Is ICO regulation good or bad?

[feelideb]

ICO regulations is going to be really bad. The reason why I  am in crypto is purely because I desire freedom. I do not want to be monitor, harrased or censor by anybody. Give me freedom and nothing else.

[Rinaze]

ICO regulation is viewed as good in the long term so that some of the bad and scam ICO could be further deterrence. However too much regulations could be bad though. Balance would be the key in my opinion.

[Bay_Harbour_Butcher]

I think there is a good thing and what is not, not a good example is because if the big country set a regulation against the ICO then the possibility of investors will be less interested, because the price of coin will be released will follow the rules of the government so that investors can not get a profit large, and also the positive side of ico project scam will be reduced

[MiF]

More and more countries are planning to regulate ICOs. China, Canada, Russia,... I think this in an development nobody can stop. Do you think it is good or bad that ICOs will be more regulated in the near future? What positive and negative influences will it probably have?

I think there will be more investors like professional managed funds or even retirement funds which will invest into ICOs. The prices for ICOs will then become even more expensive and make it more difficult to make profits for small investors.

The good thing for ICO to be regulated by the government is they can now ensure that an certain ICO is not a scam in which they can monitor and protect their people from these some kind of investments.Regulating is better than ban in which people can still free to join ICO with confidence that their money was safe and free from tricksters and i rather earn small than all of my hard earned money will be at risk to lost from fraud investment.

[btcdee]

I consider it to be a good thing. Yes, there is a bit of controversy in the terms themselves, I mean how could a decentralized thing be regulated, but think of it that way. Many people who are interested, are having trust issues. Having the ICOs somewhat regulated whithin reasonable bounds, would increase trustworthiness, and eventually spark interest into people who are currently out of the picture, due to lack of regulations in the first place.

I'd like to believe and support your view. But unfortunately most governments don't care about protecting their citizens from scam ICO's. Their motive is led by greed and hunger for control. Notice how these regulations will mostly lead to heavier taxation and governments taking large profit cuts.
Still, let's hope that you are right.

[SupremeGoose]

I think it's good, less scams in the industry and more responsibilities.

[Obi2024]

If the point of regulating ICO has to do with policies guiding the process of ICO which means having the companies organizing meet certain criteria/requirements  before being allowed to proceed with the ICO, then it is good for the investors, because investors confidence will increase and scammers will be filtered out of the ICO space.

[Golegard]

ICO regulation will have a good impact if a country can accept Cryptocurrency. And vice versa. Because every regulation has good intentions for investors, to avoid unofficial investment. So, the regulation is good.

There's a good and bad idea of regulating the ICO in the country. First is getting the money from the ICO (taxes), second, having the fair quantity of tokens every individvual and lastly, no rights to own an ICO.

[Marucya]

In general, the state regulation of crypto-currency should be treated positively. States can not long not pay attention to processes that decently influence their economy. Therefore, they can either prohibit the circulation of crypto currency in the country, which is extremely rare, or establish rules for its circulation inside the country. The negative aspect of such regulation is the possible process of identifying a person when exchanging, buying or selling crypto currency for the purpose of levying income tax on operations with crypto currency.

[Michae1k]

I really believe in regulation and hope we will have the same amount ICOs in 2018 as in 2017, but it looks like a dream. I want to have more projects like confideal

[pally]

ICO regulation is a very good and needed thing. We can see that there are 30+ ICOs a month, no assurance against scam or so.

[tanghere02]

In general, the state regulation of crypto-currency should be treated positively. States can not long not pay attention to processes that decently influence their economy. Therefore, they can either prohibit the circulation of crypto currency in the country, which is extremely rare, or establish rules for its circulation inside the country. The negative aspect of such regulation is the possible process of identifying a person when exchanging, buying or selling crypto currency for the purpose of levying income tax on operations with crypto currency.

Yeah I agree, but I personally think ICO regulation is a great idea now that there are a lot of ICO projects. More ICO projects and more likely the possibility of scams, so if they are being regulated then for sure they will also lessen the chances of being scammed.

[Crypto Tanya]

This is a must read on ICO regulation: http://eurocrowd.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/sites/85/2017/10/ECN_Review_of_Crowdfunding_Regulation_2017.pdf

[danherbias07]

It is a good thing for scam prevention but yet there are those people who want to upgrade their services thru iCO but cant because of the bamming system.
I vote for the regulation of ICO as long as they wont rake anything from it. If it just for greed then no way.

[Muhammad Muneeb]

there should be regulation for preventing the scam as there are so many icos poping out everyday but not for disrupting the anonymity of the transactions.

[tamanegi]

Yes I think it's a good thing to have regulations so that people can easily issue ICO’s while being tight enough so that people don’t obviously get scammed. There are some good ICOs, but they should have terms, conditions, incentives and protections.

[richjohn]

ICO regulations are indeed good and most importantly they are required. There are so many ICOs coming everyday with maximum being scam and shit. In that mess, genuine and potential ICOs lost somewhere and aren't able to raise what they can. So, I believe regulations are required to filter out real projects out of lot which will make investor's life easier and deserving projects won't shut down because of not raising enough. I think this the high time to regulate ICOs.

[AimHigh]

Its not literally bad because they putting a rules and regulations to make the ICO better, to make nice and good for the user so that why are we saying that the regulation is bad they putting that for the user to avoid scammer  and for the better of this ICO so dont questioning their rules.

[kenkoy]

First thing that skeptical investors are afraid of Cryptocurrency is that it is not regulated by any government body. If ICO regulation will push thru, then this is a good progress for any cryptocurrency since more people will be interested to dive into investing on ICO. This will also eliminate those scam and ponzi ICO that is infesting the Crypto community today.

[btct22]

Precious Metal manipulation, LIBOR manipulation, insider trading, delayed market info etc etc..  Even regulated markets are risky and no amount of regulation will fix it.  

So I say, investors should do their own due dilligence and rely more on the reputation of the project.  eg LISK has open books, public meetings, real people with real names etc, which is therefore a more trustworthy project than a completely anonymous project with little in the way of accountability.  

The market will price it in, the forums encourage people to share their stories and in the end a good project will do well, and a shitty one will taper off. A regulator is not going to return anyones lost funds regardless, and an "approved" idea might also fail.

Look at BTC.. That is an example of the market accepting that the founder is anonymous (and therefore not possible to be an "approved" ICO), but the project is a runaway success.  

Buying into an as yet not realised idea is always going to be a gamble and high risk. I've bought in too early a few times, now I'm not going to invest in any ICO because "most of the time" two months later, the token or whatever is involved will be half price or less.  And then has to stand on it's own merit and show actual viability to be priced above the ICO price, so better off buying the dip and seeing what people are saying after the launch if you think it's got potential.

But I get that exchanges need to protect themselves as well.  So regulation in the country the exchange operators are in makes sense.  But how is a regulator going to be able to evaluate the state of an ICO on behalf of an exchange who wants to or has been paid to list a particular token/coin?