated industry (eg those ico's trying to set up a stock exchange trading real shares with crypto) that increases the risk exponentially

About the legal risk, I don't think we need to evaluate at an early stage. However, beyond the confirmation of existence of legal entities.

Interesting. I'm curious about why you wouldn't do it upfront? And if not at the beginning, then when?

[petrov752]

Interesting. I'm curious about why you wouldn't do it upfront? And if not at the beginning, then when?

Because until there is a sufficiently large number of judicial precedents in important jurisdictions, the large legal companies are not willing to look at ICO. So for the time being, you can check the availability of legal entities in the registers, the founders, etc.

[giveen]

This is a good idea but there is no exact way to determine if the ico is legit. They can pass all the copy pasting tests , all the software tests, smart contract , transperant ico but still this won't certainly be enough because investors are investing in something which is irreversible and after getting certified the owner can change his mind or not deliver what they promised in that situation there's nothing we can do. Secondly they will start adding sponsored which leads to even more bullshit and finally if the guy who verifies wants to make more money he may just ask to give more funds to certify their project. The idea is good but there is a less chance to work.

It's not meant to be an absolute guarantee that an ICO is legit, but more just of a vetting process to minimise risk. You could have all the qualifications to look after kids and pass all the background checks, but still doesn't mean to say they still wont abuse them. This is no different. It will at least weed out a lot of lazy ICOs who can't even be bothered putting in the minimum amount of work.

See in my opinion a there are various types of ICO.
First category is serious , this means weather the ico is being raised for actually developing a software , a product or anything which requires development. Now another serious is when they actually get is listed on good exchanges. In terms of investors all we care is to sell it for at least double the amount we invested in ICO so the company makes sure it lists on different exchanges.
Another category would be advertisement. As theymos said he doesn't want scam ICO's to advertise which is right but if you notice without these huge signature campaigns and forum ads the company won't even be able to raised $1k, spending funds on advertisement would mean they actually want to raise funds maybe for personal use but in end whenever these companies raise in millions it's like a guarantee that our investment will double or even triple
The last category would be as you said the lazy ones, these are the people who purchase one forum ads and distributes coins as bounty which is the worth thing they can do. Giving their coins as bounty is for sure a huge dump and most likely they list it on yobit. This can be the only category we can say it will never certify for example ethbits or eth link who claims to raise millions but barely anything.

The scheme of influence of various factors on the rating depending on the type of project.

https://i.imgur.com/eySiFvc.png

This makes sense but verifying all that can take a lot of time and it can't always be the same there will be variations.

[petrov752]

giveen

Above, I described the types of ICO for the evaluation it was possible to give different weight to different factors and to check that either with less or more attention.
For example, in ICO there is a strong team, is it important? If so, the ICO refers to the type of services for the classic economy it is not essential (there may be a very simple smart contracts) If we are talking about the ICO for product development in the field of blockchain technology is critical.

You do not write about the types ICO. And about the ranking as I understand it. And indicate You offer the following scale:

[Quickseller]

Your goal should be to eventually be able to publish a statistic like, "99% of ICOs I certified did not turn out to be scams."

The word "scam" is very subjective, especially in the ICO/securities space.

A lot of companies end up failing for one reason or another. Also many Bitcoin-related (crypto-related) businesses are run 'honestly' for a person, and their owners eventually scam.

It is my personal belief that ICOs are probably not worth their hassle to allow them to advertise here. There is too much regulatory/legal risks for them to be worth what amount of advertising revenue they bring in. Even is no regulatory sanctions are levied against you, various US regulators can cause headaches.

[|Bitkoin|]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. IT is like companies which now offer verification, like Facebook verify store pages/businesses and twitter verifies profile... and Airbnb verifies photos... so a company should verify ICO legitimacy.

[bitjoin]

I out scammers all the time on here for free, but hey, if someone wants to pay me to do it full time, no problem.

If you are providing some kind of structure to how you make your judgements with some kind of track record then you could provide that service for the forum.  That is what OP is asking for.

