Bitcoin Forum
November 16, 2018, 12:55:33 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Should ICOs be considered a Security?  (Read 108 times)
Stedsm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484
Merit: 1044


View Profile
August 28, 2018, 12:41:39 PM
 #1

After the surge in Bitcoin's value early 2014, we saw an idea being popped up and went crazy for all those small-scale startups to start their projects with the help of crowdfunding - a way where people buy their tokens to support their project if they find it interesting. Unlike IPO (which is regulated by many Authorities before getting launched, and seeks investors only), ICOs are totally different as most of them were* not regulated and many startups used to be just ideas - fake ideas which never got fulfilled and people lose both their trust and money behind such a graceful innovation which could give some real ideas a boost if there is any BODY to find whether the intentions of these ICOs' devs and admins is to really deliver their promises to their potential customers. I saw many ICOs were shit and gained too much of investments, many even ran away and due to them, members here and at other social websites suffered for their time and efforts (many were bots so it's a 50-50 situation where many users try to fake it out by scamming the projects by fake-fully trying to show that they are helping the project by advertising for them). Many got nothing - neither tokens nor replies from the ICO people. So, my question here is - should such ICOs be given the label of "Securities" which would give them more of a credibility to invest in them? If yes, will there ever be a Regulatory Body to measure the assurance of delivery of the project and whether the project is anywhere going to deal with blockchain?

* - (used "were" because many came and gone as there were no regulations before, and in few countries - still no regulations are there for such crowdfunding)

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1542372933
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542372933

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542372933
Reply with quote  #2

1542372933
Report to moderator
shivansps
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 501


The Premier Digital Asset Management Ecosystem


View Profile
August 30, 2018, 10:34:44 PM
 #2

After the surge in Bitcoin's value early 2014, we saw an idea being popped up and went crazy for all those small-scale startups to start their projects with the help of crowdfunding - a way where people buy their tokens to support their project if they find it interesting. Unlike IPO (which is regulated by many Authorities before getting launched, and seeks investors only), ICOs are totally different as most of them were* not regulated and many startups used to be just ideas - fake ideas which never got fulfilled and people lose both their trust and money behind such a graceful innovation which could give some real ideas a boost if there is any BODY to find whether the intentions of these ICOs' devs and admins is to really deliver their promises to their potential customers. I saw many ICOs were shit and gained too much of investments, many even ran away and due to them, members here and at other social websites suffered for their time and efforts (many were bots so it's a 50-50 situation where many users try to fake it out by scamming the projects by fake-fully trying to show that they are helping the project by advertising for them). Many got nothing - neither tokens nor replies from the ICO people. So, my question here is - should such ICOs be given the label of "Securities" which would give them more of a credibility to invest in them? If yes, will there ever be a Regulatory Body to measure the assurance of delivery of the project and whether the project is anywhere going to deal with blockchain?

* - (used "were" because many came and gone as there were no regulations before, and in few countries - still no regulations are there for such crowdfunding)

There a bunch of the ICOs and projects to be considered as security, many of them use some other words to describe their "security schemes" in their whitepaper, people thinking about how cool dividends are or profits from some services, etc. I love the projects that promise dividends from trading profits but later you realize that they don't gain profits in a bear market, they don't short the BTC and just hold their "investments", Lmao. Yeah, those exist. Using the buzzwords in their whitepapers making people think it's quite good to receive share profits or dividends, but there is no exchange currently trading securities and if it does, that you better be careful and manage your risk properly. However, I still believe that securities will become the most tokenized assets and most liquid in future.



