ICO's killing crypto

[Keihatsu]

ICOs are not killing crypto, scammers are. Fcuk'in vermin.

[1715371660]

1715371660

[1715371660]

1715371660

[1715371660]

1715371660

[Bitforking]

Ethereum needs big players to launch ICOs, not the newbies with no credentials whatsoever but few programmers. Business can not survive without customers, programmers can create a tool but not revenue. White Papers are just templates.

Once the blockchain technology is mature enough to attract real business. that's when the crypto coins take off.

[shawn995]

Crypto is a international currency and there is a lot of big whales which have pretty big experience then they are trying their logical tricks to apply to make the market down like they are trying to instill fear in the people about the crypto currency with some bad news and after that with some good news they can gain a big profit.

[VeeTeaSee]

ICO's dont kill crypto
nothing killing the cryptos...
only people killing the reputation of ICO's...
it will be changed.

[Dart18]

They can close it if they want but it will still continue.
ICO's are not really killing crypto but more like an efficient way to focus on one service using one coin.
It cannot be handled all by bitcoin, ETH or Waves. This tokens are a good way to extract some funds that could create a better service which could not be provided by the currencies mentioned.
Projects leaning on them are slow and no merchant want to give in.
It is just that, there are a lot who are making it an easy way to earn money by scams. We should protect the ICO's from that not protect ourselves from all the ICO.

[omerchip]

i want to join ICO's all the time but it dont mean i am a supporter of it.its so risky and harmful for investors but how they can ban this shit?this is imposibble because people getting rich faster and there will be always a some ICO

[summonerrk]

Im dissagree, because ICO is a one way to collect needed funds for project. Developers and promoters must receive money.

[BarkingHawk]

ICOs are not killing crypto, scammers are. Fcuk'in vermin.

I couldn't agree more.  Once the money started flowing in the greed went into overdrive and many people started doing all sorts of things to take advantage of it.

[cynical]

ICOs are not killing crypto, scammers are. Fcuk'in vermin.

I couldn't agree more.  Once the money started flowing in the greed went into overdrive and many people started doing all sorts of things to take advantage of it.

if it can be made by man, it can be broken by man! generally speaking it is human nature to be greedy, we all want more and more as quickly as we can and at others expense. in the long run with more regulation there could be room for proper legitimate crypto projects

[Itjoker]

Scam projects and fraudsters are negative effecting on cryptos.

[Neo.op]

scam icos are breaking the credibility of the crypto market.
now this job has become a home of fraudsters

[rufus59]

Well that your own opinion, ICO has done more good than harm, but the inky problem of ICO is hat there much scams this days and no regulation. It too freelanced

[Hyperme.sh]

ICOs are enabling the media to associate cryptocurrency and blockchains with money laundering, terrorism, North Korea, World War 3, etc:

These useful idiots are playing right into the plan of how Bitcoin would globalize (while necessarily becoming entirely centralized mining as has recently been proved in research!) while the scammers would drive the excuse for massive regulation:

It's a very good time to be a money launderer, and you can thank cryptocurrencies

Cryptocurrencies have exploded in popularity in recent years that has led to a red-hot fundraising trend where start-ups bring in millions of dollars in capital by issuing virtual tokens to investors in exchange for money.

Initial coin offerings (ICOs) have become a primary means of fundraising for projects built on blockchain technology. Companies create and issue digital tokens that can be used to pay for goods and services on their platform or stashed away as an investment. They put out whitepapers describing the platform, software or product they're trying to build, and then people buy those tokens using widely-accepted cryptocurrencies (like bitcoin and ethereum) or fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar.

All of that is done without any regulatory oversight, and that has regulators — and members of the financial industry — worried about the potential of widespread money laundering and fraud.

ICOs are enabling the media to associate cryptocurrency and blockchains with money laundering, terrorism, North Korea, World War 3, etc..