[NewWorldCoiner]

I out scammers all the time on here for free, but hey, if someone wants to pay me to do it full time, no problem.

If you are providing some kind of structure to how you make your judgements with some kind of track record then you could provide that service for the forum.  That is what OP is asking for.

I know what the OP is asking for, and the reason why. All these scam ICO's will soon become detrimental to the forum that he owns, and possibly cause him some unwanted attention from the authorities.

I have no experience setting up a website or platform to provide this service, but I can spot scams a mile away. I also know how to find all the necessary information in order to expose them. Some of the ones you find on here are a joke, so I have fun with them, like 419 baiting. Some are more elaborate, like Monkey Capital for example. When people started revealing on their thread some of the information I already had, like Mr Harrison's property scam, the involvement of people already linked to scams, fake twitter followers, etc, I decided not to post the wealth of damning information I have on Mr Harrison. There seemed to be no need. I believed that nobody in their right mind would invest after reading these facts. But I was clearly wrong. Even when Mr Harrison started threatening violence against people who were exposing him, some people still chose to invest. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Especially when sock puppets start claiming the water is actually poison placed there by a troll.

Mr Harrison has a long history of lies and self promotion in order to perpetuate his scams. He created a backstory for himself by "researching" his own family background, apparently in order to impress his girlfriend, something I find highly dubious given the illustrious history of the Harrison printing company. http://www.jnbarcock.co.uk/Autobiography%20Documents.html

More red flags were raised by his wikipedia pages being deleted for unverifiable claims, inaccuracies, and conflict of interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_November_17#Daniel_Mark_Harrison
Using the link above as a starting point, you can find many issues giving cause for concern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmhco
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Harrison_(Music_Producer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_91#Daniel_Mark_Harrison

Mr Harrison is also an expert in starting numerous companies all of which fizzle out after a year, meaning he never has to file any accounts.
http://www.hongkongcompany.net/Dmhco-Hong-Kong-Limited-ohkccibhk/#.WaM5RyiGM2w
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10152499
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08766275
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08548227
https://www.companieslist.co.uk/prev/08548227-thonglor-global-ventures-limited
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08382933

Thonglor is very interesting. Their website is no longer accessible, but the wayback machine has some info for us.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130516232953/http://thonglor.co.th/

Does anyone here believe that they funded three hydro power stations, or that they ever had the money to do so? I certainly don't, especially as I can't find any information on the project or the company which they claim to have signed MOU's with.

This is just part of the information I had on July 11th when I queried the due diligence performed by Coinschedule.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2003741.msg20073900#msg20073900

So in short, I know how to do this, and I also have the motivation to do it. I detest scammers, and as many of them as possible need to be eradicated from this space. But my time is my own, and until I'm offered financial reward for doing this, there will obviously be limitations in the amount of time and effort I dedicate to uncovering scams for purely altruistic reasons. I thought I may have been contacted by whoever is setting up this service, but alas, my inbox is bare. Feel free to trawl my post history to see what else I have exposed.

P.S. I am as far as I'm aware the only person to have uncovered the new identity used by the URO coin scammer Nilesh Nair. It wasn't hard to find, but I'm keeping it to myself for now. Softly softly catch ye monkey.  

[Bunsomjelican]

I'm getting a bunch of ICOs wanting to advertise on the forum, but I don't have time to do more than a very cursory review of each. Somebody trustworthy needs to set up a certification service that will work like this:

An ICO will pay you to apply for a certification. You will then spend many hours thoroughly reviewing everything about them in order to determine that they're at least basically sane. Some things that you should maybe check:

 - If they're planning on creating software, require that they have the software already 5% done, preferably with a working proof-of-concept that you can play around with. Check that they haven't just filled a github repo with copy-pasted garbage code from elsewhere which doesn't actually do anything relevant.
 - If they're planning on operating a real-world business (solar, mining, etc.), check that they have a registered business somewhere. Do a background check on all involved individuals. Require that they have some of the necessary assets (property, etc.) already purchased, and verify this using public records, etc.
 - Check that there are no reasonable open scam accusations against anyone involved.
 - If smart contracts are used, verify that the English terms match the smart contract terms. If there's any way for the smart contract terms to be changed, make sure that this is specified in the English terms.
 - After reading all of their public info, ensure that there is no deception or any glaring holes.
 - Check their website for copy-pasted text, photoshopped images, and fake people.

