Should ICOs be regulated

[Snaic]

Considering the high level of scam associated with ICOs presently, many investors are at risk of loosing their investments. Bounty hunters like us are not spared as we may be rendering free services to some scammers and also risking our personal data.

I suppose a regulatory body be set up to audit the ICO process and the  founders, and if anything goes wrong or should the project fail, they will be liable. This will reduce drastically investors risk and also keep scammers away. What do you think?

In this case, the most effective way to get rid of fraud in ICO projects is government regulation of ICO activities. No public audit can replace hard enforcement measures by authorized state bodies. Public bodies will be ineffective. Now, many states are developing appropriate regulations to regulate the activities of ICO and I have only hope for them. I especially like the prepared rules for regulating the activities of ICO in Russia. I am sure that there will be no fraud in ICO projects. It also provides for the presence of a certain amount of money in a bank account before holding an ICO, and the whole fundraising process takes place only through banks, and the state authorities will control even the target expenditure of the collected funds during the ICO.

[1714024546]

1714024546

[1714024546]

1714024546

[1714024546]

1714024546

[1714024546]

1714024546

[cryptodukeguy]

Considering the high level of scam associated with ICOs presently, many investors are at risk of loosing their investments. Bounty hunters like us are not spared as we may be rendering free services to some scammers and also risking our personal data.

I suppose a regulatory body be set up to audit the ICO process and the  founders, and if anything goes wrong or should the project fail, they will be liable. This will reduce drastically investors risk and also keep scammers away. What do you think?

It really depends on the nature of the ICO project dude. I like your perspective indeed, but I think it is analogical to the project. For example, W12 needs a regulatory body as an ICO, as to TapCoin which would not need KYC. It really depends on the perspective of every individual after all!

[spike420211]

I believe it is high time ICOs should be regulated to protect both investors and bounty hunters. These days, there a plenty of scam projects, so something needs to be done to stop these scammers, it can't be allowed to go on.

That's right. First of all, it is necessary to protect investors, they are the fuel for the growth of the crypto market, if it succeeds, more and more ICO will raise funds and continue their growth after entering the  exchange, which means bounty hunters will receive payments.

[Felipeo]

I think that icos should be regulated. Cause the ICO market is not going so well. The main reason behind this is scammy projects. In last few months we saw many scammed projects those just took investors money and vanished. And not only the scammy projects we also see some projects which is failed in development phase. So I think if regulation happens many people will be save from this kind of scams.after regulation maybe the number of icos will be decrease but there will be a trust factors on that icos. So at this point regulation is very important.

[andrei56]

Considering the high level of scam associated with ICOs presently, many investors are at risk of loosing their investments. Bounty hunters like us are not spared as we may be rendering free services to some scammers and also risking our personal data.

I suppose a regulatory body be set up to audit the ICO process and the  founders, and if anything goes wrong or should the project fail, they will be liable. This will reduce drastically investors risk and also keep scammers away. What do you think?

I know that some people are mad that there are so many scams in the market and they want someone to regulate the market but in my opinion that goes against the principles of cryptocurrencies and we should not accept it, if we want less scams going on in the forum we have no option but to improve ourselves and to stop investing in such scams.

[belcini]

Most experts in the crypto market now hold the opinion that it is necessary to continue the preparation and integration of effective methods for controlling the situation and regulating the current ICO market. Thanks to this, it will be possible to attract trust among investors, to receive additional money for the development of the market.

[rmilly]

I definitely think they should be under speculation but I also think they are on their way out too. I was just listening to this podcast today about ICOs STOs and DEX startups according to a blockchain lawyer, might be worth checking out:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-21-navigating-regulatory-landscape-in-blockchain/id1432912612?i=1000429311411&mt=2

[Tukang Becak]

With all those scams that seems not stopping, so a regulation for ICO is so much needed. If not, then he possibilities of any new Scam ICO will keep on appearing, since they will easily leave everything without being catch after they got what they wanted.

