Proposing a new ANN rule!

[_Snow_]

I was just reading that the eDash team suddenly abandoned their tokens because it would cost them ACTUAL money to send out tokens to 17000 addresses submitted to the airdrop. Suddenly it's airdrops left and right from e<insert popular abbreviation> coins. Most of these are copy/paste coins. We're getting flooded with all these crap coins suddenly appearing - most of which are either scams or someone desperate to make a quick buck, but no money or actual time invested.

So this is the rule I propose to the owners and moderators of bitcointalk.org:

If a corporation is serious enough to devote time, money and energy into an altcoin, there is no reason why they can't announce the coin/token while still in development, then post regularly about the development over several months to prove they are an actual legitimate company behind a legitimate coin/token. They should be required to submit a whitepaper and have a FULL detailed explanation of the coin/token. Finally, when they are ready to release the coin whether ICO, airdrop, etc, they can then update the post with details, when the alotted time has passed an upon approval of moderators.

So an example could be this:
Post coin development with following:
Company Name
Company Website
Individual Bio or Team Bios - MUST BE REAL AND CONFIRMED OR POST DELETED
Full description of coin - this includes benefits of this coin and why it will compete with others.
White paper - if not quite finished yet - have a grace period of 2 months before ANN post is permanently deleted.
Distribution details (ICO,airdrop,etc) announcement NO LESS THAT 8 MONTHS from when the altcoin was introduced here on the forum.
For the first 8 months - update the first post NO LESS THAN ONCE A MONTH with significant details of development.

Doing this would clear up a lot of garbage.

Thank you for reading and hopeful consideration. I'm posting this as a new topic so that members also have a chance to post their 2 cents. The decision (if there is one) should have input from the community.

Regards,

-Snow

[1713446987]

1713446987

[1713446987]

1713446987

[1713446987]

1713446987

[1713446987]

1713446987

[xxsyntax]

What?  And reduce the spam flooding the ANN page? can I send you my ETH?

All joking aside, some sort of moderated/approval type process seems necessary.

[BarkingHawk]

some sort of moderated/approval type process seems necessary.

I agree, it's getting way out of hand now.  I'm sure there will be even more showing up in the coming days.

[ansi]

Totally correct this needs to stop sooner.
Today i got so confused with same 3 copy cats e-shitcoins
it took more than half an hour after contacting the real Devs to figure out which one is real & the ones other turned to be some shittoken.

Minimum requirement i guess should be:
1 - Website up & running for the coin / token
2 - Posting coin / token then run away after collection members datas = BAN from bitcointalk
3 - Air Drop should be done by an old member in BCT for credibility of the air Drop.

These i suppose that this community should encourage to stop those fake asses kids over there.

[BlackTurtle]

2 - Posting coin / token then run away after collection members datas = BAN from bitcointalk
3 - Air Drop should be done by an old member in BCT for credibility of the air Drop.

Especially those 2 seems really good rules.
Those bans should also be bans for every account related to the same ip, otherwise new people can just make new accounts unless rule 3 is implemented.

[overttherainbow]

 Very interesting topic. I think the announcement thread is getting spammed. It is a miasma of wild threads at times. So I support.

But I do ask you, do you think moderating what it is that's put up in the announcement thread is a little bit like regulating ICOs and crypto in general?

Also requiring an "older" member of BTCT to assist with the airdrop doesn't really validate anything. It just cultivates an elitist nature, which is not in short supply on this thread.

As things stand it is very difficult to navigate through the announcement thread and it is addled with shitcoins. But I don't think it's the job of BTCT to do your research for you. If someone announces a project and

a) it does not have a website
b) it does not have a whitepaper
c) it does not have reliable bios for the team members
d) the token or coin has no use or adds nothing to the market

then don't invest in it. Sometimes FOMO gets you and you invest in a stupid project without doing the adequate research and the you get duped. Sometimes you participate in an airdrop and it tanks. But that's just that and I think due diligence from traders and investors will be quicker to make changes in what's posted on this forum than the restriction on what can be announced will. The less partial BTCT is, the more authentic the community that springs forth from it.

[Merptastic]

I was just reading that the eDash team suddenly abandoned their tokens because it would cost them ACTUAL money to send out tokens to 17000 addresses submitted to the airdrop.

Did the creators delete the original thread? I can't find any information of what happened to Dash except the occasional peep here and there in the discussions on bct. It seems to have just disappeared from existence.

[LoyceV]

What you're proposing just gives a higher work load for forum moderators, if they have to check hundreds of threads on complience.
Wouldn't it be easier to require them to buy advertising on the forum? That way Bitcointalk actually benefits from the many ICO-threads, while it proves dedication to their project. And since likely scams aren't allowed to advertise, they're instantly filtered out.

Minimum requirement i guess should be:
1 - Website up & running for the coin / token

ICO-websites all look the same nowadays, as if it's the same team pulling the same trick over and over again.

2 - Posting coin / token then run away after collection members datas = BAN from bitcointalk

They don't care: new account, new name, new shitcoin with scamICO. They can do this over and over again.

3 - Air Drop should be done by an old member in BCT for credibility of the air Drop.

Although this increases the chance of the airdrop actually happening, it doesn't turn a scamtoken into a real token. I for one wouldn't want to manage any campaign I don't believe in by myself.

[xaviervilla]

What you're proposing just gives a higher work load for forum moderators, if they have to check hundreds of threads on complience.
Wouldn't it be easier to require them to buy advertising on the forum? That way Bitcointalk actually benefits from the many ICO-threads, while it proves dedication to their project. And since likely scams aren't allowed to advertise, they're instantly filtered out.

Minimum requirement i guess should be:
1 - Website up & running for the coin / token

ICO-websites all look the same nowadays, as if it's the same team pulling the same trick over and over again.

2 - Posting coin / token then run away after collection members datas = BAN from bitcointalk

They don't care: new account, new name, new shitcoin with scamICO. They can do this over and over again.

3 - Air Drop should be done by an old member in BCT for credibility of the air Drop.

Although this increases the chance of the airdrop actually happening, it doesn't turn a scamtoken into a real token. I for one wouldn't want to manage any campaign I don't believe in by myself.

I agree with you. This maybe just too much of a hassle for the moderators of this forum. Too much work for a few moderators. The advertising payments suggestion is a good idea also. Because it helps the forum and makes them work hard to get what they had to pay for the advertising fees. Which then can also help filter altcoins from scams to real dedicated altcoin makers.

Also, it would really help if campaign managers are like you. Who only accepts campaigns that actually have potential or are truly legitimate. Than just looking at the payment. Because if we think about it, the greater good of this forum is also the greater good of the people in this community.

But really, i wish something can be done about all these “e”coins. They’re really starting to become an eyesore. Covering up ICOs that are deserving to be seen and have great potential. :/