▄▄           ▄▄▄▄▄▄             ▄▄▄▄▄▄           ▄▄         ▄▄        ▄▄             ▄▄▄▄▄▄            ▄▄                  ▄             ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ 
██        ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀██        ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄        ███▄       ██        ██          ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄         ██                 ███            ██▀▀▀▀██▄
██       ██▀                ██▀        ▀██       █████▄     ██        ██         ██▀        ▀██        ██                ██ ██           ██     ██
██      ▐█▌                ▐█▌          ▐█▌      ██ ▀███▄   ██        ██        ▐█▌          ▐█▌       ██               ██   ██          ██▄▄▄▄█▀
██      ▐█▌                ▐█▌          ▐█▌      ██   ▀███▄ ██        ██        ▐█▌          ▐█▌       ██              ██     ██         ██▀▀▀▀██▄
██       ██▄                ██▄        ▄██       ██     ▀█████        ██         ██▄      ▄▄  █        ██             ██       ██        ██     ██
██        ▀██▄▄▄▄▄▄██        ▀██▄▄▄▄▄▄██▀        ██       ▀███        ██          ▀██▄▄▄▄▄ ██          ██▄▄▄▄▄▄      ██         ██       ██▄▄▄▄██▀
▀▀           ▀▀▀▀▀▀             ▀▀▀▀▀▀           ▀▀         ▀▀        ▀▀             ▀▀▀▀▀  ▀▀         ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀     ▀▀           ▀▀      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ 
           ▄▄███▄▄
     ▄▄███████████▄▄
 ▄▄███████████████████▄▄
███████████▌ ▐███████████
██▌ ▐███████ ███████▌ ▐██
███ ████▀▀██ ██▀▀████ ███
███ ██▀▄████ ████▄▀██ ███
███ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███
███ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███
███ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███
 ▀▀ ██ █████ █████ ██ ▀▀
     ▀ █████ █████ ▀
         ▀▀█ █▀▀
The Premier   ───────────────────
Digital Asset Management Ecosystem
────────   Powered by the ICNQ Token


▾  Medium
▾  Twitter
▾  LinkedIn
▾  Subscribe


.I C N Q   T O K E N.

The Token for Digital Asset Management
audaciousbeing
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 554


View Profile
September 04, 2018, 09:49:36 AM
 #3

- should such ICOs be given the label of "Securities" which would give them more of a credibility to invest in them? If yes, will there ever be a Regulatory Body to measure the assurance of delivery of the project and whether the project is anywhere going to deal with blockchain?

* - (used "were" because many came and gone as there were no regulations before, and in few countries - still no regulations are there for such crowdfunding)

No matter what ICO is being called, it will still be seen with suspicion until there is an acceptable regulatory body verifying the claim of those coming to the market to raise fund. The problem is about the people as we have seen several ICOs that in an unregulated environment have flourished and given people who trusted them a decent return on their investment.

With regulations, then there vouching of the team would have been settled, there would be an obligation to ensure that reports are given regularly on the application of funds generated from the market are applied for the purpose they are meant and there is an institution of a corporate governance board to ensure that the right thing is being done in the operations of the enterprise. It is when all of this are done that we can then start thinking of the right name to give it whether security of secure investment.

███ Bitsgap - Cryptocurrency Multi-Exchange Trading Platform ███
[Sign up for Free]
Portfolio  |  Trading  |  Arbitrage  |  25+ Exchanges  |  10,000+ Cryptopairs
CoinCodex
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 6


View Profile
October 11, 2018, 09:35:27 AM
Merited by OgNasty (1)
 #4

The ICO model that offers security tokens, brings a lot of questions when it comes to the legal part. Based on the legal view, security tokens are explained very different in comparison of what we think of them now.

https://coincodex.com/article/2465/what-is-the-howey-test-and-how-is-it-relevant-to-crypto/
Kavelj22
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 34
Merit: 2

Ternion | Hybrid Crypto Exchange with fiat gateway


View Profile
October 30, 2018, 04:27:07 PM
 #5

Total security is far to be reached in investment business. There is no "safe bet" in ICOs. Although, it is quite necessary revising some status and require Audits before to publicly present. When it's about ICO's security legislation, chance for governments to act as protectors then find the way to control over.

▃ ▄ Ternion  ▀▄▀  Ternion | Hybrid Crypto Exchange with fiat gateway ◥◤ ICO Start: 01 OCT 2018 (http://www.Ternion.io/)
jaworskiandy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 5
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 02, 2018, 04:37:52 PM
 #6

ICO's are no longer safe to everyone.
troy.gold
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 1


View Profile
November 04, 2018, 11:59:58 AM
Merited by OgNasty (1)
 #7

The question "Shoud ICO's be considered a security?" is a little vague. In order to answer this question, you have to take a look at jurisdictions such as Malta which have begun to regulate cryptocurrency.

The Maltese Virtual Financial Assets Act has two main classifications - Security Tokens and Virtual Tokens.

Virtual tokens are essentially utility tokens, but in order to be classified as a virtual token - there are stiff requirements which the token must adhere to.

Because of this regulation and classification, it is no longer accurate to state all cryptocurrencies should be considered securities. The Maltese government has clearly identified a utility purpose for cryptocurrency.

So to answer your question - Yes, ICO's should be considered a security, unless that ICO has undergone regulation and has been otherwise classified by a government body.

