Bitcoin Forum
April 20, 2018, 09:24:02 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you support regulating Of ico?
Yes
No
Yes, Very important
Hell no

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: What is your stand on regulating ico  (Read 104 times)
Jameseversmile
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 27, 2017, 11:58:09 PM
 #1

What is your stand on regulating ICO/ITO?
1524259442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524259442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524259442
Reply with quote  #2

1524259442
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1524259442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524259442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524259442
Reply with quote  #2

1524259442
Report to moderator
1524259442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524259442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524259442
Reply with quote  #2

1524259442
Report to moderator
1524259442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524259442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1524259442
Reply with quote  #2

1524259442
Report to moderator
Savik
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 101


View Profile
October 28, 2017, 12:38:00 AM
 #2

There are an incredible number of true shitcoin ICOs. Regulations will weed out the shitcoins and let those with strong projects get more attention that they deserve. As it is now lots of people go from shitcoin to shitcoin hoping to catch a pump and dump. It is smoke and mirrors.

https://coinjournal.net/vitalik-buterin-90-icos-will-fail/

tk808
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 533


Invest in your knowledge


View Profile
October 28, 2017, 12:44:22 AM
 #3

ICO's have become so saturated, and like the guy above me stated, the amount of shitcoins is incredible. Back then, we used to have a name for most of the coins you see today, and that was shitcoins, because they have no apparent value, but in fact they had a lot of value, the value of miners.


Today's shitcoins are much different, the devs hunger for free BTC or ETH will cause them to do anything, even go out of the way to steal individual images and create a whole fabricated basis, based on absolutely nothing other than 1 "unique" concept, that can be easily tackled or marketed by the next shitcoin over.

There are just a handful of true innovating coins, and those are the ICO's that you guys need to be finding and researching.

Twitter: @Tk_Hamed
lionelho
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 145
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 28, 2017, 12:44:39 AM
 #4

I choose yes! Now they are too many shitcoins, but most people don't have the capability to identify them. The regulation will do help to protect investor from most of the shitcoins!

★ ★ ★ ★ ★   DeepOnion    Anonymous and Untraceable Cryptocurrency    TOR INTEGRATED & SECURED   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
› › › › ›  JOIN THE NEW AIRDROP ✈️        VERIFIED WITH DEEPVAULT  ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬   ANN  WHITEPAPER  FACEBOOK  TWITTER  YOUTUBE  FORUM   ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
btct22
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 603
Merit: 502


CRAVE - 100% PoS High ROI Masternode and Zerocoin!


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2017, 12:44:52 AM
 #5

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 and therefore is 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.

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 and 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.  





CRAVE WITH ZEROCOIN High Masternode Block Reward | COINSWAP OVER - CRAVE IS BACK ON CRYPTOPIA NOW!!!
CRAVE ROI info on MasterNodes.pro | CRAVE trades on Cryptopia | CRAVE Wallet + Blockchain at: craveproject.com 
ezhui
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 28, 2017, 02:23:38 AM
 #6

Regulation is necessary, I choose YES.

So many people get into crypto-currency not because they truly understand what it is, but are tempted by the surging price of bitcoin and the myth of crypto speculation. In fact, I doubt most average people could identify what crypto is. Regulation could be a shock to these people, watch out, there is no free meal, you may lose your money.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★   DeepOnion  ✔  Anonymous and Untraceable Cryptocurrency  ✔  TOR INTEGRATED & SECURED   ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
› › › › ›  JOIN THE NEW AIRDROP ✈️    ★    ✔ VERIFIED WITH DEEPVAULT  ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬   ANN  WHITEPAPER  FACEBOOK  TWITTER  YOUTUBE  FORUM   ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Savik
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 101


View Profile
October 28, 2017, 01:15:07 PM
 #7

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 and therefore is 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.

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 and 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.  






I agree, but let’s say there is a good team with a dazzling white paper and they market a huge UCO. Then decide to fuck it all and cash out. Never to be heard from again. DYOR is good, but you never know the true motives of the people in the other side.

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!