I think the differences in approach here is due to different world view of the negative value of democracy and the reality of democracy (i.e. what really happened on 9/11 that everybody really wants to sweep under the rug).

Let the competition of ideas, designs, concepts, and financial structuring ensue.

Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice.

Had a talk with someone from China about Bitcoin yesterday. I was looking at coinmarketcap and he asked what I was looking at. I told him about bitcoins, and he told me he heard about it and said it was just gambling. He had a pretty negative opinion on it, and nothing I could have said would change his mind. I think a lot of people still equate crypto to online drugs and hackings. It will probably take a long while for crypto to go mainstream […]

I see, here in the Netherlands, mainly negative views on crypto and bitcoin in the media. Today there was an article in a national newspaper about ICO's that was mostly talking about scams, pyramid games, easy ways for companies to generate money without having to deal with regulations, etc.

These views are caused by many (the majority?) of ICO's that indeed seem scammy and fraudulent. The actually legit well-managed ICOs suffer from this image. For mainstraim adaptation, it certainly has to be regulated in some way.

Another thing is the association many people have between bitcoin and the black market/criminals. Furthermore, people don't understand the technology so it is 'scary'. I think mass adoption can only start with some viral campaign that educates people and makes them enthusiastic, but that is only possible after regulations have been adopted that make people feel secure against hackers and scams.

It's too easy to scam or to be scammed for common people at cryptoworld. It's really anarchy. Government institutes trying to adopt this market but it will take pretty much time.

Bitcoin has been the escape method for capital fleeing China. With the looming trade war on the horizon, the Chinese government will have absolutely NO CHOICE but to come in and regulate bitcoin as its citizens now account for 98% of all trading. From a regulatory perspective, the days of passive treatment of bitcoin may come to an end. Bitcoin has soared only because it has been the mechanism to obtain foreign exchange and take capital out of China. This could easily be considered an illegal operation, such as money laundering, to justify closing that window.

Of course, you have the zealots who preach bitcoin as the alternative to the dollar that they cannot shut down. All they need to do is declare bitcoins illegal and the PRESUMPTION of being in bitcoin is a PRESUMPTION of being a criminal. They are already using terms like “CASH IS FOR CRIMINALS” and if you have a few thousand in cash, they just confiscate it presuming you are criminal under Civil Asset Forfeiture without having to prove you committed a crime or charging you.

Keep in mind we are dancing with the devil. There are no rules — just ruthless self-interest. They will do whatever it takes to survive. They will not relinquish power willingly.

[DrToken]

No, of course. ICO is just an instrument in human's hands. So, the right answer is scam ICO without any regulation

[mayan251]

Maybe you're right. It depends on what you think.
Because ICO really does support entities right now. Many of them are air coins.
Only a white paper starts with ICO. No actual landing of the project.
Some countries have become aware of the seriousness of the problem.
After all, a coin out of the white book. There is a certain risk.
Many projects took the ICO wheel on foot. Therefore, there are certain grounds for prohibition.

[Hyperme.sh]

ICO's killing crypto

Whether it is good or bad, we may have unstopped ICO phenomenon underway! Oh my.

After all my ranting about the illegality of ICOs, I stumbled today on the idea that forking and airdrop may be a way to convert an ICO issued token into a non-security.

Thus in theory for example the EOS tokens would end up living on (as re-issued in an air drop) outside the jurisdiction of any securities regulators in the world.

Hahaha. The regulators suddenly become irrelevant and can be ignored?

Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice.

[joshki]

Without ICOs, there would be no Ethereum. Without Ethereum, the crypto market wouldn't have grown so fast. It's attracting a lot of capital right now.