The ICO model that offers security tokens, brings a lot of questions when it comes to the legal part. Based on the legal view, security tokens are explained very different in comparison of what we think of them now.

https://coincodex.com/article/2465/what-is-the-howey-test-and-how-is-it-relevant-to-crypto/

The Howey Test is fine for regulation under the SEC. However, it is inaccurate to use the Howey test to classify ICO's which exist outside of the SEC's jurisdiction.

You can view the Maltese - Virtual Financial Assets laws here:

https://www.mfsa.com.mt/pages/viewcontent.aspx?id=693
arpon11
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 261



View Profile
November 09, 2018, 07:06:49 AM
 #8

After the surge in Bitcoin's value early 2014, we saw an idea being popped up and went crazy for all those small-scale startups to start their projects with the help of crowdfunding - a way where people buy their tokens to support their project if they find it interesting. Unlike IPO (which is regulated by many Authorities before getting launched, and seeks investors only), ICOs are totally different as most of them were* not regulated and many startups used to be just ideas - fake ideas which never got fulfilled and people lose both their trust and money behind such a graceful innovation which could give some real ideas a boost if there is any BODY to find whether the intentions of these ICOs' devs and admins is to really deliver their promises to their potential customers. I saw many ICOs were shit and gained too much of investments, many even ran away and due to them, members here and at other social websites suffered for their time and efforts (many were bots so it's a 50-50 situation where many users try to fake it out by scamming the projects by fake-fully trying to show that they are helping the project by advertising for them). Many got nothing - neither tokens nor replies from the ICO people. So, my question here is - should such ICOs be given the label of "Securities" which would give them more of a credibility to invest in them? If yes, will there ever be a Regulatory Body to measure the assurance of delivery of the project and whether the project is anywhere going to deal with blockchain?

* - (used "were" because many came and gone as there were no regulations before, and in few countries - still no regulations are there for such crowdfunding)
Crowdfunding should be considered as a must safe ways of raising fund for icos projects but the projects Owners and teams are full of scam and fraudulent.  I find many projects coming out daily but half of those icos and projects are scam and people are scared of investing in cryptocurrencies and icos projects.  I believe that in future the Crowdfunding system will be well reposition and good security projects will come out because we need them to checkmate the activities of scams projects.

bustadice         ▄▄████████████▄▄
     ▄▄████████▀▀▀▀████████▄▄
   ▄███████████    ███████████▄
  █████    ████▄▄▄▄████    █████
 ██████    ████████▀▀██    ██████
██████████████████   █████████████
█████████████████▌  ▐█████████████
███    ██████████   ███████    ███
███    ████████▀   ▐███████    ███
██████████████      ██████████████
██████████████      ██████████████
 ██████████████▄▄▄▄██████████████
  ▀████████████████████████████▀
                     ▄▄███████▄▄
                  ▄███████████████▄
   ███████████  ▄████▀▀       ▀▀████▄
               ████▀      ██     ▀████
 ███████████  ████        ██       ████
             ████         ██        ████
███████████  ████     ▄▄▄▄██        ████
             ████     ▀▀▀▀▀▀        ████
 ███████████  ████                 ████
               ████▄             ▄████
   ███████████  ▀████▄▄       ▄▄████▀
                  ▀███████████████▀
                     ▀▀███████▀▀
           ▄██▄
           ████
            ██
            ▀▀
 ▄██████████████████████▄
██████▀▀██████████▀▀██████
█████    ████████    █████
█████▄  ▄████████▄  ▄█████
██████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
    ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
       ████████████
[bustadice.
Play
bustadice]
baoervsdier
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 0


View Profile
November 14, 2018, 12:11:57 PM
 #9

Personal opinion, ICO still depends on the project itself and the team. Use value = market value. After all, there is no regulation in this industry, so look carefully. Smiley
itsmattchan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 5
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
November 15, 2018, 07:37:14 PM
 #10

Technically speaking, it depends on how the token sale is marketed (wording, promise of returns, etc).

There's a good resource that Coinbase put together here, as a good score rating and test for getting a better idea if a token could be considered a security or not:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QxOV2dgxO3C_TyVE0-41ZwLlzPmB-EE1NNshJGuedCU/edit#gid=0

Here's also their legal framework:
https://www.coinbase.com/legal/securities-law-framework.pdf

This is partly what we use on http://trade.lakeproject.co (our decentralized trading platform) to determine whether a token is likely a security or not.

Hope this helps!
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!