["Proof-Of-Establishment"] - Possible solution for frauds?

[Globality]

Hey all,

I'm sort of new to this forum but been following a long time after blockchain development and the token economies.

Seems as 2018 have brought a lot of troubles for many investors and left many people with a lot of losses, without the option to retrieve them or see them again, and was left (in the best scenario) with an unusable token.
I must say that I fell in love with the DAICO concept when I first heard of it, These who are not familiar with this conception - I really suggest to read about it.
The latest project I came across was also the neufund which offer a solution of making the tokens as equity tokens and close this gap between investors getting hurt and the scam companies as they need to register the tokens as ETO's.

During 2017 and 2018, I came across many projects in the crypto sphere that are finishing their fundings in the pre-sale stage with unbelievably high hard caps, which also leads to a very small community behind the whole project in the first place. and making a really big PR promotion in order to help the early investors to sell their tokens with profits without actually progressing with the development of the promised end product.
So what do I suggest?

So my suggestion to the community is a concept a "Proof-Of-Establishment" protocol for the crowdfunding process and the activity after the exciting tokens distribution.

What does it mean?
Pretty similar to what the DAICO conception been offering - the idea behind Proof-Of-Establishment protocol will be voting based decision mechanism by the community.

How will it work?
Let's take for example that the ICO has ended and managed to crowdfund 1500ETH, and tokens were distributed between all of the participating community.
In the current state of the market, The community can start selling the tokens, and the Company behind the ICO can use all the funds that they have gathered during the sales stages.

The "Proof-Of-Establishment" concept will contain within the creation of the Token contract a unique wallet which will be limited - Sort of "lock per period" mechanism which will be transparent for the investors, which will do aggregative And will have basic rules of :
-  The amount that can be used during a specific time period, This goes for both ways for investors and the company as one, each one gets his part over the time and not all at once.
-  Voting of the community if to allow the 2nd wave and next waves of funds to be released for the company usage
-  "Not Productive" option as I like to call it, which will be based on the vote of 65% (Always open for other suggestions for this part) of the community that was participating in the first place which will cancel out the whole project and will retrieve the left investment balance back to the investors, and the Tokens back to the company.

What is needed to be solved?
-  Trust between the ICO's and the Investors of the use of the fundings.
-  Backdoor exit in case that the project is failing
-  Reduction in Pump and Dump due to investors who hold big amounts of the coins

Could be great to hear more opinions and thoughts on the subject

[1715000574]

1715000574

[1715000574]

1715000574

[1715000574]

1715000574

[ashmodeus]

well
DAICO already planned on ABYSS project,
if u see the project,
they have a logo the first DAICO concept.
and all going well with vote system,
but the price still under the ico price ,
so i think the problem is not because what about concept behind it .

[Typogre12]

I do not know how, but the Menlo.one project promises to find scammers. There can be no algorithm, but they will do it manually, but it will be wonderful. I think everyone is already waiting when fraud will be at least less.

[CuapCuap]

It seems like the idea you are thinking is very good, I just heard the term you talked about above. I have a suggestion that bsa fraud be reduced ie an agency must be created that guarantees the legality and authenticity of the new ICO. the member of this institution is a combination of great people who are influential in the crypto world and already have a lot of experience. each new ICO must have an official letter from this institution. If this can happen, I'm sure fraud will be very difficult.

[PpaatToupee]

I do not know how, but the Menlo.one project promises to find scammers. There can be no algorithm, but they will do it manually, but it will be wonderful. I think everyone is already waiting when fraud will be at least less.

yeah I think their algorithm is for their proof of reputation system. I think it rewards "honest reviews" if I'm not wrong... Fraud is the biggest issues of ICO investors I think.

[kulsuma]

There are some projects that are under way, such as menlo.one. The algorithm is not yet defined, maybe it will be done manually. But these sort of projects will reduce the amounts of scams for sure.

[GoldOrBTC]

I have read your post and I find this concept of proof of establishment protocol very interesting. I am looking forward to this and the best part is their community conducted voting based decision mechanism. I hope fraud will be less now.

[honghe99]

The best way to reduce fraud is to establish a credible ICO regulator. Only relying on the power of investors can not form credibility. It requires a third party without interest to be certified to be truly fair.

[Btcallans]

I think cryptocurrency will need to conduct public awareness for the inventors inorder to educate many investors on how to avoid fraud. We need the help of cryptocurrency community to penalize many illegal activities which involves cryptocurrency.

