Altcoin Companies should regularly prove to investors i they're profitable or not like regulated companies do. This will help reduce the numbers of Fraudulent ICOs in the market and also help make Start-ups with real ideas to thrive. People need to know if this Altcoins are profitable or not. There should be no mercy.
*Many seem to go to sleep after ICOs
*They should publish their profits on annual basis?
* They should be Transparent. That is what Crypto is meant to be?
* Investors need to know if the companies are profitable or not
*People need to know if the companies are sustainable or not.
* They should be run Professionally
Any company that fails to meet this ceteria should be seen as Fraud & publicly disgraced allover the Internet with big Negative rating
I think Cryptocurrency can work without government. The little problem now is the lack of effort by big stakeholders to make this possible.
My 2c-
It would be hard for them publish the numbers, especially when they are in the bootstrap phase. Even if they do publish numbers, they might not convey the development efforts that are going on backdoors. I think you should judge these companies based on their activity on github, community sites, slack etc. which fairly proves that they are really working hard to meet their goals (could be an alpha, beta or a 1.0 release or something similar and quantifiable). Although this argument only applies to the pure/innovative technology ICOs. There are a bunch of others that are just some sort of funds/management/finances-related etc. which could warrant the argument you put forth. But also remember that having a regulatory body over these companies is just going to centralize everything and move away from the core concept of de-centralization.
I would rather enforce the accountability of the teams using funds lock-up/escrow. All the ICO funds would be put in a escrow and would be released as and when you hit certain goals (could be a smart-contract based system/vote where the community/stake-holders/investors all have some sort of a say and vote). Obviously, there would be cases where the team runs out of money/shit hits the fan and they miss their deadlines etc. at which point it is up to all the stakeholders to vote on how to keep the team going (and that is where the true de-centralization lies). The counter argument to this is that there would always be short-term investors who would just unjustly push the team for various reasons - artificial pump/politics etc. That is where the community comes in again to restore the balance.
I am sure that people will more or less start fearing (or be more careful) of the ICOs in the future and the funding would dry up. Only the really good ones would get heavy investments and the rest of the ICOs would have to device ways to garner more trust from people. We will then have ICOs with more investor-friendly terms. You can kinda make the analogy of tech startup scene in Silicon valley to the ICO scene right now. The funding for startups has dried up to an extent after an unbelievable 2016. VCs have become more careful now and it is not so easy to fool them with hyped products anymore. The same would apply to the ICOs too, but my guess is it would probably take a couple of years to get there.