If they fail your criteria, then you should not certify them. That's important. If you just give a certification to everyone who pays you, you're useless. You should keep the application fee even if they fail, though in some cases you could allow them to reapply for certification after failing with a reduced fee. Your goal should be to eventually be able to publish a statistic like, "99% of ICOs I certified did not turn out to be scams." You should not attempt to certify that ICOs will actually appreciate in value or anything -- that'd be far too difficult --, but just that the collected money will be used as advertised.

Once I notice that a good, trustworthy certification service like this exists, I will require that ICOs wanting to advertise on the forum receive such a certification. (If/when there are multiple good certification services, I will publish a list of ones I consider acceptable.) So you'll get a built-in market from this, and even if an ICO has no interest in advertising on the forum, acquiring a widely-trusted certification has significant value in itself.

This is a great and good topic discussion regarding about establishing the ICO's in the forum, according to your statement these are the rules and qualification regarding about in giving certification in one ICO project in this industry. For so many ICO's that has been rise up here where most of them are just crappy coins or shitcoins many became a victim by them. Why not try to give some other restriction in putting an ICO project in the forum, at least anyhow every ICo token will be determine as one of the good ICO project because it has a certifcation, which means they've pass all they need to comply in this industry.

[thehun]

I believe the assessments our company makes as a requirement for prospective customers fit quite well in the definition of what you're looking for.

I have sent you a PM with more information 

[Lauda]

I believe the assessments our company makes as a requirement for prospective customers fit quite well in the definition of what you're looking for.

Is this some kind of bad joke?

Our partnership with Bancor means we work exclusively on projects utilising Bancor smart tokens - and our expertise with the Bancor platform positions us perfectly to guide those projects through the crowdfund process.

You let that scam happen.

[pisston]

I believe the assessments our company makes as a requirement for prospective customers fit quite well in the definition of what you're looking for.

Is this some kind of bad joke?

Our partnership with Bancor means we work exclusively on projects utilising Bancor smart tokens - and our expertise with the Bancor platform positions us perfectly to guide those projects through the crowdfund process.

You let that scam happen.

I wonder how they get the services of such a service is very dubious people and teams. I have seen a lot of ico on the forum today, which do not correspond to the declared document.

[Lauda]

I believe the assessments our company makes as a requirement for prospective customers fit quite well in the definition of what you're looking for.

Is this some kind of bad joke?

Our partnership with Bancor means we work exclusively on projects utilising Bancor smart tokens - and our expertise with the Bancor platform positions us perfectly to guide those projects through the crowdfund process.

You let that scam happen.

I wonder how they get the services of such a service is very dubious people and teams. I have seen a lot of ico on the forum today, which do not correspond to the declared document.

Scammers have very low to non existing criteria. Bancor is a prime example of obvious money grab with a flawed idea and zero people with any actual (relevant) knowledge. I was thinking about establishing a certification service, but I am almost certain that pretty much no one[1] grasps how complex a proper certification service for this would be. A "pass vs. fail" certification is definitely out of the rule. It would be too simple, imprecise and likely be inconsistent. What it requires is a grading scale, where the resulting grade is a combination of grades from several areas (similar to language certification) in addition to a level above which a service could be "certified". Theymos could then decide whether a project with a lower passing grade should be allowed to advertise or not.
[1] I've seen at least 1 person in this thread that took this thing seriously.

[hilariousetc]

This service would be great in theory, but if it was run by people who knew what they were doing and doing a thorough job then probably 99% of ICOs would not pass it. Even the ICOs that probably have a good idea or start off with the best of intentions will likely have no idea what they're doing and mismanage funds and the project will just straight up fail or turn into a scam somewhere.

I out scammers all the time on here for free, but hey, if someone wants to pay me to do it full time, no problem.