I agree, without regulation, icos will have no hope, investors will never put their money into ico, and it looks like haters are happy with this condition so they reject the presence of regulations.

[kangkilokang]

With all those scams that seems not stopping, so a regulation for ICO is so much needed. If not, then he possibilities of any new Scam ICO will keep on appearing, since they will easily leave everything without being catch after they got what they wanted.

I agree, without regulation, icos will have no hope, investors will never put their money into ico, and it looks like haters are happy with this condition so they reject the presence of regulations.

if the rules make it safer and more organized it doesn't matter because it's a good thing for all of us.
but if there are ICO regulations that make it difficult for people to make a profit, there may be many who refuse because it is difficult to produce, so it depends on the rules.

[Zythiphill]

ICOs do need to be regulated even though this is harder to do due to their global nature and existing crypto laws in the country of the ICO team and so on.

Well, I think if the team voluntarily agrees to pass the regulation and all sorts of kyc, the trust increases much to the project and I think with investing in the project will be much higher!

[QNaka]

Definitely for the normal operation of the ICO, a regulator is simply necessary. And, of course, it would be more correct to create a cryptocurrency control agency in a crypto-community that is not controlled by the state.

[Golstrim]

Regulation for whole crypto market is a bad solution to my mind. In case of regulation we will stop gaining money.
You know, lack of regulation is something what I appreciate in crypto

[goaldigger]

Considering the high level of scam associated with ICOs presently, many investors are at risk of loosing their investments. Bounty hunters like us are not spared as we may be rendering free services to some scammers and also risking our personal data.

I suppose a regulatory body be set up to audit the ICO process and the  founders, and if anything goes wrong or should the project fail, they will be liable. This will reduce drastically investors risk and also keep scammers away. What do you think?

Regulating ICOs is bettter than guessing which one is legit and which one is not but its investors shouldnt be giving their KYC for security purposes. I guess it will end well. The fact that there are hundreds of altcoins existing and we all have doubts investing in it. A small regulation is enough.

[benjamin11]

I think so. If regulating means controlling and minimizing the number of ICOs being developed, then I totally agree with it. Majority of ICOs right now lacks potential and most of them failed because of poor planning. If we are going to regulate and scan all the ICOs, we should just release an ICOs with real products, exprienced developer, and a clear timeline or roadmap.

[soramon]

My opinion is regulation on ICO necesary. Because its very helpful if regulation exist. The investor will trust to ICO if it already secure. The number of scam projects is very high it can be decrease if the regulation exist.

[nwosuchristabe2]

Considering the fact that many investors have fallen victim of scam projects and the ease of creating smart contracts and ICO's, I'll prefer some extent of regulation. It's understandable that cryptocurrency should be pair to pair and decentralized, but some extent of regulation will increase investors confidence in the cryptocurrency space and reduce the risk of fraud.

[JeromeL]

At the time of the stock market, price manipulations on the part of owners of large sums of money also occurred on it. The manipulation of the stock market managed to win only after the legislative regulation of the markets was introduced.
Now you understand how to beat price manipulation in the crypto market. This applies to the holding of ICO. And I agree to the regulation of the ICO.

[Mysteryla]

Regulation ICO is a good thing, but who are those that will do the regulation. If it is regulated, will the whole cryptocurrency itself not be regulated. Which means that the essence of crypto, which is decentralization might be made void. If only the decentralized nature will be retained, then i fully support that ICOs should be regulated, because it might quickly bring more trust.

[goodbuybitcoin]

It seems to me that the regulation of ICOs will lead to the fact that there will be very few of these projects. In addition, I think that not everyone can participate in such projects.

[boris singer]

it is still a long way to go because the government still does not vote with the regulation of crypto currencies.
But actually they can examine several important parts to at least guarantee economic processes that are not dominated by fraud.
their job is to protect the security of user investment and it is true that the ICO must be prioritized for the initial draft regulation.