[Globality]

well
DAICO already planned on ABYSS project,
if u see the project,
they have a logo the first DAICO concept.
and all going well with vote system,
but the price still under the ico price ,
so i think the problem is not because what about concept behind it .

The Price still falls behind because of the fact that the Tokens doesn't really have a use at the time they are released to the market, so it's losing its value

Also, as far as I know, they Abyss project is planning to give this option within the Abyss syste, - not on the crowdfunding / investment level

I do not know how, but the Menlo.one project promises to find scammers. There can be no algorithm, but they will do it manually, but it will be wonderful. I think everyone is already waiting when fraud will be at least less.

But they want to be sort of the regulator for the ICO itself, which mean that the project need to be uploaded to them, which is not so much possible with the amount of ICO's in the market...also,  I'm suggesting here an overall solution for investment flow.

It seems like the idea you are thinking is very good, I just heard the term you talked about above. I have a suggestion that bsa fraud be reduced ie an agency must be created that guarantees the legality and authenticity of the new ICO. the member of this institution is a combination of great people who are influential in the crypto world and already have a lot of experience. each new ICO must have an official letter from this institution. If this can happen, I'm sure fraud will be very difficult.

Thank you! this is something new I came of for the term, Again, Legal and Authenticity proccess is a diff part of the flow as it's per the regulation demand for KYC / GEO etc..

There are some projects that are under way, such as menlo.one. The algorithm is not yet defined, maybe it will be done manually. But these sort of projects will reduce the amounts of scams for sure.

As I mentioned above - I think they are more of ICOBench sort of "Giving Opinion" sort of service, Last one I heard about was "Block Blocker" which did Exit Scam ICO..

I have read your post and I find this concept of proof of establishment protocol very interesting. I am looking forward to this and the best part is their community conducted voting based decision mechanism. I hope fraud will be less now.

Thank you very much!

The best way to reduce fraud is to establish a credible ICO regulator. Only relying on the power of investors can not form credibility. It requires a third party without interest to be certified to be truly fair.

Yes, But it is the same as with any other industry - gaming/software / Investments etc.. there will always be frauds and scams and phishing in the sphere, the idea is to give an additional tool to deal with it for the moment since the money left the investor.

I think cryptocurrency will need to conduct public awareness for the inventors inorder to educate many investors on how to avoid fraud. We need the help of cryptocurrency community to penalize many illegal activities which involves cryptocurrency.

This is something you need anyway, But because of the fact that the market is so big and decentrelized, it's almost impossible to cover it all manually

[Rizwan Javed]

The crypto community shall develop some programs or activities in order to track the frauds. They should also educate the members or investors on how to track the frauds for the betterment and safety of the crypto world.

[Globality]

The crypto community shall develop some programs or activities in order to track the frauds. They should also educate the members or investors on how to track the frauds for the betterment and safety of the crypto world.

Yeah, But it's not that simple, there were many cases on which you had trustful advisors and known personalities behind the project - which did not do an ICO scam perhaps, but are not progressing with the project and probably will not progress with it at all.

The issue is the fact that you have zero control over the project/finance from the moment you have sent the funds into the funding contract.

[ETHTachometer]

I think DAICO is a potential project. Here's the future sure. Their structure is very strong and trustworthy. In my opinion, it is a profit-making project. Their ICOs are excellent and provide opportunities for investment.

[entrepmind23]

-  The amount that can be used during a specific time period, This goes for both ways for investors and the company as one, each one gets his part over the time and not all at once.
-  Voting of the community if to allow the 2nd wave and next waves of funds to be released for the company usage
-  "Not Productive" option as I like to call it, which will be based on the vote of 65% (Always open for other suggestions for this part) of the community that was participating in the first place which will cancel out the whole project and will retrieve the left investment balance back to the investors, and the Tokens back to the company.

I like this idea because it would mean that you cannot blame the team, investors, and bounty hunters for that matter when the price is down upon listing due to the selling of the traders. Being transparent would mean that the team wouldn't be able to defraud the investors since the movement of funds can be seen.

What is needed to be solved?
-  Trust between the ICO's and the Investors of the use of the fundings.
-  Backdoor exit in case that the project is failing
-  Reduction in Pump and Dump due to investors who hold big amounts of the coins

Could be great to hear more opinions and thoughts on the subject

This would establish the trust in ICOs since there is less trust nowadays to the team due to the non-payment to some investors and some projects do not go well. When there is a voting system then the investors has a say to what will happen to the project.