If you are providing some kind of structure to how you make your judgements with some kind of track record then you could provide that service for the forum.  That is what OP is asking for.

I know what the OP is asking for, and the reason why. All these scam ICO's will soon become detrimental to the forum that he owns, and possibly cause him some unwanted attention from the authorities.

Not necessarily, and I don't even think this would work because they'll still likely not be SEC compliant. He's probably just uneasy about advertising these blatant cash-grab scams which just seem to be rinses and repeats of the same bullshit under a different name and gimmick. With that being said, I've always wondered how long it would be before this forum caught some sort of heat because sometimes it just seems like a darknet market on a clear-net site. I mean, we have an entire sub board for what are essentially ponzis and pyramid schemes but if I recall correctly theymos mentioned he had taken legal advice regarding it or them being allowed to operate here (though don't quote me on that and maybe theymos could clarify). It would also be interesting to know if any threats or serious attention from the authorities has actually been made as this forum is pretty much the main hub of ICOs. I think it's only a matter of time before ICO campaigns are straight up made illegal - because they likely already technically are - or at least cracked down on extensively. They are pretty much a prime example of what happens with completely unregulated financial markets and how greed and scammers always take advantage of that.   

[MalReynolds]

Hey, The Naga Group is interested in some advertisement on Bitcointalk. https://www.nagaico.com

How can we proceed certification services?

Looking forward hearing from you!

[Lauda]

How can we proceed certification services?

There are no credible certification services as of yet. This thread is a discussion thread about establishing such services and not about certification.

[JayJuanGee]

I believe the assessments our company makes as a requirement for prospective customers fit quite well in the definition of what you're looking for.

Is this some kind of bad joke?

Our partnership with Bancor means we work exclusively on projects utilising Bancor smart tokens - and our expertise with the Bancor platform positions us perfectly to guide those projects through the crowdfund process.

You let that scam happen.

hahahahahaha...

Yeah, let the scammers come in and tell us which ICOs are "good" and which ones are "bad."  That's a great idea!!!!!


Thanks for pointing out such absurdity of the suggestion of thehun, Lauda.

[Cøbra]

I guess the forum itself could do it, since that probably would be the only way for there to exist a certification service that ICOs will actually feel like they need to go through to attract investors. Otherwise most ICOs will just ignore the certification service since it won't be worth exposing themselves to such scrutiny just to be able to bid to buy advertising.

Maybe there could be two certification products with such a service? A "basic" which would be cheaper but more quick; that would be an analysis to make sure the proposed product is viable and actually makes sense, the people behind it are legitimate and real, and the amount being raised doesn't seem excessive. Then there could be an "advanced" certification scheme which would be more rigorous and involved. Things could be set up so that only ICOs with a basic certification can post, but ICOs with advanced certification can buy advertising and take advantage of signature campaigns.

This has the added benefit that every ICO presented on the forum will at least have gone through a basic check which would push out all the obvious scams. The money earned from proceeds from basic certification can then pay for the in depth research and analysis that would be required to do any advanced certifications.

[thehun]

I believe the assessments our company makes as a requirement for prospective customers fit quite well in the definition of what you're looking for.

Is this some kind of bad joke?

Our partnership with Bancor means we work exclusively on projects utilising Bancor smart tokens - and our expertise with the Bancor platform positions us perfectly to guide those projects through the crowdfund process.

You let that scam happen.

I wonder how they get the services of such a service is very dubious people and teams. I have seen a lot of ico on the forum today, which do not correspond to the declared document.

Scammers have very low to non existing criteria. Bancor is a prime example of obvious money grab with a flawed idea and zero people with any actual (relevant) knowledge. I was thinking about establishing a certification service, but I am almost certain that pretty much no one[1] grasps how complex a proper certification service for this would be. A "pass vs. fail" certification is definitely out of the rule. It would be too simple, imprecise and likely be inconsistent. What it requires is a grading scale, where the resulting grade is a combination of grades from several areas (similar to language certification) in addition to a level above which a service could be "certified". Theymos could then decide whether a project with a lower passing grade should be allowed to advertise or not.
[1] I've seen at least 1 person in this thread that took this thing seriously.

