ICO Governance Foundation

[andrewjchapin]

New project that I'd like to share with the community and get feedback on: the ICO Governance Foundation.

I've been working with a few people - Miko Matsumura from Pantera Capital, Dr. Fred Krueger of Troop, Michael Golomb, others - to spin up the IGF in an effort to clean up the ICO market. This is in response to a lot of the things that we've been observing in public ICO operations, the regulatory action around the world, and what we've heard (privately) from people inside and outside the space.

From our website, https://icogovernance.org/: "The early ICO industry is rife with hackers, scammers and opportunists. The ICO Governance Foundation (IGF) is an international organization and Swiss Foundation whose mission is to protect global ICO investors and facilitate capital formation for ICOs. To support this mission IGF provides and maintains an open source voluntary public filing and registration protocol called Form IGF-1 as well as a public registration database that performs automated collection, validation, indexing, acceptance, and forwarding of submissions. IGF works with national regulatory agencies to establish global best-practices and standards for ICOs that complement national regulatory organizations such as the SEC, ESMA, CSRC, MAS and others. IGF-1 provides transparency of the token sale custody chain and distribution of ICO proceeds. The foundation and these standard protocols are part of a Global Public Utility and industry self-regulatory function that is needed to align stakeholders and to improve the volume and flow of capital incentives for ICOs from institutional-grade investors."

Essentially three core functions:

• Whistle-blower reports, to notify the community of poorly governed ICOs
• An IGF-1 filing and registration, to create a standard set of information that each project needs to provide publicly
• Custodial agreements. To ensure that benchmarks and milestones are achieved, ICO proceeds are distributed in accordance with a set roadmap

Our whitepaper digs in deeper: https://icogovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Governance-of-Token-Sales-in-Decentralized-Capital-Markets-0.5.pdf

As we prepare to formally launch, I thought it wise to share with the community and gather feedback.

What do you think?

[bathrobehero]

ICOs are both centralized and rely on trust and therefore go against the basics of crypto by design so the only cleaning up is to discard ICOs altogether.

[supermario64]

Isn't the whole point that we're de-regulated and that the free market will weed out the idiots?

[karaschoen]

What makes you guys the ones to do this? What's the greater membership structure / does leadership potentially change?

Great idea. Sorely needed. But if this is going to be a standard, we need some protection against this being run by a special interest group!

[andrewjchapin]

Isn't the whole point that we're de-regulated and that the free market will weed out the idiots?

Unfortunately, there are a lot of scamcoins - this is (as I understand it) the basis for the Chinese regulatory action. It is my belief that the presence and prominence of an organization like this would help address a lot of the concerns.

If, for example, the community came to expect that every token sale featured an IGF-1 filing front and center, we would force everybody to disclose their allotments, team, etc. which are often pieces that can be masked/dodged all-together due to a lack of uniformity.

We're not a strict regulatory body.

[ammosov]

New project that I'd like to share with the community and get feedback on: the ICO Governance Foundation.

I've been working with a few people - Miko Matsumura from Pantera Capital, Dr. Fred Krueger of Troop, Michael Golomb, others - to spin up the IGF in an effort to clean up the ICO market. This is in response to a lot of the things that we've been observing in public ICO operations, the regulatory action around the world, and what we've heard (privately) from people inside and outside the space.

From our website, https://icogovernance.org/: "The early ICO industry is rife with hackers, scammers and opportunists. The ICO Governance Foundation (IGF) is an international organization and Swiss Foundation whose mission is to protect global ICO investors and facilitate capital formation for ICOs. To support this mission IGF provides and maintains an open source voluntary public filing and registration protocol called Form IGF-1 as well as a public registration database that performs automated collection, validation, indexing, acceptance, and forwarding of submissions. IGF works with national regulatory agencies to establish global best-practices and standards for ICOs that complement national regulatory organizations such as the SEC, ESMA, CSRC, MAS and others. IGF-1 provides transparency of the token sale custody chain and distribution of ICO proceeds. The foundation and these standard protocols are part of a Global Public Utility and industry self-regulatory function that is needed to align stakeholders and to improve the volume and flow of capital incentives for ICOs from institutional-grade investors."

Essentially three core functions:

• Whistle-blower reports, to notify the community of poorly governed ICOs
• An IGF-1 filing and registration, to create a standard set of information that each project needs to provide publicly
• Custodial agreements. To ensure that benchmarks and milestones are achieved, ICO proceeds are distributed in accordance with a set roadmap

Our whitepaper digs in deeper: https://icogovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Governance-of-Token-Sales-in-Decentralized-Capital-Markets-0.5.pdf

As we prepare to formally launch, I thought it wise to share with the community and gather feedback.

What do you think?

This will not fulfill compliance requirements in any of the countries. Probably not even in Switzerland itself.

[tristan1960]

ICOs are both centralized and rely on trust and therefore go against the basics of crypto by design so the only cleaning up is to discard ICOs altogether.

I'm smelling the experience from your post sir. This is the reality that thousands don't see somehow. They think ICOs are the part of blockchain ecosystem, yet they're are 100% centralized things.

This is not consistent with crypto.

[andrewjchapin]

This will not fulfill compliance requirements in any of the countries. Probably not even in Switzerland itself.

The goal isn't to fulfill compliance requirements, it's to raise the bar and set a base level of standards. As we say in the intro, we'll establish best-practices and standards to compliment national regulatory organizations.