[WolfRisk]

DAICO is a more probable project. It is more essential to crypto people. it feature is very nice. i think it is more potential and trustworthy. it has more acceptable ICO. it will provide better service. that's why it is more profitable.

[Globality]

DAICO is a more probable project. It is more essential to crypto people. it feature is very nice. i think it is more potential and trustworthy. it has more acceptable ICO. it will provide better service. that's why it is more profitable.

Hey, I agree with you, and you most probably referring to the ABYSS project - which is a specific made for developers and gamers, My suggestion is before the start of work process, the crowdfunding stage and above

[kryptqnick]

How will it work?
Let's take for example that the ICO has ended and managed to crowdfund 1500ETH, and tokens were distributed between all of the participating community.
In the current state of the market, The community can start selling the tokens, and the Company behind the ICO can use all the funds that they have gathered during the sales stages.

The "Proof-Of-Establishment" concept will contain within the creation of the Token contract a unique wallet which will be limited - Sort of "lock per period" mechanism which will be transparent for the investors, which will do aggregative

I think the main problem with ICOs is not that investors sell off the tokens, but that the tokens are not distributed in the first place or, when distributed, are not listed on exchanges. It is mainly the team scamming investors, not the other way around. That's why I would be against locking up the tokens, even though it could prevent panic selling. Investors have their right to decide when to dump the project and when too buy some more tokens. This contract will be unfair to them and will not help solve the problem of ICO scamming.

[Globality]

How will it work?
Let's take for example that the ICO has ended and managed to crowdfund 1500ETH, and tokens were distributed between all of the participating community.
In the current state of the market, The community can start selling the tokens, and the Company behind the ICO can use all the funds that they have gathered during the sales stages.

The "Proof-Of-Establishment" concept will contain within the creation of the Token contract a unique wallet which will be limited - Sort of "lock per period" mechanism which will be transparent for the investors, which will do aggregative

I think the main problem with ICOs is not that investors sell off the tokens, but that the tokens are not distributed in the first place or, when distributed, are not listed on exchanges. It is mainly the team scamming investors, not the other way around. That's why I would be against locking up the tokens, even though it could prevent panic selling. Investors have their right to decide when to dump the project and when to buy some more tokens. This contract will be unfair to them and will not help solve the problem of ICO scamming.

Well, Basically you are describing here the exact main market issue, the need and the hurry to do the Pump and Dump right after the tokens are distributed, if we take for example the conventional markets, Investors that are investing in startups / Companies, basically seeding the funds (same as with the ICO procedure, otherwise if you have a finished product there is no use case for ICO).
The proposal is that the workflow will be Seeding - with the right collaboration between the ICO and the community, this will only increase the first seed of the community until the actual project lunch and will not be dumping and pimping like 90% of the altcoins these days.

I agree with you that it's less attracting for the early investors and the way they enjoy the ICO pre-sales and selling in X5 more the actual price, but as you can see from live on-going history, in long-term it is hurting everyone.

[VanDeinsberg12]

The crypto community shall develop some programs or activities in order to track the frauds. They should also educate the members or investors on how to track the frauds for the betterment and safety of the crypto world.

Yeah, But it's not that simple, there were many cases on which you had trustful advisors and known personalities behind the project - which did not do an ICO scam perhaps, but are not progressing with the project and probably will not progress with it at all.

The issue is the fact that you have zero control over the project/finance from the moment you have sent the funds into the funding contract.

That's why the ico developer must have given their KYC to the platform that will helpt their platform to raise the funds. When the fund will be sent to the ico contract and then the only party can contro the fund is only the contract creator.

[Globality]

The crypto community shall develop some programs or activities in order to track the frauds. They should also educate the members or investors on how to track the frauds for the betterment and safety of the crypto world.

Yeah, But it's not that simple, there were many cases on which you had trustful advisors and known personalities behind the project - which did not do an ICO scam perhaps, but are not progressing with the project and probably will not progress with it at all.

The issue is the fact that you have zero control over the project/finance from the moment you have sent the funds into the funding contract.

That's why the ico developer must have given their KYC to the platform that will helpt their platform to raise the funds. When the fund will be sent to the ico contract and then the only party can contro the fund is only the contract creator.

In the current market state, the contract creator is the ICO or the platform provider - and in such case, the control goes back to the centralized method in which the owner owns all, and not the based on the community trust (which is incorrect in my opinion). or did you mean something else?