How to combat the surge in scam ICOs

[Aventhe]

Huge warning with red and bold text is better idea than ask 1BTC for every ICO thread since scammer could earn more than 1BTC in scam ICO. Ban all ICO thread might works just like when altcoin giveaway is banned from this forum.

The only problem with this is that not everyone goes through each of the pages for an ANN or bounty thread. Some may only go through the first and last. The only way the full impact of the huge red letters could be conveyed is if it had been written on every page of their thread.

Another problem is that it still doesn't combat the mass amount of scam ICOs as they are still allowed to post their thread. Then cryptodevil would still have to investigate all possible scams that are being posted. As stated by cryptodevil, the whole point is not to eliminate it (although would be nice), but to reduce down the number of scammers. That will allow more time to be spent on the harder criminals who have a bigger budget to spend on their scam idea.

[1715690889]

1715690889

[1715690889]

1715690889

[Venidici]

I'm not really sure if paying 1BTC will solve the problem.
Because: Pay 1 BTC (earn 'trust') --to gain--> 100+BTC --> abandon everything with 99+BTC profit (== reeeally good ROI x'D)

To protect newbies against potential scam ICO, I think there should be a standardized checklist.
The more an ICO fulfill the checklists/expectations (like post verified linkedIn founder pictures, proper whitepaper, opensource wallets, etc) .. the higher their score.
If they can't do that, automatically treat all low-score ICOs, rushed ICOs, as 'potential scam'.

[erikalui]

And what if the project who invests 1 BTC ends up scamming users as they are now considered verified and trusted ICOs? Most of the ICOs these days are cheating with respect to the team members, having fake linkedn profiles and those who have a strong team too end up not paying their investors and participants. There are some forums that require verification of users before they start selling their services/products. That would be much more beneficial but again comes the question, who will verify them? We need some reputed members who can take up this task to stop these scams.

[cryptodevil]

And what if the project who invests 1 BTC ends up scamming users as they are now considered verified and trusted ICOs?

No, I already said that the payment of bitcoin to post an ICO thread WOULD NOT equate to it being considered trusted, it would simply be a means by which we can throttle the flow of new ICOs being launched through bitcointalk, thus reducing the numbers to a more manageable rate for investigating and evaluating.

The bitcoin collected doesn't even have to be paid to those who expose scams, we just need a process implemented which would serve to reduce the number of threads being posted.

It would be absolutely critical for there NOT to be a 'verified' or 'approved' label for ICOs, as that would be a legal minefield and likely open to abuse.

[Scam Exposey]

And what if the project who invests 1 BTC ends up scamming users as they are now considered verified and trusted ICOs?

No, I already said that the payment of bitcoin to post an ICO thread WOULD NOT equate to it being considered trusted, it would simply be a means by which we can throttle the flow of new ICOs being launched through bitcointalk, thus reducing the numbers to a more manageable rate for investigating and evaluating.

The bitcoin collected doesn't even have to be paid to those who expose scams, we just need a process implemented which would serve to reduce the number of threads being posted.

It would be absolutely critical for there NOT to be a 'verified' or 'approved' label for ICOs, as that would be a legal minefield and likely open to abuse.

I think nobody can set some rules like that unless theymos would like to do so but if you really want it to implement here well it can be another source of corruption here and paying a 1btc payment can make those scam Ico's legit and instead they will get few bucms here they can actually gey millions since they can abuse that 1 btc posting pay rules.


Remember scammers can invest for there schemes and I think paying for allowing a thread is useless.

We can't stop scamming and the main thing to battle that is to gave awareness and not by putting some rules that can be abuse by the both parties.

[rcoins0720]

with that can we report and paste the links of those face ICO bounties here in order for them to shut down I've been scam several times in joining bounties

[VTS]

Maybe a community driven audit service?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2135456.40

+

Some ANN fee

[Lauda]

Maybe a community driven audit service?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2135456.40

That will not work: 1) Hard to choose said members. 2) Said members would have to *waste their free time* to essentially be doing someone elses homework. 3) Prone to abuse and corruption. As we've seen with other members in the past, they're willing to sell themselves out for a penny (e.g. Quickseller bogus escrow).

