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.
Poll