Hello Lauda,

First of all we did not "let it happen" because AmaZix didn't exist yet when Bancor launched their token sale.

Second, I happen to be in Tel Aviv meeting with the Bancor team in their offices and they don't have "zero people" but a team of 20+ persons working hard to come forward.

You can criticize the project in any way you want but calling it a scam when they have a working product that is constantly being developed is unfair and not at all objective.

Finally, a certification service will never assure investors that the project is going to be successful and make them any profits, in any field the majority of startups end up going broke despite being legit and having a solid plan.

[Lauda]

First of all we did not "let it happen" because AmaZix didn't exist yet when Bancor launched their token sale.

Yet you flaunt that project on your website. Quite amateurish TBH.

Second, I happen to be in Tel Aviv meeting with the Bancor team in their offices and they don't have "zero people" but a team of 20+ persons working hard to come forward.

I said zero people with actual relevant knowledge. Random developers from random areas are absolutely not people with relevant knowledge. Also: "hard working people != experts".

You can criticize the project in any way you want but calling it a scam when they have a working product that is constantly being developed is unfair and not at all objective.

Objectively, it's a money grabbing scam. It should not exist, yet it does.

Finally, a certification service will never assure investors that the project is going to be successful and make them any profits, in any field the majority of startups end up going broke despite being legit and having a solid plan.

Nobody claimed that.

[thehun]

First of all we did not "let it happen" because AmaZix didn't exist yet when Bancor launched their token sale.

Yet you flaunt that project on your website. Quite amateurish TBH.

We are partners of Bancor. Some of our founding members were moderating their Telegram groups and eventually decided to set up a company and continue cooperation with Bancor.

Second, I happen to be in Tel Aviv meeting with the Bancor team in their offices and they don't have "zero people" but a team of 20+ persons working hard to come forward.

I said zero people with actual relevant knowledge. Random developers from random areas are absolutely not people with relevant knowledge. Also: "hard working people != experts".

I don't agree with that. They have a working product and several projects using it. What additional "relevant knowledge" is needed?

You can criticize the project in any way you want but calling it a scam when they have a working product that is constantly being developed is unfair and not at all objective.

Objectively, it's a money grabbing scam. It should not exist, yet it does.

Again I disagree. The concept of Bancor is backed by a good purpose and many use cases. The importance of liquidity (or the lack of it) is not to be underestimated. Of course this might be debatable but there is a good percentage of people who would agree with me so I don't think "it should not exist".

Finally, a certification service will never assure investors that the project is going to be successful and make them any profits, in any field the majority of startups end up going broke despite being legit and having a solid plan.

Nobody claimed that.

Not explicitly but I have the impression that most scam accusations are based on the current price of the token. Had it appreciated in value I bet most of these discussions wouldn't exist at all.

[TE-FOOD]

Guys, I think for such certification, it's important to separate

legitimacy certification

from

quality validation.

The first one just aims to separate legit ICOs from Scam ICOs. I think this was the original goal of starting this thread.

The second one (quality validation) is a grey area, there are no exact KPIs which would match each project.

[akamit]

The idea of certification is well thought by Theymos.
But to execute such service will be very challenging and expensive.
The certificate an ICO project will receive will not be limited to advertise herein but it will prevent scam/low projects.

Please check this link. Bittrex has a minimum of $5000 fee to review a coin/token
https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/articles/227902667-What-is-a-compliance-review-

Team verification process will be very challenging.
Lets say an Ico project has 5 team members and resides in 5 different countries.
Then the certificate issuer need to hire 5 lawyers in 5 different countries to check their backgrounds and other information.

This going to be very expensive for ICO starters. They will think 100 times before thinking of an ICO.

This is for sure, that we really need this kind of service as soon as possible.

It seems, now we can count stars in the sky. But we will not be able to count ICOs/coins/tokens in near future.

[TE-FOOD]

The idea of certification is well thought by Theymos.
But to execute such service will be very challenging and expensive.
The certificate an ICO project will receive will not be limited to advertise herein but it will prevent scam/low projects.