Some ANN fee

Should be mandatory IMO.
No answer, as expected.

[VTS]

Maybe a community driven audit service?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2135456.40

That will not work: 1) Hard to choose said members. 2) Said members would have to *waste their free time* to essentially be doing someone elses homework. 3) Prone to abuse and corruption. As we've seen with other members in the past, they're willing to sell themselves out for a penny (e.g. Quickseller bogus escrow).

Some ANN fee

Should be mandatory IMO.
No answer, as expected.

1. Democratically voting members into the committee ( min 20 people to avoid corruption)
2. Make a fee for it and pay committee members and infrastructure
3. Needs much more thinking to find a proper working solution. But I believe its doable!
4. It can be never regulative more a added trust factor at the end always investor decides by himself where to invest under which circumstances...

But as said, its just a thought....

[Lauda]

1. Democratically voting members into the committee ( min 20 people to avoid corruption)

Democratic voting by who? Farmed accounts, shitposters and spammers?

2. Make a fee for it and pay committee members and infrastructure

This would not be worth the effort/reward.

3. Needs much more thinking to find a proper working solution. But I believe its doable!

Everyone says something like that, similarly for the trust system. Come up with a fully detailed solution that works both in theory and practice, and then we can talk about whether it's doable or not.

[VTS]

1. Democratically voting members into the committee ( min 20 people to avoid corruption)

Democratic voting by who? Farmed accounts, shitposters and spammers?

2. Make a fee for it and pay committee members and infrastructure

This would not be worth the effort/reward.

3. Needs much more thinking to find a proper working solution. But I believe its doable!

Everyone says something like that, similarly for the trust system. Come up with a fully detailed solution that works both in theory and practice, and then we can talk about whether it's doable or not.

Ya sure I will do it alone.... Why not...  How is about making a public discussion and take other options on board... I dont know why you hostile, but ok... Sorry for distracting you trying to give an impuls!

[Lauda]

Ya sure I will do it alone.... Why not... 

I thought it was doable, or was that only when others do the thinking for you?

How is about making a public discussion and take other options on board...

Create a proposal alone then come to the public with it and discuss.

I dont know why you hostile, but ok... Sorry for distracting you trying to give an impuls!

Your idea/suggestion is flawed and easily got shot down, which you see as hostility. That's how weak the thinking behind it is.

[VTS]

Ya sure I will do it alone.... Why not...  

I thought it was doable, or was that only when others do the thinking for you?

How is about making a public discussion and take other options on board...

Create a proposal alone then come to the public with it and discuss.

I dont know why you hostile, but ok... Sorry for distracting you trying to give an impuls!

Your idea/suggestion is flawed and easily got shot down, which you see as hostility. That's how weak the thinking behind it is.

But you do understand that I made this impulse for the sake of the community not because of my self, I do not have nothing from it personally... And I will certainly not come up with a FULL developed concept ALONE!

And why you think things must go like you suggest? Well nvm, I see you are not a big help to this topic! Sorry again to distract you, and just let it go please...


P.s.: Making a fee for ANN is something good I can agree to it...

[erikmatik]

Hmmm, is there any way to know if those behind the ICOs are legit o not? Maybe during all those numerous ICOs before, there are personalities that were involved in shady and scam ICOs, so if they will be part of new ICOs then someone can raise a red flag for that one. There is too much ICOs today and reviewing each and everyone of them is an essential part in understanding on what is their purpose,as well as if investing in the said ICO will be worth it. But the biggest issue is determining if the ICO is a fraud. Making ICO pay before the start is ok, but to whom they will pay? and who will regulate?

[Lauda]

But you do understand that I made this impulse for the sake of the community not because of my self, I do not have nothing from it personally... And I will certainly not come up with a FULL developed concept ALONE!