Ethereum is facilitating a wave of shitcoins and most will never see the light of day. The coin itself is a shitcoin that can't even perform a basic function of a cryptocurrency i.e. multisig. The only thing propping it up is the perpetual token sale whereby investors have to buy ETH to buy said token. It was setup to be a crypto ponzi scheme to attract regulators to this market and that's essentially what it is - a trojan horse.

https://news.bitcoin.com/ethereums-parity-client-users-lose-millions-multi-sig-hack/

It's backed by big bankers from Wall Street who have developed an automated shitcoin factory with ETH as the center spoke of the wheel. A nice PSD will get you 30 million in funding sometimes more. Vitalik Buterin is nothing more than a front man for the big bankers. They figured he was some kind of authority in Bitcoin since he co-founded bitcoinmagazine.com so they hyped him up as the next Albert Einstein and all the idiots on Main Street ate it up.

ICOs have been around way before Etheruem was even an idea. The reason why it didn't attract regulators is because it required a minimum technical understanding of the Bitcoin protocol to launch a cryptocurrency to hold a premine for the ICO. Now every dip shit in silicon valley and on Wall Street is trying to launch their own token through it. Some even promoting integration with VISA and Mastercard.. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency was never meant to co-exist with VISA or any other payment processor for that matter - it was meant to replace it.

Satoshi Nakamoto: "Bitcoin can scale larger than the Visa Network"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1391350.0

Silicon valley and wall street are co-opting Satoshi's movement to co-exist with the current system instead of replacing it. If it keeps going down this road this movement will die and be remembered as a tulip bulb bubble. By investing in these ICOs and supporting Ethereum YOU are responsible for contributing to the downfall of this legendary movement that has the potential to completely disrupt the central banking system and the debt slavery cycle that has imprisoned mankind for over 100 years.

Shitcoin projects like Civic who are promoting identity based cryptocurrency as a de facto standard are also contributing to the downfall of this movement. I wouldn't be surprised if that is a government project meant to derail this movement and discredit Bitcoin and it's counterparts. Why do we need identity based cryptocurrency to replace Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency? When you strip away all the fancy GUI wallets and the mobile applications all cryptocurrency is just data on your computer that you can transfer through a transmission protocol. If an identity is mandated for a file on your computer, then where does this end? Must an meme or gif also have a digital identity signature? How about a word document you send to a journalist through a peer to peer transmission? Do you see where this is going?

https://cryptoinsider.com/civic-blockchain-solution-combat-cybercrime/

The downfall of crypto was premeditated by the central banks:

1) China ban
2) Dimon discredits Bitcoin ("This will end badly"- Dimon)
3) G-8 slaps North Korea with sactions
4) China cuts trade ties with North Korea

What comes next (end goal)

5) All governments of the world accuse North Korea of using Bitcoin to fund their weapons program and attempt to impose draconian regulation (this is coming and will mark the biggest test for Cryptocurrency)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-11/north-korea-hackers-step-up-bitcoin-attacks-amid-rising-tensions
http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korea-allegedly-stole-bitcoin-from-south-korea-2017-4
https://www.coindesk.com/report-north-korea-targets-south-koreas-bitcoin-exchanges-cyber-attacks/
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/north-korea-hackers-trying-to-steal-bitcoin-evade-sanctions.html

This narrative is the same one pushed by the mainstream media with regards to Iraq and it's WMD program. Similarly, they cite no evidence of North Korea using Bitcoin yet they'll keep regurgitating this talking point until it the banhammer comes down. The Potcoin project is also to blame for this facilitating this narrative when they sent Dennis Rodman over there in Potcoin attire.

You make a lot of good points here. There's a lot of scamming going on here, and the regulators are going to come in eventually.

[nguyenxhoang]

Ico gives newer investors a chance at Huge gains given they do there research by weeding out the scams.

[slackcryptoz]

ICO's were a way of fund raising through the digital platform. Here nothing needs to be complicated, because very few go as a scam making an bad impression over the entire cryptocurrency. In my view it also supporting in the growth of digital currency, because lot of people come to know about bitcoin after knowing about ICO's.

[silent17]

I dont think ICO is killing crypto, at the first place, crypto is popular now because of ICO. Although we can deny that their are many scam ICO.