Please check this link. Bittrex has a minimum of $5000 fee to review a coin/token
https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/articles/227902667-What-is-a-compliance-review-

Team verification process will be very challenging.
Lets say an Ico project has 5 team members and resides in 5 different countries.
Then the certificate issuer need to hire 5 lawyers in 5 different countries to check their backgrounds and other information.

This going to be very expensive for ICO starters. They will think 100 times before thinking of an ICO.

This is for sure, that we really need this kind of service as soon as possible.

It seems, now we can count stars in the sky. But we will not be able to count ICOs/coins/tokens in near future.

I think it's enough to check the backgrounds of the founders, they run the business.

[BenOnceAgain]

I'm getting a bunch of ICOs wanting to advertise on the forum, but I don't have time to do more than a very cursory review of each. Somebody trustworthy needs to set up a certification service that will work like this:

An ICO will pay you to apply for a certification. You will then spend many hours thoroughly reviewing everything about them in order to determine that they're at least basically sane. Some things that you should maybe check:

 - If they're planning on creating software, require that they have the software already 5% done, preferably with a working proof-of-concept that you can play around with. Check that they haven't just filled a github repo with copy-pasted garbage code from elsewhere which doesn't actually do anything relevant.
 - If they're planning on operating a real-world business (solar, mining, etc.), check that they have a registered business somewhere. Do a background check on all involved individuals. Require that they have some of the necessary assets (property, etc.) already purchased, and verify this using public records, etc.
 - Check that there are no reasonable open scam accusations against anyone involved.
 - If smart contracts are used, verify that the English terms match the smart contract terms. If there's any way for the smart contract terms to be changed, make sure that this is specified in the English terms.
 - After reading all of their public info, ensure that there is no deception or any glaring holes.
 - Check their website for copy-pasted text, photoshopped images, and fake people.

If they fail your criteria, then you should not certify them. That's important. If you just give a certification to everyone who pays you, you're useless. You should keep the application fee even if they fail, though in some cases you could allow them to reapply for certification after failing with a reduced fee. Your goal should be to eventually be able to publish a statistic like, "99% of ICOs I certified did not turn out to be scams." You should not attempt to certify that ICOs will actually appreciate in value or anything -- that'd be far too difficult --, but just that the collected money will be used as advertised.

Once I notice that a good, trustworthy certification service like this exists, I will require that ICOs wanting to advertise on the forum receive such a certification. (If/when there are multiple good certification services, I will publish a list of ones I consider acceptable.) So you'll get a built-in market from this, and even if an ICO has no interest in advertising on the forum, acquiring a widely-trusted certification has significant value in itself.

One of the things that BTRIC, my non-profit economic development organization, is working on is exactly this.  A standardized methodology to evaluate and score ICO/ITOs, then evolving to score other entities such as exchanges (security audit frameworks, etc.)  There are some good approaches from the community on various scoring factors but not much in terms of breaking down the nuts and bolts of each scoring component.

We will use this internally to incubate projects that score very well (though we'd rather have another impartial certifying body score our projects, we do not want a conflict of interest), and the standard will be public, open to input and participation from the community, and revised as best practices evolve.

In the face of the coming regulation, which we can't stop, and backlash, such as the Facebook advertising ban (and likely more), we need to work as a community -- and industry -- to develop standards before we get killed with overbearing regulations.  We either come up with credible, well-defined, and transparent (open source) standards, or the regulators will impose standards we will have to live with.

Anyone interested in this project please contact me, I'm looking to get it underway in February.  Feel free to PM or contact me on Telegram/email/etc, use the contacts for BTRIC in my signature.

Best regards,
Ben

[npredtorch]

The idea of certification is well thought by Theymos.
But to execute such service will be very challenging and expensive.
The certificate an ICO project will receive will not be limited to advertise herein but it will prevent scam/low projects.

