While that is true, I also believe in financial inclusion and alternative funding.
The link of mine you quoted explains that the question of whether securities regulation is harmful or beneficial is irrelevant to the fact that it encumbers the ICO issued tokens with securities regulations that vary in every nation, means those tokens can become illegal to use in the future in different countries. It is multiple layers of legal jeopardy and legal uncertainty. Why would any group of developers that was serious about the long-term viability of the project and tokens they are working on, encumber their project and token with such legal jeopardy? I also explained in my posts over the past days that if instead they issued the tokens with proof-of-work or economic equivalent, the tokens would not be so encumbered and afflicted. I conclude because they do not care about the actual outcome and are
unnecessarily just scamming to get money. I have explained how to raise money legally without afflicting and encumbering the tokens with liability of being securities.
I also
explained upthread, that the problem is that serious developers such as myself, will not take on such legal risks when in fact I don't need to in order to raise money legally. Thus I conclude that those who risk incriminating themselves with ICO issues, either believe that with crypto they can destroy the nation-state (or that somehow nation-states will abrogate their duty to protect citizens from MLM scams and illegal securities issuance) or they have criminal mindset that does not calculate properly the long-term repercussions of their actions.
How will we ever move crypto into the mainstream of society with this sort of criminal and rebellious mindset? The world needs crypto solutions immediately, not after 20 years battle of daring the G20 to filter traffic on the trunk lines of the Internet and daring them to track down every ICO issuer in a Whac-A-Mole game.
A decentralized issuance such as proof-of-work entirely avoids the MLM scam and securities law. Satoshi designed it this way because he knew that ICOs would destroy everything else and then only Bitcoin would remain standing as the nation-states fight back. But 2016 research has shown that Bitcoin only remains incentives compatible with consensus as transaction fee revenue becomes significant relative to protocol block reward, if mining becomes controlled by a coordinated oligarchy (which appears to be the direction Bitcoin is headed with the Chinese controlling Bitcoin mining and only two 14nm ASIC fabs in the world in control of Bitcoin mining with surely the global elite controlling those fabs from behind the curtain). Also the block size issue has no possible solution (I analyzed this in great detail in an upcoming blog of mine which also described my decentralized ledger solution and compares it to all known designs such as PoW, PoS, DPoS, Byteball, SPECTRE, IOHK's Ourboros, IOTA, etc).
I'm idealistic but also pragmatic.
I want to move crypto to the mainstream immediately and legally. And health willing, I am going to organize that.
As for raising money from non-accredited investors without complying with individual nation state regulations (e.g. to do Regulation A+ or CF crowd equity fundraising to USA persons, the corporation must be a USA corporation), this is massive legal jeopardy. I will not accept funding this way without some entity indemnifying me. Ethereum went to Switzerland and I presume had layers of lawyers indemnifying them personally. I need to look into this more. But even if I did go that route, I would not issue tokens in exchange for investment, because I would not want to encumber the tokens with future illegality. Instead I would issue shares and pay dividends in tokens from the revenue earned from apps developed for the ecosystem.
In short, I want to do this in a smarter way.
I don't agree. There are a lot of successful ICOs. Only scam ICOs hurt cryptocurrency.
Name one and their accomplishements?
Ethereum?
Ethereum's entire raison d'être is ICO speculation selling bags to greater fools. There's no adoption for any other use case.
Example exchanges: if it is illegal to exchange decentral exchanges must and will evolve.
The mainstream of society has no compelling reason to incriminate themselves unless it's to join some civilization destroying South Seas or Tulip Bubble. Are you determined to relegate crypto to the fringe of civilization or attempt to duplicate the Tulip Bubble disaster!
These days, ICO's is bringing crypto investments mainstream, with big publicity regarding currencies generating millions of dollars virtually over night.
Mainstreaming only greater fool speculation MLM bubble. There's no adoption at all for any real world use case. Zero. Zilch.
Thus ICOs are destroying crypto, by moving the focus away from real uses to pure greed.