[ammosov]

This will not fulfill compliance requirements in any of the countries. Probably not even in Switzerland itself.

The goal isn't to fulfill compliance requirements, it's to raise the bar and set a base level of standards. As we say in the intro, we'll establish best-practices and standards to compliment national regulatory organizations.

Then what is the point? Everyone already publishes white papers and people can make their own judgements.

[shyliar]

Are you going to certify ICOs that meet your base level of standards? Will you have insurance to back you up if it turns out an ICO you certified is actually bogus? Or will your certification just be a recommendation similar to the AA and AAA ratings companies like Moody's issue?

[ammosov]

IGF works with national regulatory agencies to establish global best-practices and standards for ICOs that complement national regulatory organizations such as the SEC, ESMA, CSRC, MAS and others.

Missed this a first read. Hmm. So basically someone wants to speak on behalf of all crypto issuers and make rules for them. Interesting indeed.

[andrewjchapin]

Then what is the point? Everyone already publishes white papers and people can make their own judgements.

I'm not sure if you've seen this happen - I sure have - but there's a lot of "me too" and FOMO-based buying activity. People see something pumped up enough in advance of a small window sale period who jump in without a proper vet.

Of course, that's their money and their decision. But we'd like to have an easy two-page form that summarizes all of the pertinent details. That's the point of the IGF-1, which I've helped build.

Are you going to certify ICOs that meet your base level of standards? Will you have insurance to back you up if it turns out an ICO you certified is actually bogus? Or will your certification just be a recommendation similar to the AA and AAA ratings companies like Moody's issue?

Insurance won't be necessary - it's more of a ratings system when it comes to the IGF-1.

The "premium" certification, where we hold ICO proceeds and release based on benchmarks, may require something like that but I'm not directly involved in that end of the IGF.

[k@suy]

This will not fulfill compliance requirements in any of the countries. Probably not even in Switzerland itself.

The goal isn't to fulfill compliance requirements, it's to raise the bar and set a base level of standards. As we say in the intro, we'll establish best-practices and standards to compliment national regulatory organizations.

I like your idea and this group also reviews ICO's? Before it is open to public, will you evaluate it first if it is good to invests? I have we have this kind of governing body that screened and approves ICO.

[andrewjchapin]

This will not fulfill compliance requirements in any of the countries. Probably not even in Switzerland itself.

The goal isn't to fulfill compliance requirements, it's to raise the bar and set a base level of standards. As we say in the intro, we'll establish best-practices and standards to compliment national regulatory organizations.

I like your idea and this group also reviews ICO's? Before it is open to public, will you evaluate it first if it is good to invests? I have we have this kind of governing body that screened and approves ICO.

The goal is not to make purchase recommendations or suggestions - rather, just to warn of potential issues, offer a standard set of information (so token-issuers can't play games with what they show/don't in a white paper) and offer a platinum certification for those who are willing to lock up their ICO proceeds to be released in accordance with benchmarks. Subtle but important difference.

[BlockchainGod]

Excuse me, do you think that will be able to control ico? It is not possible, they keep the money in bitcoin, and therefore their money should not be frozen more than you can hold them accountable ? You do not even have power.

[andrewjchapin]

Excuse me, do you think that will be able to control ico? It is not possible, they keep the money in bitcoin, and therefore their money should not be frozen more than you can hold them accountable ? You do not even have power.

No. For most, this is simply a reporting and standardized listing arrangement - to prevent token-issuers from playing games in their whitepaper where they dodge the important questions. To receive our stamp of approval, you need to share a standard set of information.

There is custodial agreement option for our top-tier of approval, in which the ICO Governance Foundation holds ICO proceeds and releases them based on meeting certain benchmarks and milestones. Like I said - I'm not involved in that part directly.

[ammosov]

Excuse me, do you think that will be able to control ico? It is not possible, they keep the money in bitcoin, and therefore their money should not be frozen more than you can hold them accountable ? You do not even have power.

No. For most, this is simply a reporting and standardized listing arrangement - to prevent token-issuers from playing games in their whitepaper where they dodge the important questions. To receive our stamp of approval, you need to share a standard set of information.

There is custodial agreement option for our top-tier of approval, in which the ICO Governance Foundation holds ICO proceeds and releases them based on meeting certain benchmarks and milestones. Like I said - I'm not involved in that part directly.

Sounds like a plain market service to me.

[sylance]

Isn't the whole point that we're de-regulated and that the free market will weed out the idiots?

But this is still free-market.  I'd much prefer this as opposed to a government regulated organization; as soon as the government steps into crytpo it'll be all about centralizing power and control.  This solution would still allow ICO's outside of the Governance Foundation but you'd have much more confidence if an ICO had their stamp. 

[gabecolors]

Many of the voices here are calling out ICOs as anti-thetical to the core essence of cryptocurrency, that being decentralization. But it isn't really binary is it? Sure some ICOs could maintain complete control, but isn't there a lot of grey area -- can't an ICO be built with transparency and decentralization in its model?

[Pab]

Good idea to have kind of our own SEC ,behind of all that problems are raising amount of scams,shiticos,money laundering,finally all that scam ico's may kill all ico's and we will all lose.I am sic of word decentralization
Now will be even  decentralized Jesus ico

I am positive about your inintiative,please post regular updates