Please check this link. Bittrex has a minimum of $5000 fee to review a coin/token
https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/articles/227902667-What-is-a-compliance-review-

Team verification process will be very challenging.
Lets say an Ico project has 5 team members and resides in 5 different countries.
Then the certificate issuer need to hire 5 lawyers in 5 different countries to check their backgrounds and other information.

This going to be very expensive for ICO starters. They will think 100 times before thinking of an ICO.

This is for sure, that we really need this kind of service as soon as possible.

It seems, now we can count stars in the sky. But we will not be able to count ICOs/coins/tokens in near future.

I think it's enough to check the backgrounds of the founders, they run the business.

Yes I agree with TE-FOOD. Only the founders or the higher ups on the project must be background checked while the persons related to the operation task will be skipped. (It's their own duty to check their own people.)
What relevant is, the owners should know that they are 100% liable on the project/ICO before getting the certification. There should be no escape for them whatever the outcome.

[BenOnceAgain]

I guess the forum itself could do it, since that probably would be the only way for there to exist a certification service that ICOs will actually feel like they need to go through to attract investors. Otherwise most ICOs will just ignore the certification service since it won't be worth exposing themselves to such scrutiny just to be able to bid to buy advertising.

Maybe there could be two certification products with such a service? A "basic" which would be cheaper but more quick; that would be an analysis to make sure the proposed product is viable and actually makes sense, the people behind it are legitimate and real, and the amount being raised doesn't seem excessive. Then there could be an "advanced" certification scheme which would be more rigorous and involved. Things could be set up so that only ICOs with a basic certification can post, but ICOs with advanced certification can buy advertising and take advantage of signature campaigns.

This has the added benefit that every ICO presented on the forum will at least have gone through a basic check which would push out all the obvious scams. The money earned from proceeds from basic certification can then pay for the in depth research and analysis that would be required to do any advanced certifications.

I am working on this as part of my organization.  Standards in certain areas are greatly needed both to screen obvious frauds as well as a demonstration to regulators that industry is engaging in self-regulation.  That, to me, was a key takeaway from the recent SEC/CFTC testimony.  Self-regulation, when it can be done, often can both reduce the urgency of regulators seeking to impose their rules, as well as provide them a good framework that they are often inclined to adopt (while still meeting the statutory mandate of their agencies).  I am reaching out to major crypto projects/businesses/organizations to try to build support for this work.

I have experience in design of certification standards though obviously not for ICO/ITO type certifications.  However, it is needed and a critical component, as I see it, of putting in place voluntary measures that could be widely adopted, even expected, for a given offering to attract serious attention.  A two-tiered approach, sort of a pre-certification and then a full certification could be done as well, as you indicate would potentially be desirable for use on BCT.

In order for any certification standard to be credible, it needs to be completely open and documented in its complete assessment methodology.  There are some materials that people have published about how they evaluate ICO/ITOs that provide a good starting point, but most standards I've been involved with typically are more intricate than the general outlines I've seen from others in various places.  Which of course makes sense because they're just offering their personal methodologies, not a true certification standard that could be applied widely.  I'm also looking at rating criteria that are used for traditional investments as some of that is clearly applicable to the crypto asset class.

A couple of other factors that should be considered in standards criteria is that the evolution of the standard should be open to all stakeholders to participate in (think an IETF type process as a goal to eventually adopt once you have enough interest), needs to be agile enough to adapt to changing needs but not so dynamic that it's changing too often to have a clear meaning, and, the people/entities that are certifying compliance with the standard should not have any actual or perceived conflict of interest with any project they are evaluating.  Other standards I've been involved in revising often operate  by having a peer-review component of draft assessment documents.

Finally, the standards I've worked with typically take months to years to go from start to finish in terms of a single assessment.  However, in my view much of that was needless and the actual work was done pretty quickly.  Obviously, with ratings of ICO/ITO you'd have to significantly shrink that timeframe to days (for a pre-assessment / basic tier) to a few weeks (for a full assessment/certification).  Those standards were originally developed in a pre-Internet world, so the standards we'd build for crypto/ICO/token/crypto business (and in my view these all need to be done via some different criteria as each has some key differences but also many similarities such as security).

Best regards,
Ben