The idea is inherently flawed and will not work with the current state of things here.

And why you think things must go like you suggest? Well nvm, I see you are not a big help to this topic! Sorry again to distract you, and just let it go please...

Because you are a newcomer who has no idea what he/she is talking about? Spend some actual time here before posting more bullshit. Thanks.

Hmmm, is there any way to know if those behind the ICOs are legit o not?

The people being real does not guarantee legitimacy. There is no way to know when we have cases of people who nobody has heard of. Occasionally scammers slip up and use images that are found somewhere online, and get exposed.

Making ICO pay before the start is ok, but to whom they will pay? and who will regulate?

The forum and the forum.

[cryptodevil]

Given that scammers are now realising that we can routinely post warnings in their unmoderated threads, which alerts non-forum users reading it who are oblivious to the negative trust rating they wear, moderated threads are being used instead.

This means they can keep deleting our warnings and non-forum users won't see the red trust text alerting them to the scam accounts.

The best solution to this problem would be for Theymos to set Default Trust-issued ratings to be visible even when viewed by guests. I don't imagine it would be that difficult to implement, as everybody has DT as their default from the get-go and have to actually opt-out of it if they don't want to see it, so making it visible for non-members, too, makes sense, no?

[yahoo62278]

Most of the ICOs I would consider a scam are these fly by night token ICOs. Sure, there have been a few ICOs that offered token payments that were legit but for the most part like Cryptodevil said these guys have a whopping 200$ at most wrapped up in an idea and have no intention of following through on promises. They are offering tokens basically because there's no risk to them this way.

A team spends 100-200$ and gets some wallets made and tokens produced. Then they launch their ICO(paying bounties with tokens) and if they don't make any money they can still pay out tokens and only lose the 200$ investment. Who cares if it gets listed or not in their opinion. If they don't make money obviously it's not gonna be listed. I get contacted by at least 5 companies a week that have this strategy going on.

As far as making ppl pay a 1btc listing fee, that wont exactly solve the problem completely as others have stated. A company can spend 1btc 100x in 6 months on 100 campaigns. As long as they make more then the 1btc fee they paid, they still profit and still spam the fuck out of the forum.

I personally do not touch the token campaigns(least not very many unless i trust the team), but there are plenty of new managers out there willing to take on any project offered.

My suggestion to go a little further than others suggestions would be to not allow bounty campaigns period. If they want to do airdrops sure, but all campaigns must pay in an asset that's listed on an exchange in order to be using this forum+the 1btc list fee.

I doubt that changes much either but i'm sure it wouldn't hurt

[eule]

Just ban ICOs. The huge majority are scams and hurt the bitcoin and altcoin economy, the little legitimate rest would be successful even without Bitcointalk.

[dead_m92]

by the regulation of them, that is just what happened on china in the last two days, i think that is the only way that scammy icos can be over. Also this is a good movement for banks to make a little fud over bitcoin.
but obviously the best strategy to avoid scammy icos is just by no investing, and do not feed the developers and founders by supporting them, without funds, they are not gonna do anything/steal from anyone.

[machis]

There are an absurd number of ICOs being launched through this forum these days, far more than we can keep up with and expose. I don't see it getting any better all the while the scammers have a platform such as this, which allows them to use hacked accounts and bot-posting to set up multiple ICO threads for free.

Somebody came up with an excellent idea on the matter:

If I were Theymos, I would charge 1 BTC to post an ICO. Then I would use some of it to vet the principles. Farm out the leg work to reputable people on here to dig into it.

While it will not 100% eliminate the problem I bet it would reduce it by 95%.

A chance for all to make a bit of BTC and make for a safer investment climate.

Thoughts?

Personally I think simply introducing a fee to start an ICO thread would result in an immediate drop in the numbers we're currently seeing. If you've got a legit operation you sure as hell can afford a bitcoin or two in order to collect millions in ICO funding.

Of course, there is a lot of scams and people who want to get some money but among these projects, there are really interesting and successful projects. Or do not you think so?